By a margin of over two to one, Republicans support using the courts to shut down news media outlets for biased or inaccurate stories, according to a recent poll from The Economist and YouGov.

When asked if cracking down on the press in this manner would violate the First Amendment, a narrow majority of Republicans agreed that it does, seeming to create a contradiction. However, a further question gave them a chance to clear the air and reaffirm the primacy of principle over political expediency: Which is more important to you? it asked, (A) Protecting freedom of the press, even if that means media outlets sometimes publish biased or inaccurate stories; (B) Punishing biased or inaccurate news media, even if that means limiting the freedom of the press; (C) Not sure.

Shockingly, a full 47 percent of Republicans support punishing biased or inaccurate news media, even if that means limiting the freedom of the press, versus just 34 percent who support protecting freedom of the press, even if that means media outlets sometimes publish biased or inaccurate stories. By contrast, 59 percent of Democrats said they prioritize protecting the freedom of the press, dwarfing the 19 percent who see it the other way.

On this issue, the Democrats are right. Freedom of the press is included in the Bill of Rights for two reasons: It matters, and there is perpetually an illiberal temptation to extinguish it. Republican politicians will always call CNN and the New York Times biased and inaccurate. Democratic politicians will always say the same about Fox News and Breitbart.

Both sides are right, and it doesnt matter: None of those organizations should be forcibly shuttered. Thats what happens in Turkey or Russia when a newspaper offends the ruling party. In America, if you think a media outlet is biased, your best recourse is to say so, convincing others with reason instead of blocking their access to information you dont like. This way, individuals decide which outlets deserve their trust. The only other option, the one that is apparently favored by a plurality of Republicans, is for the state to make those decisions for all of us.

This would be incredibly dangerous, even under the best of circumstances. Who, after all, can agree on what is or is not biased, or what amount of bias can be tolerated? Republicans correctly complain, for example, that ostensibly neutral fact-checkers like Politifact are themselves biased and sometimes inaccurate. The same is true of judges and politicians. In fact, I remember when every right-wing talk-radio host would decry the fairness doctrine, which also sought to suppress speech under the guise of eliminating bias.

In fact, giving the state the power to shut down media outlets for bias or inaccuracy is an admission of a lack of confidence in our ability to self-govern as a free people. A free people could deliberate and vote without relying on the fist of the state to crush all sources of information that might mislead them.

The proximate cause of the yearning for that fist among Republicans, it is only reasonable to assume, is President Trumps strident criticism of the media. Trump seems to be obsessed with the media, constantly denouncing it on Twitter and elsewhere for crimes both real and imagined. He even called it an enemy of the American people. To some conservatives, this is such a joy to behold that it has almost become an acceptable substitute for tangible accomplishments.

This is a grave mistake. Though it may satisfy a human yearning, punishing ones enemies should not be the purpose of our politics. Conservatives and Republicans have plenty of ideas to improve the country, and they have the power to implement them. From education to tax policy to abortion, we could make America more fair, more free, more prosperous, and more humane. But instead, Trump directs Republican power and attention at CNN and MSNBC.

Ignoring our principles and subordinating the First Amendment to the impulses of the moment, Republican voters, if the poll is in fact representative, seem to have let the desire to punish overwhelm them. This is both an effect and a cause of the Trumpified conservatism that some, including National Reviews own Jay Nordlinger, have warned us not to indulge.

Trump does not speak, you may have noticed, of freedom or tradition or principle. He has little time for imagined republics and principalities in which ought overshadows is. He prefers victory, even if it requires an untraditional and un-conservative approach. Forget principle: To win is now to be virtuous.

It is not hard to see the appeal of this ultimately ruinous mindset. Its viscerally satisfying to punish ones enemies, after all. But American conservatives would do well to remember Nietzsches dictum, and Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. Though the policies we have to enact are more constructive than our impulse to punish the media for its bias, we risk becoming too free from the burden of principle to care.

Elliot Kaufman is an editorial intern at National Review.

Here is the original post:

Republicans, Don't Sacrifice Free Speech to Punish the Media - National Review

U.S. Sen. James Lankford inserted himself on Monday into a squabble between a conservative legal advocacy group and ABC News.

In a letter to ABC News President James Goldston, Lankford lodges his displeasure with a July 12 on-line story that quotes the Southern Policy Law Center's description of the Alliance Defending Freedom as an "anti-LGBT hate group."

Lankford says the story "classified a religious liberty non-profit, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), as a hate group using a standard set by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). I found it odd that ABC would designate ADF as a hate group not based on any actual crime or action, but apparently based on their belief in religious liberty or traditional marriage."

Many people, especially conservatives, object to groups like the alliance being classified with with neo-Nazis and reconstituted versions of the Ku Klux Klan as hate groups. Lankford's staff said the majority of ADF's cases are not related to LGBT issues.

The ADF has been very open in its disdain for non-traditional sexual identification, and it's desire to overturn same-sex marriage. Lankford asserts that is the organization's First Amendment right as a matter of religious freedom and free speech.

Its attorneys have spoken about the "deification of deviant sexual practices" and "made-up sexual identity. For awhile, a web site affiliated with ADF said its goal was to "restore the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries."

Lankford says that doesn't qualify as hate speech and that ABC shouldn't have given credence to SPLC's designation of it as such.

"SPLCs definition of a 'hate group' is overly broad and not based in fact or legal accuracy," Lankford writes. "The Alliance Defending Freedom is a national and reputable law firm that works to advocate for the rights of people to peacefully and freely speak, live and work according to their faith and conscience without threat of government punishment."

At issue in the ABC story was a closed-door speech to the group by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the Justice Department's refusal to release information about it.

See more here:

Randy Krehbiel: Lankford says anti-LGBT organization is exercising First Amendment rights - Tulsa World (blog)

The limits of constitutionally protected speech and freedom of assembly are being put to the test in Charlottesville.

In less than two weeks, members of the National Socialist Movement, the pro-secessionist League of the South and hundreds of their allies in the Nationalist Front and alt-right movement will gather in Emancipation Park for the Unite the Right rally.

Arranged by self-described pro-white activist Jason Kessler, the rally is expected to also draw hundreds of confrontational counter-protesters who will be able to gather at McGuffey and Justice parks, per event permits recently secured by University of Virginia professor Walt Heinecke.

While the stage for Aug. 12 is nearly set, with massive demonstrations and protesters expected, questions regarding the enforcement of law and order remain.

City officials said they have been working with Kessler to relocate the rally elsewhere because of the number of people the event is expected to draw to the downtown area. Kessler, however, does not want to change venues, according to authorities.

The director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression says the city is allowed to move the event in order to maintain public safety and prevent disruption to traffic and business downtown.

They should be able to relocate it to a more suitable location, said the centers director, Clay Hansen. As long as its for legitimate reasons and they dont try to minimize or hide the rally in some far-off corner of the city.

S. Carolina group moves event to Darden Towe Park

An attorney supporting Kessler, however, says the city is prohibited from doing so.

It would be ridiculously unconstitutional for the city to try to move the event elsewhere on that basis, said Kyle Bristow, an attorney and director of the Michigan-based Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas, a self-described nonpartisan civil liberties nonprofit.

The groups board of directors includes Mike Enoch, a white nationalist commentator and podcaster. Enoch will be one of the featured speakers at the Unite the Right rally.

In an email last week, Bristow said his recently founded legal network is quickly becoming the legal muscle behind the alt-right movement. The alt-right is considered a far-right movement that combines elements of racism, white nationalism and populism while rejecting mainstream conservatism, political correctness and multiculturalism.

Two local conservative activists are distancing themselves from Jason Kessler, who invited anti-Semitic and white nationalist speakers to headline his rally.

Earlier this year, according to Bristow, his organization helped coordinate the legal case that led to an Alabama court requiring Auburn University to let white nationalist Richard Spencer speak on campus. Auburn settled the case earlier this year with a $29,000 payout to cover the legal fees of the student who filed the suit, according to the universitys student-run newspaper, The Auburn Plainsman.

In recent weeks, business owners, activists and others have commented on the possibility of violence at the rally, sometimes comparing it to the melees between self-styled anti-fascist protesters and alt-right ideologues at protests in Berkeley, California, earlier this year.

In a letter to city officials last week, Bristow said law enforcement officials could potentially deprive the right-wing activists of their constitutional rights if authorities do not prevent leftist thugs from attacking people at the rally.

If the Charlottesville Police Department stands down on Aug. 12, it would not be farfetched to postulate that the alt-right rally participants will stand up for their rights by effectuating citizens arrests or by engaging in acts of self-defense, Bristow said.

It would be imprudent, reckless, unconstitutional and actionable for the Charlottesville Police Department to not maintain order, he said, adding that anyone who interrupts the rally also could be sued.

Bristow alleged in his letter that Kessler recently was told that law enforcement officials would not have to intervene should left-wing protesters attack the rally attendees. A police spokesman refuted that claim Friday, saying that the department officials met with Kessler and a representative of his security staff earlier this month and discussed several security concerns.

At no time was Mr. Kessler informed officers would not take action against those that attempted or committed violence towards another, said Lt. Steve Upman.

Kessler did not reply to calls and messages last week.

Some suspect that the possible violence could be the result of intentional right-wing agitation, as local activists with Solidarity Cville have recently exposed posts on social media and far-right blogs in which supporters of Unite the Right rally seemed to revel in the possibility of violence and call on others to prepare for a fight.

Republicans and Democrats alike have cast the hardcore conservatives and populists associated with the alt-right movement as racist for its provocative leaders explicit anti-Semitism and unabashed calls for a white-ethno state.

While their beliefs and activism have turned off many, the rallys primary goal of protesting the citys effort to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee has caused some Southern heritage supporters and political moderates to become sympathetic to Kesslers cause.

But the slow revelation that the events extreme far-right elements will be met by liberals, leftists and anti-racists has scared others away.

Business owners say they are concerned for the safety of their businesses and patrons if the rally gets out of hand.

According to Albemarle County spokeswoman Lee Catlin, the organizers of the Patriot Movements planned 1Team1Fight event in Darden Towe Park, which was being relocated from Greenville, South Carolina, have called it off.

Catlin said the organizers reportedly canceled their event because of unknown variables with the opposition.

Earlier in the week, an organizer for the event, who goes by the name Chevy Love on Facebook, said the event was not affiliated with the Unite the Right rally, saying that she did not want to associate with any of the hate groups expected to attend, listing both left- and right-wing activist groups.

Earlier in the week, before the organizers canceled the event in Darden Towe Park, the National Socialist Movement announced that members will be in attendance at the Unite the Right rally to defend Free Speech and our Heritage at the Lee Monument.

In an interview, Butch Urban, the movements chief of staff, said the organization had been planning to attend the event after it was arranged by Kessler earlier this summer.

The event also will draw leaders and followers of other groups in the Nationalist Front, an alliance of groups such as the Traditionalist Worker Party and The League of the South all of which are united in working toward the creation of an ethno-state for white people.

Although National Socialism is typically cited as the definition of Nazi ideology, Urban said his organization is not a neo-Nazi group.

Thats what everybody takes it to be. Thats not what it is, Urban said. National Socialism is about your country and your people come first. You dont support wars around the world and giving billions of dollars to other countries.

As for the calls for a white-ethno state, Urban said multiculturalism has only been pushed down everyones throat in the last 30 to 40 years. Thats not what everyone wants, he said.

Take a look at Chicago, theres a prime example of multiculturalism, he added, citing the citys reputation of having high murder and unemployment rates.

In the decades following World War II, U.S. courts have grappled with the First Amendment questions involving Nazi demonstrations and displays. Many of those cases have determined that Nazi and white supremacist rhetoric is constitutionally protected speech.

And while many object to those ideals, authorities cannot justify restricting speech despite the threat of violence and public disorder a principle known as the Hecklers veto. Both Bristow and local attorney Lloyd Snook recently mentioned the doctrine in recent comments about the upcoming rally.

In First Amendment theory, it is fundamental that a government cannot regulate speech based on its content, including on the fact that some people may be hostile to it, Snook wrote on his law firms website.

Published earlier this month, about two weeks after a North Carolina chapter of the Ku Klux Klan held a rally in Justice Park to protest the planned removal of the Lee statue, Snook wrote that there has been a disturbing complaint about law enforcement being hand in hand with the Klan and white nationalists.

In fact, the city police department is required to preserve order to allow the demonstration to go forward, Snook said. This is not a matter of choice, but of constitutional law.

In his commentary, Snook cited the 1992 Supreme Court decision that invalidated an ordinance in Forsyth County, Georgia, that required fees for any parade, assembly or demonstration on public property.

According to Snook, the Forsyth County government passed the ordinance after a violent civil rights demonstration in 1987 cost over $670,000 in police protection.

Two years later, when the Nationalist Movement had to pay fees to hold a protest against the federal Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, the group sued the county.

The case eventually came before the Supreme Court, which in a 5-4 opinion decided that the countys ordinance violated the First Amendment. Snook said the court struck down that ordinance because it had the possibility of being applied such that it would cost more to express unpopular viewpoints.

In recent weeks, some opposed to the Unite the Right rally have called on the city to make sure that Kessler pays the associated fees and obtains a liability insurance policy of no less than $1 million that the city requires for special events.

In an email last week, city spokeswoman Miriam Dickler clarified that the city makes distinctions between demonstrations and special events, and that the two are not interchangeable under the citys regulations.

The differences are attributable to United States Supreme Court decisions involving the First Amendment, Dickler said.

According to the citys Standard Operating Procedure for special events, a demonstration is defined as a non-commercial expression protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (such as picketing, political marches, speechmaking, vigils, walks, etc.) conducted on public property, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers.

Regardless, she said that Kessler has provided a certificate of insurance voluntarily, and that the citys Special Events Coordinator has been communicating with Kessler since he filed the application.

Looking at another Supreme Court case, Hansen, of the local Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, said the courts 1977 decision in the National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie case feels closest to what were dealing with here in the city.

The case centered on a planned National Socialist demonstration in the village of Skokie, Illinois, which at the time had a large population of Jewish residents who survived detention in Nazi concentration camps or were related to a Holocaust survivor.

Fearing violence would be directed at the demonstrators who were planning to dress in Nazi-era uniforms with swastika armbands, a local court prohibited the event, an action that the U.S. Supreme Court later found to be unconstitutional in a 5-4 opinion.

In particular, the litigation in that didnt have to do with the march and the gathering itself it was more about symbols, Hansen said, explaining that the Supreme Court had to decide whether Nazi imagery could constitute fighting words, a legal distinction that prohibits some forms of speech that are likely to incite violence.

The court ultimately found that those symbols do not pass that threshold, which has in recent years largely fallen out of favor as doctrinal tool, Hansen said. Instead, the doctrine in recent years has morphed into a new rationale thats based on allowing authorities to stop speech that could lead to imminent lawless action, he said. Its useful if something goes wrong.

While the city could theoretically stop the Unite the Right rally as its happening, according to Hansen, its not a decision to take lightly, he said, adding that its unlikely that authorities will do so.

Its a high hurdle to legally justify stopping a demonstration, Hansen said.

The city has an obligation to handle any crowds that are on site as a result of a lawful and protected speech activity, he said. In a public park, and given the proper permit police are obliged to make sure that the event goes unimpeded.

Concerned that people protesting the Unite the Right could be arrested for participating in an unlawful assembly, Heinecke earlier this month applied to hold demonstrations at McGuffey Park and Justice Park.

At the Klan rally earlier this month, 22 people were arrested on various charges. About half of the arrests occurred after the rally had ended and authorities declared that the hundred or so people still on the street were illegally gathered. Authorities eventually used tear gas to force the crowd to disperse.

The best way to avoid that is to have some free-assembly zones at the parks, Heinecke said. He said the permits will allow the protesters to gather from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Aug. 12. The Unite the Right rally is scheduled for noon to 5 p.m.

Heinecke said there will be programming at the two parks. He declined to say which activist groups and organizations hes collaborating with to contend with Kesslers rally.

Alluding to the countrys legacy as it relates to racism against African-Americans, he said Charlottesville in particular has unfinished business when it comes to racial justice.

I think the city will be the epicenter of a conversation about racial justice in a new era were going toward with changing racial demographics, he said.

Asked about the alt-right activists concern that the nations changing demographics are tantamount to a displacement of white people, Heinecke said it saddens him that they are so fearful.

I think theyre operating out of fear rather than seeing an opportunity to create a diverse and equal society, he said.

Thats a sad thing when theres an opportunity to think about what the United States of America really means.

More here:

Unite the Right rally sparks First Amendment questions | Local ... - The Daily Progress

Columnist Edward Fitzpatrick looks at two new state laws.

On June 30, an epic impasse between Rhode Island House and Senate leaders left the states $9.2-billion budget in limbo along with scores of other pieces of legislation. But amid the State Houses marble maze of power politics and clashing priorities, two bills managed to emerge at the last minute that will bolster press freedom and create a more open government.

Before the legislative session came to an abrupt halt, the House and the Senate had unanimously approved one of those bills the Student Journalists Freedom of Expression Act, which protects student journalists and their advisers from censorship and retaliation.

To become law, the House and Senate versions of that bill needed to cross over for votes in the other chamber. But just as those votes were about to take place on June 30, the Senate moved to amend the budget and House Speaker Nicholas A. Mattiello, D-Cranston, sent the House home in protest.

We thought that was it, said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, based in Washington, D.C. I was staying up, watching and refreshing the [General Assembly] website until 10:30 p.m. before I gave up hope.

But just before midnight, Steven Brown, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, contacted LoMonte, saying the Senate had passed the House version of the student press freedom bill. That was a little more thrilling of a roller coaster ride than I would have liked, LoMonte said. But I am happy where it landed.

The Senate bill, introduced by Sen. Gayle L. Goldin, D-Providence, landed in limbo. But the House bill, introduced by Rep. Jeremiah T. OGrady, D-Lincoln, landed on Gov. Gina Raimondos desk, and she signed it into law on July 18.

So why does the new law matter? Let two student journalists explain.

Peder S. Schaefer, editor of the Providence Country Day student newspaper, The Roundtable, noted that earlier this year student journalists in Kansas dug into the background of their newly hired principal, revealing questionable credentials and leading to her abrupt resignation.

This bill would enable stories like that to happen, Schaefer said. Especially in high school, schools have the power to shut things like that down very quickly. This bill puts protections in place that allow students to go after stories like that or to write about school policies, such as school start times.

Mary Lind, co-editor of the Lincoln High School student newspaper, The Lions Roar, said she called state legislators and the governors office, urging them to adopt the law to prevent the horror stories of censorship in other parts of the country.

It will show students in Rhode Island that although theyre under 18, their voices still matter and that they are still reliable sources, she said. They are not fake news.

Back in March 2016, I wrote about how a student at The Met High School, Yanine Castedo, launched the local push for a student press freedom bill, working with the Providence Student Union. Zack Mezera, executive director of the Providence Student Union, said student journalists now wont have to worry about censorship if, for example, they write about the condition of school buildings.

More broadly, he said, It protects journalism in an age when journalism is under attack, and it sends a message about protecting youth as people with valid, legitimate experiences.

Rhode Island became the 13th state to pass a student press freedom law, joining Nevada and Vermont in enacting such a law this year. And LoMonte noted the House and Senate floor votes were unanimous, saying, Its always gratifying that support crosses party lines and ideological lines. Freedom of the press should not be a partisan or political issue.

LoMonte also pointed out that the new Rhode Island law protects high school and college journalists in both public and private schools.

You could argue that its the most comprehensive law of its kind in the country, he said. Its certainly one we will show to other states as a model.

Such laws are necessary, LoMonte explained, because the U.S. Supreme Courts 1988 ruling in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier upheld the right of a public high school to censor student newspaper stories about teen pregnancy and the effects of divorce on children. Since then, states have been passing anti-Hazelwood laws.

And now LoMonte hopes Rhode Island schools will adopt rules reflecting the new law so that disputes over student journalism can be handled internally rather than in state court.

The student press freedom law wasnt the only bill to narrowly escape Smith Hill purgatory on June 30. Senate Majority Leader Michael J. McCaffrey and Rep. Evan P. Shanley, both D-Warwick, had introduced legislation to make two significant changes to the state Open Meetings Law. While McCaffreys bill ended up in limbo, the Senate passed the House version, and Raimondo signed that bill into law on July 18.

The new law requires all public bodies to keep minutes of open meetings (not just on the state level but also the city and town level), and it excludes weekends and holidays from the calculation of the 48-hour public notice requirement.

These reforms to the Open Meetings Act were significant and will affect every citizen of Rhode Island positively, said John M. Marion, executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island. Right now, municipalities dont have to put minutes online, but theyre going to have to. Thats great because there are a lot more municipal bodies than state bodies, and they affect citizens on a daily basis setting property taxes, hiring school superintendents, managing municipal pensions.

The ACLU had reviewed public-meeting notices a couple of years ago. And we were quite shocked to see how often public bodies posted notices of a Monday meeting late on a Friday afternoon, Brown said. These werent just small agencies no one has heard of; these were city councils and school committees.

Its not only that people dont learn about the meetings in advance, but they have very little time to prepare if they want to speak out on an issue.

Marion said the idea for the new law originated with some conservative constituents in McCaffreys district. Open government is an issue that unites the left and the right, he said.

Indeed, thats a key lesson for students of journalism and politics: A free press and open government serve both sides of the partisan divide, helping to inform citizens and hold whoever is in power accountable.

Edward Fitzpatrick is director of media and public relations for Roger Williams University, a New England First Amendment Coalition and Common Cause Rhode Island board member, and a former Providence Journal columnist. His First Amendment column appears monthly in The Journal. This piece first appeared on the universitys First Amendment blog at firstamendment.rwu.edu.

See the original post:

The First Amendment: Free press, open meetings laws survive RI State House standoff - The Providence Journal

CHARLOTTESVILLE The limits of constitutionally protected speech and freedom of assembly are being put to the test in Charlottesville.

In less than two weeks, members of the National Socialist Movement, the pro-secessionist League of the South and hundreds of their allies in the Nationalist Front and alt-right movement will gather in Emancipation Park for the Unite the Right rally.

Arranged by self-described pro-white activist Jason Kessler, the rally is expected to also draw hundreds of confrontational counter-protesters who will be able to gather at McGuffey and Justice parks, per event permits recently secured by University of Virginia professor Walt Heinecke.

While the stage for Aug. 12 is nearly set, with massive demonstrations and protesters expected, questions regarding the enforcement of law and order remain.

City officials said they have been working with Kessler to relocate the rally elsewhere, because of the number of people the event is expected to draw to the downtown area. Kessler, however, does not want to change venues, according to authorities.

The director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression says the city is allowed to move the event in order to maintain public safety and prevent disruption to traffic and business downtown.

They should be able to relocate it to a more suitable location, said the centers director, Clay Hansen. As long as its for legitimate reasons and they dont try to minimize or hide the rally in some far-off corner.

An attorney supporting Kessler says the city is prohibited from doing so.

It would be ridiculously unconstitutional for the city to try to move the event elsewhere on that basis, said Kyle Bristow, an attorney and director of the Michigan-based Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas, a self-described nonpartisan civil liberties nonprofit.

The groups board of directors includes Mike Enoch, a white nationalist commentator and podcaster. Enoch will be one of the featured speakers at the Unite the Right rally.

In an email last week, Bristow said his recently founded legal network is quickly becoming the legal muscle behind the alt-right movement.

The alt-right is a far-right movement that combines elements of racism, white nationalism and populism while rejecting mainstream conservatism and multiculturalism.

Earlier this year, according to Bristow, his organization helped coordinate the legal case that led to an Alabama court requiring the University of Auburn to let white nationalist Richard Spencer speak on campus. Auburn settled the case earlier this year with a $29,000 payout to cover the legal fees of the student who filed the suit, according to the universitys student-run newspaper, The Auburn Plainsman.

In recent weeks, business owners, activists and others have commented on the possibility of violence at the rally, sometimes comparing it to the melees between self-styled anti-fascist protesters and alt-right ideologues at protests in Berkley, California, earlier this year.

In a letter to city officials last week, Bristow said law enforcement officials could potentially deprive the right-wing activists of their constitutional rights if authorities do not prevent leftist thugs from attacking the rally.

If the Charlottesville Police Department stands down on Aug. 12, it would not be farfetched to postulate that the alt-right rally participants will stand up for their rights by effectuating citizens arrests or by engaging in acts of self-defense, Bristow said. It would be imprudent, reckless, unconstitutional and actionable for the Charlottesville Police Department to not maintain order.

Bristow alleged in his letter that Kessler recently was told that law enforcement officials would not have to intervene should left-wing protesters attack the rally attendees. A police spokesman refuted that claim Friday, saying that the department officials met with Kessler and a representative of his security staff earlier this month and discussed several security concerns.

At no time was Mr. Kessler informed officers would not take action against those that attempted or committed violence towards another, said Lt. Steve Upman.

Kessler did not reply to calls and messages last week.

Some suspect that the possible violence could be the result of intentional right-wing agitation, as local activists with Solidarity Cville have recently exposed posts on social media and far-right blogs in which supporters of Unite the Right rally seemed to revel in the possibility of violence and call on others to prepare for a fight.

Denounced by both parties

Republicans and Democrats alike have cast the hardcore conservatives and populists associated with the alt-right movement as racist for its provocative leaders explicit anti-Semitism and unabashed calls for a white-ethno state.

While their beliefs and activism have turned off many, the rallys primary goal of protesting the citys effort to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee has caused some Southern heritage supporters and political moderates to become sympathetic to Kesslers cause.

But the slow revelation that the events extreme far-right elements will be met by liberals, leftists and anti-racists has scared others away.

According to Albemarle County spokeswoman Lee Catlin, the organizers of the Patriot Movements planned 1Team1Fight event in Darden Towe Park, which was being relocated from Greenville, South Carolina, have called it off.

Catlin said the organizers reportedly canceled their event because of unknown variables with the opposition.

Earlier in the week, an organizer for the event, who goes by the name Chevy Love on Facebook, said the event was not affiliated with the Unite the Right rally, saying that she did not want to associate with any of the hate groups expected to attend, listing both left- and right-wing activist groups.

Earlier in the week, before the organizers canceled the event in Darden Towe Park, the National Socialist Movement announced that members will be in attendance at the Unite the Right rally to defend Free Speech and our Heritage at the Lee Monument.

In an interview, Butch Urban, the movements chief of staff, said the organization had been planning to attend the event after it was arranged by Kessler earlier this summer.

The event also will draw leaders and followers of other groups in the Nationalist Front, an alliance of groups such as the Traditionalist Worker Party and The League of the South all of which are united in working toward the creation of an ethno-state for white people.

Although National Socialism is typically cited as the definition of Nazi ideology, Urban said his organization is not a neo-Nazi group.

Thats what everybody takes it to be. Thats not what it is, Urban said. National Socialism is about your country and your people come first. You dont support wars around the world and giving billions of dollars to other countries.

As for the calls for a white-ethno state, Urban said multiculturalism has only been pushed down everyones throat in the last 30 to 40 years. Thats not what everyone wants, he said.

Take a look at Chicago, theres a prime example of multiculturalism, he added, citing the citys reputation of having high murder and unemployment rates.

First Amendment

U.S. courts have grappled with the First Amendment questions involving Nazi demonstrations and displays. Many of those cases have determined that Nazi and white supremacist rhetoric is constitutionally protected.

And while many object to those ideals, authorities cannot justify restricting speech despite the threat of violence and public disorder a principle known as the Hecklers veto. Both Bristow and local attorney Lloyd Snook recently mentioned the doctrine in comments about the upcoming rally.

In First Amendment theory, it is fundamental that a government cannot regulate speech based on its content, including on the fact that some people may be hostile to it, Snook wrote on his law firms website.

About two weeks after a North Carolina chapter of the Ku Klux Klan held a rally in Justice Park to protest the planned removal of the Lee statue, Snook wrote that there has been a disturbing complaint about law enforcement being hand in hand with the Klan and white nationalists.

In fact, the city police department is required to preserve order to allow the demonstration to go forward, Snook said. This is not a matter of choice, but of constitutional law.

Snook cited the 1992 Supreme Court decision that invalidated an ordinance in Forsyth County, Georgia, that required fees for any parade, assembly or demonstration on public property. According to Snook, Forsyth County passed the ordinance after a violent civil rights demonstration in 1987 cost the county over $670,000.

Two years later, when the Nationalist Movement had to pay fees to hold a protest against the federal Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, the group sued the county.

In a 5-4 opinion, the Supreme Court decided that the countys ordinance violated the First Amendment.

In recent weeks, some opposed to the Unite the Right rally have called on the city to ensure Kessler pays the fees and obtains liability insurance of no less than $1 million that the city requires for special events.

In an email last week, city spokeswoman Miriam Dickler clarified that the city makes distinctions between demonstrations and special events, and that the two are not interchangeable under the citys regulations.

The differences are attributable to United States Supreme Court decisions involving the First Amendment, Dickler said.

According to the citys Standard Operating Procedure for special events, a demonstration is defined as a non-commercial expression protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (such as picketing, political marches, speechmaking, vigils, walks, etc.) conducted on public property, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers.

Regardless, she said, Kessler has voluntarily provided a certificate of insurance.

1977 Skokie decision

Looking at another Supreme Court case, Hansen, of the local Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, said the courts 1977 decision in the National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie case feels closest to what were dealing with here in the city.

The case centered on a planned National Socialist demonstration in Skokie, Illinois, which at the time had a large population of Jewish residents who survived detention in Nazi concentration camps or were related to Holocaust survivors.

Fearing violence would be directed at the demonstrators who were planning to dress in Nazi-era uniforms with swastika armbands, a local court prohibited the event, an action that the U.S. Supreme Court later found to be unconstitutional in a 5-4 opinion.

In particular, the litigation in that didnt have to do with the march and the gathering itself it was more about symbols, Hansen said. The Supreme Court had to decide whether Nazi imagery could constitute fighting words, a legal distinction that prohibits some forms of speech that are likely to incite violence.

The court found that those symbols do not pass that threshold, which has in recent years largely fallen out of favor as doctrinal tool, Hansen said. Instead, the doctrine in recent years has morphed into a new rationale thats based on allowing authorities to stop speech that could lead to imminent lawless action, he said. Its useful if something goes wrong.

While the city could theoretically stop the Unite the Right rally as its happening, according to Hansen, its not a decision to take lightly.

Its a high hurdle to legally justify stopping a demonstration, Hansen said.

The city has an obligation to handle any crowds that are on site as a result of a lawful and protected speech activity, he said. In a public park, and given the proper permit police are obliged to make sure that the event goes unimpeded.

Free-assembly zones

Concerned that people protesting the Unite the Right could be arrested for participating in an unlawful assembly, Heinecke earlier this month applied to hold demonstrations at McGuffey Park and Justice Park.

At the Klan rally earlier this month, 22 people were arrested on various charges. About half of the arrests occurred after the rally had ended and authorities declared that the hundred or so people still on the street were illegally gathered. Authorities used tear gas to disperse the crowd.

The best way to avoid that is to have some free-assembly zones at the parks, Heinecke said. He said the permits will allow the protesters to gather from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Aug. 12. The Unite the Right rally is scheduled for noon to 5 p.m.

Heinecke said there will be programming at the two parks. He declined to say which activist groups and organizations hes collaborating with to contend with Kesslers rally.

He said Charlottesville in particular has unfinished business in regard to racial justice.

I think the city will be the epicenter of a conversation about racial justice in a new era were going toward with changing racial demographics, he said.

Asked about the alt-right activists concern that the nations changing demographics are tantamount to a displacement of white people, Heinecke said it saddens him that they are so fearful.

I think theyre operating out of fear rather than seeing an opportunity to create a diverse and equal society, he said. Thats a sad thing when theres an opportunity to think about what the United States of America really means.

Go here to see the original:

Unite the Right rally sparks First Amendment questions | Virginia ... - Roanoke Times

}v8shuO$}%NgyQ"$H -+=Yky9o-)KNUeIP* Ba=6&eJ)37my`J}m|p!*][|~Pb] GL~muFf9V`&Z kWK _Ryq?ozusj^_Z[Zn.,%SEr.0`){[Ax";{5~4j1MC p0 ldCbynE@3p@B:a>lK:A[v_Twl}ft;M0p-o)"(;fLa}IV`w6-_9;5CG7d#+z#__HygFNP1!S`d8rU$&{ j+* B9.Rp$Jl:B@;(K5TuQU]_FX)lh!/ PCl%k (`yY0"ZLA()i$z@l.3*Ck0@CBW`z>HpAX]-KR,p &c ASC1|:I,[UTApCQ&3KBfm8hBgcoCrtuz;ZH R,RdUk(x,D &O86]62~7qSng N/BD^]6Cf(o'60j"BzVXL3H5@QM=Am?n~Cdi(@8^zX,U v`J4?k 466`8fYf^ bB7iL+8=y]l;5|[s3(J#{44EPdlzt5TSfiw]V=)6X ~9p;gMl6hP(G@5]&93#>'L<0j{^svfYkwg 3%/aq ]>ZBf v)+P5$=PSB-xXy4Wo5Qhhb-GCEV_sXnQ,4 /g@J9 ?[XP-ai(Y[O#Q1$9E3`X'?>_y(Li7 t(w' qV#EjV=" ptl,+}_ IvJ0]Thv}qV[G&./-7qQ#@d_KUCRnW3B9`7}N!]7UxwB~"> `6>Z!HitQ*,!lzasj|)d:?zLX;N!6v`_F0,97oT lOr>WO+ [k+R{VjTa*H|-4g9`f"oL4F$6I&`/,WWVu0r 9[Jx`Wh&-}~~~KGrYzu&/U=WNUrm

Read the original here:

Could the First Amendment Prevent Trump From Blocking You on Twitter? - The Mary Sue

News & Observer

Does the campus free speech bill protect First Amendment rights or restrict them? News & Observer Call for the UNC-system Board of Governors to develop a policy preventing schools from shield[ing] individuals from speech protected by the First Amendment, including, without limitation, ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even ...

More:

Does the campus free speech bill protect First Amendment rights or restrict them? - News & Observer

We've been covering a recent First Amendment lawsuit targeting President Donald Trumpa novel legal argumentin which Twitter users claim their constitutional rights were violated because the commander-in-chief blocked them from his personal @realDonaldTrump Twitter handle.

To be sure, it's a digital-age-basedconstitutional theory about social media rights in a day and age when politicians, from the president on down, are using their private accounts to discuss public affairs.

Now there's some legal precedent on the matter. It comes from a federal judge in Virginia who said that a local politician had violated the First Amendment rights of a constituent because the politician briefly banned the constituent from the politician'spersonal Facebook account.

"The suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is the quintessential form of viewpoint discrimination against which the First Amendment guards," US District Judge James Cacheris wrote Tuesday in a suit brought by a constituent against Phyllis Randall, the chairwoman of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors in Virginia.

The judge didn't issue any punishment against Randall, as the Facebook ban for constituent Brian Davison only lasted about 12 hours. That said, the judge noted Randall committed "a cardinal sin under the First Amendment" by barring the constituent who posted about county corruption. What's more, the judge pointed out from the first sentence of the ruling that "this case raises important questions about the constitutional limitations applicable to social media accounts maintained by elected officials."

Randall's Facebook page, the judge ruled, "operates as a forum for speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution."

This suit, at its most basic level, is nearly identical to the one lodged against Trump two weeks ago. Like the Virginia suit, the lawsuit against Trump names the chief executive's private account, which Trump uses on an almost daily basis as his political mouthpiece to the world.

"The @realDonaldTrump [Twitter] account is a kind of digital town hall in which the president and his aides use the tweet function to communicate news and information to the public, and members of the public use the reply function to respond to the president and his aides and exchange views with one another," according to the lawsuit (PDF) filed in New York federal court.

The Trump suit was brought by a handful of Twitter users Trump blocked after they posted critical comments. The lawsuit, to which Trump has yet to respond in court, seeks a ruling that the president's actions were unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, Judge Cacheris noted that Randall still had the right to moderate Facebook comments and that it's not always unconstitutional to block commenters.

"Finally, government officials have at least a reasonably strong interest in moderating discussion on their Facebook pages in an expeditious manner. By permitting a commenter to repeatedly post inappropriate content pending a review process, a government official could easily fail to preserve their online forum for its intended purpose," the judge wrote.

What's more, the judge said that allowing online speakers to hijack or filibuster online conversations would "impinge on the First Amendment rights" of other forum participants.

"Given the prevalence of online 'trolls,' this is no mere hypothetical risk," the judge said.

Judge Cacherishad recently tossed a similar lawsuit from Davison, a software consultant. In that suit, Davisonclaimed his First Amendment rights were breached because a prosecutor had removed hiscomments from the prosecutor's official Facebook page. The judge noted that the deletion of the comments was acceptable because they were "clearly off-topic" comments.

Go here to see the original:

Politicians' social media pages can be 1st Amendment forums, judge says - Ars Technica

A Hanover County supervisors lawyer accused Style Weekly of publishing fake news while an attorney for the Richmond newspaper called on jurors to defend the First Amendment at the start of a defamation trial that began Friday.

County Supervisor Sean Davis sued the publication after Style Weekly published articles in 2015 by Peter Galuszka suggesting Davis improperly used his position on the Board of Supervisors to influence Hanover schools.

Davis complaint arose from a Dec. 8 article titled Are Politics Threatening an Open Educational Environment in Hanover?

The article suggests Davis interfered with classroom instruction at Hanover High School and had teachers suspended or disciplined if they present ideas or images that Davis considers too liberal.

The article cited a letter submitted to Attorney General Mark Herring from a parent that asked state police to investigate Davis for intimidation of teachers and staff.

The letter, according to the article, pointed to an instance involving a popular English teacher whom Davis took issue with because of what he said in class and because of a wall of photographs, and drawings kept in a student newspaper activities office.

The article, citing the letter, goes on to state that the English teacher was given a three-day suspension that was dropped after the teacher hired a lawyer.

Davis lawsuit also cites another passage from the article in which a Hanover High School parent expressed worry that school officials wont confront Davis.

Davis attorney Steven Biss, told jurors the articles in question contain false accusations of Davis based on unreliable sources and were a reckless disregard for the truth. Biss characterized the articles as a false narrative, fake news.

There are so many false statements, Biss told jurors.Mr. Davis does not become involved in School Board matters.

Attorney Conrad Shumadine, representing Galuszka and Style Weekly publisher Lori Collier Waran, told jurors the articles served the public interest and emphasized the importance of free speech.

The people of Hanover County needed to know, Shumadine said,.

Shumadine said Galuszka thought the issues of alleged censorship in Hanover were serious and that his sources were credible and appropriately vetted. Galuszka tried to speak to school officials but the school division would not comment.

Shumadine said Galuszkas questions for Davis were a chance to have his perspective represented, but that Davis did not answer specific questions. Later, after the first article was published, a lawyer for Davis called Style Weekly.

The newspaper offered to have the story corrected if anything was false, have a letter to the editor published or have Davis do an interview with Galuszka, Shumadine said.

Their response was to file a lawsuit, Shumadine said.

Public officials typically must prove a publication printed false material and in doing so acted with actual malice, which would mean knowingly publishing false information or acting with reckless disregard for the facts.

Biss said the questions Galuszka emailed Davis were loaded. Biss said Galuszka based his reporting off unreliable sources and Style Weekly published the articles because it felt they were salacious and would sell well.

The motive was money, Biss said.

Shumadine said the issue of censorship in Hanover started a year prior to the articles publication when Davis allegedly tried to ban the documentary Thomas L. Friedman Reporting: Searching for the Roots of 9/11 from Hanover schools. The documentary delves into Muslim perspectives of the Sept. 11 attacks and the rise of terrorist groups.

Biss said accusations that Davis had teachers suspended and materials banned in Hanover schools were false. When Davis heard from hundreds of people concerned about the showing in 2014 of the documentary to Hanover High School students, the supervisor brought up those concerns to Hanovers joint education committee, Biss said.

Davis expressed concerns about the documentary at a Board of Supervisors meeting in 2014, calling a showing of the video disrespectful and un-American.

He had concerns about the 9/11 video because hes a Marine, Biss said of Davis.

Shumadine told jurors that Davis did intervene to have Hanover teachers disciplined, and that a student organization eventually formed to protest against what it felt like was unfair handling of teachers and curriculum.

Shumadine cited a letter from Davis sent to County Attorney Sterling Rives communicating that Davis expected the concerns of Hanover residents about an education matter be investigated.

Rives was the first and only witness to be called to the stand by Biss on Friday. Biss line of questioning focused on how Davis handling of complaints about education matters was appropriate and followed standard procedures.

Attorney Brett Spain, on cross-examination, asked Rives about whether Davis calling for the investigation into the concerns of Hanover residents about a teacher was extraordinary. Rives couldnt think of any other supervisor who had made such a request.

Before the opening arguments, a jury was narrowed down from more than 70 people. The judge in the trial, which is scheduled to last six days, is Michael Levy from Stafford County.

The Style Weekly lawsuit isnt the only one Davis is involved with. In January, Davis sued his former employer, the Virginia Automobile Dealers Association, along with the lobbying groups president and CEO Donald Hall over allegations of fraud and defamation. A jury trial for the complaint is scheduled for April in Richmond Circuit Court.

Original post:

Fake news or First Amendment? Defamation trial begins in case of Hanover Supervisor Sean Davis against Style Weekly - Richmond.com

Dear Editor:

Re LETTER: Ill take separation of church and state, by Eileen D. Minogue, July 20, 2017: I recently read an article by Roman Catholic Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, which I found most enlightening, including the following paragraphs:

The First Amendment, which places freedom of religion as number one, protects the churches from intrusion by the government, not the government from religion.

[Alexis de] Tocqueville asked himself how a country so vast, so diverse, so open to everybody, so bold, under a constitution so daring and unprecedented could ever survive. His answer? Because the American people are religious!

Id like to hope our country has not strayed so far that its people no longer profess what early Americans professed in their Pledge of Allegiance one nation, under God.

Advertisement

Those who object have the freedom to eliminate what they feel objectionable, but not impose their views on the majority.

Joan Saehloff

Port Ewen, N.Y.

Editors note: The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted by Congress in 1942. The words under God were added to the pledge in 1954.

Read more here:

LETTER: First Amendment is a one-way protection for religion - The Daily Freeman

Dear Editor: There have been issues on campuses across the U.S. on free speech. As the argument of hate speech versus free speech continues, many speculate that public campuses have liberal biases. This is due to disproportionate numbers of conservative speakers getting rejected to speak on campuses compared to liberal speakers. A CNN article titled War on campus: The escalating battle over college free speech suggests that these speculations are true: The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education maintains an incomprehensive database of more than 300 attempts to disinvite campus speakers since 2000. About three-quarters of the attempts involved pressure from liberals.

In Wisconsin, GOP representatives have responded to these issues by proposing free speech policies on the UW System. These policies are suggested as precautionary, threatening future speech disrupters with suspension and/or expulsion. But such policies are criticized as damaging the rights of those who oppose the views of speakers and minorities.

The relationship between Americas future leaders and the United States First Amendment must continually be closely observed.

Currently on the Press Freedom Index, the United States is ranked at the 43rd position. Obamas onslaught on whistleblowers and Trumps attempts to thwart press coverage are listed as problems that contribute to the United States position.

Media conglomerates are an obstacle to press freedom. A statistic from morriscreative.com shows that in 2012, six media companies owned 90 percent of American media, compared to 50 companies that owned 90 percent of American media back in 1983.

These attacks on freedom of speech and press threaten one of our most sacred rights. People should care more about free speech.

Michael Flores

Madison

Send your letter to the editor to tctvoice@madison.com. Include your full name, hometown and phone number. Your name and town will be published. The phone number is for verification purposes only. Please keep your letter to 250 words or less.

Continue reading here:

Michael Flores: Attacks on our First Amendment need more attention - Madison.com

The Church of Scientology maintains the universe is 4 quadrillion years old and that most of mankinds problems are traceable to an imperialistic alien named Lord Xenu. Some 75 million years ago, Xenu won an intergalactic battle by stuffing thetans sort of like human souls into volcanos, on which Xenu then dropped hydrogen bombs. Millions of these immortal thetans later attached themselves to humans, causing humans to become sick, confused, depressed and insecure.

The goal of Scientology is to help humans to clear their bodies of thetans by devoting hundreds of thousands of dollars to cleansing processes developed by the religions founder, L. Ron Hubbard, who holds the record for the greatest number of books published by one author (1,064). His sacred science fiction works are stored in a nuclear-blast-proof vault below the surface of planet Earth.

Despite having only 25,000 American members by some counts, the Church of Scientologys liquid assets of $1 billion exceeded those of the Roman Catholic Church in 2013. But the Los Angeles-based Church of Scientology almost collapsed in the 1990s under a $1 billion bill from the Internal Revenue Service for unpaid taxes. The IRS finally restored the organizations tax-exempt church status in 1993 in exchange for the church halting a barrage of lawsuits it had filed against the agency, including 2,300 Freedom of Information Act suits.

Today, a big labor union is using a strategy against the Freedom Foundation similar to the strategy the Church of Scientology used to defeat the IRS. The Service Employees International Union has filed multiple expensive lawsuits against the Foundation, an SEIU detractor, in hope of defunding it. To SEIU, bleeding the Freedom Foundation dry is as good as a court order blocking the Foundations freedom of speech.

Freedom Foundation Managing Attorney Greg Overstreet told me in June that SEIU is running out of arguments. Consequently, theyve hit us with a barrage of frivolous lawsuits and campaign-finance complaints. In substance, theyre no different from cases weve always won before. But each one requires a response. [T]he unions arent filing these new cases with any expectation of winning. Their true objective is simply to overwhelm our capacity to defend ourselves and thereby bankrupt their most persistent and effective adversary. It wont work.

I hope Overstreet is right that SEIUs strategy wont work, even though the same strategy has brought the IRS and other Scientology detractors to their knees. In 1973, the church sued Paulette Cooper, author of The Scandal of Scientology, 19 times and falsified evidence to arrange her indictment by a grand jury for sending bomb threats.

One advantage the Freedom Foundation has that the IRS lacked is citizen appeal. Few private citizens have gone to bat for the IRS. But history is rich with people willing to risk a great deal to defend freedoms supposedly protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Many of the people who should start sticking up for the Freedom Foundation would gain by doing so. The Freedom Foundations only crime is informing people about existing law. In 2014s Harris v. Quinn, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled SEIU violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of home health caregivers by automatically extorting agency fees which are essentially union dues paid by non-members from them.

In the wake of Harris, the Capital Research Center reported in May 2017, the Freedom Foundation launched an outreach program that employed dozens of paid canvassers who have gone door to door all across the state and into neighboring Oregon to inform health care providers of their right to opt out of paying dues or fees to SEIU.

The Foundations outreach efforts were successful. In response, however, SEIU has orchestrated a litany of frivolous lawsuits against the Foundation to stop it from speaking to workers, Freedom Foundation Litigation Counsel David Dewhirst told me in July. The unions have even convinced the Washington State Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, to pile on and prosecute the Foundation for not reporting as campaign expenditures its various pro bono legal services to citizens across the state.

Laborers are being scammed, but not by an intergalactic alien monster. The West Coast has its own labor lord, and it has government reinforcements.

Michael T. Hamilton (mhamilton@heartland.org, @MikeFreeMarket) is a research fellow and editor at The Heartland Institute. He drew facts about the Church of Scientology from the Pulitzer Prize-winning Lawrence Wrights book Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood, and the Prison of Belief (2013), which HBO made into a documentary in 2015.

Original post:

Big labor bullies First Amendment with Scientology playbook - OCRegister

Loudoun County Chairwoman Phyllis Randall (D-At Large) acted under the color of state law in maintaining her Chair Phyllis J. Randall Facebook page and banning Lansdowne resident Brian Davison from the page overnight, yet Randall violated Davison's First Amendment right under the U.S. and Virginia constitutions in doing so, U.S. District Judge James C. Cacheris has ruled in a complex case about free speech in the digital age.

Over the last two years, Davison has filed three separate civil rights lawsuits against the Loudoun Board of Supervisors and Randall, Commonwealths Attorney Jim Plowman (R) and the Loudoun County School Board for either blocking him from their Facebook pages or deleting critical comments he posted.

Last February, Davison was blocked from Randalls Facebook page for roughly eight hours overnight after the Lansdowne resident made critical comments of the Loudoun County School Board and members of their family.

Randall said she blocked the comment specifically because of references Davison made about family members of School Board representatives.

But the next morning, Randall said she decided to unblock Davison and says she has not blocked him or deleted any comments from him or any other person since that time.

Judge Cacheris, in a ruling today, stated that although Davisons actions were "relatively inconsequential as a practical matter, Randalls action did in fact violate his First Amendment right to free speech.

The court holds only that under the specific circumstances presented here, [the] defendant violated the First Amendment by engaging in viewpoint discrimination and banning plaintiff from a digital forum for criticizing her colleagues in the county government, the ruling states.

A central question in the suit was whether the chairwomans Chair Phyllis J. Randall Facebook page was her official county government profile. Davison maintains it is.

In his ruling, Judge Cacheris said that Randalls Facebook page in question operates as a forum for speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. and Virginia constitutions.

However, Cacheris ruled that Randall did not violate Davisons due process rights under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and would not be subject to Davisons request for injunctive relief.

A federal court has once again confirmed that speech is one of our most cherished rights under the Constitution, Davison said in a statement to the Times-Mirror following the ruling. Our elected officials cannot open up official communication channels for propaganda and praise and then ban their critics. Randall is the first Loudoun official to be rebuked for violating citizen's civil rights but definitely will not be the last.

In a prepared statement, Randall said despite Judge Cacheris ruling, it does not give people the right to smear elected officials on social media.

I value our right to free speech and I have fought to defend that right, Randall said. The courts decision, however, does not mean that people should make disparaging, untrue, or slanderous remarks about elected officials or their family members on social media. The courts decision states that we may moderate comments on these public forums in accordance with established policies to preserve social media as a meaningful place to exchange ideas in a respectful and civil manner.

Davisons lawsuit was filed after comments he made last July on the Loudoun County Government Facebook page disappeared.

In May, his claims regarding the governments page were dismissed by the court after Facebook confirmed that the county was not responsible for removing Davisons comments and that it had been Facebook software that caused his comments to be erased.

Back in March Judge Cacheris ruled Plowman did not violate the First Amendment by deleting Davisons Facebook posts. However, Davison has since filed a motion to appeal that decision.

Comments express only the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this website or any associated person or entity. Any user who believes a message is objectionable can contact us at [emailprotected].

See the rest here:

US District judge rules Randall violated Lansdowne resident's First Amendment right - Loudoun Times-Mirror

Last month, Digital Music News reported on a controversial court ruling against Google. The Canadian Supreme Court ordered the search giant to remove specific piracy links not just in Canada, but worldwide. Now, Google has fought back, this time in a California courtroom.

In 2014, a Canadian court ruled that Google would have to remove a Canadian firm from its search results. Through Equusteks ex-employees, Datalink Technologies illegally sold their competitors products. Employees would set-up sites indexed on Google to sell the goods, sharing a strong percentage with Datalink.

After losing the initial court battle in British Columbia, Google filed, and subsequently lost, multiple appeals. Last month, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled against the search giant. It determined that Google was a determinative player in harming Equusteek.

The high court ruled that the search giant would have to de-index links from its search engine worldwide.

Now, Google has fought back. The search giant filed an injunction on Monday with the US District Court for Northern California. Digital Music News has obtained the documents.

Google filed the injunction to prevent enforcement of the Canadian ruling in the United States. It believes that the Canadian Supreme Court has compelled the search engine to wrongfully censor its information.

The Canadian trial court recognized that Google is an innocent bystander to the case. Nevertheless, it issued a novel worldwide order against Google, restricting what information an American company can provide to people inside of the United States and around the world.

Lawyers for the company claim that the court singled out Google, while leaving other search engines alone. They claim that people can still find links to the infringing sites through Yahoo and Bing.

In the complaint, lawyers for the company claim that Google is not the internet. It doesnt have the power to take down sites, as the ruling would suggest. Yet, the Canadian Supreme Court only found the search engine liable, leaving alone other websites.

Google is not the internet. The vast majority of internet websites are hosted by and operated through service providers other than Google. The entities with the technical ability to remove websites or content from the internet altogether are the websites owners, operators, registrars, and hostsnot Google.

Lawyers for the company laid out three causes of action.

In the first, the First Amendment protects search engine results. The complaint reads,

Enforcing the Canadian ruling in the United States would violate the companys First Amendment rights. The Canadian ruling, claims Google, furthers no compelling interest (nor a substantial interest). The existence of Datalinks search engine results remain a matter of public record.

Equustek has filed a claim only against the search engine; it has yet to file claims against Bing and Yahoo. It also hasnt gone after third-party websites that prominently display the infringing links, including social media and press websites. Equustek also hasnt filed a claim to stop the sale of Datalink products on Amazon.

For the second cause of action, Google cites the Communications Decency Act. This act provides clear legal immunity to providers of computer services for content on their services created by others. The Communications Decency Act reads,

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Equusteks initial filing is grounded in Canadian trade secret law, not US federal intellectual property or trade secret laws. Therefore, it cant enforce the order against Google in the United States. Once again, enforcement of the ruling will cause the search giant irreparable injury absent injunctive relief.

For the third cause of action, the search giant claims that enforcement of the ruling trespasses on comity. Siding with Google, the Canadian Attorney General said that the order constitutes an impermissible exercise of extraterritorial enforcement jurisdiction. The Canadian Supreme Court disregarded this statement, however. Instead, it declared that the Internet has no bordersits natural habitat is global. By saying this, the high court justified its global injunction against the company.

Equusteks counsel argued on the same principle.

Google calls the Canadian order repugnant to US public policy surrounding the First Amendment. The First Amendment gives the search giant immunity against imposing liability. Once again calling the order repugnant, the company claims that the high court singled it out. It issued an order against an innocent non-party for the sake of convenience.

Continuing on, lawyers claim,

Canadian courts failed to extend proper comity to the United States. Thus, the United States does not need to defer the order.

Google requests that the US District Court rule the Canadian order unenforceable in the United States. It also wants the court to issue a ruling in Googles favor and against the defendants, Equustek. Finally, lawyers want the court to grant the company preliminary and permanent injunctive relief from further enforcement.

You can read the injunction below.

Image by Ed Uthman (CC by 2.0)

See the article here:

Are Google Piracy Links Protected by the First Amendment? - Digital Music News

Years after controversy in the community, the City of Crystal will pay a $20,000 settlement to Communities United Against Police Brutality and receive annual Open Meeting Law and First Amendment training, according to court orders stemming from a lawsuit filed by the organzation in May 2016. The organization sued the city after allegations that members First Amendment rights were stifled by city leaders at council meetings, and that the council illegally conducted closed-door sessions and engaged in a closed meeting via email, both of which actions were in violation of Minnesotas Open Meeting Law. The allegations occurred during a period spanning from December 2012 through December 2014, when CUAPB members said they were silenced or denied the ability to freely participate in open forums during council meetings, primarily to voice opposition to the termination of two whistle-blowing Crystal police officers. According to allegations, officers Alan Watt and Robin Erkenbrack were fired in retaliation for speaking out against misconduct in the citys investigation of a 2008 incident, during which the now-disbanded West Metro Gang Strike Force confiscated the belongings of the Ramirez family of Crystal, who later filed a theft report. The city maintained that both Watt and Erkenbrack were terminated with just cause and that an investigation had proceeded, although Erkenbrack later settled with the city for $160,000 and was reinstated as a sergeant.

Continue reading this Sun Post story.

Read more:

Crystal settles with community group over First Amendment violation allegations - ECM Publishers

Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 8:32 a.m.

Adam Carolla cites President Obamas 2015 appearance on WTF with Marc Maron as a milestone ushering podcasts into the mainstream. I think its another modality for conversation, and thats always a good thing, the Adam Carolla Show host says of the medium. In the next election three-and-a-half years from now or sooner as they campaign theres probably going to be more politicians sitting down with podcasters.

The third annual unconventional political convention known as Politicon, intended to narrow the gap between Washington insiders and the public, takes over the Pasadena Convention Center on July 29 and 30. Nearly 150 politicians, consultants, journalists, entertainers and podcasters anchor the non-partisan event fostering discourse via panels, interviews, readings and live tapings.

Along with the James Carvilles, Ann Coulters, Jake Tappers and Leslie Stahls of the lineup, attendees can catch comedians including Greg Proops, Al Madrigal, Anthony Atamanuik, Michelle Wolf, Trae Crowder and Lizz Winstead. A highly anticipated debate sees Chelsea Handler engaging former talk-show host Tomi Lahren. On Saturday evening, Carolla records a live interview with The Daily Shows Roy Wood, Jr., followed by an audience meet and greet.

Im just interested in a lot of different opinions, Carolla says of Politicon, The exchanging of ideas, thoughts and occasionally fluids, so Im excited.

The North Hollywood native studied improv in the early '90s, and in 1994 parlayed his amateur-boxing background into training KROQs Kevin and Bean show personality Jimmy Kimmel. He soon co-hosted the stations Loveline with Dr. Drew Pinksy before partnering with Kimmel for Comedy Centrals The Man Show and Crank Yankers.

In 2011, The Adam Carolla Show set the Guinness World Record for most downloaded podcast. His Carolla Digital network houses a dozen others, and 10 episodes of Adam Carolla and Friends Build Stuff Live aired this spring on Spike. Hes a fan of quick naps and of going with his gut.

I do tons of things, and people say, Why? Why did you do Dancing with the Stars or Celebrity Apprentice, or why did you write a book? And I just go, Somebody asked me to do it.

Carollas current point of pride is his Chassy Media documentary company. Subjects include cars and sports; his personal favorite, Winning: The Racing Life of Paul Newman, combined both.

Next up is a crowd-funded film exploring political correctness and freedom of speech on college campuses. Carolla teamed on No Safe Spaces with conservative radio host Dennis Prager, with whom atheist Carolla doesnt share much in common, but nevertheless respects intellectually. (Prager recently tweeted that the "news media in the West pose a far greater danger to Western civilization than Russia does," despite that he's a member of the news media.)The two have mounted a series of school speaking engagements denouncing the coddling of students, and chronicled the results. (Prager subsequently told Fox News "the only thing I regret about the tweet is that I didn't write the universities and the media in the West are a greater threat to Western civilization.")

It seemed like a simpler time when people wanted to hear opinions that were a little bit different than their own, recalls Carolla, who has publicly said Hollywood fears tackling the subject. A mid-2018 release is expected.

Then again, not all change is bad. Particularly for a guy who claims he doesn't really work for a living anymore.

I try to keep things in perspective, especially when its 119 degrees outside, he muses. I used to be on a construction site in Chatsworth with this kind of weather. And now Im sitting in an air-conditioned trailer. I try to keep that in mind.

Adam Carolla Podcast and Meet & Greet, Politicon, Pasadena Convention Center, 300 E. Green St., Pasadena. politicon.com/speaker/adam-carolla.

Continued here:

First Amendment Fan Adam Carolla Takes Politics Even More Seriously Than Podcasting - L.A. Weekly

I recently took the photo that accompanies todays column on Swick Road off Route 89 in Romulus.

A woman contacted the Finger Lakes Times about the property. She found it offensive and thought it might even be illegal in New York. She says the resident claims to be a deer hunter. She has reported it to the town of Romulus and Seneca County officials.

It is likely not illegal, that is, unless it is regarded as a hate crime or hate speech against blacks being a reference to approval of lynching by the KKK. Then it is not just an ordinary rope.

If we give the home owner the benefit of the doubt, then the question is why keep the nooses hanging year-round knowing they might connote negative impressions to others?

For me, its just another instance of a pervasive attitude that seems to be taking shape culturally all over, where people just are going to do what they want regardless of right, wrong or political correctness.

Some might argue that this type of social and political climate is the result of Novembers presidential election. But the reality is what happens locally more often has a greater affect on peoples lives than anything nationally. And that includes politically.

The photo certainly raises First Amendment issues on both sides of the coin.

Briefly the First Amendment says: 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.

For me the First Amendment has very much become a focal point for things happening in the Finger Lakes region.

Lets take a look at the Geneva City Council. Not too long ago Mayor Alcock tried to move the public comment portion of the monthly meeting from the beginning of the session to the end. Since no ones knows how long each council meeting takes, often hours, I feel it was a clever way to stifle the voice of the public.

It was ultimately decided, however, to allow comments at the end and at the beginning with strict time limits imposed.

But that is nothing compared to what the Council did a couple of months ago. Its hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that a new rule was put into place that does not allow members of the public to address council members by name with their issues or complaints.

One of the guidelines from the current Rules and Procedures for Geneva City Council requires that All remarks shall be addressed to City Council as a whole and not to any individual member thereof.

I remind everyone it is 2017.

What may be a great example of political hypocrisy happened at a fairly recent meeting. Councilman Paul DAmico raised his concerns and was critical of city resident Jim Meaney and his website Geneva Believer, which often challenges the actions of Geneva city government. This when Meaney, who was at the meeting, was unable to directly address DAmico.

For a more detailed look at this issue go to genevabeliever.wordpress.com/author/geneva believer.

Now lets look at Seneca Falls Town Board meetings. Not only are signs banned from being brought into the meetings but if someone has a visual aid to show at the podium during their allotted time they are prevented from presenting it.

As a way to further restrict the publics right to free expression, they are holding the latest meetings in a room that only fits 80 people.

I have gone to several of the board meetings regarding the landfill issue. People certainly are passionate about the issue but never did I find it out of control nor inappropriate. Since the space in the new municipal building can only hold 80 people why not move the meetings to a larger venue that can accommodate more people if there is that much interest in an issue?

In a move that I feel is solely about control, a new rule also is now in place in Seneca Falls that does not allow anyone to stand unless speaking at the podium.

Again, I remind everyone it is 2017.

In Yates County the race for district attorney is once again getting down and dirty. Free speech is one thing but when one opponent distributes what are being considered false allegations against his opponent is another thing all together. That same candidate filed sworn statements under oath that his residency is at one address, and the petitions he filed state he lives at a completely different address a big no-no.

I cant leave Wayne County out. Even though New York State guidelines clearly state in Article 3 Election Officials, Statewide Provisions that local election officials are to establish rules allowing the admission of news media representatives to the area of the polling place where the canvass of ballots cast can be directly observed, the county Board of Elections has banned photographers from polling places the past few election days.

Once again, I remind everyone it is 2017.

See the original post:

THE BIGGER PICTURE: First Amendment issues - Finger Lakes Times

President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress have laudably made passing tax reform real tax reform, not just shuffling money from one group to another a top priority. Now, however, some supply-side economics skeptics are open to the possibility of taxing free speech a constitutional right to fill Washingtons coffers.

As you read this, the Big Six are meeting to discuss which deductions to keep oreliminate, and Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady must quell these whispers of taxing advertising. Imposing such a levy would trample on our countrys liberty and values, setting a dangerous precedent for further constitutional breaches in the foreseeable future.

As substantial pay-forssuch as the border adjustment tax begin to fall out of the publics favor, some in Congress have begun to look at provisions from Dave Camps 2014 tax reform proposal as a blueprint for replacement. Camps proposal would have changed the tax treatment of advertising from a normal, 100 percent deductible business expense to one that is only 50 percent deductible, with the rest being amortized over the course of a decade.

Self-proclaimed liberty-loving conservatives whoare prepared to advocate for such a provision need to reflect on American history after all, what did we fight the American Revolution over?

Perhaps the biggest boiling point for the then-British colonists was the Stamp Act of 1765, which imposed an advertising levy of two shillings for every ad, among other printed material, no matter its circulation or cost. The provision was wildly unpopular so much so that the colonists engaged in mob violence to intimidate stamp-tax distributorsinto resigning, forcing the British Parliament to repeal it just a year later.

The principles and rallying cries that were brought on from the Stamp Act's introduction led to the colonists' rising in armed rebellion against their mother country a decade later.

The Continental Army won that war, and when they formed their new country they made sure to prevent the government from getting in the way of the freedom to advertise, as per 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."

This is a law and precedent that has been abided by for centuries. Aside from some exceptions related to false and misleading content, the federal government has always respected the constitutional mandate to leave advertising alone. That's why the Supreme Court case Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) was overturned the bench's declaration that "the Constitution imposes no restraint on the government as to the regulation of 'purely commercial advertising'" was 100 percent unconstitutional.

Now Congress wants to limit free speech by regulating the First Amendment one of our country's core founding principles as an excuse to extort more wealth from American businesses' pocketbooks? Camp's 50-50 proposal would treat advertising like an asset, such as a machine, instead of like an expense, such as research and salaries an unprecedented, unconstitutional move. (go to page 2 to continue reading)

See the article here:

Republicans Toy with a Misguided Tax on the First Amendment ... - LifeZette

The Senate has blocked the first amendment to the bill to replace and repeal Obamacare.

Nine Republicans crossed party lines and voted against it.

The wide-ranging proposal by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell erased the law's tax penalties on people not buying insurance, and made cuts to Medicaid.

This came hours after the Senate voted to proceed with the debate on the Republican bill.

The vote was 51-50 after Vice President Mike Pence cast the tiebreaking vote.

Senator John McCain delivered a crucial vote in his first trip to the Senate floor since being diagnosed with brain cancer.

"I want to thank Senator John McCain, very brave man. He made a tough trip to get here and vote, so we want to thank Senator McCain and all of the Republicans. We passed it without one Democrat vote," said President Donald Trump.

"Lets trust each other. Let's return to regular order," McCain said. "We've been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle."

Meanwhile, Trump held a campaign-style rally, where he celebrated the vote to proceed.

He told the crowd we're now one step closer to ending what he calls the Obamacare nightmare.

Continued here:

Senate blocks first amendment to bill to repeal and replace Affordable Care Act - NY1

The Third Circuit recently joined the growing consensus of courts recognizing that the First Amendment protects the act of recording police officers conducting their official duties in public. In Fields v. City of Philadelphia, F.3d , 2017 WL 2884391 (3d Cir. July 7, 2017), two individuals brought claims against the City of Philadelphia and certain police officers for violating their First Amendment rights to record public police activity.

Amanda Geraci, a member of a police watchdog group, attended an anti-fracking protest at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in September 2012. When Geraci attempted to record the police arresting a protestor, an officer pushed her and pinned her to a pillar for over a minute, thus preventing her from observing or recording the arrest. Geraci did not interfere with any police activity. She was not arrested or cited.

In a consolidated case involving a similar issue, Richard Fields, a Temple University student, was on a public sidewalk when he observed police officers breaking up a house party in September 2013. The nearest police officer was 15 feet away from him. Using an iPhone, Fields took a photo of the incident. When Fields refused to obey an officers order for him to leave the area, the officer arrested and detained him, confiscated his phone, and opened several videos and photos on Fields phone. All charges against Fields were eventually dropped. According to Fields and Geraci, neither intended to share their recordingsthey merely wanted to record the police activity.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the plaintiffs First Amendment claims. Although the existence of the First Amendment right to record police activity was not in dispute, the Courton its owndeclined to create a new First Amendment right for citizens to photograph officers when they have no expressive purpose such as challenging police actions.

The Third Circuit reversed, noting that the District Courts focus on expressive intent ignore[d] that the value of the recordings may not be immediately obvious. The First Amendment protects actual photos, videos, and recordings, and for this protection to have meaning the Amendment must also protect the act of creating the material. It reiterated that this case is not about people attempting to create art with police as their subjects. It is about recording police officers performing their official duties.

The Third Circuits reasoning is not novel. Several other circuit courts have reached the same conclusion. Traditionally, and as the text of the Constitution suggests, the First Amendments protections extend to speech, press, assembly, the right to petition, and religion. But recording police activity does not seem to fit squarely into any of these categories.

Without expressly relying on any of the five traditional First Amendment protections, the Court held that, subject to reasonable restrictions, the First Amendment protects the publics right of access to information about their officials public activities. At first blush, it appears that the Court has created a new First Amendment right of access to information. However, the Courts reasoning shows that the basis for this right is the freedom of press, and a recognition that in todays world, everyday citizens play a role in delivering the news.

The Court writes that to record is to see and hear more accurately. Recordings also facilitate discussion because of the ease in which they can be widely distributed via different forms of media. Accordingly, recording police activity in public falls squarely within the First Amendment right of access to information. As no doubt the press has the right, so does the public. The Court continues, [t]he publics creation of this content also complements the role of the news media. In addition to complementing the role of the traditional press, private recordings have improved professional reporting, as video content generated by witnesses and bystanders has become a common component of news programming.

Thus, Fields is a tacit recognition that in the age of electronics, the press is so much more than traditional broadcast news and newspapers. Today, everyone with a smartphone is essentially a member of the press and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Based on this expansive view of the press, the right to record police activity extends not only to the traditional press, but to the modern pressthat is, the public.

See the rest here:

First Amendment Protects Right to Record Police Activity, Third Circuit Holds - JD Supra (press release)