Central to the mission of the Institute for Justice is reinvigorating the founding principles of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We seek to defend the free flow of informationinformation that is indispensable to our democratic form of government and to our free enterprise economy.

To protect free speech rights, IJ litigates to protect commercial, occupational and political speech. Because free markets depend on the free flow of information, IJ has long defended the right of business owners to communicate commercial speech to their customers. The Institute for Justice has also litigated groundbreaking cases in defense of occupational speech, protecting authors, tour guides, interior designers and others who speak for a living or offer advice from government regulations designed to stifle or silence their speech. Finally, we have been at the forefront of the fight against laws that hamstring the political speech of ordinary citizens and entrench political insiders. These laws include burdensome campaign finance laws and restrictions on grassroots lobbying.

Through IJs litigation, we seek to ensure that government regulation is constrained and that speakers and listeners are able to freely exchange information on the topics that matter most to them. Speakers and listeners should determine the value of speech, not the government.

Continued here:

First Amendment - Institute for Justice

The First Amendment protects Americans' right to protest and the right to political dissent.Video provided by Newsy Newslook

032818-first amendment_online_Online(Photo: USA TODAY)

The First Amendment is a mere 45words. Butit's still giving lawmakers and judges fits 227 years after its adoption.

The government can'testablish religion,but federal, state and municipal officials can open meetings with a prayer.

The government can't block religious exercise, but it's tryingtoban travelers from majority-Muslim countries in the name of national security.

It can't restrictfree speech not even hate speech or flag-burning or protests ofmilitary funerals. But don't try shouting "Fire!" in a theater or threatening folkson Facebook.

It can't muzzle the media, unless it concerns outright lies made with malicious intent.

And peaceful protests areprotected,but that doesn't mean the Secret Service can't push you around a little in order to protect the president.

Sound confusing?Here's your guide to the First Amendment, circa 2018:

If white nationalists and neo-Nazis can march through the college town of Charlottesville, Va., and win backing from the American Civil Liberties Union, the rights of demonstrators are in safe hands.

The types of protests held by white supremacist groups in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 enjoy broad First Amendment protection.(Photo: Mykal McEldowney, Mykal McEldowney/IndyStar)

What remains in doubt: whether such protests can be accompanied by displays of weapons, even in states that permit firearms to be carried in public. That raises the potential for violence, which public officials have the authority to prevent.

In a series of cases dating back to the 1960s, the Supreme Court has struck down restrictions on so-called "hate speech" unless it specifically incites violence or is intended to do so.

The First Amendment, the justices have said, protected neo-Nazis seeking to march through heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., in 1977. It protected a U.S. flag burner from Texas in 1989, three cross burners from Virginia in 2003 and homophobic funeral protesters in 2011.

Even symbols of intimidation, such as torches carried by some marchers in Charlottesville, are protected unless they have specific targets. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented inthe cross-burningcase, reasoning that "those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate," but he was on the losing end of an 8-1 vote.

If right-wing demonstratorsare protected by the First Amendment, so too are right-wing speakers. The Supreme Court made that clear in 1969 when itprotected a Ku Klux Klan member decrying Jews and blacks in Ohiobecause he did not pose an imminent threat.

Richard Spencer, a white nationalist who hastraveledthe country on a controversial "alt-right" speaking tour, is but the most recent example. He'sbeen allowed to speak, along with counter-demonstrators aligned with aleft-wing coalition known as Antifa.

Poland's state-run news agency reports Polish authorities banned Spencer from the Schengen Area, which is comprised of 26 European countries.Video provided by Newsy Newslook

Spencer is better off giving sparsely attended speeches and facing opponents in Florida, Michigan and Virginiathan he would be overseas. He's been banned from visiting large portions of Europe and Great Britain by government officials who said his speeches fosterhatred.Under the First Amendment, those banswould not stand.

The American free speech tradition holds unequivocally that hate speech is protected, unless it is intended to and likely to incite imminent violence, says Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

Adds Justice Stephen Breyer: "It's there for people whose speech you don't like."

Speech isn't restricted to the spoken or written word. The First Amendment also protects movies and TV, art and music, yard signs and video games, clothing and accessories.

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of video games depicting the slaughter of animals. It has upheld derogatory trademarks,such as those promoting The Slants, an Asian-American rock band. When a Pennsylvania school district tried to stop students from wearing breastcancer awareness bracelets reading "I (Heart) Boobies," the court refused even to hear the case.

But as usual, there are exceptions. When the speaker is the government, the court has allowed for censorship such as when Texas refused to permit specialty license plates displaying the Confederate flag. The justices reasoned that the government, not the motorist, was doing the talking.

The First Amendment gives you the right to speak out as well as the right "to refrain from speaking at all," Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in 1977. That signaled a win for a New Hampshire couple who covered up part of their home state's motto, "Live Free or Die," on license plates.

The doctrine is up for grabs in three major Supreme Court cases this term. It appears likely the justices will rule that an Illinois state employee cannot be compelled to contribute to his local union. They also seem inclined to say that California cannot force anti-abortion pregnancy centers to informclients where they can get an abortion.

The third case is a closer call: Must a deeply religious Colorado baker use his creative skills to bake a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding? Here the court seems split.

"The case isn't about same-sex marriage, ultimately. It isn't about religion, ultimately," says Jeremy Tedesco, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Jack Phillips. "Its about this broader right to free speech, the right to be free of compelled speech.

Jack Phillips, a suburban Denver cake shop owner, tells USA TODAY's Richard Wolf that he's fighting an order that would compel him to make cakes for the weddings of gay couples because of religious objections.

Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites can police their own websites to control what's posted. But under the First Amendment, the government has no such right.

Thus did the Supreme Court rule that a North Carolina law criminalizing social media use by sex offenders violated the First Amendment.

The justices also gave a temporary reprieve to an angry, self-styled rapper who rattled his wife, co-workers and others on Facebook. Phrases such as "Hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class" are criminal only if intended as a threat, they ruled, and sent the case back to a lower court, which ruled against him on that basis.

If you want to put free speech rights to work in politics, you're in luck. The Supreme Courtequates campaign spending with speech.

Say you're a wealthy individual, or you run a corporation that wants to spend unlimited amounts in this year's elections. As long as you do not coordinate your spending with a candidate or political committee, you're home free.

And while there are anti-corruption limits on how muchyou can donate directly to a candidate, committee or political party, the court recently ditched restrictionson the total amount you can apportion among those recipients. That means you can give to as many campaigns as you like.

Your First Amendment rightto exercise your religion depends on what other rights it bumps up against. That's why it's a frequent conundrum in court.

When the arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby wanted out from Obamacare's requirement that employers offer free coverage of contraceptives, the Supreme Court ruled narrowly in its favor. The corporation's First Amendment right "protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control" it, Justice Samuel Alito said.

Supreme Court says employers with religious objections can refuse to pay for contraception. (June 30) AP

And when a Lutheran church in Missouri was denied state funds to resurface its playground, the high court said the separation of church and state does not apply to purely secular activities such as swings and slides.

But religious claims are not a slam dunk, as Phillips, the Colorado baker, may discover. At least four justices possibly five are likely to say his speech and religious beliefs must take a back seat topublic accommodations laws requiring that merchants serve all customers.

This is another area where more than two centuries haven't reduced passions on both sides, often leaving courts divided.

Public schools cannot lead children in prayer, a prohibition that has been extended in recent years to graduations and football games. But Congress, state legislatures and local governments can open their sessions with a prayer, provided the audience is not coerced to participate.

The line between what's OK and what's not is even thinner than that. On the same day in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled against displaying the Ten Commandments inside a county courthouse but said it could be memorialized outdoors on statehouse grounds.

Addressing his first Cabinet meeting of 2018, President Donald Trump touted his administration's accomplishments and said his White House would address the nation's libel laws, which he called a "sham and a disgrace." (Jan. 10) AP

President Trump took aim at the press soon after coming into office. Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values or American fairness, he said.

Since the 1960s, the Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment protects statements made about public officials unless they are false andintended to defame. Only "reckless disregard for the truth" is unprotected.

Furthermore, the media can publish information from classified documents even if the government says it would threaten national security, a conclusion reached in the Pentagon Papers case featured in the recent film, The Post.

For more information on the First Amendment, check out theNational Constitution Center, theNewseum Instituteand theLegal Information Institute.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2GEspWA

See more here:

First Amendment: What rights it protects and where it stops

The First Amendment of the United States was ratified, along with nine other amendments to the Constitution of the United States making up the Bill of Rights, on December 15, 1791. The text of the First Amendment 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.

These forty-five words encompass the most basic of American rights: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of assembly, and the right of petition. But what do those words mean? The meaning was not clear in 1791 and still is the subject of continuing interpretation and dispute in the 21st Century.

The First Amendment was not important in American life until well into the 20th Century. Yes the words were there, but the first word of the First Amendment restricted its sweep to the federal government: Congress shall make no law . . . And even in its 18th Century origins, despite democratic stirrings and impulses to expanding freedom among some leaders, there is reason to believe that the Bill of Rights was offered as an 18th Century political compromise, a hollow gesture in comparison to the sweeping words. When the Federaliststhose favoring the centralized government proposed by the draft Constitution of 1787---feared that opposition by the Antifederalists would stop adoption of the second Frame of Governnment (to replace the Articles of Confederation).

You may download the contents of this page here.

Original post:

History of the First Amendment | JEM First Amendment Project

April Ryan, of American Urban Radio Networks, raises her hand to ask a question of White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders during a press briefing at the White House

Conservatives who should be appalled by President Donald Trumps anti-media attacks have responded instead with a collective shrug.

Never mind that Trump has taken steps to block publication of a critical book, assures a typical Wall Street Journal editorialhe would never follow through, and the courts would never go along. The Journal likewise brushes off Trumps threat to open up the libel laws as familiar and feckless bluster. Trump may brand journalists the enemy of the American people and hand out fake news awards, goes the argument from the right, but his actions matter more than his words.

This sanguine take on Trumps campaign to demonize the news media overlooks the real-world damage it inflicts on journalists, both at home and abroad. Trumps words and actions have materially chilled speechin the U.S., where 78 journalists were attacked or arrested last year, and around the world, 262 journalists are in prison, 21 of them for publishing fake news. The toxic fallout includes death threats, anti-Semitic media harassment, physical attacks, and GOP governors who deny interviews. (One politician paid more than $5,000 in fines and restitution after body-slamming a reporter.)

American journalists on a recent panel co-hosted by the Newseum and the Committee to Protect Journalists described struggling to do their work in an unprecedented atmosphere of hostility, suspicion, stonewalling, and even fear. Death threats are routine. The FBI is on speed dial. So is the Secret Service, and the local police department, said panelist April Ryan, White House correspondent for American Urban Radio Networks, who has publicly tangled with Trump.

Foreign journalists are paying an even bigger price, prompting some conservatives to finally speak up. Trumps unrelenting attacks on the integrity of American journalists and news outlets have provided cover for repressive regimes to follow suit, wrote GOP Senator John McCain, of Arizona, in a recent Washington Post op-ed. McCain cited journalists arrested and systematically discredited in China, Egypt, Russia, Turkey, Venezuela, and elsewhere.

His fellow Arizona Republican, Senator Jeff Flake, noted in a Senate floor speech that such despots as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte have used the words fake news to justify their human rights abuses. Trumps use of Josef Stalins phrase enemy of the people to describe journalists is a testament to the condition of our democracy, said Flake, who added that of course, the president has it precisely backwarddespotism is the enemy of the people. The free press is the despot's enemy, which makes the free press the guardian of democracy.

Conservatives blithe dismissal of Trumps chilling impact is all the more striking given the First Amendments increasingly central place in conservative orthodoxy. The conviction, however unfounded, that campaign-finance limits would lead to book banning was at the heart of the Supreme Courts Citizens United ruling to deregulate corporate political spending. Since Hillary Clinton opposed that ruling, conservatives argue, she posed a greater First Amendment threat than Trump. Besides, they assure, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch will rigorously defend free speech.

But not all First Amendment defenders take Trumps media wars so lightly. None other than constitutional law expert Floyd Abrams, who led the GOPs charge to deregulate politics in the name of free speech in Citizens United, warned The Wall Street Journal in a letter that its editorial board is far too serene about Trumps bid to silence author Michael Wolff. Trumps threats have led to actual lawsuits, Abrams wrote, and not all publications and journalists can so easily shrug off such threats of financially crippling litigation.

In an interview, Abrams acknowledged that Trump would find it hard to expand libel laws, which now fall largely under state jurisdiction. But he warned that there is no guarantee that an extraordinary event, such as a terrorist attack, might not prompt Trump to push hard to federalize libel laws. Abrams said hes hopeful that Gorsuch will rigorously defend the First Amendment, but that no one knows how he might rule in a case that, say, pitted national security against free speech concerns. Trump has so far been unable to stifle speech of which he disapproves noted Abrams, but the unending drumbeat of criticism, accusation, and denigration of the press takes a toll.

Indeed, Trumps assault on free speech is far more direct, aggressive, and broadly destructive than anything yet seen in the United States. Hes threatened legal action to silence critics; called for news organizations to fire specific journalists; tweeted videos and images of himself inflicting bloody violence on figures bearing the logo of CNN, a favorite target; and has weaponized mainstream media outlets as fake news.

The news media, from cable channels dominated by shouting matches to news outlets that fail to check their facts, do share some of the blame for this mess. Only 33 percent of Americans have a very favorable or somewhat favorable opinion of the news media, noted a report from Gallup and the Knight Foundation, and 66 percent say the media are bad at separating fact from opinion. Such surveys reflect a larger news industry crisis in confidence, and come amid soul-searching forums like the one at the Newseum, and another this week at The Washington Post.

And progressives, too, have failed to consistently defend free speech. Campus political protests, while often overblown and even egged on by conservative provocateurs, have raised legitimate First Amendment concerns. Anti-fa activists have resorted to violence. President Barack Obama kept a tight rein on information, was not transparent, and aggressively prosecuted whistleblowers, according to Reporters Without Borders.

But Trumps assault on free speech goes far deeper, advancing a Soviet-style disinformation campaign that helps fuel what a recent Rand Corporation report dubbed Truth Decay. Trump treats facts as irrelevant and fungible, having made 2,140 false or misleading claims in his first year. Yet heightened disagreement about facts and how to interpret data, Rands report warns, contributes to government dysfunction, hurts diplomacy and economic investments, and poses a threat to the health and future of U.S. democracy.

And Trump may be gearing up to go further, materially weakening media protections in the U.S. Last year, 34 American journalists were arrested, many when they were covering protests, and one photojournalist went to trial (and was acquitted) for a felony offense. American journalists still enjoy far greater institutional protections than journalists in, say, Turkey, where 73 journalists are now imprisoned, notes Alexandra Ellerbeck, North American program coordinator at the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has signaled plans to revise Obama administration media guidelines, making it easier for the Trump administration to subpoena reporters. Obama prosecuted eight leakers under the Espionage Act, according to CPJ, but the Trump administration has 27 leak investigations open. Any move that makes it harder for journalists to protect their sources is a fundamental and basic assault on information gathering and news reporting, warns Ellerbeck.

None of this seems to worry supposed First Amendment champions on the right. With a few exceptions, such as Flake and McCain, conservatives take Trumps assaults on free speech merrily in stride. As GOP election lawyer Jim Bopp recently assured the Center for Public Integrity:

Liberals refuse to understand with Trump that you cant take what he says literally. What is important about Trump is what hes doing and not what hes saying, and in practice, everything hes done is in step with maintaining a First Amendment-friendly approach to campaign finance.

Bopps comments shed light on the real reason Republicans dont really care whether Trump trashes press freedoms. For many on the right, the First Amendment is less important as a tool to protect speech than to protect money, and those who spend it. As ethics attorney Kathleen Clark, who teaches law at Washington University in St. Louis, puts it: Economic power, and the ability to exploit economic power, is at the center of their vision of the First Amendment.

Its not the only way that Republicans have swept aside Trumps threats to democracy, national security and the rule of law. If they just change the subject to Hillary Clinton or Neil Gorsuch, Republicans seem to think, all will be well. Nor is it the first time the GOP has elevated partisan politics above long-cherished principles. But given how highly conservatives purport to prize the First Amendment, its remarkable how casually theyve abandoned it.

This article has been updated.

Go here to see the original:

What First Amendment? - prospect.org

The NAACP's interim president Derrick Johnson has officially requested a formal meeting with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to discuss NFL players and their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights.

According to a letter sent to the league by the NAACP, the meeting will specifically focus on Kaepernick's perceived "blackballing" by the league in light of his protests last season. It also questions the silencing of NFL players' platforms, citing Tommie Smith and John Carlos's black power salute at the 1968 Olympics, among other examples.

Kaepernick's lack of a job has raised many eyebrows throughout the offseason, particularly with the quarterbacks being signed ahead of him. Johnson penned a concern regarding Kaepernick's First Amendment rights and also strongly insinuated that his protest was the sole cause of him not being signed. An excerpt of the letter reads:

Last season, Mr. Kaepernick chose to exercise his First Amendment rights by protesting the inequitable treatment of people of color in America. By quietly taking a knee during the national anthem, he was able to shine a light on the many injustices, particularly, the disproportionate occurrences of police misconduct toward communities of color. As outlined in your office's public statement, this act of dissent is well within the National Football League's stated bylaws. Yet, as the NFL season quickly approaches, Mr. Kaepernick has spent an unprecedented amount of time as a free agent, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that this is no sheer coincidence.

"No player should be victimized and discriminated against because of his exercise of free speech -- to do so is in violation of his rights under the Constitution and the NFL's own regulations.

Obviously, invoking the Constitution is a powerful tool, and it raises questions about what's covered by free speech. The NAACP also stressed the important of free speech in the Civil Rights Movement, along with the importance that it's upheld moving forward.

The exercise of free speech has proven to be a vital tool in in bringing to the public's attention often ignored issues of social justice, particularly in the African-American community. The powerful act of utilizing one's platform to address issues of discrimination and inequality has long been employed by many of the world's greatest athletes.

Some teams may be a starting quarterback injury away from signing Kaepernick, but the Baltimore Ravens disproved that theory when rumors swirled after Joe Flacco's back injury. They ultimately chose to sign Thaddeus Lewis to spell Flacco. There have been protests in front of the NFL headquarters regarding Kaepernick, including one on Wednesday.

Since losing the starting job in San Francisco, Kaepernick has faced tremendous scrutiny. Other athletes have joined in on his protest, and depending on how the next few weeks go, these protests may start to pick up steam if Kaepernick remains unsigned -- whether it's fair or not.

Here is the original post:

NAACP asks for meeting with Goodell over Colin Kaepernick's First Amendment rights - CBSSports.com

In this day in age, if an employee has something to say, they should be able to say it, right? Not exactly. One Google employee recently learned the hard way when he was fired after writing and circulating a memo where he criticized the companys diversity efforts.

When the memo went public on August 5th, women and under-represented groups in tech criticized it andGoogle denounced it. But, after Google fired the engineer claiming hed violated the companys code of conduct, things changed. Some people appalled that someone could lose his job for expressing dissent, while some took to Twitter discussing the topic of free speech.

However, the First Amendment only protects the publics right to free speech from government censorship, and not corporate censorship. One of the reasons that a private employer can censor speech is because the First Amendment does not cover private entities as it is limited only to government federal, state and local.

Veronica Nannis, a partner with Joseph Greenwald & Laake focusing on qui tam litigation and whistleblower rights, sat down with IPWatchdog to discuss the question controversial topic of free speech in the workplace.

Private employers are typically allowed to censor speech that occurs on the job. The First Amendment does not cover them, she explained. They are also allowed to censor speech or activity that discriminates against, creates a hostile work environment or harasses another employee. In that regard, and as with all our rights, our right to free speech generally ends where another persons rights begin.

An employees off-the-clock, private, political or religious activities are protected by both federal and state discrimination laws, but once political speech enters the work place, a private employer may legally discipline or fire an employee for such proselytizing in many cases, per Nannis. The gray areas in between are times when you need to seek consultation with an employment attorney in your state.

As it related to the Google incident, it was first reported that a memo authored by a Google employee, titledGoogles Ideological Echo Chamber, was being circulated among Google employees. Later that day, the memo was obtained by the media and made public. The memos author was identified in the press as a senior employee named James Damore. In the memo, Damore criticized the efforts of tech companies, Google included, to employ programs and hiring practices concentrating on diversity. Specifically, Damore was critical of tech company initiatives which had the goal of recruiting and employing female engineers.

The crux of Damores critique was that the reason for the low number of women in the tech industry was not something that could be countered by policies promoting diversity through recruitment, education, or anti-discrimination measures, explained Nannis. Rather the reason there are so few women in the tech field is due to biological differences, including higher agreeableness and more neuroticism, that leave women less well-equipped to perform the work that tech jobs demand.

The media coverage sparked debate, some outrage, and a focus on Googles culture, among other things. After days of the media firestorm, Google had terminated Damores employment. Googles CEO, Sundar Pichai, stated, in an email published by the Washington Post, that although Google strongly supported the rights of its employees to express themselves and debate issues like those discussed in Damores memo, To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct. Pichai reiterated that point by stating that portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. For his part, Damore stated, as reported in the Financial Times, that he is currently exploring all possible legal remedies. Damore also stated that prior to his employment being terminated, he had filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board and that its illegal to retaliate against a NLRB charge.

According to Nannis, while whistleblowers are protected under various state and federal laws and retaliation laws can protect employees who file complaints or grievances, Google explained that the company could not have retaliated against Damore, because it was unaware of his NLRB complaint until news of the same was reported in the media after his dismissal.

Anti-retaliation laws generally require the employer to have known about the complaint and to have fired the employee, at least in part, due to it, she said.

So, how can employees protect themselves from incidents like Googles in the future?

Know your rights, be sensitive to others rights and know your employers rights too. Many states, including Maryland where I practice and California where Google is located, are at-will employment states, she explained. An at-will state means that, absent a contract, certain union protection, legal prohibition or public policy, an employer can demote or fire an employee for any reason,or no reason at all. If you live in an at-will state, your private employer does not need a reason to fire you. So, while an employee can speak at will, a private employer can fire at will as well.

In addition, Nannis advises to look to see if there are any state laws protecting private employer censorship of speech for non-work related activities. California is one of a handful of states, including Colorado, New York and North Dakota, where there are laws protecting limited out-of-work speech.

She added, If the Google employee had given an off-the-clock speech about his political views as may relate to IT and he had not mentioned Google by name, he would have had a stronger defense under California law, and Google might have had a harder time firing him for out-of-work activities. However, without the protection of one of these exceptions, an employee in an at-will state risks firing when he or she speaks out in a way that displeases their private employer.

Amanda G. Ciccatelli is a Freelance Journalist for IPWatchdog, where she covers intellectual property. She earned a B.A. in Communications and Journalism from Central Connecticut State University in 2010. Amanda is also currently the Lead Strategist of Content Marketing, Social Media & Digital Products at Informa, a leading global business intelligence, academic publishing, knowledge and events business. She also works as a Freelance Journalist for Inside Counsel. Amanda was formerly a Web Editor at Technology Marketing Corporation. Follow her at @AmandaCicc.

Link:

Are Corporate Employees Protected by the First Amendment? - IPWatchdog.com

August 24 at 6:24 PM

Regarding the Aug. 23 Metro article Crisis vaults McAuliffe into spotlight:

It is outrageous for Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) to assert that the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia bears some responsibility for the violence in Charlottesville. The citys decision to revoke the permit for Jason Kessler to hold a rally in Emancipation Park was a prior restraint on free speech. The Supreme Court said prior restraint is the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.

Prior restraint can be justified only if government places reasonable limitations on the time, place and manner of the speech. It was the citys burden to show that revoking the permit for Emancipation Park and granting a permit for McIntire Park met these standards. The federal court said the city failed to do so.

The ACLU finds Mr. Kesslers views loathsome. To suggest that Mr. Kesslers speech was not entitled to First Amendment protection would eviscerate the First Amendment. As Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. reaffirmed: The idea that the government may restrict speech expressing ideas that offend ... strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.

David A. Drachsler, Alexandria

The writer is a member of the Litigation Screening Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia.

Read more here:

The ACLU was practicing a core First Amendment duty - Washington Post

Recently in Charlottesville, Va., the 'Southern strategy' veil was lifted again. White supremacy born out of hatred, bigotry and profound ignorance resulted in chaos, violence and death again!

Fundamentalists like the Huckabee crowd, Robertson's, Falwell's, Bannon's and maybe some of you will offer the usual rationalizations, moral equivalencies and justifications. The fundamentalist right have hijacked the First Amendment to preach their filth of hate and bigotry.

The most dominant flag at this sickening display in Charlottesville was the Confederate flag. The Star Spangled Banner, our beautiful symbol, is flown around the world as a beacon of freedom, hope and decency; something not one of these terrorists would understand, including President Trump. No matter what Trump says he cannot explain away being intellectually and morally destitute.

Please proceed, Special Counsel Bob Mueller. You sir, are a Vietnam combat decorated Marine. You have had your skin in the game, fighting for flag and country. Leave no stone unturned and no one left behind. Justice and decency must prevail!

Jenson lives in Detroit Lakes, Minn.

Here is the original post:

Letter: The right has hijacked the First Amendment to preach hate ... - INFORUM

Bar Associations

Posted August 23, 2017, 4:00 pm CDT

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Shutterstock.com

A federal appeals court recently ruled against a North Dakota lawyer who alleged the mandatory state bar violated his First Amendment rights.

Arnold Fleck had claimed the bar should have given him the chance to affirmatively consent before using his money on activities that werent relevant to the practice of law. The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed in an Aug. 17 opinion (PDF).

The Goldwater Institute, which represented Fleck, said in a press release it plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. The Associated Press has a story.

Fleck had objected because a portion of his mandatory dues went to a PAC that opposed a 2014 ballot initiative known as Measure 6, which would establish a presumption that each parent is entitled to equal parental rights. The measure was rejected by voters.

The state bar dues notice, which was revised as a result of Flecks lawsuit, says bar members can deduct a certain amount from their dues in a Keller deduction for activities that arent germane to law practice. The reference is to the 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case Keller v. State Bar of California.

Keller held that mandatory bars can use members required dues to fund activities germane to regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services, but not to fund nongermane activities that a member opposes.

Fleck had argued the bar should have required him to opt in to use of his dues for nongermane activities, rather than requiring him to opt out. The 8th Circuit said the procedure satisfies Supreme Court precedent.

See the rest here:

Lawyer who objected to mandatory bar's PAC contribution loses First Amendment appeal - ABA Journal

In the marketplace, traditionally understood, when a company produces a poor product or mistreats its customers, it faces market disciplinenew ones come in and steal market share. Thats the theory, at least.

Too bad its not true right now, at least not on the Internet.

Google and Apple, with a combined 98 percent market share in mobile-phone operating systems, have banned Gab, an upstart Twitter competitor with a free-speech policy quaintly modeled on the First Amendment itself, from their app stores. Google cited hate speech as its reason for exclusion; Gab doesnt censor. What few people yet understand is that Google and Apple have used their duopoly status to revoke the First Amendment on mobile phones. Because the Internet is now majority mobile, and a growing majority of all web traffic comes from mobile devices, the First Amendment is now effectively dead in the mobile sphere unless policymakers act to rein in the tech giants who serve as corporate gatekeepers to digital speech.

Twitter ran into controversy last year when it was accused of censoring conservative voices. Gab founders Andrew Torba, an alumnus of Silicon Valleys prestigious Y Combinator accelerator, and Ekrem Bykkaya saw a market opportunity for a competitor focused on free speechnot just for conservatives but for dissidents globally. Last August, they launched Gab, a Twitter-like app where, according to company spokesman Utsav Sanduja, Whatever is permissible under the First Amendment is what Gab allows onto its site.

Gab grew slowly but has now reached over 200,000 usersa substantial number, though tiny compared with Twitter. It generated modest revenue through a freemium model, wherein users could pay to upgrade to a Pro level. Gab pulled off a coup by raising $1 million through crowd-funded investment. The company says that it is planning an Initial Coin Offering with its own digital currency based on the Ethereum standard. In short, Gab is a real company, with legitimate founders, a business strategy, revenue, more than 200,000 users, and seven-figure funding.

Apple and Google dont agree. Gab built an app for Apples iOS operating system, but Apple wouldnt approve it. This means that iPhone and iPad users cant use the Gab app because users cant install applications on those devices unless Apple approves them. Gabs Android app was available through Googles app store until yesterday, when Google banned it, citing violations of its hate-speech policy. In order to be on the Play Store, social networking apps need to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people, a Google statement read. This is a long-standing rule and clearly stated in our developer policies. While Android users can install unapproved apps, its a cumbersome process, and being kicked out of the app store reduces the apps reach.

No doubt, a number of far-right groups have found a home on Gab. I tried Gab myself when it first came out, finding it functionally an interesting mix of Twitter and Reddit, but with too many far-right users for my taste. So I dropped it. Gab also courted trouble with provocative moves like publicly announcing a job offer for James Damore after Google fired him and taunting Silicon Valley after its crowd-funding success. It also uses a green frog as its logo. Gab claims that this is not the controversial Pepe the Frog, identified with the alt-Right, but rather inspired by the plague of frogs from Exodus. Even if this is true, the logo choice seems like a deliberate provocation.

But its difficult to credit Gab as a white-supremacist site when its cofounder is a Turkish Kurd and Muslim. Bykkaya, who says Ive never supported Trump for a minute in my entire life, is concerned about speech repression in his part of the worldfor good reason, as Turkey is infamous for its violations of free speech and for locking up journalists. Gab spokesman Sanduja is a South Asian Hindu from Canada.

Gab points out that other major social-media platforms have hosted ISIS activity, and child-porn rings, facilitated drug dealing, and carried live streams of murder, torture, and other crimes. Yet all are still allowed by Google. Google itself actually hired Chris moot Poole, founder of the notorious website 4chan, known not just for offensive speech but also for the distribution of hard-core pornography. Police have made multiple child pornography arrests associated with 4chan. There remain multiple 4chan apps in Googles app store.

At a minimum, Apple and Googles decisions about offensive app behavior are arbitrary. This is a problem the market cant easily solvebecause there is effectively no market. Both the Apple and Google app stores are private markets owned by those companies, which act as their effective governments. You cannot easily start a new mobile business without their permission. If your app follows the First Amendment, theres a good chance that youll be rejected. Regardless of how one views Gab or any other application or group, two Silicon Valley companies should not be the governors of the mobile Internetwhich, in due course, may be indistinguishable from the Internet itself.

The mobile-Internet business is built on spectrum licenses granted by the federal government. Given the monopoly power that Apple and Google possess in the mobile sphere as corporate gatekeepers, First Amendment freedoms face serious challenges in the current environment. Perhaps it is time that spectrum licenses to mobile-phone companies be conditioned on their recipients providing freedoms for customers to use the apps of their choice.

Aaron M. Renn is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor ofCity Journal.

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Originally posted here:

First Amendment in Peril? - City Journal

The First Amendment separates church from state, but not religion from public life and it doesnt require equal time or balanced treatment for all faiths and beliefs.

Freedom to report the news necessarily means the freedom to gather it, and police in Ferguson, Mo., have blatantly tried to stop journalists from doing their jobs.

Federal appeals panel finds quotes lauding attorneys ability are truthful and not misleading.

Amid persecutions of Christians, Muslims and other faiths around the globe, Face to Faith is a beacon of hope.

Supreme Court will look at question of whether threats made in social media can be considered true threats.

Supreme Court ruling is neither the all-out assault on womens rights alleged by some on the left nor the major expansion of religious freedom trumpeted by many on the right.

But increasingly narrow holdings, exceptions for national security, rights for corporations leave questions about what direction Courts First Amendment jurisprudence will go.

Although some courts have protected some obscene rants directed at cops, you still might want to be careful if you get pulled over.

Crusading journalist never retired from his passion for the First Amendment, the sense that every voice has value.

Statement from James C. Duff, CEO of Freedom Forum, Newseum and Newseum Institute, on the death of John Seigenthaler.

A great man, a great journalist, a great lover of freedom has died, leaving a lasting legacy.

Justices reject argument that 2006 decision sharply curtailing public employees free speech applied in a case involving court testimony.

By Clay Calvert Ruling that throws out conviction of police officer for conspiracy to commit kidnapping on basis of grisly online posts strikes blow against dangerous notion of thought crimes.

State of the First Amendment survey finds majorities support same-sex health benefits and requiring wedding businesses to serve gay couples, religious beliefs notwithstanding.

Go here to read the rest:

First Amendment Center

A Town of Oyster Bay ordinance restricting day laborers from soliciting work on the streets is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The decision upheld a lower court ruling that found the towns 2009 ordinance violated the First Amendment rights of workers by restricting legally protected commercial speech.

The suit was brought against Oyster Bay by Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley and The Workplace Project, a Hempstead-based nonprofit that advocates for Latino rights, in 2010. In 2015, U.S. District Judge Denis Hurley ruled against the town, which appealed.

The ordinance restricts speech based on its content and is therefore subject to the First Amendment, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan held.

Two of the three judges ruled that the ordinance is an overbroad commercial speech prohibition.

The ordinance was enacted in response to concerns over day laborers who sought work on Forest Avenue in Locust Valley.

Oyster Bay enacted an unconstitutional law directed specifically at hard-working day laborers and Latinos in particular, New York Civil Liberties Union legal director and plaintiffs attorney Arthur Eisenberg said in a statement. It was designed to prevent such workers from entering the town and seeking employment within the town, and the court properly invalidated it.

The plaintiffs were also represented by Manhattan-based Latino Justice.

The court rejected the towns argument that the ordinance was concerned with public safety that could arise from cars stopping in the road.

The ordinance does not require any connection between the prohibited speech solicitation of employment and the asserted interest traffic and pedestrian safety, the court wrote, noting the lower court had said the ordinance would also apply to children selling lemonade at the end of a neighbors driveway.

Oyster Bay Town Supervisor Joseph Saladino said Tuesday the town will ask the Supreme Court to consider reviewing the case.

I cannot understand why any court in this nation would allow illegal aliens to gather on residential streets seeking illegal working while avoiding paying taxes, Saladino said in a statement. This is a quality of life issue and I have always been on the side of protecting the safety of our residents, the integrity of our communities and protecting jobs for our citizens.

Asked how Saladino knew the workers affected by the ordinance did not have legal status, town spokesman Brian Nevin said, Thats obviously who it is.

See the rest here:

Court: Day laborers have 1st Amendment right to solicit jobs - Newsday

Two different cases raising similar issues about advocating suicide may shape US policy for years to come. In Massachusetts, Michelle Carter was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for urging her friend Conrad Roy not to abandon his plan to kill himself by inhaling carbon monoxide: Get back in that car! she texted, and he did. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has already ruled that prosecuting her for involuntary manslaughter was permissible, even though she was not on the scene. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was careful to insist that its holding did not criminalize assisting the suicide of a person with a terminal illness:

It is important to articulate what this case is not about. It is not about a person seeking to ameliorate the anguish of someone coping with a terminal illness and questioning the value of life. Nor is it about a person offering support, comfort and even assistance to a mature adult who, confronted with such circumstances, has decided to end his or her life.

And now the case of Final Exit v. Minnesota is before the Supreme Court, with Final Exit asking the Supreme Court to take the case and overturn its conviction for assisting the suicide of Doreen Dunn on First Amendment grounds. Notably, no individual was convicted in that case: the medical director was given use immunity to testify against the organization, which was found guilty of the crime, and was fined $30,000.

Final Exit was convicted under an interpretation of the assisted suicide law first outlined in a different case, Minnesota v. Melchert-Dinkel. In that case, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that advising or encouraging an individual to commit suicide was protected First Amendment activity, but assisting suicide, including enabling suicide by instructing a specific person how to do it, could be criminalized. Mr. Melchert-Dinkel struck a deal with prosecutors, and therefore never appealed his conviction.

Final Exit has asked the Supreme Court whether Minnesotas criminal prohibition of speech that enables a suicide violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to accept the case.

Both the Carter case and the Final Exit case involve the issue of the limits of criminalizing speech, and in both cases, the defendants foresaw and even intended that the people with whom they were communicating would die. There are several noteworthy distinctions between the two cases. In the first place, Conrad Roys competence to make the decision to die was (at least on the face of the court decisions) far more questionable than that of Ms. Dunn in Minnesota. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court put great emphasis on his vulnerability and fragility. Relatedly, and crucially, Conrad Roy was wavering, and Michelle Carter put her thumbindeed, her entire fiston the pro-suicide scale. First amendment purists might say this makes no difference, and indeed criminalizing her speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination, the worst kind of First Amendment violation. Criminal lawyers, on the other hand, might argue that Roys ambivalence provides support for the contention that Ms. Carter caused his suicide. Final Exit argues that they did not coerce or pressure Ms. Deen; they provided information and comfort and support, but not persuasion.

Whether suicide or assisted suicide, this issue is not only about speech, but also fundamentally about individual agency. Promoting the agency of competent individuals is good, even if they make decisions that we would not make. Overriding a persons will, whether by keeping him or her tethered to a life-support machine or haranguing him to get back in the car and die, is different from assisting him or her to implement a decision made thoughtfully and carefully.

Given Justice Gorsuchs interest in and familiarity with the assisted suicide, and his announcement of his perspective through books and articles, it will be interesting to see whether the Court accepts the Final Exit case. Michelle Carters lawyers have promised to appeal on the issue of whether her texts and communications with Conrad Roy constituted protected speech, although the 2016 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision appears to have largely foreclosed that avenue of appeal. As more states legalize assisted suicide, this issue will continue to recur, and these early rulings have the potential to shape policy around the country.

Featured image credit: Lady Justice by jessica45. CC0 public domain via Pixabay.

Follow this link:

Is advocating suicide a crime under the First Amendment? - OUPblog (blog)

First Amendment is a fundamental building block of our society

Editor:

In a letter recently published in your paper, a writer indicates that she wont lose sleep if a Christian must bake a cake or a church is denied participation in a government grant program. I disagree. Both examples are taken from court cases focused on religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms in this country. In addition to affirming the free exercise of religion, the rights outlined in the First Amendment serve as fundamental building blocks of our society and a protection against government censorship and punishment. Combined with other ideals contained in our countrys founding documents, such as the truth that we are all created equal, the rights contained in the First Amendment provide protections for minority groups and demand that we reject racial bigotry, anti-Semitism and hatred in all forms. In the current state of our country, I cant think of anything more important.

Jon Terry

Petoskey

The rest is here:

Letter First Amendment is a fundamental building block of our society - Petoskey News-Review

As a journalist, I like to think I know a little something about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Like most students in the United States, I studied the Bill of Rights in grade school and learned the First Amendments protections by rote: freedom of speech, religion, assembly, petition and the press. (That last one is now my bread and butter.)

In later years, I dove a little deeper by reading landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions in college like Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, in which the court found in 1969 that black armbands worn to protest the Vietnam War were protected symbolic speech.

That was the same year the court decided Brandenburg v. Ohio, and determined that government could not punish public speech, including that of KKK leader Clarence Brandenburg at a 1964 Klan rally, unless it is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to spur such action.

Im no constitutional scholar, but I do know that protections exist even for hateful speech, the kind reported extensively in the aftermath of the white nationalist rally last weekend in Charlottesville, Va., where ensuing violence claimed the life of 32-year-old counter-protester Heather Heyer.

Even though most Americans would agree that the racist rhetoric spewed by Neo-Nazis, the KKK and other hate groups is vile and unsettling, many of us would likely also agree that it, too, must be shielded by the First Amendment to avoid creating an environment ripe for censorship and censure.

There it is, folks, the slippery-slope argument. End of story.

Well, not quite.

Im getting sort of sick and tired of all the absolute-constitutional-rights talk. Theres nothing absolute about constitutional rights, said Justin Brooks, a professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego.

Brooks said as much in a post he shared on Facebook last week, along with a photo of tiki-torch bearing white nationalists gathered on the University of Virginia campus. He added, Hate speech should not be protected speech.

The post attracted many responses and prompted a robust debate among friends and colleagues. It also prompted a call from the Union-Tribune.

Brooks said he disagrees with the U.S. Supreme Court, which has long held that there is no general exception for hate speech under the First Amendment, but has identified a few well-defined and narrowly limited exceptions that include obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement and true threats.

(The court) has drawn the line you have to be inciting violence in order for it to be restricted, Brooks said. What bothers me about this discussion is it doesnt recognize how hurtful some of that hate speech is. At a certain point, speech can actually cause harm to individuals.

He said he understands the fear many Americans and the courts feel about the prospect of regulating hate speech, because defining it is subjective. But he argued that it is possible to draw a narrow definition that regulates public displays of hate, based on race, gender, nationality, ethnicity and sexual preference.

There is no doubt that the hate speech promoted by the KKK and Nazis causes harm to the members of our community who are targeted, Brooks said. Therefore, it is appropriate to regulate that speech.

He didnt need social media to know his views on the subject are unpopular, particularly among others in legal community. (See: slippery slope.)

Recently, the American Civil Liberties Union represented Jason Kessler, organizer of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, in a lawsuit to keep the far-right groups permit to protest at a downtown park.

In response to criticism, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero wrote a statement explaining the nonprofits decision to represent white supremacist demonstrators in court. In it, he acknowledged that speech alone can have hurtful consequences, but argued that the airing of hateful speech allows people of good will to confront the implications of such speech and reject bigotry, discrimination and hate.

Preventing the government from controlling speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion of equality, he wrote.

dana.littlefield@sduniontribune.com

Twitter: @danalittlefield

See the original post:

How far do the First Amendment's protections go when it comes to hate speech? - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Piers Morgan is at it again:

Morgan is echoing an idea that has been advanced repeatedly in the last couple of days: To wit, that there is something particular about Nazism that makes it ineligible for protection under the Bill of Rights. This is flat-out wrong. And, more than that, its dangerous. Abhorrent and ugly as they invariably are, there simply is no exception to the First Amendment that exempts Nazis, white supremacists, KKK members, Soviet apologists, or anyone else who harbors disgraceful or illiberal views. As the courts have made abundantly clear, the rules are the same for ghastly little plonkers such as Richard Spencer as they are for William Shakespeare. If that werent true, the First Amendment would be pointless.

This is not a controversial statement. It is not an interesting view. It is not a contrarian contribution to an intractable grey area. It is a fact. There are a handful of limits to free speech in the United States, and all of them are exceptions of form rather than of viewpoint. Heres Eugene Volokh to explain that further:

To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with hate speech in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for fighting words face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight.

. . .

The same is true of the other narrow exceptions, such as for true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct (i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future). Indeed, threatening to kill someone because hes black (or white), or intentionally inciting someone to a likely and immediate attack on someone because hes Muslim (or Christian or Jewish), can be made a crime. But this isnt because its hate speech; its because its illegal to make true threats and incite imminent crimes against anyone and for any reason, for instance because they are police officers or capitalists or just someone who is sleeping with the speakers ex-girlfriend.

Under the doctrine laid out by a unanimous Supreme Court in the seminal Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, incitement to imminent lawless action may in some circumstances be prosecuted. But this rule is universal and narrow, and, crucially, is in no way akin to the sort of hate speech exceptions that obtain in every other country, and that so many Americans seem to believe exist here too. Under U.S. law it is legal for a speaker to say broadly that all the Jews should be killed or that it is time for a revolution, or that slavery is good, and it is not legal for a speaker to say to a crowd, lets all go and kill that guy wearing the yarmulke, or meet me in an hour at the armory and well start our insurrection at the Post Office, or look at that black guy over there in the blue t-shirt, lets chain him to my car.Who is saying these things, however, does not matter in the slightest. Whether one likes it or not, Brandenburg applies as much to neo-Nazis as to the Amish, as consistently to Old Testament preachers as to gay rights activists, and as broadly to my mother as to David Duke. It applies in exactly the same way to good people, to bad people, and to those in between.

It is, in other words, a principle a principle that cannot be obviated by cynical word games or by thinly disguised special pleading. I believe in free speech, but or I just dont think this is a free speech issue both popular lines at the moment simply will not cut it as arguments. On the contrary. In reality, all that the but and the I just dont think mean is that the speaker hopes to exempt certain people because he doesnt like them. But one can no more get away from ones inconsistencies by saying its not a speech issue to me than one can get away from the charge that one is unreliable on due process insisting in certain cases, well, thats not a due process issue to me. This is a free speech issue. Those who wish it werent just trying to have it both ways to argue bluntly for censorship, and then to pretend that they arent.

Leaving aside that the Supreme Court has been extremely clear on this matter, time and time again (inter alia, see: Brandenburg v. Ohio, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Matal v. Tam),it seems obvious as a philosophical matter that any robust free speech protections will have to be assiduously neutral if they are to be useful at all. The purpose of the First Amendment is to deprive the government of the capacity to determine at the point of a bayonet what is true, and what is not; what is good, and what is not; what is acceptable to the ruling class, and what is not. To accept this arrangement is not to suggest that one thinks the Nazis might have a point, or to imply that one believes that we need the Bill of Rights in case Richard Spencers race science turns out to be true. And, however rhetorically effective it might be to pretend otherwise,it is in no way to defend those people. Rather, it is to propose that the only effective way of preventing governmental abuses is to take away its oversight of viewpoints in toto. Moreover, it isto submit that, having been born with ahost of unalienable rights, free human beings are not obliged to ask their employees in the government for permission to speak their minds.

In a country such as this one, that means that disgusting reprobates such as those who marched in Charlottesville will be beyond the reach of the state at least until they go beyond speech and into the realm of action (which does not include carrying a torch or a flag or wearing a t-shirt, but certainly does include driving a car into another human being). Is that distressing? Yes, it is. Had I been in Charlottesville at the weekend,Id no doubt have been even more appalled than I was watching it on television.But the salient question is not whether the status quo can be upsetting, but whether it is better than the alternative. Piers Morgan believes that If America doesnt wake up to the fact that what these Nazis did in Charlottesville is not free speech . . . it is in deep trouble. It seems obvious to me that the precise opposite is true. No free speech for fascists is an incoherent, almost Orwellian, position.Happily andon a routinelybipartisan basis the Supreme Court concurs.

Read the rest here:

There's No 'Nazi' Exception to the First Amendment - National Review

CNSNews.com

Alinsky Politicians and Press Create Dangerous Anti-First Amendment Environment CNSNews.com I can attest to the fear being spread. Friday night before the next day's Boston rally, a liberal friend and First Amendment lawyer colleague who knows my work for an unrelated Free Speech Coalition out of McLean, Virginia emailed: Tell me it isn't ... Keller @ Large: Making A Joke Of The First AmendmentCBS Boston / WBZ A Huge Victory For Free Speech In BostonForbes Boston Right-Wing 'Free Speech' Rally Dwarfed By CounterprotestersNPR Columbia Journalism Review -Metro US -Esquire.com all 1,628 news articles »

Read this article:

Alinsky Politicians and Press Create Dangerous Anti-First Amendment Environment - CNSNews.com

Courtesy of Dan Gottlieb

White supremacist groups say theyre intent on holding more rallies and protests around the country. Thats after a rally in Charlottesville turned violent, resulting in many injuries and one womansdeath.

Some universities say they wont allow white nationalists and supremacists to rally on or near their campuses due to concerns over safety andsecurity.

That includes Michigan State University, which last weekdenied a request to come on campus from a group led by white nationalist ringleader RichardSpencer.

Spencer claims thats a violation of his First Amendmentrights.

And weve been hearing a lot from these hate groups in recent months about a perceived violation of their right to free speech.

What speech is protected under the First Amendment and what isnt? Is it important that these groups are able to demonstrate as long as they dont turnviolent?

Richard Primus is aconstitutional law expert and professor at theUniversity of Michigan Law School. He joins Detroit Today to talk about thosequestions.

Nobody thinks the founders didnt think, and the courts have never thought that the freedom of speech means the freedom to say any words you want under any circumstances in any way at any time, saysPrimus.

What the government is not supposed to do is repress speech for the purpose of preventing the dissemination of an idea, he says. The questions that are most relevant in things like the Charlottesville scenario are about the line between speech thats the conveying of an idea intended to be offered to persuade people and speech that is actually a set of actions designed not to persuade,but tointimidate.

Jake Neher/WDET

ShikhaDalmia

Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia and Lansing State Journal columnist Judy Putnam also join the show to continue the conversation and talk about MSUs decision, which Putnam says put safety over bravery in a recentcolumn.

Dalmia has written in Reason Magazine about her defense of First Amendment Absolutismas well as the University of California-Berkleys decision to cancel right-wing provocateurMilo Yiannopoulos speech earlier this year after his scheduled appearance sparked violentprotests.

I dont believe in content-based restrictions on free speech, even hate speech, saysDalmia.

I think the American model of free speech is correct that the antidote to hate speech is more speech. Free speech is a great disinfectant to badideas.

However, Dalmia defends MSUs decision, largely because there was no invitation from the university or any student groups to have the group oncampus.

Click on the audio player above to hear the fullconversation.

See the rest here:

The First Amendment and Hate Groups Should They Be Free to Rally? - WDET

But it doesnt hurt.

Our friends at the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications have invited Keillor to headline the 15th Annual First Amendment Awards, Oct. 5 at the Palace Theatre in Manchester.

Some of our readers dont like that Keillor has sharpened the tone of his homespun prairie punditry in response to President Donald Trump. But we must never take for granted the freedom that allows a writer to call out the head of our government.

Our late President and Publisher, Nackey Loeb, founded the Loeb School in 1999 to promote understanding and appreciation of the First Amendment, and to foster excellence in journalism.

Partisans who rarely agree on anything should be able to agree on the importance of those principles.

Tickets to the First Amendment Awards are on sale now at the Palace Theatre. We would encourage you to attend.

Were sure everyone in the audience will be above average.

Politics Social issues Editorial

See the original post:

Welcome back, Garrison: Saluting the First Amendment - The Union Leader

For all people of good will regardless of party affiliation, race, creed, or color the events that took place thisweekend in Charlottesville were sickening and deeply disturbing.

Several clear themes emerged for me this weekend. And while they are pretty obvious, I thought I would share them with the broader ACLU community, in an effort to give voice to what many of us are feeling and to spark a further discussion that will allow us to move together with greater hope and resolve through what are likely to be troubling days ahead.

While the events of this weekend withwhite supremacists holding lit torches frightened and outraged many Americans, we can never underestimate the impact of these images on African-Americans. Thatrally reflected this nations history of slavery, racial violence, and terrorism, which has left an indelible mark on our democracy to this day. As employees, members, or supporters of an organization dedicated to racial justice, we are all affected. Many of us are even more directly affected because we and our family members are the direct targets of the white supremacists. I know that speech alone has consequences, hurtful and deep, and thats why I believe its important to place the ACLUs representation of white supremacist demonstrators in Virginia in the broader context of the values and principles that have guided this organization for nearly a century.

First, the ACLU unequivocally rejects the ideology of white supremacists and we work actively with all our might to oppose that ideology in diverse communities across the country and to defend the right of all Americans to speak out against those views. By budget allocation, the national ACLUs top issue areas are ending mass incarceration, protecting LGBT rights, and safeguarding immigrants rights, demonstrating our commitment to advancing equality and justice with communities that are often the targets of white supremacists' bigotry and hate.

The ACLU has represented or publicly supported Black Lives Matter activists in First Amendment matters at least five times in recent months. Our work against police agencies surveillance of activists has been frequently in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and American-Muslim organizations and individuals. Weve represented and taken public positions in support of anti-Trump protesters more than five times since the election and represented one of the Standing Rock protesters in a free speech case. The ACLU has also defended the free speech rights of African-American environmental activists in Alabama against a defamation lawsuit brought by the toxic waste-generating corporation they opposed. This is all in the past yearalone.

We are not newcomers to this work. Weve defended individuals targeted for their socialist, anarchist, and communist affiliations, for anti-war speech, and for civil rights activism throughout our history. We have repeatedly defended the free speech rights of day laborers against city ordinances grounded in anti-Latino racism that would have prohibited their expressing their availability for work. The ACLU was founded in 1920 when the attorney general of the United States carried out his Palmer raids to round up immigrants based on their subversive views. And we stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the emerging labor movement of the early 20thcentury. The First Amendment freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, and freedom of religionhas always been foundational for our organization.

Second,and more directly related to the events of this weekend, there are important reasons for our long history of defending freedom of speech including speech we abhor. We fundamentally believe that our democracy will be better and stronger for engaging and hearing divergent views. Racism and bigotry will not be eradicated if we merely force them underground. Equality and justice will only be achieved if society looks such bigotry squarely in the eyes and renounces it. Not all speech is morally equivalent, but the airing of hateful speech allows people of good will to confront the implications of such speech and reject bigotry, discrimination and hate. This contestation of values can only happen if the exchange of ideas is out in the open.

Thereis another practical reason that we have defended the free speech rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. Today, as much as ever, the forces of white supremacy and the forces for equality and justice are locked in fierce battles, not only in Washington but in state houses and city councils around the country. Some government decision-makers are deeply opposed to the speech we support. We simply never want government to be in a position to favor or disfavor particular viewpoints. And the fact is,government officialsfrom the local to the nationalare more apt to suppress the speech of individuals or groups who disagree with government positions. Many of the landmark First Amendment cases, such as NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware and New York Times v. Sullivan, have been fought by African-American civil rights activists. Preventing the government from controlling speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion of equality.

Third, the First Amendment cannot be used as sword or shield to justify or rationalize violence. Violenceeven when accompanied by speech does not garner the protection of the First Amendment. It is also true that the airing of ideasno matter how repugnant or loathsomedoes not necessarily lead to violence. The violence of this weekend was not caused by our defense of the First Amendment. The ACLU of Virginia went to court to insist that the First Amendment be appliedneutrally and equally to all protesters. Reasonable members of our community might differ on whether we ought to have brought that case. But I believe that having divergent views within an organization dedicated to freedom of speech is a sign of strength not weakness. I also believe the ACLU of Virginia made the right call here. Some have argued that we should not be putting resources toward anything that could benefit the voices of white supremacy. But we cannot stand by silently as the government repudiates the principles we have fought for and won in the courts when it violates clearly established First Amendment rights.

Invoking the threat of violence cannot serve as the governments carte blanche to shut down protests. If that were the case, governments would almost always be able to shut down protests, even when the protesters themselves are peaceful, because others could exercise a hecklers veto through violence or the threat of violence. We must not give government officials a free pass to cite public safety as a reason to stifle protest. They have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of all protestersand may make their case in court for reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. That is what we sought in our lawsuit in Virginia.

Thehard job for us now is to find concrete strategies for healing the divides that were laid bare this weekend. For the broader society, this would require that white supremacy, bigotry, and racism be confronted and rejected. Freedom of speech has to be valued and heralded as the cornerstone of our democratic society. Political leaders must shape the political discourse to underscore what binds us together as people, rather than exploit our differences. And government officials must neutrally apply the First Amendment and ensure the safety of all Americans when they take to the streets to exercise their constitutionally protected rights.

For our organization, we must remain focused and vigorous in our defense of civil liberties and civil rights in every community and in every context. Our 97-year history of defending the constitutional rights of all persons even those we disagree withis imbued with a belief that these rights are indeed indivisible, unalienable, and granted to each of us in our democracy. Our job is to turn those promises and aspirations into a reality for all people. And that work has never been more important than now.

See the original post here:

Equality, Justice and the First Amendment - ACLU (blog)