Many LGBT people who run in leftie circles were pleased with last months ejection of women carrying Star of David pride flags from Chicagos Dyke March. Seeing the intersectionality between lesbian equality and Palestinian rights, they didnt want any hint of support for Israel at their event, even if only vaguely via symbols carried by Jewish women.

Though that clash appeared spontaneous, the coordinators of a Slut Walk in Chicago next month have Tweeted their intention to follow suit: We still stand behind Dyke March Chicagos decision to remove the Zionist contingent from their event, & we wont allow Zionist displays at ours.

These radical lesbian and feminist organizers insist that in a free country they have the right to control their message and theyre correct. Constitutional jurisprudence on this the freedom of association and assembly is clear: any organization has the right to exclude groups and even whole classes of people from its membership and its events if it feels welcoming them would dilute its message.

The irony, though, is that the Dyke March would not have the freedom to expel people it considers Zionists without two important Supreme Court cases from twenty years ago in which get this the people suing for the right to participate were gay themselves.

In 1995, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston that St. Patricks Day officials had the right to exclude gay and lesbian contingents if they felt including them would change their message. Since the organizers were overwhelmingly pre-Pope Francis Catholics, practitioners of a lifestyle they considered sinful were not welcome.

Writing on behalf of all his colleagues, Justice David Souter wrote One important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide what not to say.

The gay groups couldnt cry discrimination. Free expression was more important.

Five years later, in Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, a sharply divided Court found that the First Amendment allowed private organizations like the Boy Scouts to exclude a gay person if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the groups ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.

Again, the Supreme Court found that gay would-be Scouts and Scoutmasters could not hide behind allegations of discrimination in forcing an organization to accept them.

Which bring us back to Chicagos Dyke March. Had those two Court decisions gone the other way, the Jewish lesbians booted from the event could have sued for the right to participate.

Theres been a long-term war between discrimination claims and First Amendment freedoms. Because the gay community lost two battles at the turn of the millennium, LGBT groups are now free to tailor their messages by excluding outsiders.

Heres hoping theyll lose the next battle, too. The Supreme Court is about to consider a third clash between non-discrimination laws and the First Amendment (this time, both free expression and the free exercise of religion). Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission will determine whether the government can force people who service weddings to use their creative endeavors in a way that treats all marriages equally.

As were seeing in Chicago, our civil liberties dont change when the parties switch sides. As the LGBT community ponders its stance on the wedding cake controversy, it might remember that freedoms funny. You never know when youre going to need it.

David Benkof is a columnist for the Daily Caller. Follow him on Twitter (@DavidBenkof) and Muckrack.com/DavidBenkof, or E-mail him at [emailprotected].

Read the original post:

Gays Love The First Amendment Except When They Don't - The Daily Caller

The ACLU of Maine claims Governor Paul LePage is violating the First Amendment with some of his actions on social media. (WGME)

AUGUSTA (WGME) - The ACLU of Maine claims Governor Paul LePage is violating the First Amendment with some of his actions on social media.

The issue is the governor's official Facebook page.

It has posts about the governor and first lady, links to videos of the governor giving speeches, everything you'd expect from the governor on Facebook.

But, the governor's office says they have nothing to do with that Facebook account, which is verified by Facebook.

The page itself says it's run by volunteers who don't work for the governor, or state government at all.

The ACLU says the Facebook page has been deleting comments and blocking people who disagree with the governor's opinion.

They believe those actions are in violation of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech.

Monday, the ACLU of Maine sent the governor a letter, asking him to stop what they call censorship on his Facebook page.

They say the governor shouldn't get to decide who speaks and who doesn't, but there is often some confusion because social media is a relatively new forum for public speech.

They believe there are court cases that set a precedent.

The ACLU has given the governor two weeks to reply to their letter, they say if they dont respond they may take him to court.

Read more:

ACLU claims Gov. LePage is violating First Amendment - WGME

Janine Jackson interviewed Mara Verheyden-Hilliard about the right to protest for the July 14, 2017, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

MP3 Link

Janine Jackson: A recent popular op-ed called on those engaged in resisting the Trump administration to stop counting so much on lawyers. "The fate of the nation cannot be left in the hands of the courts," the piece, written by a lawyer, argued, and that's solid advice. Popular action is what historically has moved the country forward.

But when people do go into the street and are arrested, what then? When they put their bodies on the line and the state creates a new law to criminalize that resistance, what then? Like it or not, the law is still one of the bigger tools in the box for Americans. So what does and doesn't it do for us in the present moment?

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard is an activist and attorney. She's co-founder and executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund. She joins us now by phone from Washington, DC. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard: Thank you for having me.

Well, I'd like to start, if we could, with an update on the J-20, those arrested in inauguration protests in DC, who are facing what I've heard called unprecedented charges for demonstrators, felony charges that could lead to 75, 80 years in prison. One of those still facing charges is journalist Aaron Cant, now at the Santa Fe Reporter, who has written for FAIR. We talked about the case in January. What should we know now about this ongoing story?

This case is really of extraordinary proportions, when you look at what the government is doing to people who are engaged in protests on the first day that Trump took office. And it's really in its own context significant, too, because of the major shift in policing in Washington, DC, which we believe is intended to send a signal.

What's happened now is more than 200 people were swept up in a dragnet arrest by the police, and this occurred after the police had followed the demonstration for, by their own account, approximately half an hour, while there were some people who broke windows, only a handful of people. And rather than going in and arresting the people for whom they had probable cause to arrest, the police waited that arbitrary time, tracked and detained 200 people. And so they swept up demonstrators, passers-by, journalists, anyone who's in proximity, anyone who is chanting and protesting.

And then they undertook this mass prosecution with the United States Attorney's Office here in the District of Columbia, in which people are being threatened with, as you've mentioned, jail time that is decades and decades long, really a lifetime of jail time, with these felony charges. They are charging people en masse with crimes that may have happened, in terms of property damage, but charging everyone with crimes without particularized probable cause, without being able to point to a person and say, you committed this act and so we're charging you for this act. They're charging everyone in the vicinity for being in proximity.

This is extremely dangerous; it sets the stage that for any demonstration, if anyone commits a criminal act, an act of property damage, whether that be a protestor or, frankly, a police agent provocateur, the police can now use this as license, or they wish to, to sweep up everyone else around them.

This is what we talked about before. It's not a crime, now, is it, to be in proximity to other people who break the law in conjunction with First Amendment activities?

Of course it's not, and it cannot be. And the First Amendment has always stood for that, in fact, you cannot criminalize a person for the acts of another. And particularly in the context of the First Amendment, when it's an issue where the connection is that there may be a sympathy of political views, one cannot do that. There are cases dating back, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware and others, the courts said you have to act with precision. You cannot say that just because people have a similar point of view, or may have similar political goals, that those who carry out illegal acts or acts of violence in pursuit of those goals, that those acts can be attributed to the others who do not.

Right. These charges, at the level they're at, it feels new, but we know that the effort to repress First Amendment expression is not new. The Supreme Court last month rejected a First Amendment case that dates from years back, Garcia v. Bloomberg. Can you tell us about that and how it relates?

The Garcia v. Bloomberg case comes from the Occupy demonstration of 2011, when 700 people were peacefully marching, compliant with police orders, there was no violence, and as people marched, the police escorted the march. The police themselves closed the Brooklyn Bridge roadway to vehicular traffic. The police and police commanders themselves opened up the roadway to pedestrian traffic. It is the police and police commanders who led the demonstrators onto the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge, and once those demonstrators had flowed and followed behind the lead of the police, the police stopped the march, trapped them from behind, mass-arrested 700 people.

When we litigated this case, we won at the District Court level, we won at the Second Circuit, in fact. And then Mayor de Blasio, who had taken office, frankly, running on an Occupy ticket, had the court reevaluate the ruling, and the court, in an extraordinary measure, reversed itself. And we took this case up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court just last month determined that they would not hear it.

Obviously, lots of folks are taking their lead from this, and kind of joining on this bandwagon. We have a spate of anti-protest legislation around the country, even UN experts are issuing alarmed statements now. Some 20 states have passed or tried to pass laws allowing protesters to be charged with conspiracy, increasing penalties for blocking streets, even protecting drivers who run protesters over, banning masks and hoodies. I mean, is anyone really confused that the intent of these rules is to quash dissent, and doesn't that thinly veiled intent matter?

It's clear that there is an effort around the country to try, through legal means -- although we would consider illegal means -- to curtail people's fundamental First Amendment rights to gather together in the streets, to be able to speak out in unified action.

I do think, as much as we're seeing these kinds of restrictions imposed and these rulings, that at the same time it can obviously have a chilling effect on people, the reality is that people do always come out and people will continue to come out. And while this may be intended to have a chilling effect, it is really crucial that people stand up and speak out for what they believe in. And I do think the reason that we're seeing these is because there is a growing recognition that there really is this fire of people, these embers burning, where we keep seeing people come up and demonstrating for what they believe in. We're seeing so many more people entering political life, even since the election of Donald Trump. People are taking to the streets, protesting, who never protested before.

So while we're faced with what is I think overt repression, both in terms of these felony prosecutions, these state laws, these court rulings, we also are faced with the fact that there are millions of people who are engaging in political protest and political organizing who have never done so before, and that's a force that really can't be stopped.

We've been speaking with Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund. Find them online at JusticeOnline.org. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, thank you very much for joining us today on CounterSpin.

Thank you for having me.

Continue reading here:

There's an Effort Around the Country to Curtail People's Fundamental First Amendment Rights - Truth-Out

Wrong-headed

The Daily Press Editorial Board's July 23 stance, "Foundation of our freedom," is one of the most vividly foolish analyses of recent times. The thesis that President Donald Trump's criticism of today's press and media is an assault on the constitutional rights of a "foundation of our freedom," the free press.

In fact, President Trump has engaged in no such attack against the First Amendment right of a free press. His criticisms of the press are directed at the content of what many of today's journalists and publishers print, not at the constitutional rights of journalists and institutions to publish what they choose.

If his criticisms of the press threaten the very institution of the free press, then the fusillade of criticism by the press against President Trump threatens the institution of the presidency.

I doubt that any news agency would admit to that outrage.

Randolph Scott

Newport News

Credibility matters

The July 23 editorial, "Foundation of our freedom," taking to task those who undermine one of this country's basic freedoms, was factual, well-stated and critical for citizens to read at this time in our country's continuing efforts to be credible.

By attacking our First Amendment rights, our efforts to remain a beacon to others is threatened. The First Amendment, whether we agree or not agree, allows us to express ourselves through the written word, protests, bumper stickers, yard signs, etc.

Fake news is not included in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution.

Jo-Ann L. Mahony

Hampton

Read the original here:

July 25 Letters: First Amendment - Daily Press

By Mike Farrell Special to NKyTribune

The Scripps Howard First Amendment Center is looking for a Kentuckian who is a champion of the First Amendment.

The center in the College of Communication and Informations School of Journalism and Media at the University of Kentucky is requesting nominations for its annual James Madison Award. The award, created in 2006, honors the nations fourth president, whose extraordinary efforts led to the passage and ratification of the Bill of Rights.

The Madison Award recognizes someone who has worked in one or more of these areas: open government and open records; promotion of the watchdog role of the press; defense against government or private censorship; or robust debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Nominees must have significant ties to Kentucky, and their efforts must have resulted in the preservation or expansion of freedom of the press and/or freedom of speech. Dedication to the First Amendment principle of free expression is not accomplished in a days work but rather a lifetime. Thus the award recognizes a long-term commitment to such ideals.

The deadline for nominations is Sept. 1.

Honorees do not have to be journalists. Nominees may include, for example, educators, lawyers, judges, scholars, librarians, students or ordinary citizens. The most deserving recipient will be someone who has made a significant contribution regardless of how much public attention it has received.

The nominator should submit a letter identifying the nominee, listing the nominees address, phone number and position, and explain why the nominee would be a worthy recipient. The letter should detail the specific efforts taken on behalf of First Amendment rights and should discuss obstacles and difficulties as well as the impact of the nominees efforts. The nominator may include up to three letters of support as well as other materials such as published or broadcast information.

Entries will be reviewed by a committee that will include previous winners and the director of the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center. The committee will have the option of not selecting a recipient if it does not believe any candidate is deserving.

The award will be presented at the annual First Amendment Celebration, 6 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 28, in the William T. Young Library auditorium on the university campus.

Nominations should be sent to Mike Farrell, Scripps Howard First Amendment Center, School of Journalism and Media, 120 Grehan Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0042, or emailed to farrell@uky.edu.

Mike Farrell is director of the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center and a co-founder of the NKyTribune.

Read the original:

Scripps Howard First Amendment Center seeking nominations for 2017 James Madison Award - User-generated content (press release) (registration)

An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech. (NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 1982)

In contradiction to such sentiments, Sen. Maggie Hassan is co-sponsoring a Senate bill Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S.720/H.R.1697) that would make it a felony for Americans to support an international boycott against Israel.

Its a bill designed to strip Americans of constitutionally protected rights, a bill that targets supporters of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement that works to end international support for Israels oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law.

Boycotts to achieve political goals, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has written, are a form of expression that the Supreme Court has ruled are protected by the First Amendments protections of freedom of speech, assembly and petition.

BDS is designed to give Palestinians and their supporters a nonviolent platform from which to resist occupation and illegal settlement activity, activity which the international community believes is a flagrant violation of international law without legal validity, activities condemned by innumerable U.N. resolutions from No. 242 to No. 2334 and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

In 2014, Nobel Peace laureate Bishop Desmond Tutu said: I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces. Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government.

BDS is designed to empower Palestinians to resist that humiliation.

In response to (S.720/H.R.1697) the ACLU has written: The bill would amend those laws to bar U.S. persons from supporting boycotts against Israel, including its settlements in the Palestinian Occupied Territories, conducted by international governmental organizations, such as the United Nations and the European Union. It would also broaden the law to include penalties for simply requesting information about such boycotts. Violations would be subject to a maximum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. We take no position for or against the effort to boycott Israel or any foreign country, for that matter. However, we do assert that the government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, punish U.S. persons based solely on their expressed political beliefs.

This bill would impose civil and criminal punishment on individuals solely because of their political beliefs about Israel and its policies.

I support BDS because its a nonviolent response that I recognize initiated by Palestinian civil society to the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, to the oppression of Palestinians, to the continued incarceration of hundreds of Palestinians held under administrative detention without either indictment or trial.

BDS does not delegitimize Israel; it delegitimizes illegal occupation and oppression.

In April, BDS co-founder Omar Barghouti said, Twelve years ago, we were called romantic dreamers or worse. Today, our fast-growing movement is recognized as being so strong as to be fought by the full force of Israels regime of occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid, and by its partners in crime.

Partners like members of the United State Congress whove aligned themselves with oligarchs and power brokers, partners who not only oppose BDS but who oppose making political and economic distinctions between Israel and occupied Palestinian territory.

I support BDS because I recognized, and supported, the boycott in South Africa that helped to strike down apartheid. I supported the Montgomery bus boycott and the Delano grape strike because I believe in justice.

Because I recognize that were called upon to resist oppression and occupation.

I recognize, too, that even when boycotts dont change anything, as in the anti-Nazi boycott of 1933 that did nothing to stop the harassment of German Jews, that its morally necessary to act.

As Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of the American Jewish Congress said at the time, We must speak out, and If that is unavailing, at least we shall have spoken.

BDS is working.

In 2016, the EU, along with Sweden, Ireland and the Netherlands, affirmed the right to support BDS as protected by freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Last month the Spanish parliament unanimously passed a motion affirming the right to advocate for BDS as protected by freedom of speech and freedom of association.

BDS is working.

BDS supporters know its working because of the scale of resources its opponents are devoting to delegitimize and criminalize the nonviolent movement including getting members of Congress to emasculate the First Amendment.

I know BDS is controversial. Some of my dearest friends dont support it at all; others want BDS to apply only to the occupied territories.

I get that, and support their choice.

However, those friends and I do agree that the Israel Anti-Boycott Act is unjust and is a blatant attempt to dissuade American supporters of Palestinian freedom and justice from engaging in protected political speech and action.

Resisting violence is easy. Use greater violence and destroy, imprison and emasculate the enemy. If they resist, hit them harder.

Resisting nonviolence is harder you cant bomb non-violent resisters into submission.

So, to counter BDSs nonviolent philosophy, Israels calling upon America to violently defile existential imperatives and collude in squelching First Amendment rights.

Pay attention: (S.720/H.R.1697) aligns America with governments that choose to deal with dissent and protest by limiting freedoms and speech governments like Poland, Russia, Turkey, Israel and Egypt.

Were not like them. Were better than that.

Pay attention: If speech can be criminalized in order to oppress Palestinians then it could as easily be used against any other group that displease the government or oligarchs in the future.

Pay attention: Last week Vice President Mike Pence said, America stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel, as together we confront those enemies who threaten our people, our freedom and our very way of life.

What he, and Hassan, fail to recognize is that those who threaten our people, our freedom, and our very way of life is us that were in danger of becoming our enemy.

Let us speak out: If that is unavailing, at least we shall have spoken.

(Robert Azzi is a photographer and writer who lives in Exeter. He can be reached at theother.azzi@gmail.com and his columns are archived at theotherazzi.wordpress.com.)

More here:

Robert Azzi: Congress assails First Amendment, BDS, Palestinians ... - Concord Monitor

A lesbian couple says that they were looking for a wedding dress two weeks ago, but all they found in one shop was bigotry.

Shannon Kennedy and Julie Ann Samanas visited W.W. Bridal Boutique in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, with Julie Anns sister to prepare for their March, 2018, wedding.

They were given a form to fill out, and thats where the bridal shop owner found out that they were a same-sex couple.

We filled out the form that said Brides name, Budget and then where it said Groom, we crossed it out and wrote Bride and put Shannons name down, Julie Ann told Philadelphia Gay News.

They handed the form in to one of the employees, who asked them if the dress was for a same-sex wedding. She said, I dont know if youve heard, but were Christian and we dont believe in that; our faith doesnt let us believe in that, Shannon said.

Then they left the boutique. I think we were kind of in shock, Shannon said.

Julie Ann posted about the discrimination on Facebook and received a lot of support.

The bridal shop also posted a message to Facebook that they have since deleted. According to the Philadelphia Gay News, the message said, The owners of W.W. Bridal Boutique reserve the rights afforded to them by the First Amendment of the Constitution to live out our lives according to our faith. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. We will continue to serve our customers based on the tenets of our faith.

Pennsylvania has no state-wide law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Continued here:

Bridal shop refuses lesbian couple and cites the First Amendment - LGBTQ Nation

When documentary filmmaker Brian Knappenberger set out to make a film about Hulk Hogans lawsuit against Gawker Media, he didnt fully realize the impact of the trial on the future of journalism. It wasnt until the revelation that Peter Thiel was behind thisaka bankrolling Hogans lawsuitthat he realized suddenly this was a very different story, this was about how very wealthy individuals could silence their critics.

Knappenbergers past films, Robert Scheer notes, talk about the possibilities for good and evil in the internet, and his latest, Nobody Speak: Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Trial of a Free Press, is no exception. In this weeks episode of KCRWs Scheer Intelligence, Knappenberger sits down with Scheer for a discussion of freedom of the press in the age of Donald Trump, and the future of online journalism.

I found the Hulk Hogan/Gawker case to be really compelling just by itself. It was the first time a sex tape case like this had ever gone to trial, and there was this kind of veneer of tabloid sensationalism to it. You could tell that there were some bigger-picture things going on, Knappenberger says. There were some, I think, really important First Amendment versus privacy issues happening here, and so I thought that was just really, really interesting.

The movie has resonance beyond whether you like Gawker or not, Scheer says. Its really a question of whats going to happening now with the free press, when you have all this money sloshing around that can punish people, and you have a president who seems to be quite hostile to the press.

Knappenberger goes on to explain how Trump has drastically impacted freedom of the press, and notes that Thiel also financially supported Trumps presidential campaign. I think theyre kindred spirits, certainly, in their hatred of the media, he says.

So how does Knappenberger feel about the future of the free press, especially considering the media consolidation happening under companies like Sinclair Broadcast Group?

Theres a lot of examples, and troubling examples, of big money in news and in media. Theres no question about that, he says. I think what were seeing here in the last year, and what Im responding to in the film, is the beginning of this stuff really ratcheting up, and the stakes getting higher and higher.

Listen to the full interview in the player above. Find past editions of Scheer Intelligence here.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Read more here:

'Nobody Speak': How Billionaires Are Silencing the First Amendment - HuffPost

Gene Policinski

Attention you so-called enemies of the people and alleged purveyors of biased reporting: Theres reason to think fewer people than last year might see you that way, despite the ongoing, politicized attacks from multiple quarters on the news medias credibility.

President Donald Trump hurled that enemies epithet at journalists some time ago, and continues to complain about biased news coverage nearly every time there are news accounts regarding contacts with Russian officials by his administration.

But such criticism comes with varying levels of vitriol from a variety of quarters, and started long before Trump took office. Often, the harshest criticism of the media comes just as much from those who consume news as from those who make it.

This year, however, there are signs that the publics disdain for the media has somewhat abated. The 2017 State of the First Amendment survey, released over the July 4 holiday by the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute in partnership with the Fors Marsh Group, found that:

A solid majority of the public about 68 percent still believes in the importance of news media as a watchdog on democracy. Less than half (43.2 percent) said they believe the news media tries to report the news without bias; but this figure is a marked improvement from 2015 (23 percent) and 2016 (24 percent). There are some likely reasons for this shift: A significant amount of TV, online and print journalism has shifted from the softer horse race focus of the 2016 election to this years focus on hard news and complex issues. And with more than a bit of irony as more Americans are inclined only to consume news from sources that line up with their individual perspectives, theres a likely parallel increase in the trust factor in those sources, even if they resemble echo chambers more than truth-tellers. Among those who believe that media tries to report unbiased information, most expressed a preference for news information that aligns with their own views (60.7 percent). Those more critical of media efforts to report news without bias were also less prone to report a preference for news aligned with their own views (49.1 percent).

So, no celebratory back flips in the nations newsrooms, please, especially since the uptick only puts the bias figure roughly back to levels seen in 2013 and 2014 (46 percent and 41 percent, respectively).

Those inclined to support the work of todays journalists hope that the drop in those who perceive media bias generally stems from that combination of dramatically increased visibility of news operations and their reporting on serious news, such as health care reform and investigations of Russian influence in the 2016 election. For my own part, I believe more people saw reporting of real news, not fluffy click-bait features and dramatic but mostly meaningless polling reports, and it earned back some of their lost approval and trust.

Heres an idea for journalists nationwide: Keep trying hard news, accountability reporting on issues that while not necessarily sexy matter the most to people and their communities, such as jobs, health care, education, and local and state government.

For years, news industry moguls and newsroom leaders have sought ways to reverse their dwindling income, which has led to fewer newsrooms resources and less real journalism, and which in turn has prompted additional loss of consumers. Clearly, mushy stories about the travails of celebrities, feel-good stories, and valuing tweets over investigative reporting are not working out that well.

Acting on this realization will mean putting an emphasis on innovation and finding new ways to report on subjects that, in themselves, dont necessarily draw in a new generation of readers. But therein is the opportunity for those who will be the news media success stories of the 21st century. This years survey results show that the opportunity is there, that news consumers are hungry for imaginative reporting on issues that directly impact their lives.

But we can still take comfort in the 20 percent drop in those who presume journalists are incapable of reporting without bias: Attitudes can change, and trust can be regained. Read the full report.

Editors Note: A version of this column appeared earlier on the Newseum Institute website as part of the 2017 State of the First Amendment report.

Gene Policinski is chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute. He can be reached at gpolicinski@newseum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.

Read this article:

First Amendment: More Americans see less media bias but why? - hays Post

But Candy Lab, maker of the AR game Texas Rope 'Em, sued the county and claimed that the ordinance was a First Amendment violation. They also asked the courts for an injunction of the rule before the lawsuit goes to trial next April, which a district judge granted on Thursday. In the ruling, the judge said, "Greater injury will be inflicted upon [Candy Labs] by the denial of injunctive relief than will be inflicted upon [Milwaukee County] by the granting of such relief."

Milwaukee County has argued that this isn't a First Amendment violation because the game and its makers don't have First Amendment rights. "Texas Rope 'Em is not entitled to First Amendment protection because it does not convey any messages or ideas. Unlike books, movies, music, plays and video games mediums of expression that typically enjoy First Amendment protection Texas Rope 'Em has no plot, no storylines, no characters and no dialogue," said Milwaukee County in its motion to dismiss the case. It also claims that the game isn't protected by the amendment because it constitutes illegal gambling.

The permit Milwaukee County began demanding treats AR gaming like a special event, requiring start and end times, expected numbers of participants, portable restroom supply and fees for things like garbage collection. All of which seem rather ridiculous to ask of a game developer.

In response to the judge's injunction approval, Candy Lab's attorney told Ars Technica, "I think it's a huge win for the medium of augmented reality as a whole. It's a strong affirmation that AR is a medium for creative expression."

Excerpt from:

First Amendment suit halts anti-'Pokmon Go' law - Engadget

Questions Neals belief in First Amendment

I was shocked to learn that Richard Neal and many other congressmen think we should take away the First Amendment rights of people who express their support of a boycott of Israel.

I am Jewish, and committed to Israels long-term survival. I think the thuggish actions and racist comments of Benjamin Netanyahus far-right Israeli government represent a long-term threat to that survival. Along with the constant theft of Palestinian land (land the whole world, including Israel, recognizes as Palestinian), these actions arouse deep-seated hatred which can only lead to destructive war. At the end, it will likely lead to the destruction of Israel.

So I think anyone in this country who backs the extremist Netanyahu is really backing the long-term destruction of the Jewish state, and certainly the destruction of Israeli democracy.

But if anyone came up with a law to deprive Netanyahu-backers of the right to express their views, I would oppose it to my last breath. Does Congressman Neal believe in the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech? He should be ashamed of himself.

David Ball

Northampton

View original post here:

David Ball: Questions Neal's belief in First Amendment - GazetteNET

Brian Knappenberger in 2012. (Logan Boyd / CC 2.0)

When documentary filmmaker Brian Knappenberger set out to make a film about Hulk Hogans lawsuit against Gawker Media, he didnt fully realize the impact of the trial on the future of journalism. It wasnt until the revelation that Peter Thiel was behind thisaka bankrolling Hogans lawsuitthat he realized suddenly this was a very different story, this was about how very wealthy individuals could silence their critics.

Knappenbergers past films, podcast host and Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer notes, talk about the possibilities for good and evil in the internet, and his latest, Nobody Speak: Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Trial of a Free Press, is no exception. In this weeks episode of KCRWs Scheer Intelligence, Knappenberger sits down with Scheer for a discussion of freedom of the press in the age of Donald Trump, and the future of online journalism.

I found the Hulk Hogan/Gawker case to be really compelling just by itself. It was the first time a sex tape case like this had ever gone to trial, and there was this kind of veneer of tabloid sensationalism to it. You could tell that there were some bigger-picture things going on, Knappenberger says. There were some, I think, really important First Amendment versus privacy issues happening here, and so I thought that was just really, really interesting.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide, Desktop

Advertisement

Square, Site wide, Mobile

Knappenberger goes on to explain how Trump has drastically impacted freedom of the press, and notes that Thiel also financially supported Trumps presidential campaign. I think theyre kindred spirits, certainly, in their hatred of the media, he says.

So how does Knappenberger feel about the future of the free press, especially considering the media consolidation happening under companies like Sinclair Broadcast Group?

Theres a lot of examples, and troubling examples, of big money in news and in media. Theres no question about that, he says. I think what were seeing here in the last year, and what Im responding to in the film, is the beginning of this stuff really ratcheting up, and the stakes getting higher and higher.

Listen to the full interview in the player above. Find past editions of Scheer Intelligence here.

Posted by Emma Niles

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

View post:

'Nobody Speak': How Billionaires Are Silencing the First Amendment (Audio) - Truthdig

Earlier this week, the ACLU sent a letter to members of Congress opposing the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. The bill would amend existing law to prohibit people in the United States from supporting boycotts targeting Israel making it a felony to choose not to engage in commerce with companies doing business in Israel and its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Violations would be punishable by a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.

The bill is aimed at advocates of boycotts targeting Israel, most notably the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement a global campaign that seeks to apply economic and political pressure on Israel to comply with international law. Specifically, the bill sponsors intend the act as a response to the U.N. Human Rights Councils 2016 resolution calling on companies to respect human rights, including in occupied Palestinian territories.

No matter what you think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one thing is clear: The First Amendment protects the right to engage in political boycotts.

In fact, the right to boycott is one of the brightest stars in our constitutional firmament. The American Revolution was founded on boycotts against British goods to protest excessive taxes. John Jay led a boycott against New York merchants who engaged in the slave trade. And the Montgomery bus boycott of 19551956 was a major turning point in the struggle for civil rights in the Jim Crow South. In the 1970s and 1980s, colleges and universities led a widespread campaign to boycott and divest from South Africa, in protest of apartheid. In 2015, football players at the University of Missouri went on strike until the school addressed acute racial tensions on campus. And North Carolinas law prohibiting transgender people from accessing restrooms and other facilities consistent with their gender identities sparked massive boycotts by businesses and individuals.

Boycotts are a form of collective action that allows ordinary people to make their voices heard. For precisely this reason, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to boycott. The courts landmark decision in NAACP v Claiborne Hardware Co. affirmed the constitutional right of NAACP activists to hold a mass economic boycott of white-owned businesses in Port Gibson, Mississippi, to protest the communitys persistent racial inequality and segregation. In ringing language, the court held that the boycotters exercise of their rights to speech, assembly, and petition . . . to change a social order that had consistently treated them as second-class citizens rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.

No matter what you think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one thing is clear: The First Amendment protects the right to engage in political boycotts.

This is a proud constitutional legacy. Today, though, the right to boycott is under assault. Over the past several years, federal, state, and local legislators have introduced wave after wave of legislation seeking to stamp out boycotts and divestment campaigns aimed at Israel. One such law, passed earlier this year by Nassau County in New York, prohibits the county from doing business with people who support the BDS movement. As a result, Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame could be banned from playing at the Nassau Coliseum in New York. Similar laws have been passed in Arizona and Kansas.

None of them comport with the First Amendment.

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act introduced in Congress goes a step further, threatening severe civil and criminal punishment against individuals who refrain from doing business with Israel because of their political opposition to its governments actions. The bill amends two existing laws, the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, which prohibit certain boycotts sponsored by foreign governments.

The bill would expand the application of those laws in a number of ways. It would expand the laws to prohibit boycotts called for by international organizations, like the United Nations and the European Union; it would threaten sanctions against people who boycott businesses operating in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories; and it would prohibit even requests for information about companies business relationships with Israel and Israeli companies. This expansive language would likely chill a wide range of political activity in the United States directed at the Israeli government activity that is constitutionally protected, regardless whether members of Congress agree with it.

A number of the bills sponsors were apparently surprised by the ACLUs free speech concerns with the bill. A number of them have now expressed their intention to review the legislation with the ACLUs civil rights and civil liberties concerns in mind. We hope they do the right thing by backing away from any bill that violates our First Amendment rights.

See the original post:

The First Amendment Protects the Right to Boycott Israel - ACLU (blog)

Underneath the myriad political stories dominating the news sucking up time and energy like traffic on a Los Angeles freeway, a culture war ripples like an earthquake fault line underneath our feet. Religious liberty, however unpretentious and boring it may appear to be, remains a pressing issue on the importance of societal well-being. Last week, there was another victory for schools associated with all faiths.

Joanne Fratello was the principal of St. Anthony School. As such, she led students in religious activities such as prayer, mass, and encouraging religious-based curriculum. The school eventually did not renew Fratello's contract when they determined she was not advancing the school's Catholic values.

So she sued. Her lawyer claimed the school was not allowed to hire a principal who would promote the Catholic faith at St. Anthony School.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the school, announced that a New York court recently ruled St. Anthony School and the Roman Archdiocese of New York "can choose a principal who shares their faith." Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel at Becket, a nonprofit religious liberty law firm, said, "The court saw right through this blatantly anti-Catholic lawsuit, agreeing with the Supreme Court that the church, not the state, should pick religious leaders."

It was clear in the opposing trial lawyer's arguments he was vehemently opposed to religious freedom. He "accused the Catholic Church of being "dangerous to society," the Russian Orthodox Church as "indoctrinating children with Stalinist communism," and the Supreme Court's unanimous decision as an aid to "potential jihadists.'" Such rhetoric is not only divisive, even for a lawyer, but more importantly has no place in a court of law when the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In the decision, which went to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the court ignored the opposing counsel's illogical bluster and instead said there is historical precedent for this case when "a stammering Moses was chosen to lead the people, and a scrawny David to slay a giant." That a New York appellate court would cite centuries-old Jewish history for a 2017 religious liberty case should make any First Amendment fanatic's heart skip with glee even as it no doubt filled opposing counsel with disdain for religious history.

This aligns with a similar decision the Supreme Court unanimously decided five years ago, when the state tried to intervene with a Lutheran school about what kind of leaders the school could choose.

Even though religious liberty cases keep popping up in the court system nationwide, it's heartening to see (for people of all faith or no faith) that the First Amendment remains authoritative and secure.

That said, when cases like this, where a woman sues a religious school because she believes she was unlawfully fired because that school reserved the right to hire someone who promotes their religious values, reaches an appellate court, religious liberty advocates must remain vigilant.

Nicole Russell is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota. She was the 2010 recipient of the American Spectator's Young Journalist Award.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

More here:

Even in (religious liberty) victory, First Amendment advocates must ... - Washington Examiner

A judge on Thursday declared as unconstitutional a local Wisconsin ordinance mandating that the makers of augmented reality games get special use permits if their mobile apps were to be played in county parks. The lawthe nation's first of its kindwas challenged on First Amendment grounds amid concerns it amounted to a prior restraint of a game maker's speech. What's more, the law was seemingly impossible to comply with.

The federal lawsuit was brought by a Southern California company named Candy Lab. The maker of Texas Rope 'Eman augmented reality game with features like Pokemon Gosued Milwaukee County after it adopted an AR ordinance in February in the wake of the Pokemon Go craze. Because some of its parks were overrun by a deluge of players, the county began requiring AR makers to get a permit before their apps could be used in county parks.

The permitting process also demanded that developers perform the impossible: estimate crowd size, event dates, and the times when mobile gamers would be playing inside county parks. The permits, which cost as much as $1,000, also required that developers describe plans for garbage collection, bathroom use, on-site security, and medical services. Without meeting those requirements, augmented reality publishers would be in violation of the ordinance if they published games that included playtime in Milwaukee County parks.

US District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller issued a preliminary injunction Thursday blocking Milwaukee County from enforcing the law until the outcome of a trial tentatively set for April. "Greater injury will be inflicted upon plaintiff by the denial of injunctive relief than will be inflicted upon defendants by the granting of such relief," the judge ruled. (PDF)

The county did not immediately respond for comment.

In court papers, the county said (PDF) that augmented reality games like Texas Rope 'Em"werenot protected by the First Amendment:

Texas Rope 'Em is not entitled to First Amendment protection because it does not convey any messages or ideas. Unlike books, movies, music, plays and video gamesmediums of expression that typically enjoy First Amendment protectionTexas Rope 'Em has no plot, no storylines, no characters, and no dialogue. All it conveys is a random display of cards and a map. Absent the communicative features that invoke the First Amendment, Candy Lab has no First Amendment claim.

In Texas Rope 'Em, the county added, "The player simply views randomly generated cards and travels to locations to get more. That is not the type of speech that demands First Amendment safeguards."

Brian Wassom, Candy Lab's lawyer, said the judge's decision undercuts the county's argument.

"I think it's a huge win for the medium of augmented reality as a whole," he said in a telephone interview. "It's a strong affirmation that AR is a medium for creative expression."

Niantic, the developer of Pokemon Go, told Ars in a recent interview that it was working with Milwaukee County and other jurisdictions to alter game locations and to accommodate park hours.

Go here to read the rest:

Augmented reality wins big in 1st Amendment legal flap - Ars Technica

Reprinted with permission from MediaMatters.

The National Rifle Associations broadcast platform NRATV has launched its latest attack against freedom of the press, this time targetingTheWashington Post, calling the newspaper a fake news outlet and claiming it is where journalism dies.

On July 11, thePostpublished anarticlecalling an NRATVvideoabout political unrest in the U.S. dark. The article noted that the video condemned Democratic politicians, the media and activists as the catalysts for political upheaval in this country, with one glaring omission: firearms. According to the article, the video focused on political discussions around public safety during civil unrest, with less clear connections to Second Amendment rights.

On July 17, NRATV released a responsevideofeaturing NRATV host Grant Stinchfield, who called out thePostreporter by name and slammed him for tell[ing] us we cant have an opinion unless its about guns.

The video also accused thePostof spreading lies about those who disagree with their radical agenda and said the newspaper is pushing organized anarchy that is destroying our country. Stinchfield went on to claim, You people do more to damage our country with a keyboard than every NRA member combined has ever done with a firearm.

Less than one day after the videos release,The New York Times Max Fishertweetedthat the video is edging right up to the line of endorsing violence against journalists, while HuffPostcalledit disturbing.

Despite the mounting criticism, Stinchfield doubled down on his video during the noon edition of NRATVsStinchfieldon July 18, claiming the newspaper uses its keyboards as weapons of destruction:

GRANT STINCHFIELD: TheWashington Postis out of line. They claim to uphold the standards of journalism when, in fact, they use their keyboards as weapons of destruction as they try to tear apart the Trump administration in an effort not just to destroy him, but to destroy America, and it is wrong.

This video is just the latest in a growing number of attacks the NRA has launched against both the press and freedom of the press since Donald Trump won the Republican nomination for president and was ultimately elected. During anOctober 26, 2016, broadcast, Stinchfield characterized dissent against Trump as an assault against the Constitution. A month later, during aNovember 29broadcast, Stinchfield called mainstream media dishonest and downright dirty,suggesting that it is anti-patriotic to report critically on Trump and his transition team, and said that the media instead needs to get on board.

AfterThe New York Timesran anadvertisementduring this years Oscar awards about the importance of journalism, the NRA fired back with its own 75-secondadclaiming Americans have stopped looking toThe New York Timesfor the truth. And in April, the NRAannounceda series of messages against the newspaper, which the organization claims has gone on the offensive to take away your liberties.

Header image source.

See more here:

Here Is The NRA's Latest Attack Against The First Amendment - The National Memo (blog)

The First Amendment promises that, among other things, Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech but, in reality, there are always some legal restrictions on self-expression, as upheld by the Supreme Court.

One of the exceptions is for commercial speech, which is generally defined as speech intended for commerce and aimed at consumers or potential consumers. Its a legally tricky area of law in which the courts have determined the purpose of the speech and its audience determines whether outright lies or significant omissions are subject to First Amendment protections.

And its an area of law the anti-abortion movement seems determined to exploit in an effort to gain the right to mislead people who seek medical care from any health care provider opposed to abortion or birth control.

Whether the anti-abortion movement has a First Amendment right to lie to pregnant patients is the crux of a number of lawsuits in Illinois, consolidated by the courts, in which 20 crisis pregnancy centers are suing the state. They claim that their constitutional rights will be violated by a new rule that went into effect on Jan. 1. The rule requires that all medical professionals adhere by a standard of care that includes informing patients of all their medical options for a given diagnosis or situation, regardless of whether or not a provider is morally opposed to a given relevant option.

Felicia Morris-Bolar, center director of Planned Parenthood in the Bronx, N.Y., works in her office with a view from her window of the EMC Pregnancy Center signage.

Though broadly written, the law acts as a revision to Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, a decades-old state law that was passed following Roe v. Wade, in order to ensure that providers who were opposed to abortion for religious reasons were legally able to recuse themselves from performing the procedure. The new amendment still doesnt force anyone to perform a procedure to which they have religiously motivated objections, but it does require that they inform their patients about everything relevant to their care and conditions. In other words, it is now illegal for a reproductive health care provider to not tell a patient about the existence of contraception or abortion.

But crisis pregnancy centers are, essentially, health care centers though they dont function like many other medical providers. Still, they often advertise and present themselves as full-fledged medical facilities, even when they are mostly avenues through which anti-choice activists some of whom are licensed medical professionals can try to convince people facing unintended pregnancy to avoid abortion.

So now, some of these Illinois-based CPCs claim that the new amendment violates their First Amendment rights by requiring them to mention procedures which they oppose on religious grounds.

The new amendment wasnt, however, intended to target crisis pregnancy centers, according to Lorie Chaiten, director of the Reproductive Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. As Chaiten explained in an interview with Mic, the new amendment was designed to ensure that all patients in Illinois receive care that meets the standards to which any given medical specialty is held, regardless of the religion of the provider. Legally, medical professionals are evaluated by whether they meet a standard of care a certain degree of skill and knowledge that would be considered the norm amongst peers when it comes to evaluating whether malpractice has occurred. Chaiten explained that the bill was designed to help pregnant people get information about all their medical options, whether or not the doctors involved would participate in carrying out the patients chosen course of action.

Stages of a fetus are displayed at the Illinois Right To Life a table while Republican presidential hopeful and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee speaks at the Freedoms Journal Institute for the Study of Faith and Public Policy 2015 Rise Initiative on July 31, 2015 in Tinley Park, Illinois.

The ACLU of Illinois was one of the leading forces in the state working to pass the new amendment to guarantee that patients were not denied knowledge of treatment options at the expense of a providers religious beliefs.

For example, Chaiten pointed to a situation in which a pregnant woman who had planned to have a tubal ligation could be wheeled into an operating room for a C-section, totally unaware that her Catholic doctor wouldnt perform the tubal ligation. In that case, the woman might have to have a risky second surgery. The surgeons objections should have been made clear prior to the initial surgery.

Crisis pregnancy centers being forced to disclose the full range of a peoples medical options is simply a side effect of the larger amendment. Because health care provider is defined very broadly under the statute, anybody who issues any aspect of the provision of health care is covered by the statute by definition, Chaiten said.

It means that crisis pregnancy centers and the people who work in them who hold themselves out as health care providers are covered by Right of Conscience and now must also meet the obligations of this new amendment.

Chaiten doesnt have a lot of sympathy for the CPCs arguments that they have a First Amendment right to keep from telling their patients the full truth. You dont get a free pass. When every other health care provider has to give standard of care information, so do you, Chaiten says. Its not like you have to say, abortion is good. Thats not what it is.

And, there is legal precedent for the government to regulate commercial and professional speech in a way they cant with other forms of speech, Kelli Garcia, senior counsel with the National Womens Law Center, said.

Garcia said that this area of First Amendment law is pretty well established because the government has an interest and a duty to protect the health and well-being of its citizens.

NEW YORK, NY - MARCH 25: Participants in the International Gift of Life Walk, a pro-Life, anti-abortion event in New York, New York on March 25, 2017. Photo Credit: Rainmaker Photo/MediaPunch/IPX

Chaiten said that, in a number of amicus briefs theyve filed on these such issues, the ACLU has noted that patients make decisions about where to go based on the information a provider advertises, just as they make decisions about the kind of treatment they will receive based on the kind of information a provider gives them. She explained that this is exactly the sort of speech the Supreme Court envisioned as commercial speech, so that it could constitutionally be regulated to require accuracy.

Meanwhile, the challenges to Illinois amendment come on the heels of the news that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals moved to uphold San Franciscos Pregnancy Information Disclosure and Protection Ordinance another law recently challenged by CPCs. The San Francisco law prohibits CPCs from making false or misleading statements claiming that they offer abortions, emergency contraception or referrals to abortion providers.

The NWLCs Garcia says the Ninth Districts ruling speaks to exactly the issues now at play in Illinois.

We have truth in advertising laws that exist in other realms, and crisis pregnancy centers shouldnt be able to say were going to get out of the standards, the rules and regulations that regulate everyone else, Garcia says. People expect when they see advertisements that they get what they expect.

And in both San Francisco and Illinois, Garcia says, the laws simply require that anyone who positions themselves as a health care provider to live up to the same standards as all health care providers.

See the original post:

Why pro-life doctors want the First Amendment to protect their right to lie to patients - Mic

Shortly before its summer recess, the U. S.Supreme Court unanimously issued a pair of concurrent rulings concerning the right of freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Although neither arose in Minnesota, the pair are of particular interest and importance here.

MinnPost photo by Jana Freiband

Marshall H. Tanick

Both cases were significant, as are nearly all opinions of the high court, since the tribunal hears and decides only about 70 cases a year, less than 1 percent of the civil and criminal lawsuits it is requested to adjudicate annually. One of these rulings deservedly got ample public glare, perhaps even more than merited, while the other received much less attention than it warranted.

The former, Matal v. Tam[PDF], struck down a provision of the federal trademark law forbidding registration of any disparaging name or markthat reflects "contempt or disrepute" for an individual, group, or organization. The challenge was brought by an Asian-American rock musicband known as "Slants," a reference to the derogatory phrase "slant-eyes" for Asian-Americans, after the Trademark and Patent Office refused to accept its name for legally protected intellectual property. The justices, in a ruling written by Justice Samuel Alito, reasoned that the proscription constitutes impermissible "viewpoint" censorship.

The ruling garnered lots of attention and accompanying acclaim because of its popular-culture subject matter. But it also was noteworthybecause of its seemingly fatal implication for the Trademark Office's declination of the nickname "Redskins" for the professional football team representing the nation's capital. The high court refused last fall to review that rulingat the same time as it took on the "Slants" case, but theoutcome in the rock-band case maydoom the decisiondisallowing the "Redskins" appellation.

That issue has particular resonance here.A number of leaders of the Native American community, along with many supporters, have vigorously opposed use of nicknames by sports teams they deem to denigrate them, although there are questions regarding the breadth of that aversion among rank-and-file Native Americans. As a result, school boards throughout the state have removed and replaced offensive Native American-related appellations from their squads, which has also occurred in other jurisdictions and at both public and private educational institutions.

Additionally, the Native American objectors, represented by a Minneapolis law firm, obtained the ruling from the Trademark office canceling the trademark of the "Redskins" name and logo, although that determination now is of dubious validity in light of the outcome of the "Slants" suit.

The contretemps has not been lost on the media, including some in Minnesota, that have struggled for years over how to report the names of athletic teams that have versions of Native American nicknames, particularly professional baseball and football teams.

The other high court free-speech decision, though, may have even more widespread significance. The case, Packingham v. NorthCarolina, concerned a state law that barred registered sex offenders from using any social media that is accessible to children. The Supreme Court, as in the "Slants" case, invalidated the measure as an unlawful restriction on freedom of expression.

In so doing, the decision authoredby JusticeAnthony Kennedy noted the ever-increasing and "protean" nature of the internet, pointing out that the number of Facebook users is thrice the population of the North American continent. Recognizing these features, the ruling equates the internet with traditional expressive forums like parks and other public places where freedom of speech is allowed to be largely untrammeled. That portion of the decision is suggestive that restraints on internet communications must besparse or virtually nonexistent to pass constitutional muster.

The implication drew some concern fromthree members of the court, led by Justice Joseph Alito, who has emerged as one of the strongest First Amendment defenders on the high court, which has taken on what Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman describes as a "free speech absolutism" hue. Alito's centrality to this approach was exemplified by a solitary dissent he authored a few years ago supporting the right of anti-gay-rights extremists to protest vocally at military burial services in objection to the expansion of gays and lesbians in the armed services.

Although Alito and the other two, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, voted with the majority, they joined in a concurring opinion that lamented the far-reaching implications of the decision that would seem to bar any efforts to restrict social media communications by criminal offenders.

It remains to be seen how the ruling will affect conditions imposed on them or, for that matter, commonly accepted limitations on use of social media to engage in offensive or harassingcommunications. These types of restrictions are frequently resorted to by judges in Minnesota, and elsewhere in sentencing of criminal wrongdoers, including sex offenders, as well as inmarital disputes and other inter-personal spats.

The unanimity of these two freedom-of-speech decisions by the Supreme Court reflects their broad acceptanceacross the ideological spectrum. But they also are likely to be heard from again as these rulingsand their underlying reasonings play out inthe courts in Minnesota and around the country.

Marshall H. Tanick is aconstitutional lawattorney with theTwin Cities law firm of Hellmuth & Johnson.

WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?

If you're interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below or consider writinga letteror a longer-formCommunity Voicescommentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)

Here is the original post:

First Amendment: Two recent Supreme Court decisions are of particular interest and importance in Minnesota - MinnPost

Janine Jackson interviewed Mara Verheyden-Hilliard about the right to protest for the July 14, 2017, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

MP3 Link

Washington Post (6/27/17)

Janine Jackson: A recent popular op-ed called on those engaged in resisting the Trump administration to stop counting so much on lawyers. The fate of the nation cannot be left in the hands of the courts, the piece, written by a lawyer, argued, and thats solid advice. Popular action is what historically has moved the country forward.

But when people do go into the street and are arrested, what then? When they put their bodies on the line and the state creates a new law to criminalize that resistance, what then? Like it or not, the law is still one of the bigger tools in the box for Americans. So what does and doesnt it do for us in the present moment?

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard is an activist and attorney. Shes co-founder and executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund. She joins us now by phone from Washington, DC. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard: Thank you for having me.

JJ: Well, Id like to start, if we could, with an update on the J-20, those arrested in inauguration protests in DC, who are facing what Ive heard called unprecedented charges for demonstrators, felony charges that could lead to 75, 80 years in prison. One of those still facing charges is journalist Aaron Cant, now at the Santa Fe Reporter, who has written for FAIR. We talked about the case in January. What should we know now about this ongoing story?

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard: There are millions of people who are engaging in political protest and political organizing who have never done so before. (image: WTTG-TV)

MVH: This case is really of extraordinary proportions, when you look at what the government is doing to people who are engaged in protests on the first day that Trump took office. And its really in its own context significant, too, because of the major shift in policing in Washington, DC, which we believe is intended to send a signal.

Whats happened now is more than 200 people were swept up in a dragnet arrest by the police, and this occurred after the police had followed the demonstration for, by their own account, approximately half an hour, while there were some people who broke windows, only a handful of people. And rather than going in and arresting the people for whom they had probable cause to arrest, the police waited that arbitrary time, tracked and detained 200 people. And so they swept up demonstrators, passers-by, journalists, anyone whos in proximity, anyone who is chanting and protesting.

And then they undertook this mass prosecution with the United States Attorneys Office here in the District of Columbia, in which people are being threatened with, as youve mentioned, jail time that is decades and decades long, really a lifetime of jail time, with these felony charges. They are charging people en masse with crimes that may have happened, in terms of property damage, but charging everyone with crimes without particularized probable cause, without being able to point to a person and say, you committed this act and so were charging you for this act. Theyre charging everyone in the vicinity for being in proximity.

This is extremely dangerous; it sets the stage that for any demonstration, if anyone commits a criminal act, an act of property damage, whether that be a protestor or, frankly, a police agent provocateur, the police can now use this as license, or they wish to, to sweep up everyone else around them.

JJ: This is what we talked about before. Its not a crime, now, is it, to be in proximity to other people who break the law in conjunction with First Amendment activities?

MVH: Of course its not, and it cannot be. And the First Amendment has always stood for that, in fact, you cannot criminalize a person for the acts of another. And particularly in the context of the First Amendment, when its an issue where the connection is that there may be a sympathy of political views, one cannot do that. There are cases dating back, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware and others, the courts said you have to act with precision. You cannot say that just because people have a similar point of view, or may have similar political goals, that those who carry out illegal acts or acts of violence in pursuit of those goals, that those acts can be attributed to the others who do not.

JJ: Right. These charges, at the level theyre at, it feels new, but we know that the effort to repress First Amendment expression is not new. The Supreme Court last month rejected a First Amendment case that dates from years back, Garcia v. Bloomberg. Can you tell us about that and how it relates?

Occupy Wall Street marchers on the Brooklyn Bridge, October 1, 2011. (cc photo: Mat McDermott)

MVH: The Garcia v. Bloomberg case comes from the Occupy demonstration of 2011, when 700 people were peacefully marching, compliant with police orders, there was no violence, and as people marched, the police escorted the march. The police themselves closed the Brooklyn Bridge roadway to vehicular traffic. The police and police commanders themselves opened up the roadway to pedestrian traffic. It is the police and police commanders who led the demonstrators onto the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge, and once those demonstrators had flowed and followed behind the lead of the police, the police stopped the march, trapped them from behind, mass-arrested 700 people.

When we litigated this case, we won at the District Court level, we won at the Second Circuit, in fact. And then Mayor de Blasio, who had taken office, frankly, running on an Occupy ticket, had the court reevaluate the ruling, and the court, in an extraordinary measure, reversed itself. And we took this case up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court just last month determined that they would not hear it.

JJ: Obviously, lots of folks are taking their lead from this, and kind of joining on this bandwagon. We have a spate of anti-protest legislation around the country, even UN experts are issuing alarmed statements now. Some 20 states have passed or tried to pass laws allowing protesters to be charged with conspiracy, increasing penalties for blocking streets, even protecting drivers who run protesters over, banning masks and hoodies. I mean, is anyone really confused that the intent of these rules is to quash dissent, and doesnt that thinly veiled intent matter?

MVH: Its clear that there is an effort around the country to try, through legal meansalthough we would consider illegal meansto curtail peoples fundamental First Amendment rights to gather together in the streets, to be able to speak out in unified action.

I do think, as much as were seeing these kinds of restrictions imposed and these rulings, that at the same time it can obviously have a chilling effect on people, the reality is that people do always come out and people will continue to come out. And while this may be intended to have a chilling effect, it is really crucial that people stand up and speak out for what they believe in. And I do think the reason that were seeing these is because there is a growing recognition that there really is this fire of people, these embers burning, where we keep seeing people come up and demonstrating for what they believe in. Were seeing so many more people entering political life, even since the election of Donald Trump. People are taking to the streets, protesting, who never protested before.

So while were faced with what is I think overt repression, both in terms of these felony prosecutions, these state laws, these court rulings, we also are faced with the fact that there are millions of people who are engaging in political protest and political organizing who have never done so before, and thats a force that really cant be stopped.

JJ: Weve been speaking with Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund. Find them online at JusticeOnline.org. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, thank you very much for joining us today on CounterSpin.

MVH: Thank you for having me.

Subscribe: Android |

Here is the original post:

'There's an Effort Around the Country to Curtail People's Fundamental 1st Amendment Rights' - FAIR

The National Rifle Association targeted the Washington Post in a new video Monday, accusing the newspaper of "doing damage to the country" and promoting the "violent left."

The release of the video comes after the Post wrote a story last week about recent NRA videos that criticize Democratic politicians and the media, but do not focus on gun policy.

"They tell us to not have an opinion unless it's about guns," says conservative talk show host Grant Stinchfield, who narrates the new video attacking the Post. "Listen to me Washington Post. We talk about more than guns because every freedom is connected. If one is threatened, they all are threatened, and the organized anarchy that you, our politicians and you're activists are pushing is destroying our country."

Stinchfield went on to condemn the Post's slogan, "Democracy Dies in Darkness," and said the newspaper "should say, "Journalism Dies at the Washington Post.'"

The Post wrote a story July 11 that mentions a recent NRA video released in late June featuring commentator Dana Loesch that received widespread criticism because it did not emphasize Second Amendment Rights.

In the video, Loesch described liberal demonstrators who "smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports bully and terrorize the law-abiding." A petition to have the Loesch video removed from Facebook argued that "the video tries to create an us-vs-them' narrative and pit Americans against one another."

Critics said the video exploited the congressional baseball shooting that had just happened prior to the video's release, in which five people were wounded, including House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., by an outspoken supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

The NRA is brushing off the criticism. In the new video, Stinchfield says the NRA "will never stop fighting the violent left on the battlefield of truth."

"Here's a suggestion for the Washington Post: don't worry about how many guns are in our videos, worry about how many facts are in your articles," Stinchfield said. "Because if gun owners abused our Second Amendment the way you abuse your paper and the First Amendment, our rights would have been taken away long ago. You people do more to damage our country with a keyboard than any NRA member has ever done combined with a firearm."

See the rest here:

NRA: Washington Post abuses First Amendment - Washington Examiner