Editor:

There is a movement underway to declare some cities or counties as Second Amendment sanctuaries. Using the very word sanctuary in connection with the Second Amendment is a cruel distortion of the meaning of the term.

The Second Amendment is not in need of a refuge or haven. Lets be clear: There is no political party, group, organization, cult, faction or any other synonym for a gathering of people that wants to take every gun from every individual in America. None.

This idea is born and raised in the mind of the NRA and the gun lobby to frighten gun owners into thinking otherwise. Can we have a reasonable discussion on the types of weapons suitable for our society? Yes.

Can we have a discussion on the appropriateness of certain individuals being allowed access to weapons in some circumstances? Yes.

These are not slippery slopes, as the gun lobbies would have you believe. These are legitimate and appropriate items for discussion. When reasonable gun laws are introduced the NRA counters with gun violence is a mental health issue.

Yet, when legislation is introduced to address that claim by suggesting that those closest to individuals who, at a time, due to mental or emotional problems, should be denied access to weapons until they can be evaluated as responsible again, the gun lobby and the NRA scream bloody murder.

The Second Amendment is low-hanging fruit for some politicians to grandstand. We have seen that at the last couple Board of Supervisors meetings.

If there ever was an amendment that needed sanctuary its the First Amendment, which has been under siege from the current occupant of the White House since before he took office.

Bob Burke

Beaver Creek

Read more:

Letter: It's the First Amendment that needs sanctuary protection - Verde Independent

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. An Alabama county has passed a resolution to preserve a jail cell where civil rights icon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. is believed to have been held months before he was assassinated in 1968.

The cell, on the seventh floor of what is now the Jefferson County Courthouse in Birmingham, is the only one that was not removed when the building underwent renovations in 1996.

In order for Jefferson County to truly move forward, we must first recognize our past mistakes, take corrective action, and move forward with a sincere desire to embrace people from all walks of life, said Jefferson County Commission President Pro Tem Lashunda Scales in a press release.

The commission unanimously approved the resolution Thursday to memorialize the cell the last existing one at the old Jefferson County Jail, Scales told CNN.

King spent three days in the cell in late October and early November 1967. His arrest was triggered by a civil rights protest that he and several others had organized in Birmingham more than four years earlier.

The city of Birmingham had obtained an injunction from the state forbidding anti-segregation protests, and Kings group was denied a parade permit. Yet when they proceeded to march anyway in April 1963, King was arrested and spent eight days behind bars, where he wrote his renowned Letter from Birmingham Jail.

After being released from jail King and several colleagues were convicted of contempt of court. Their appeal of the conviction failed when the US Supreme Court upheld the arrests, meaning that King, along with the Rev. Ralph Abernathy, Sr. and several others, were immediately arrested after getting off an airplane in Birmingham on October 30, 1967.

The three were charged with a failure to obtain a Birmingham parade permit and were taken to a jail in Bessemer. One day later, the civil rights leader and his companions were transferred to the Jefferson County Jail, where they spent three days before being released.

Its believed to have been the last time King was jailed before his assassination five months later, according to Scales.

At the time he was arrested, Jefferson County was segregated, prejudiced and mean-spirited because of the evident racial and economic disparities that still linger to this very day, Scales told CNN. She said the county plans to turn the jail cell into a public exhibit for educational purposes.

The jail cell tells a story of this city being a civil rights city, said Jefferson County Sheriff Mark Pettway, the countys first African-American sheriff.

It tells the story of Martin Luther King, Jr. being here, serving time fighting for us and our civil rights, Pettway told CNN.As the first black sheriff, its very important because I stand on shoulders of men just like him who fought for me to be able to have the right to be in this office.

Visitors to the jail cell will become better educated on how civil rights activists like King used the First Amendment to fight injustice and pave a path for positive change, Pettway said.

The passing of the resolution came about a week before the national commemoration of Kings birthday on January 20.

33.518589-86.810357

More here:

Alabama jail preserving cell where Martin Luther King Jr. was held months before his assassination - WDAF FOX4 Kansas City

When regular people lie, sometimes their lies are detected, sometimes theyre not. Legally speaking, sometimes theyre protected by the First Amendment and sometimes not, like when they commit fraud or perjury.

But what about when government officials lie?

I take up this question in my recent book, The Governments Speech and the Constitution. Its not that surprising that public servants lie they are human, after all. But when an agency or official backed by the power and resources of the government tells a lie, it sometimes causes harm that only the government can inflict.

My research found that lies by government officials can violate the Constitution in several different ways, especially when those lies deprive people of their rights.

Consider, for instance, police officers who falsely tell a suspect that they have a search warrant, or falsely say that the government will take the suspects child away if the suspect doesnt waive his or her constitutional rights to a lawyer or against self-incrimination. These lies violate constitutional protections provided in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

If the government jails, taxes or fines people because it disagrees with what they say, it violates the First Amendment. And under some circumstances, the government can silence dissent just as effectively through its lies that encourage employers and other third parties to punish the governments critics. During the 1950s and 1960s, for example, the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission spread damaging falsehoods to the employers, friends and neighbors of citizens who spoke out against segregation. As a federal court found decades later, the agency harassed individuals who assisted organizations promoting desegregation or voter registration. In some instances, the commission would suggest job actions to employers, who would fire the targeted moderate or activist.

And some lawsuits have accused government officials of misrepresenting how dangerous a person was when putting them on a no-fly list. Some judges have expressed concern about whether the governments no-fly listing procedures are rigorous enough to justify restricting a persons freedom to travel.

But in other situations, it can be difficult to find a direct connection between the governments speech and the loss of an individual right. Think of government officials lies about their own misconduct, or their colleagues, to avoid political and legal accountability like the many lies about the Vietnam War by Lyndon Johnsons administration, as revealed by the Pentagon Papers.

Those sorts of lies are part of what Ive called the governments manufacture of doubt. These include the governments falsehoods that seek to distract the public from efforts to discover the truth. For instance, in response to growing concerns about his campaigns connections to Russia, President Donald Trump claimed that former President Barack Obama had wiretapped him during the campaign, even though the Department of Justice confirmed that no evidence supported that claim.

Decades earlier, in the 1950s, Sen. Joseph McCarthy sought both media attention and political gain through outrageous and often unfounded claims that contributed to a culture of fear in the country.

When public officials speak in these ways, they undermine public trust and frustrate the publics ability to hold the government accountable for its performance. But they dont necessarily violate any particular persons constitutional rights, making lawsuits challenging at best. In other words, just because the governments lies hurt us does not always mean that they violate the Constitution.

There are other important options for protecting the public from the governments lies. Whistleblowers can help uncover the governments falsehoods and other misconduct. Recall FBI Associate Director Mark Felt, Watergates Deep Throat source for The Washington Posts investigation, and Army Sgt. Joseph Darby, who revealed the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. And lawmakers can enact, and lawyers can help enforce, laws that protect whistleblowers who expose government lies.

Legislatures and agencies can exercise their oversight powers to hold other government officials accountable for their lies. For example, Senate hearings led Sen. McCarthys colleagues to formally condemn his conduct as contrary to senatorial traditions and ethics.

In addition, the press can seek documents and information to check the governments claims, and the public can protest and vote against those in power who lie. Public outrage over the governments lies about the war in Vietnam, for example, contributed to Lyndon Johnsons 1968 decision not to seek reelection. Similarly, the publics disapproval of government officials lies to cover up the Watergate scandal helped lead to Richard Nixons 1974 resignation.

It can be hard to prevent government officials from lying, and difficult to hold them accountable when they do. But the tools available for doing just that include not only the Constitution but also persistent pushback from other government officials, the press and the people themselves.

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

Helen Norton, Rothgerber Chair in Constitutional Law, University of Colorado Boulder

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

then let us make a small request. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnstons DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. Weve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. Weve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and legal efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. And unlike other news outlets, weve decided to make our original content free. But we need your support to do what we do.

Raw Story is independent. You wont find mainstream media bias here. Unhinged from billionaires and corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.

We need your support to deepen our investigative reporting. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click to donate by check.

then let us make a small request. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism and were investing in investigative reporting as other publications give it the ax. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnstons DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. Weve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. Weve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. We need your support to do what we do.

Raw Story is independent. You wont find mainstream media bias here. Unhinged from corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.

We need your support to keep producing quality journalism and deepen our investigative reporting. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us in the future. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you.

View post:

Can the Constitution stop the government from lying to the public? - Raw Story

A New York City immigration rights activist who was deported by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2018 filed a lawsuit in federal court in Brooklyn on Thursday morning, alleging that he was targeted for deportation because of his political speech. Jean Montrevil said his removal from the U.S. was in violation of his First Amendment rights and demanded that the government return him to his home in New York from Haiti.

The suit brought by Montrevil, 51, a founding member of the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City, builds on a significant ruling last spring by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of a former colleague, activist Ravi Ragbir. In Ragbirs case, the court found that ICEs moves against Ragbir in early 2018 were intended as retaliation for Ragbirs political speech and thus, violated his rights under the First Amendment.

Its only once he began speaking out as an activist that his real problems with ICE began.

Ragbirs suit revolved around surveillance, intimidation, and an attempted deportation foiled only by an emergency court order, all in January 2018. Montrevils record of being threatened for his activism goes back further, stretching over a decade. And while Ragbir was able to narrowly escape deportation, Montrevil was not in large part, he alleges, because of an elaborate and carefully planned conspiracy of official lies and misconduct that deprived him of access to courts, his lawyer, and his due-process rights just long enough to get him on a plane out of the country.

Since 2005, Jean was, like nearly a million other people, living under an order of supervision, which allowed him to live in the U.S. with authorization, said Lauren Wilfong, one of the advocates representing Montrevil. Its only once he began speaking out as an activist that his real problems with ICE began.

Montrevils friends and family describe the trajectory of his life as precisely the sort of story of redemption and growth that is demanded of people convicted of crimes. They say hisadult life was characterized by the industry, community building, and love that this country valorizes in its immigrants. In their eyes, Montrevils deportation is a double-jeopardy punishment for youthful crimes he long since served time for. Even more troublingly, it is punishment for daring to raise his voice to call attention to the violence and injustice of Americas immigration enforcement apparatus. Montrevils lawsuit is seeking to make the court recognize what seems plain to many who have followed his case: that his deportation was, at its essence, political the literal banishment of a dissident who challenged the government too often and too loudly.

Montrevil came to New York legally in 1986, at the age of 17, when his father, a former Haitian military official living in Brooklyn, obtained a green card for him. For Montrevil, who had grown up fending for himself in Port-au-Prince, the transition to living under the stern authority of his father was difficult. It was a bit of a shock, Montrevil told The Intercept from Port-au-Prince. He was very tough, you know, ex-military. It was hard for me to get along with him. Looking back, I blame myself for not listening.

Montrevil ran away from home and, in his telling, fell in with the wrong crowd. Over a two-year period, he racked up convictions for drug possession with intent to distribute in Virginia, a gun possession misdemeanor in New York, and a federal drug possession conviction in New Jersey. In jail awaiting trial on his Virginia charges, Montrevil got in a fight, leading to further charges. In 1989, with the war on drugs in high gear, mandatory-minimum sentences dictated meting out lengthy prison stays. At the age of 21, Montrevil was staring down a 30-year sentence. As a legal permanent resident, his convictions also made him deportable.

When he was released onprobation in 2000, Montrevil was 32 and determined to lead a different life. He took up management of a religious goods shop in Flatbush, Brooklyn. He met Jani Cauthen, a public-school aide, and they got married and had children. He scrupulously kept to the terms of hisprobationand checked in regularly for his scheduled appointments with immigration authorities. He volunteered with HIV patients through his church. And he began working with Families for Freedom, an organization that offers support to detained immigrants and their families.

Juan Carlos Ruiz, a Lutheran minister and immigration activist, met Montrevil through his work with Families for Freedom, and invited him in 2006 to help found what would become the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City. Where Families for Freedom focuses its work on serving people caught up in the machinery of deportation, the New Sanctuary Coalition would be more outward-facing, more political, and more high-profile. Jean didnt let his fears stop him, but of course, he was concerned about the risks of becoming a public face of the movement, Ruiz said.

Those concerns proved well-founded. As Montrevils new role put him in the media spotlight, ICE responded with what he took to be retaliation. Within a year, the agency enrolled him in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program, or ISAP, which was more ordinarily reserved for people who had failed to keep their scheduled check-ins or were otherwise considered a flight risk. Montrevil was required to wear an ankle monitor, check in with ICE three times a week, and keep a curfew of 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Though most people at the time were placed on ISAP for short periods of time, Montrevil was kept on the program fornearly a year. The curfew crippled his new business, using a van to drive customers to airports or visit relatives upstate. The electronic shackle irritated his skin, leaving scars that he stillwears today.

ICE was definitelyaware ofhis political activism, Montrevil said. At a check-in in December 2009, as he was taken into custody as a prelude to deportation, an ICE officer referred to his media profile, calling Montrevil the one complaining to the Village Voice. As Montrevil waited in a Pennsylvania prison, his family, church, and supporters rallied round him, flooding ICEs New York Field Office phone lines and getting themselves arrested in noisy protests outside. Theres no question in my mind that Jean was being targeted for speaking out, the pastor of Montrevils church, Rev. Donna Schaper, said.

Montrevil was ultimately released, but he was given a stern warning from high up. In an unusual step, Christopher Shanahan, then the director of ICEs New York City Field Office, met with Montrevil, Schaper, and Montrevils lawyer, Joshua Bardavid. This cant happen again, Shanahan said, according to Schaper. If Montrevil would agree to lay low, Schaper said Shanahan told them, he wouldnt have any more problems. Montrevil said that Shanahan even told him that if he kept his head down, the ICE New York director would himself look into getting Montrevil deferred-action status, giving him lasting protection from deportation.

The Intercept could not reach Shanahan for comment by the time of publication. Rachael Yong Yow, a spokesperson for the ICE division that encompasses New York City, denied that Montrevil was targeted because of his activism, citing his convictions on multiple felony charges and final order of removal by an immigration judge. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not target unlawfully present aliens for arrest based on advocacy positions they hold or in retaliation for critical comments they make, she said. Any suggestion to the contrary is irresponsible, speculative, and inaccurate.

Shaken, traumatized, and worried about what would happen to his family if he continued to antagonize ICE, Montrevil decided to takeShanahans suggestion and step back from his activism. He stopped giving interviews and focused on his business, his church, and his family. Seven years went by, and Montrevil kept his periodic appointments with ICE without incident.

In 2017, President Donald Trump was elected on campaign promises to get tough on immigrants. Montrevil decided to take part in one of the New Sanctuary Coalitions prayerful demonstrations outside the local ICE headquarters. At his next check-in, Montrevil was detained, fingerprinted, and asked to turn over his property. Bardavid, his lawyer, showed ICE officials a paper receipt demonstrating that Montrevil still had a motion pending with the Board of Immigration Appeals, but ICE insisted thatit had no records of any open proceedings in its system. And then, as suddenly as his check-in had escalated, Montrevil was released without explanation. They just told me it had come from upstairs, Montrevil said. I think they were trying to scare me.

One of the guys said to me in the car, Dont you know we have Trump as president now? He doesnt like immigrants.'

Montrevil was given another check-in date on January 16, 2018, but ICE never intended for him to keep it. Sworn statements by ICE officials in Ragbirs case later revealed that they had begun planning Montrevils and Ragbirs deportations in October. Though they initially denied it, ICE officials later admitted that they put Montrevil, Ragbir, and the offices of the New Sanctuary Coalition under secret surveillance.

On January 3, plainclothes ICE officers who evidently knew that Montrevil regularly returned home on his lunch break arrested him near his house in the Far Rockaway area of Queens as he was returning to his car. Montrevil was taken to the local ICE office at 26 Federal Plaza in Lower Manhattan

One of the guys said to me in the car, Dont you know we have Trump as president now? He doesnt like immigrants, Montrevil said. I kept telling them I have a motion pending. They said, Anything you have pending, its been revoked.

At the ICE office, Montrevil repeatedly asked to speak with his lawyer but was told that his lawyer wasnt in the building. In fact, Bardavid was in the building, but was being told that he couldnt meet with his client. ICE moved Montrevil to detention in New Jersey but kept Bardavid in the dark at 26 Federal Plaza all afternoon, telling him that he could meet his client the next day.

Bardavid finally spoke with Scott Mechkowski, then the deputy director of ICEs New York Field Office, on January 5. We war-gamed this over and over, Bardavid recalled Mechkowski telling him, of Montrevils detention. What Mechkowskididnt initially tellBardavid was that ICE was moving his client that very day to the Krome Detention Facility in Florida. Montrevils outstanding paperwork was resolved over the long holiday weekend of Martin Luther King Jr. Day. By the time court opened at 8 a.m. the following Tuesday to consider Bardavids emergency petition, Montrevil was on a plane to Haiti that had taken off at 7:38 a.m.

ICE planned and executed Jeans removal in a way that would prevent him from accessing counsel and the courts, Bardavid concludes, in a sworn declaration attached to todays lawsuit.

Montrevils advocates in his new lawsuit, Wilfong and Diana Rosen, students in New York University Law Schools immigration law clinic, said the legal and civic issues at question in Montrevils case are critical. There are dozens of other documented instances around the country of immigration activists being targeted for deportation. This is an ongoing harm, and ICE clearly feels they can act with impunity to silence their critics, Rosen said. In deporting Jean the way they did, ICE sought to send a chilling message to immigrants who might exercise their First Amendment rights. Whats at stake with this case is really whether theyre successful in that or not.

For Montrevil and his family, there are more personal stakes as well. Montrevil said he is having a tough time in Haiti, a country he left as a boy, where conditions are deteriorating rapidly. His oldest child with Cauthen, Jahsiah, is now 16 and a junior at the prestigious Brooklyn Technical High School, but since his fathers deportation, he has been struggling and the family is worried about him. Montrevils daughter, Jamya, said she talks to her father each day over WhatsApp, when Haitis unreliable communications infrastructure permit, but that its not the same as having him present in her life. I thought he was going to come back, but he never actually did, she said. I wish people understood: When you deport someone, it doesnt only affect one person, it affects their families too.

Correction: January 16, 2020, 1:06 p.m.This story has been updated to reflect that Jean Montrevil was released from prison in 2000 on probation, not parole, and that ICEs Scott Mechkowskiinitially withheld information aboutMontrevils transfer to a detention center in Florida from his lawyer.

More here:

Deported Activist Files Suit Demanding Return to New York - The Intercept

Apply landmark Supreme Court cases to contemporary scenarios related to the five pillars of the First Amendment and your rights to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.

"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 redress of grievances."First Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Cox v. New HampshireProtests and freedom to assemble

Elonis v. U.S.Facebook and free speech

Engel v. VitalePrayer in schools and freedom of religion

Hazelwood v. KuhlmeierStudent newspapers and free speech

Morse v. FrederickSchool-sponsored events and free speech

Snyder v. PhelpsPublic concerns, private matters, and free speech

Texas v. JohnsonFlag burning and free speech

Tinker v. Des MoinesFree speech in schools

U.S. v. AlvarezLies and free speech

Read the original here:

First Amendment Activities | United States Courts

The Firstand most well-knownAmendment of the Constitution reads:

James Madison was instrumental in drafting and advocating for both the ratification of the Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights. He is one of the Founding Fathers and is also nicknamed "the father of the Constitution." While he is the one who wrote the Bill of Rights, and thus the First Amendment, he wasn't alone in coming up with these ideas nor did they happen overnight.

Some important facts to know about James Madison are that even though he was born into a well-established family, he worked and studied his way into the political circles really hard. He became known between his contemporaries as "the best informed man of any point in debate."

He was one of the early supporters of the resistance to the British rule, which probably later reflected in the inclusion of the right to assembly in the First Amendment.

In the 1770s and 1780s, Madison held positions on different levels of Virginia's government and was a known supporter of the separation of church and state, also now included in the First Amendment.

Even though he is the key person behind the Bill of Rights, when Madison was advocating for the new Constitution, he was against any amendments to it. On one hand, he did not believe that the federal government would ever become powerful enough to need any. And at the same time, he was convinced that establishing certain laws and liberties would allow the government to exclude the ones not explicitly mentioned.

However, during his 1789 campaign to get elected into the Congress, in efforts to win his oppositionthe anti-federalistshe finally promised he would advocate for adding amendments to the Constitution. When he was then elected into Congress, he followed through with his promise.

At the same time, Madison was very close with Thomas Jefferson who was a strong proponent of civil liberties and many other aspects that are now part of the Bill of Rights. It is widely believed that Jefferson influenced Madison's views regarding this topic.

Jefferson frequently gave Madison recommendations for political reading, especially from European Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke and Cesare Beccaria. When Madison was drafting the Amendments, it it likely that it wasn't solely because he was keeping his campaign promise, but he probably already believed in the need to protect individual liberties against the federal and state legislatures.

When in 1789, he outlined 12 amendments, it was after reviewing over two hundred ideas proposed by different state conventions. Out of these, ultimately 10 were selected, edited, and finally accepted as the Bill of Rights.

As one can see, there are many factors that played into the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights. The anti-federalists, along with Jefferson's influence, states proposals, and Madison's changing beliefs all contributed to the final version of the Bill of Rights. On an even larger scale, the Bill of Rights built on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, and the Magna Carta.

Similarly to the entire Bill of Rights, the language of the First Amendment comes from a variety of sources.

As mentioned above, Madison was a proponent of the separation of church and state, and this is probably what translated into the first part of the Amendment. We also know that JeffersonMadison's influencewas a strong believer of a person having the right to choose their faith, as to him religion was "a matter which [lied] solely between Man and his God."

With regards to the freedom of speech, it is safe to assume that Madison's education along with literary and political interests had a great effect on him. He studied at Princeton where a great focus was placed on speech and debate. He also studied the Greeks , who are known for valuing freedom of speech,toothat was the premise of Socrates' and/or Plato's work.

In addition, we know that during his political career, especially when promoting the ratification of the Constitution, Madison was a great orator and gave an enormous number of successful speeches. This, along with similar to the free speech protections written into various state constitutions also inspired the language of the First Amendment.

Besides his call-to-action speeches, Madison's eagerness for spreading ideas about the importance of the new Constitution also reflected in his vast contribution to the Federalist Papersnewspaper-published essays explaining to the general public the details of the Constitution and their relevance.

Madison thus highly valued the importance of the uncensored circulation of ideas. Also, until the Declaration of Independence, British government imposed heavy censorship on the press which early governors upheld, but the Declaration defied.

Freedom of Assembly is closely associated with the freedom of speech. In addition, and as mentioned above, Madison's opinions about the need to resist the British rule likely played into inclusion of this freedom into the First Amendment as well.

This right was established by the Magna Carta already in 1215 and was also reiterated in the Declaration of Independence when the colonists accused the British monarch of not having listened to their grievances.

Overall, even though Madison wasn't the sole agent in the drafting of the Bill of Rights along with the First Amendment, he was unquestionably the most important actor in its coming to existence. One final point, however, that is not to be forgotten, is that, just like most other politicians of the time, despite lobbying for all kinds of freedoms for the people, Madison was also a slave-owner, which does somewhat taint his achievements.

Original post:

The History of the First Amendment - ThoughtCo

First Amendment: Religion and Expression

What is the First Amendment?

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

The First Amendment Defined:

The First Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.

The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.

Stipulations of the 1st Amendment:

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the passing or creation of any law which establishes a religious body and directly impedes an individuals right to practice whichever religion they see fit.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights and the amendment which disables an entity or individual from practicing or enforcing a religious viewpoint which infringes on the freedom of speech, the right peaceable assemble, the freedom of the press, or which prohibits the petitioning for a governmental evaluation of grievances.

In its infancy, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by Congress; however, the following Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court developed that the Due Process Clause attached to the Fourteenth Amendment applies the fundamental aspects of the First Amendment to each individual state, including all local governments within those states.

The Establishment clause of the First Amendment is the primary pronouncement in the Amendment, stating that Congress cannot institute a law to establish a national religion for the preference of the U.S. government states that one religion does not favor another. As a result, the Establishment Clause effectively created a wall of separation between the church and state.

How the First Amendment was created:

When the original constitution was created there was significant opposition due to the lack of adequate guarantees for civil freedoms. To offer such liberties, the First Amendment (in addition to the rest of the Bill of Rights) was offered to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789 and later adopted on December 15, 1791.

Court Cases tied into the 1st Amendment

In Sherbert v. Verner, the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard of review to the Establishment Clause, ruling that a state must demonstrate an overwhelming interest in restricting religious activities.

In Employment Division v Smith, the Supreme Court went away from this standard by permitting governmental actions that were neutral regarding religious choices.

Debs v. United States on June 16, 1919 tested the limits of free speech in regards to the clear and present danger test.

1st Amendment: Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment and is re-established in the majority of state and federal laws. This particular clause typically protects and individuals right to partake in even distasteful rhetoric, such as racist or sexist comments and distasteful remarks towards public policy.

Speech directed towards some subjects; however, such as child pornography or speech that incites an imminent threat, as well commercial forms of speech are regulated.

State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of Rights

New Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article II

Maryland:December 19, 1789; approved all

North Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved all

South Carolina: January 19, 1790; approved all

New Hampshire: January 25, 1790; rejected article II

Delaware: January 28, 1790; rejected article I

New York: February 27, 1790; rejected article II

Pennsylvania: March 10, 1790; rejected article II

Rhode Island: June 7, 1790; rejected article II

Vermont: November 3, 1791; approved all

Virginia: December 15, 1791; approved all

Georgia, Massachusetts and Connecticut did not ratify the first 10 Amendments until 1939

comments

Read the original here:

1st Amendment - constitution | Laws.com

CharlesDickensunwittingly described our current political situationwhen writingA Tale of Two Cities:It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness.

United States citizens live in an age of unprecedented rights. Our Supreme Court in 2015upheld the right for gay people to get married.Recently,civil asset forfeitureis being reconsidered, and theapparatuses supporting the war on drugs arebeginning to be dismantled.The currentgenerationhas upheldtheimportance of Miranda Rightsin Florida v. Powelland more broadly questioned the importance of the police state. Thecourts agree that speech includes the right to spend money onadvertising ideasand that corporationsalso are entitled tospeechprotection.This generation realizes that patriotism should not stifle dissent. In fact,the United States Supreme Court recognizes in Snyder v. Phelps that one isevenable tolegallypicket a service members funeral.More charter schoolsare becoming another school choicefor poorer Americansand,as a result,are producing better-educated students.The death penalty is illegal in 21 states,andthe First Step Act is a good start to sentencing reform. In many ways, were living in the best of times.

On the other hand,all is not well in theUnited States. Thecurrent president workedvigorouslyto deport millions of undocumented immigrants, wanted to use extreme vetting of Muslim immigrants and tried toencouragea Muslim registry. His efforts todecry independent mediaandhis support for the death penalty andfor unconstitutionalstop-and-friskpoliciesaredisgustingremnants of a worse time.However, thedandyDemocratsare no lesser of a poison.Rather than condemn authoritarianism, the DemocraticParty has looked toward ways of making power polite.ElizabethWarrens specific brand of economic populism callsfor wealth taxes,which will increasegovernment intrusion into the lives of citizens ina way never before seen. Additionally, Warren calls for eliminating charter schools,which primarily benefit poorer children,while ironicallysending her son to a private school. OtherDemocratic darlingslikeBetoORourke claim that theyre forcibly going to be taking guns from the American populace.

Outside the larger political scene, First Amendment rights have been largely upheldby the Supreme Courtin the 2010s.Janus v. AFSCME successfully argued that labor unions collecting fees fromnon-union members violates the First Amendment provisions relating to free association and freedom of speech.In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court upheld the right of conscience relating to artistic and religious freedom. In 2017, Lee v. Tam upheld the right of trademarking an offensive name.In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley, the freedom to be associated with a religious group does not make one ineligible for government benefits and thus upholds free association.Another landmark win for free expression took place in 2017 whenPackinghamv. North Carolina struck down the statute that prohibited sex offenders from accessing social media. In Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, tax breaks and grants were further allowed to be given to churches and other religious organizations. Furthermore, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and Schoolv. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission established that discrimination laws do not apply to organizations selections of religious leaders. In 2012 notably, United States v. Alvarez struck down exceptions to the First Amendment relating to stolen valor.

The trend through the 2010s showsan increasingly broad look on rights. By denying restrictions on churches, free assembly, artistic freedom, etc.,we strengthen the values of dissent and discourse that allow our country to thrive.

However, outsideof the Supreme Courtthe First Amendment has fared worse.Former PresidentBarackObama actively encouraged IRS action against conservative nonprofit organizations. In 2013, journalists protested the exclusion of press photographers from news events and criticized the first amendment case of Citizens United. Thats not to say that our current president has done any better.President Trump frequently bashes the mediaas fake news andwants to change libel laws. Also, our students are increasingly hostile to freedom of speech. According to a Brookings Institution poll, 40% of students believe the Constitution does not protecthate speech. Nineteen percentof students said that physical violence is an acceptable way to deal with offensive speech,and 50% of students said the appropriate response to speech they disagree with is to shut it down.

Overall, while the First Amendment is increasingly being upheld by higher courts, the cultureand political will upholding expressionhas weakenedand needs to be bolstered.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by individual writers in the opinion section do not reflect the views and opinions of The Daily Campus or other staff members. Only articles labeled Editorial are the official opinions of The Daily Campus.

See the article here:

First Amendment rights in the 2010s - UConn Daily Campus

by David F. Morrill, W&M Law School | December 3, 2019

Writing his latest book on the First Amendment his fourth in 10 years William & Mary Law ProfessorTimothy Zickdecided to try something a little different. His new volume would be slimmer, more accessible to general audiences, and ripped from the latest headlines.

And as of Oct. 28, its also in eager readers hands.

In "The First Amendment in the Trump Era," Zick, the John Marshall Professor of Government and Citizenship at William & Mary Law School, not only examines the growing number of First Amendment controversies in the past three years, but also connects present concerns to episodes throughout American history. He also relates recent First Amendment controversies to the concept of dissent.

Indeed, dissent looms large, beginning when Zick dedicates his book to all the noisy dissenters past, present, and future.

{{youtube:medium|FDhbn2hoejc}}

Zick believes that dissenters deserve a significant amount of credit for doing the hard work of checking governments and influencing citizens, often at considerable cost to their own safety and livelihoods. Although he has not chosen the path of activism, Zicks First Amendment scholarship highlights public contention and dissent.

I am a true believer in the power of dissent to facilitate social, political and constitutional change, Zick said.

Zick wrote his most recent book with minimal legal jargon or extensive discussions of cases or doctrines. He wants it to be read by people whether they support the current president or not.

I think the principles involved in the lessons Im drawing to the current era are useful to know and to embrace regardless of your partisan stripe, Zick said. I didnt want to write a book that was anti-Trump so much as pro-First Amendment.

Cracks in that amendment were forming well before the 2016 election, the result of what Zick refers to as preexisting conditions. Among them were the weakening of the institutional press, heightened political polarization, the rise of the Internet and the distrust of experts and institutionsall of which the President took advantage of when the time arose.

Digitized culture gives you democratic speech cheap and efficient speech, Zick said. But it also gives you a culture that trades on instant conflict, hate and take-downs; its a very mixed bag. Zick added, Trump is an archetype of the erahyper-communicative, hyper-combative and deeply polarizing.

Witnessing increasingly strident speech before and during the 2016 campaign, Zick knew a book was imminent. He noted that candidate Trump incited his supporters to rough up protesters, promised to open up the libel laws, and even proposed shutting down parts of the Internet to thwart terrorists. Many of these themes and patterns continued after Trump became president.

As of a year into his presidency, I thought there was already enough material for a book, Zick said. And the President just kept on talkingand tweeting.

With more and more examples piling up after the publication of the book, and the possibility of a second Trump administration, Zick does not rule out a second edition with, at the very least, an updated introduction or prologue.

I dont know if Trump will emphasize new themes or issues if he is re-elected or just go back to the old attacks, Zick said, So you just might get more examples of things that I point out in the book. Even so, the presidents views on free press and speech, and those of his supporters, are worth examining.

As noted, this book is very different from Zicks previous works. His other books include, "Speech Out of Doors: Preserving First Amendment Liberties in Public Places," "The Cosmopolitan First Amendment: Protecting Transborder Expressive and Religious Liberties" and "The Dynamic Free Speech Clause: Freedom of Speech and Its Relation to Other Constitutional Rights." These books were written primarily for academic audiences. The current book is aimed at a much broader audience and is about events happening in real time.

Its happening in front of you, and that poses challenges for trying to write with some dispatch, but it also means that the book connects to current and timely concerns, Zick said.

Pondering an audience beyond the academy, Zick hopes that readers will learn about the many misperceptions people have about the First Amendment. Its one thing, for example, for a president to speak about a subject from a bully pulpit, Zick says, but its quite another for him to coerce others or regulate speech.

And then there is the misunderstanding about the press in general the idea that there is a separate Constitutional provision the Free Press Clause that gives the institutional press a broad set of rights or immunities. The reality is that the institutional press does not generally have any special rights and privileges. The press rests on far shakier constitutional ground than many Americans realize.

I think its important to remember that the press has always been both problematic and essential, Zick says. Its always had excesses like any other institution, but its also been critically important to self-government, the search for truth, and other First Amendment values.

Above all, Zick hopes readers learn about the value of dissent. He notes that noisy dissent has long been considered part of the American ethos, but the reality is that the citizenry have an increasingly low tolerance for opinions that they dont agree with, from those who attend Trump rallies to students on college campuses.

Although headlines seem more clamorous as a new election looms, Zick nevertheless feels cautiously optimistic, particularly given the evidence that people still exercise their right to disagree and disrupt. He cites as examples the March for Life, the Womens March after the 2016 election, and protests at airports after the initiation of the Muslim travel ban.

These were pockets that suggest dissent is very much alive, and people havent caved into efforts to suppress public contention, Zick said.

Early reviews of "The First Amendment in the Trump Era" have been favorable. Geoffrey R. Stone, the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, says the book makes a truly important contribution to our understanding of the contemporary First Amendment. Nadine Strossen, the John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School and past president of the ACLU, calls the book a must read and says, Zicks book shows how the lessons of the past can helpfully guide us through the unique First Amendment challenges we face today.

Zick says his next project might be about public protests. In the meantime, he is enjoying talking about his latest book and sharing it with others.

I have friends and neighbors who are reading it, and asking questions, Zick says. Those conversations have been gratifying, and I hope others will learn about the First Amendment by reading the book.

Zick graduatedsumma cum laudefrom Indiana University andsumma cum laudefrom Georgetown University Law Center, where he received the Francis E. Lucey, S.J. Award for graduating first in his class. While at Georgetown, he was a Notes and Comments editor of theGeorgetown Law Journal. Following law school, he was an associate with the law firms of Williams and Connolly in Washington, D.C., where he assisted in the defense of congressional term limits in the Supreme Court of the United States, and Foley Hoag in Boston.

Zick served as a law clerk to the Honorable Levin H. Campbell of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He also served as a trial attorney in the Federal Programs Branch of the United States Department of Justice, where he defended the constitutionality and legality of a variety of federal programs and statutes.

A frequent commentator in local, national, and international media regarding public protests and other First Amendment concerns, Zick testified before Congress on the Occupy Wall Street protests and rights of free speech, assembly and petition. He received the Plumeri Award for Faculty Excellence in 2011, 2013 and 2017.

See the rest here:

Zick's new book examines the First Amendment in the Trump era - William & Mary News

A pincer of police closes in on the front line camp, built on unceded Indian land north of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation and in the path of the Dakota Access Pipeline, on October 27, 2016. (Image: Law Enforcement Photo / The Intercept)

A recent pair of United Nations climate reports make at least one thing clear: It is critical that we stop constructing new fossil fuels infrastructure.

Unfortunately, some people seem to have misread the warnings: On Nov. 20, Wisconsins governor, Tony Evers, a Democrat, signed a law that, instead of penalizing oil pipelines, penalizes protesters who disrupt the construction of such critical infrastructure.

The new law makes it a felony, punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and up to six years in prison, to trespass on the property of an oil pipeline or storage facility.

The Wisconsin law did not generate in a vacuum. The bill, which is similar to model critical infrastructure legislation promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), was a response to the Lakota-led uprising at Standing Rock, N.D., against the Dakota Access Pipeline, during which protesters built a sprawling camp in the pipelines path, chained themselves to construction equipment and marched onto the pipeline right-of-way to halt construction. After Standing Rock, industry groups such as Koch Industries, Marathon Petroleum Corporation and Energy Transfer Partners mounted a lobbying campaign in state legislatures across the country to advocate such anti-protest laws.

The effort has been successful. According to Greenpeace, Wisconsin is the 10th state to institute such a law, and at least 13 others are considering similar measures.

But thats not the only context that matters. The latest U.N. Emissions Gap report, issued Tuesday, made headlines with its bleak finding that because the Earths governments have failed to cut emissions in the last decade, steeper cuts are now required much more quickly if the world hopes to avoid catastrophic climate change. According to the New York Times, the report found that even if every country fulfills its current pledge under the Paris Agreement, average temperatures would be on track to rise by 3.2 Celsius above the baseline temperature at the start of the industrial age. Bleaker still, many countries, including the United States, which has begun to officially pull out of the agreement, are not on track to meet their modest pledges under the Paris Agreement.

Bizarrely, even as they pledge to reduce emissions, many signatories to the Paris climate accord continue to ramp up fossil fuel production. According to the U.N. Production Gap reportissued on Nov. 20, the same day that Gov. Evers signed the bill to squelch pipeline proteststhe Earths governments plan to extract 50% more fossil fuels by 2030 than would be consistent with a pathway to 2 C of warming and 120% more than would be consistent with a pathway to 1.5 C of warming. While the production gap is largest for coal, according to the report:

Oil and gas are also on track to exceed carbon budgets, as countries continue to invest in fossil fuel infrastructure that locks in oil and gas use. The effects of this lock-in widen the production gap over time, until countries are producing 43% (36 million barrels per day) more oil and 47% (1,800 billion cubic meters) more gas by 2040 than would be consistent with a 2C pathway.

The report goes on to explain the maniac logic countries use to justify increasing production:

Many countries appear to be banking on export markets to justify major increases in production (e.g., the United States, Russia, and Canada) while others are seeking to limit or largely end imports through scaled-up production (e.g., India and China). The net result could be significant over-investment, increasing the risk of stranded assets, workers, and communities, as well as locking in a higher emissions trajectory.

In short, if governments really did their jobs, they would criminalize pipelines, not protesters.

In response to the reports, Mitch Jones, climate and energy program director for Food and Water Action, says our most urgent task is to cut off the supply of fossil fuels at their source. He says, We have no time left to waste on neoliberal market tweaks.

Jones, however, holds out hope that the task may yet be accomplished by policy makers and political leaders. Others, especially people in frontline and indigenous communities who witness the destruction of fossil fuel extraction first hand, arent waiting on the government to act. Faced with the abdication by their elected leadership, as detailed in the U.N. reports, these communities are taking the matter into their own hands, and forging a decentralized global movementthat Naomi Klein dubs blockadiato resist, disrupt and defeat new fossil fuel infrastructure. The movement burst into international visibility on the Dakota plains, but it did not stop there. As it were a milkweed pod, the North Dakota authorities who crushed the Standing Rock camps in February 2017 succeeded only in spreading the seeds far and wide.

Given this context, the Wisconsin law and others like it should be seen for what they are: maneuvers in the climate war, made by mad men intent on strapping us all into their doomsday machine and sealing the exits.

These laws are evidence, also, of how afraid they are that the blockade-at-the-source tactics that have proliferated since Standing Rock just might work.

In These Times has been selected to participate in NewsMatchthe largest grassroots fundraising campaign for nonprofit news organizations.

For a limited time, when you make a tax-deductible donation to support our reporting, it will be matched dollar-for-dollar by the NewsMatch fund, doubling your impact.

See more here:

First Amendment Loses as Pipeline Industry Scores Another Win in Wisconsin - In These Times

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at http://www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at http://www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

Originally posted here:

First Amendment Rights of Licensed Teacher Litigated in Federal Court - JD Supra

Free speech is one of the cornerstones of American democracy. However, what are the boundaries of free speech? In the current political milieu, the protection of free speech appears to have an amorphous and wide expanse when it comes to sexist, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic and xenophobic rants on many social media platforms and college campuses.

The recent Knight Foundation survey polled high schoolers view on the First Amendment; it found that Boys and white students are less inclined than girls and students of color to agree with the statement: The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. Whos protected by free speech calls into question what the First Amendment to the Constitution means when it states, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

On Nov. 20, Cambridge Community Television held a panel discussion tackling the question titled Civil Discussion in an Uncivilized World: Are there limits to the First Amendment? Ceasar L. McDowell, professor of the practice of civic design at MIT, and Jim Braude of WGBHs Greater Boston and Boston Public Radio were the panelists.

Susan Fleischmann, executive director of CCTV, who was once a First Amendment absolutist, wanted a discussion on the topic because, under the present administration, hate speech appears to protect the offenders.

For over 30 years, CCTV has proudly served as a First Amendment forum from our community, and I have defended speech that has been personally very challenging. However, the needle has dramatically moved, stated Fleischmann.

Both McDowell and Braude agreed that today, no one would dispute that there has been a steady decline in public civil discourse. People who traffic in hate speech appear to have boundless ways of disseminating their vitriol. When challenged, they push back at their opponents contesting First Amendment protection of free speech.

McDowell shared with the audience that he struggles with where are the limits of what we can say to each other, particularly with technology. Many, like McDowell, feel that social media (sites like Facebook and Twitter) are not doing enough to counter hate and violent speech. McDowell acknowledges that people have the right to express their views and need venues to do so, but he wants to know what it means to give voice in public spaces. In other words, is ones right to free speech limited by where you are, what you say, and how you say it?

For example, McDowell shared a recent incident he experienced on a crowded train from Harvard Square to Kendall Square. Two white guys on the Red Line were deliberately talking loud, spewing sexist and xenophobic epithets. McDowell wondered if the guys had a right to speak like that on a train where people didnt choose to be in that space for that sort of speech. The incident highlighted for McDowell the need for civil conversations in public spaces that uphold a sense of responsibility to each other and the greater society. However, in todays divisive climate, We are a right space society, McDowell told the audience (meaning protected by the First Amendment), and not a responsibility space society.

Braude advised that before you query how people use their speech in the public sphere, you have to ask, How does everyone get the right to speak?" In other words, how does society democratize voices in the public sphere to create a level playing field, where no voice is drowned out by louder ones due to social capital, political influence, money or bullying.

Social media, on the one hand, have democratized voices, especially marginalized voices in society due to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and political affiliations to name a few. On the other hand, social media has created a neo-tribalism where people connect only with those of similar views. The adverse outcomes have been the dissemination of hateful language, deliberate misinformation and a deepening disconnection from one another and society all protected by anonymity.

Both panelists are proponents of anti-anonymity on social media. Its a controversial and censored stance because opponents contest anti-anonymity limits free speech, whereas proponents argue it enforces a greater responsibility to own your words.

The lack of a civic education contributes in part to the breakdown of our body politic. McDowell suggested an antidote to the microaggressions we see on social media are micro-inclusions where institutions and community spaces, like CCTV, have people come together and talk about their rights and duties of citizenship.

In thanking the panelists and audience, Fleischmann stated: I think this conversation illustrated the dangers of backing down from a principled support of free speech, as well as the need for us to all take responsibility, not only for ourselves as speakers, but as witnesses who cannot sit idly by.

I agree with Fleischmann.

As someone who intersects multiple identities and is the target of various forms of anonymous hate speech, its exhausting to bear the weight of a bigots tongue solely.

Cambridge resident Rev. Irene Monroe is a Huffington Post blogger and a syndicated religion columnist. Monroe also does a weekly Monday segment called All Revd Up on WGBH, a Boston member station of National Public Radio.

Continued here:

FAITH IN ACTION COLUMN: Whos free speech protecting these days? - Wicked Local Cambridge

A former Fort Worth teacher argued in an appeal to the state that her tweets asking President Donald Trump to "remove" undocumented immigrants from her school were protected speech.

The Texas Education Agency agreed.

In a decision issued Nov. 25, Texas Commissioner of Education Mike Morath wrote that the teacher, Georgia Clark, should get her job back at Carter-Riverside High School and receive back pay and benefits, or receive one year's salary.

Clark and her attorney could not be reached for comment.

Siding with Clark, Morath rejected Fort Worth ISD's argument that Clark waived her First Amendment rights upon signing an employment contract.

Clark was fired after sending a series of tweets to the president in May, writing that Fort Worth ISD "is loaded with illegal students from Mexico."

"Anything you can do to remove the illegals from Fort Worth would be greatly appreciated," she tweeted to Trump. Hispanic students account for almost 87% of enrollment at Carter-Riverside High School, according to state data.

Clark later appealed the decision to the Texas Education Agency, which found that the school district did not show "good cause" for Clark's firing.

Morath ruled that Clark's tweets were "unique" because she sought Trump's help with issues that he "has responsibility for" and because her Tweets were not sent while on duty or as part of her job.

Morath also cited Clark's right to present grievances to the government and warned that a ruling against Clark may have "a chilling effect" by discouraging public employees from communicating with elected officials.

The former high school English teacher, who was fired in June, said she thought the tweets she sent to the president were private, according to a document obtained by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Clark's lawyer, Brandon Brim, could not be reached on Monday.

An independent examiner assigned by TEA recommended the school district reverse its decision because its rationale was "not supported by the evidence."

Robert C. Prather Sr., the examiner, wrote in August that Fort Worth ISD violated Clark's First Amendment rights by moving to fire her, and that her tweets were not "racially insensitive and/or discriminatory."

But in September, Fort Worth school trustees upheld their decision to fire Clark, precipitating her appeal to the Texas education commissioner, according to The Dallas Morning News.

In an interview that month with WFAA, Clark said she stood by her tweets.

Fort Worth ISD officials said they would appeal Morath's decision, adding they believe they have good cause to fire Clark.

"We stand by our decision because we firmly believe this is in the best interests of all students," Superintendent Kent P. Scribner said in a statement.

On Monday, the school district had no comment beyond its initial statement.

Originally posted here:

Texas wants teacher Georgia Clark reinstated after firing over tweets - The Texas Tribune

Dec. 15, known as Bill of Rights Day, celebrates the ratification by the states of the Bill of Rights, which happened on that date in 1791. The Bill of Rights, or the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, not only helped secure popular support for the fledgling government but also provided a powerful weapon in defense of the peoples liberties.

The quiz below, from the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University in Ashland, Ohio, provides an opportunity for you to test your knowledge of the Bill of Rights and Bill of Rights Day.

1. WHICH president was responsible for signing legislation creating Bill of Rights Day?

2. WHICH Founding Father was responsible for proposing the Bill of Rights in the first Congress in 1789?

3. WHICH Founding Father wrote in The Federalist Papers that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary and dangerous?

4. WHAT five freedoms are protected under the First Amendment?

A. Speech, Press, Religion, Petition, Expression

B. Speech, Press, Religion, Protest, Assembly

C. Speech, Press, Religion, Protest, Expression

D. Speech, Press, Religion, Petition, Assembly

5. WHICH OF the following is NOT prohibited under the Eighth Amendment?

A. Cruel and unusual punishments

6. THE RIGHT of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures is protected under which amendment?

7. IN WHICH amendment would you find the Takings Clause in the Bill of Rights (nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation)?

8. WHERE would you find the Reserved Powers of the States in the Bill of Rights (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people)?

9. WHICH amendment, originally proposed with the Bill of Rights in 1789, was not ratified until 203 years later, in 1992?

A. 23rd Amendment, granting presidential electors for the District of Columbia

B. 24th Amendment, the anti-poll tax amendment

C. 25th Amendment, dealing with presidential disability and vice presidential vacancies

D. 27th Amendment, regulating congressional pay

10. ONE amendment originally proposed with the Bill of Rights in 1789 was never ratified. What was that amendment about?

A. Congressional representation

B. Congressional term limits

C. Presidential life terms

D. Limiting the number of justices on the Supreme Court

Answers: 1-C, 2-B, 3-D, 4-D, 5-B, 6-A, 7-B, 8-D, 9-D, 10-A

Read the original post:

Quiz on the bill above all | Opinion - Kearney Hub

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

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

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

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

Follow this link:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated: 2:55 p.m.

Original post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the original post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See original here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excerpt from:

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