The Supreme Court should leave in place a lower court's ruling that former President Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking critics on Twitter, a free speech advocacy group argues.

The public interest in preventing impermissible viewpoint discrimination in government-operated social media accounts weighs heavily in favor of keeping the Second Circuits judgmentin place, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University argues in papers filed Thursday.

The papers come in response to arguments filed by the Department of Justice on thelast full day of Trump's presidency.

The government lawyers urged theSupreme Court to find both that the battle over the Twitter blocks is moot -- given that Trump is once again a private citizen -- and that a lower court ruling against him should be vacated.

The legal battle dates to 2017, when the Knight Institute sued Trump on behalf of seven critics who were blocked by him on Twitter.

Knight said the blocks violated users' free-speechrights, arguing that Trump's Twitter account was a public forum -- comparable to city streets, parks and other places where the government can't censor people based on their opinions.

U.S.District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in New York sided with the Knight Institute and ruled that Trump acted unconstitutionally by blocking social media users based on their viewpoints.

The Justice Department appealed to the 2nd Circuit, arguing that Trump acts in a personal capacity, not an official one, when he blocks people on Twitter. The First Amendmentprohibits the government -- but not private individuals -- from censoring criticism.

In 2019, the appellate court rejected the White House's position, ruling that evidence of the account'sofficial nature was overwhelming.

The Justice Department then sought review by the Supreme Court. In its most recent papers, the Justice Department argued that the 2nd Circuitruling was deeply problematic.

Allowing the decision below to stand would be harmful, no longer to President Trump, but to the Presidency itself and to other governmentalofficials, the Justice Department wrote.

The Knight Institute counters that the appellate court's ruling should be preserved because it provides a sensible framework that is ofvalue to the legal community and the public.

The organization added that the 2nd Circuit's decision rests on a unique set of facts and doesn't pre-ordain the result of any futurelawsuit involving other public officials and other accounts that may be used in different ways.

The Supreme Court has had the case on its conference calendar since November, but hasn'tyet said whether it will review the ruling.

A decision could come as early as Monday.

Original post:

Knight Institute Urges Supreme Court To Preserve Ruling That Trump Violated First Amendment 01/25/2021 - MediaPost Communications

In this morning'sPrice v. Barrdecision, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (D.D.C.) held:

[1.] Filming, including for purposes of making a film that would be commercially distributed, is protected by the First Amendment.

[2.] The permit requirements are content-based, because

[The requirements] do not apply generically to all commercial activity in national parks. To the contrary, the permitting regime applies to filming, a form of expressive speech, and specifically to a type of filming, "commercial filming." 54 U.S.C. 100905(a). Section 100905's implementing regulations make this content-based distinction even more apparent, defining "commercial filming" as the "recording of a moving image by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience with the intent of generating income." The application of 100905's permitting regime, therefore, necessarily turns on an assessment of whether the content of a film was meant to appeal to a market audience and generate income.

Consider, for example, the enforcement of 100905 against Mr. Price and his film Crawford Road. To determine whether Crawford Road ran afoul of 100905's permitting regime, NPS officials needed to review the film and determine ex post whether the content Mr. Price included therein was geared towards a "market audience" or evinced some "intent of generating income." 43 C.F.R. 5.12. If, however, Mr. Price's film was "non-commercial" or happened to feature only news worthy "information about current events or of current interest to the public," the permitting requirement would not apply, see id. at 5.4(a).

[3.] The requirements must therefore satisfy strict scrutiny, which they can't do. The "governmental interest in revenue collection" isn't compelling enough; and the regulations aren't narrowly tailored to the interest in "[p]rotecting national park land and the resources it contains":

First, 100905 and its implementing regulations are overinclusive. On their face, 100905 and its implementing regulations flatly require a paid permit for all "commercial filming." This regime, therefore, requires "individuals and small groups to obtain permits before engaging in expressive activities," just the same as it does for large groups with heavy and potentially disruptive filming equipment. Defendants offer no explanation for how the broad sweep of this permitting regime is sufficiently tailored to the government's goal of protecting federal land.

Relatedly, 100905's permitting regime also excludes non-commercial filming without any consideration for the damage that activity might also cause to national parks. For example, a "non-commercial" filming production carried out by a non-profit organization or a news crew would escape the reach of 100905's permitting regime, even if those groups used heavy filming equipment that damaged federal land.

I'm not sure that a distinction between commercial filming and noncommercial filming, turning just on whether the result is to be commercially distributed, iscontent-based. But I agree that the news-gathering exemption, for "information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public," makes the rules content-based, see Regan v. Time, Inc. (1984). And I agree that the rules can't pass the strict scrutiny required for such content-based restrictions.

Read more here:

Permit Requirements for Filming in National Parks Violate First Amendment - Reason

PHILADELPHIA (KYW Newsradio) Several social media platforms have kicked President Trump off their feeds over allegations he incited the violence at the Capitol, while last week, the Philadelphia District Attorney's office began investigating whether one of their own detectives committed a crime when he allegedly posted he was ready for war over the election results.

All of this begs the question: what are your First Amendment rights on social media?

Basically, you are free to yell and scream in protest in the town's square, as it's a public space, operated by the government. But when it comes to social media, First Amendment attorney Kaitlan Gurney with Ballard Spahr said you don't actually have a "right" to be there.

"You have no first amendment right to post anything on Twitter, because it's a private company," she explained. That also goes for Facebook, Snapchat or any other platform, as social media isn't a protected platform for free speech.

"It's their own private constitution, if you will, but the U.S. Constitution is simply not involved," she added. "When one of my kids invites a friend over to my house, they need to abide by my rules. And that's exactly what's happening on social media. These companies are saying if you post on my platform, you need to abide by my rules."

When it comes to your job, Gurney said you have to abide by their social media policies.

"It can be a little different if you are a government employee or if you have a specific contract that lays out the rules for which you need to abide by, but if you are just a typical employee working for an everyday company and you are considered a work for hire, you can absolutely lose your job for what you say on social media," she said.

As for the detective, he has been suspended and relieved of his weapon, according to a DAO spokeswoman, while they investigate whether he advocated for a violent crime.

Go here to read the rest:

Does the First Amendment protect you on social media? - RADIO.COM

Despite these alarming developments, all is not lost for free speech and government transparency. When Trump ascended to the presidency, he gained more than new resources and incentives to manipulate or suppress information. As a state actor, he also acquired the burden of operating under the First Amendment. There is indeed ample First Amendment precedent under which the court can and should find Wolkoffs agreement unenforceable. As a foundational matter, the Supreme Court has, time and again, deemed speech about government officials and public figures at the very heart of the First Amendment, extolling our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. The Justice Departments own arguments about the centrality of the first ladys office to the presidency place Wolkoffs revelations squarely at the First Amendments core. More so, presidents, including this one, routinely rely on their spouses for political advantage. Through everything from policy initiatives to, yes, those darned Christmas decorations, first ladies have traditionally served as political assets to presidents. This reality, too, places first spouses words and activities well within the realm of public debate that the Supreme Court deems central to the First Amendment.

Because First Amendment protections serve the public as well as the speaker, they cannot simply be signed away through an employment contract, whether for a paid or volunteer position. The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that public employers do not have an unlimited right to fire or otherwise discipline employees for speaking, as citizens, on matters of public concern. The Court has imposed such limits partly because speech by public employees on subject matter related to their employment holds special value precisely because those employees gain knowledge of matters of public concern through their employment.

Orly Lobel: Trumps extreme NDAs

The agreement that the Justice Department seeks to enforce here extends considerably further than workplace discipline. It purports to subject the signer to restraints on speech about their White House employment for at least the length of the presidents term, and possibly for the rest of the signers life. Courts have only ever upheld such agreements, and allowed constructive trusts to be imposed as remedies for their violation, in the context of national-security information. As noted above, even those decisions are controversial, and such NDAs are currently facing a new set of legal challenges.

The Trump family, in short, simply cannot have it both ways. They cannot serve as Americas first family, with all the fame, power, and resources that entails, and still control their image with the domineering tactics that they employed as private citizens. For better or worse, the goings-on of Donald and Melania Trump are now Americas business. And in this business, the founding document is the Constitution.

This story is part of the project The Battle for the Constitution, in partnership with the National Constitution Center.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Continue reading here:

Stephanie Wolkoffs Revelations Are Exactly What the First Amendment Should Protect - The Atlantic

Ken Paulson, Opinion columnist Published 4:00 a.m. ET Oct. 16, 2020 | Updated 8:59 a.m. ET Oct. 16, 2020

The Supreme Court is a vital component of our democracy. Here's how the process works to nominate, confirm, and oppose a potential justice. USA TODAY

Can you imagine a U.S. Supreme Court nominee being unable to explain the Second Amendment? Or drawing a blank on the ruling in Roe v. Wade?

That would lead to cries of outrage, a 24-news cycle and in all likelihood, the withdrawal of the nomination.

But when Judge Amy Coney Barrett struggled to name all the freedoms of the First Amendment and Senator Ben Sasse (R-NEB) tried to help her out with the wrong answer, it was barely a blip on Twitter.

It began today when Sasse tossed Barrett what presumably was intended as a softball question: What are the five freedoms of the First Amendment?

Barretts response: Speech, religion, press, assembly. speech, press, religion, assembly (now counting on her hands) I dont know. What am I missing?

She turned to the wrong person for a lifeline. Sasse quickly said redress or protest.

Then came the most astonishing moment of all. A relieved Barrett said Oh, OK.

Oh, OK? Not quite.The fifth freedom is the right to petition government for redress of grievances, a guarantee close to the hearts of lobbyists. The right to protest is not one of the five freedoms, but it can be used in tandem with all of those rights.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Dont get me wrong. Ive had the privilege to testify before a Congressional committee and Ive been interviewed live on national television. Both can be nerve-wracking experiences. If I were to do both at the same time, with my future and that of the Supreme Court at stake, Im pretty sure I would struggle to remember my middle name. Of course, if the interviewer offered up the wrong middle name, Im pretty sure I would catch that.

That said, it was a mental lapse and not the crime of the century. In the end, this isnt about a judge or a senator.

Its about the First Amendment. Its five freedoms are at the heart of the American experience, giving each of us the right to express ourselves freely and to exercise our personal faith, while providing the tools needed to keep a check on the abuse of government power.

But instead of that bundling of rights making the First an untouchable amendment, it does just the opposite. The First Amendment has no clout.

The news media are all in on freedom of the press. Churches and religious organizations will readily fight for freedom of religion. Support for freedom of speech tends to be based on what is being said. Assembly is a popular freedom in the abstract, unless civil unrest looms in highly visible cities. For what its worth, the right of petition is just fine.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett delivered her opening statement in her Supreme Court confirmation hearing.(Photo: AP)

The First Amendment has no single constituency, and thats a problem.

When journalists assert their right to freedom of the press, but rarely write about incursions on faith, thats a problem.

When people of faith are outraged by COVID-19 limits on church attendance and dismiss the news media as fake news, thats a problem.

When a university proclaims itself to be a marketplace of ideas and tries to limit assembly to a free speech zone, thats a problem.

When someone uses their free speech at full volume on social media, only to demand the firing of public figures who do the same, thats a problem.

Our rights to speech, press, religion, assembly and petition are embodied in the most important 45 words in American history. Those freedoms are buffeted, though, by those who choose to embrace the First Amendment selectively.

The Second Amendment poses no such problem. It is clearly about the right to bear arms, though the whole militia business muddies things up a bit. Its constituency is clear and powerful. (See the right to petition.)

Sasse followed up with a second question to Barrett about the First Amendment, asking if she knew why the five freedoms were packaged in a single amendment.

I don't know why, actually, she responded. Im sure there's a story that I don't know there about why those appeared in the First Amendment all together rather than being split up in different amendments.

And this was where the previously imprecise senator nailed it.

You don't really have freedom of religion if you don't also have freedom of assembly, Sasse explained. You don't really have freedom of speech if you can't also publish your beliefs and advocate for them. You don't really have any of those freedoms if you can't protest at times and seek to redress grievances in times when government oversteps and tries to curtail any of those freedoms.

The very best way to protect your favorite First Amendment freedom is to take a stand for all of them. That requires respecting the exercise of free expression in all its forms, even if the expression isnt to your liking. That mindset would contribute to a more civil society and more consistent support for the amendment that makes Americas ideals possible. It may also prove handy for a future Supreme Court nominee.

Ken Paulson is the director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, a former editor of USA TODAY and a member of USA TODAYs Board of Contributors.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/10/16/free-press-free-speech-freedom-religion-assembly-seek-redress-column/3665682001/

Go here to read the rest:

The First Amendment has no single constituency, and thats a problem - USA TODAY

The 2020 edition of the college's Lewis B. ODonnell Media Summit will convene an all-star group to discuss On the Front Lines with the First Amendment on Wednesday, Oct. 28.

The centerpiece panel presentation will take place virtually at 3:30 p.m. via Zoom, and will feature Connie Schultz, a Pulitzer-Prize winning, nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate; Oswego alumna Michelle Garcia, editorial manager of NBC News NBC BLK, which which tells stories by, for and about the Black community; Bret Jaspers, politics reporter for KERA Public Media in Dallas-Fort Worth;Steve Brown, investigative reporter at WGRZ in Buffalo;and Ava Lubell, a Legal Fellow at the Cornell Law School First Amendment Clinic. Communication studies faculty member Michael Riecke will serve as moderator.

Student co-directors Mikayla Green and Benjamin Grieco noted that when they and the rest of the team were looking at themes for the 16th annual summit, they watched the world in which journalists operate change so much in a few months, as the press adapted to covering and telling the stories of COVID-19, the Black Lives Matter movement, the upcoming election and so many compelling, fast-moving stories.

We were told to aim high, said Grieco, a senior journalism major and editor in chief of The Oswegonian. Our guests dont have to travel, which makes it easier. We could ask, Do you have four hours to talk to these students who are really interested in what you have to say?

Especially with the summit coming just days before such a pivotal election, the virtual arrangement helped secure a high caliber of participants, they noted.

A popular panelist at a previous summit, Schultz also is a Professional in Residence at Kent State University School of Journalism. She won the Pulitzer Prize in 2005 for Commentary for columns that judges praised for providing a voice for the underdog and the underprivileged. She also won the Robert F. Kennedy Award for Social Justice Reporting and the Batten Medal, which honors a body of journalistic work that reflects compassion, courage, humanity and a deep concern for the underdog. Schultz is the author of three books published by Random House, plus her first novel, The Daughters of Erietown, a New York Times bestseller.

Over the last decade, Garcia has covered major social movements across the United States including the fight for marriage equality, #MeToo and the Black Lives Matter movement, to name a few. The 2006 SUNY Oswego journalism graduate and former Oswegonian editor in chief was named to Folios list of 20 in their 20s, won a GLAAD Media Award with her staff about the advancement of the HIV treatment drug Truvada, taught at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism and has coached several successful writers along the way. Previously, Garcia was an editor at Vice, Out, Vox, Mic and The Advocate.

Jaspers stories have aired on the BBC, NPRs All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Weekend Edition, and Here & Now, and APMs Marketplace. He previously reported on politics and the Colorado River basin for KJZZ in Phoenix, and before that was managing editor at WSKG in upstate New York. Awards include three 2020 Regional Murrow Awards for reporting at KJZZ, one for Hard News, and two as part of KJZZs series Tracing the Migrant Journey. That series also won a 2020 Kaleidoscope Award for excellence in covering an issue of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender.

Brown has spent a lifetime in journalism after graduating from Canisius College in 1983. He has been honored with multiple award including six regional Murrow Awards, four of which he collected while working for 2 On-Your-Side. In 2019, he won a national Murrow Award for his short documentary about a man who sought to have the Catholic Church admit a priest was his biological father. Before coming in Buffalo, Brown spent 15 years as a correspondent for Fox News.

Lubell provides pro bono legal advice to NYC metro area journalists on a range of First Amendment issues arising from newsgathering and publication. Previously, Lubell served as the General Counsel of Quartz Media, which focuses on global business news and has reporters based in cities around the world. She previously also worked at Slate as general manager and general counsel; as special assistant for briefing under New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and as the political director for the Women and Politics Institute at American University. She is an affiliate member of the NYC Bar Association Communications and Media Law Committee.

The panelists traditionally visit classrooms on the day of the event, and that is something organizers plan to continue via Zoom rooms.

I remember being a freshman and knowing that someone will show up to your class and tell some really cool stories, said Green, a senior broadcasting major and vice president of production for WTOP-TV 10. Im glad we can still do that.

The popular Career Connectors component is still in the plan, this time in a virtual environment where current students can talk to recent graduates in the industry and network on a one-on-one basis.

This year's Career Connectors include Natalie Brophy '17, a reporter for Gannett/USA Today Network; Imani Cruz '17, talent and development, MTV Networks;Justin Dobrow '17, program operations manager, Peacock for NBCUniversal Media;Stephanie Herbert '18, media director for MOST (Museum of Science and Technology) in Syracuse;Allif Karim '18, sports director for WDVM-TV in Maryland; andOmy Melo '14, junior editor at Nickelodeon.

As different as everything is this year, we do want to keep it familiar, Green said. But one way we can change it is to make it even more open virtually.

We dont really want to change that tradition or standard, Grieco added. Were trying to maintain that legacy. It may be virtual, but everything else is, so why cant we keep doing the same things?

Organizers expect student media WTOP and WNYO to broadcast the Zoom feed of the panel discussion as well.

Louis A. Borrelli Jr., a pioneer in cable television, online media and broadcast production services and a 1977 Oswego graduate, made a founding gift for the media summit in 2005. Two years later, 1976 graduate Al Roker, the national weather anchor and co-host of the third hour of NBC's "Today" show, provided additional funding to rename the summit in memory of longtime professor Dr. Lewis B. O'Donnell, a seminal figure in the college experiences of Borrelli, Roker and many others.

The annual School of Communication, Media and the Arts highlight is organized by a student team with journalism faculty member Brian Moritz serving as advisor.

For more information, visit MediaSummit.org.

Read the rest here:

Media Summit to explore 'On the Front Lines with the First Amendment' - SUNY Oswego

BLOG

UAW and other unions withdrew their effort to overthrow a new rule in Michigan that will requre public employees to opt-in on an annual basisas a condition for the state to collect union dues. In early October, U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh denied unions a preliminary injuction.

If the state may completely prohibit payroll deductions for union dues without running afoul of the First Amendment, it follows that a yearly reauthorization requirement for payroll deductions also does not implicate the First Amendment, Steeh wrote. [T]he State is not constitutionally obligated to provide payroll deductions at all.

Common (and Constitutional) sense prevailed, but the suit raises some important questions too. Why are taxpayers still footing the bill for private dues collection? Why won't some unions accept the principle of voluntary association?

When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2018's Janus v ASFCME that government employees could not be forced to join a public employee union or be forced to pay dues and fees if they refused, the Court was simply affirming that government employees did not surrender their constitutional rights as a condition of employment. Prior to Janus, state and local goverrnmnets would generally force employees into becoming union members or paying the union fees if they opted out. These unions are private organizations, yet had the strong arm of government to enforce membership and take dues money direct from their paychecks.

In 2018, following the Janus ruling, King 5 interviewed Lynne Dodson, the Secretary Treasurer of the Washington State Labor Council AFL-CIO, who said, "We need to focus on talking with our members showing what the value is with unions. I think it will grow power and numbers we have. We will do much more direct talking and organizing,

Her sentiment is the right one and it is the one other private organizations have, which is that you need to persuade people your organization is of value and worth joining. Government union backed critics of WPC like to point to membership renewals amongst government employees as indicating of our "failure" on Janus policy. They fail to grasp the point that voluntary membership is fine-- but forced membership is not.

Annual renewal of membership allows for better accountability, prevents creating obstuctions to members who wish to opt-out, and is a small price to pay for taxpayers footing the bill for your membership dues collection.

Speaking of annual memberships, have you renewed your WPC membership yet?

Go here to read the rest:

A victory for the First Amendment and workers in Michigan - Washington Policy

People in Knox County heading to vote will vote on two wordy amendments to the county charter. Here are what they mean.

KNOX COUNTY, Tenn. If you live in Knox County and are getting ready to cast your vote in the November election, you should know the last two measures on the ballot will require some extra thought.

Knox Countians will vote on two amendments to the county charter. On paper, the paragraphs explaining what you're voting for are a little daunting and filled with legal jargon -- so let's break them down to save you some reading time in the voting booth.

Amendment 1: Should voters or the mayor choose the law director?

The first amendment is asking if you would like to give the Knox County mayor the power to choose their own law director in the future, meaning voters would no longer directly elect the position starting in 2024. Voting "yes" would also allow the County Commission and School Board to hire their own attorneys.

People in support of a "yes" vote for this amendment say nearly all other local governments in Tennessee function in this manner -- with a mayor appointing this position. They say allowing the mayor, County Commission and School Board to choose their own attorneys will clear up a lot of conflicts of interest, saying the current system of having the law director represent all three at once is unfair and counter-intuitive since they can disagree with each other on legal matters. For example: the long negotiations over the TVA Tower deal.

Those who believe you should vote "no" say people should continue to have the power to vote for one of the most important and powerful jobs in the county. A "no" vote would allow voters to continue directly hiring or firing the law director instead of giving the power to the mayor -- incentivizing law directors to run their office efficiently in the interests of voters. It would also be the cheaper option for tax payers since hiring other attorneys for the commission and school board would increase legal fees slightly.

Amendment 2: Should the mayor be required to submit contracts less than $100K to the County Commission for record?

This amendment is much more straightforward than it looks on paper: Should Knox County law require the mayor to submit all contracts to the County Commission to keep them on public record?

Currently, the Knox County Charter requires the mayor to receive Commission approval on all contracts costing more than $50,000 unless the Commission sets that figure at a larger amount in advance. In this case, the Commission has decided that "larger amount" is any contract more than $100,000 over its anticipated life, so any contracts less than that are strictly the responsibility of the mayor.

A "yes" vote on this amendment would require the mayor to submit any of those contracts less than $100,000 in full to the Commission during its monthly meetings, even though they do not require their vote. This would make the text of these contracts more readily available to the public to know what contracts the mayor is approving. Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs said he supports this measure because it increases public oversight and transparency in local government.

Go here to see the original:

Election 2020: Here are what the two Knox County charter amendments on the ballot mean - WBIR.com

Graphic by Owensboro Times

Every statewide elected official takes an oath to uphold the constitutions of the United States andthe Commonwealth of Kentucky. As your elected State Treasurer, I have the addedresponsibility of watching all state expenditures, billions of dollars every year, and making surethat your taxpayer dollars are not being used in a way that violates the Constitution.

In recent weeks, there have been stories circulating nationwide about the efforts of the Archbishop of San Francisco to overturn the punitive limits imposed on churches by the mayorof San Francisco. The last few days have seen a resurgence in the targeting of Orthodox Jewishcommunities in New York, as well as other houses of worship, by imposing hard caps of 10 and 25 people per service, regardless of the size of the church or synagogue. As efforts to protectcivil liberties in those areas moves forward, we must remember that the targeting of religiousexercise by state and local officials is not limited to the coastal blue states.

Kentucky, whose politics will never be confused with New York or California, has itself seenmultiple federal courts strike down executive orders issued by Gov. Andy Beshear, on the grounds that the orders limiting religious services, travel, or protest, violated the fundamental,constitutional rights of Kentuckians. In any other time in our history, a series of defeats of thismagnitude would have been met with much greater attention and demand for accountability.

Due to my role as a watchdog of public spending, I directed my office to review the way taxpayer dollars were being spent to enforce the administrations questionable executive ordersrelating to First Amendment activities. Protecting our Commonwealth and its great citizens need not be done at the expense of the First Amendment. It is possible to protect the Commonwealth while respecting, and adhering to, a principle upon which this country was founded. My office requested information from a number of health departments around the Commonwealth, and received responses from several departments, as well as the Kentucky State Police.

Our investigation uncovered numerous instances of law enforcement being used to monitor orshut down faith-based services; derogatory or confrontational comments made about religious exercise by those in leadership; and selective, targeted enforcement of mass gathering prohibitions, in violation of the First Amendment. The actions taken at a local level seem to be directly correlated to the decisions made, and the tone set, by the Governors administration in Frankfort, which itself has too often used daily briefings and press releases as opportunities to disparage or threaten any person or institution that questions the legality and appropriateness ofthe administrations orders.

On Oct. 22, I will be presenting my offices findings to the Interim Joint Committee onJudiciary in Frankfort. This will be an opportunity for legislators to consider what we haveuncovered in relation to executive actions during last few months, and for the public to learnmore about how taxpayer dollars have been spent to enforce arbitrary government orders.

Kentuckians have established a constitution and laws that demand respect for the FirstAmendment rights of all citizens, regardless of their religious or political beliefs. During the1930s, as our nation was trapped within the economic catastrophe of the Great Depression, andfacing the rise of dangerous forces around the world, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughesreminded the country that [t]he Constitution was adopted in a period of great emergency. Heastutely noted that [e]mergency does not create power and that [e]mergency does not increasegranted power. The extraordinary challenges presented in 2020 do not provide justification forexpanding the Governors powers, or for ignoring the fundamental tenets that separate ourdemocracy from failed and oppressive autocratic states arounds the world.

The First Amendment must be vigorously defended by all elected officials, particularly in times of emergency, when it is the easiest for the government to justify unconstitutional restrictions. Iencourage every Kentuckian to continue to demand that our government adhere to the constitution and laws of the Commonwealth, and I look forward to continuing to serve the Commonwealth as your State Treasurer.

Written by Kentucky State Treasurer Allison Ball

Read more:

Letter to the Editor: Government suppression of First Amendment during pandemic - The Owensboro Times

Dear Editor,

Ours is not a theocracy. Ours is a representative democracy. Our nation was founded, in part, in response to the religious tyranny experienced by its new citizens in the countries from which theyd fled. Thus, commitment to the separation of church and state was vital. This meant our nation would never establish a national church nor show preference for any one religion.

Our 1st Amendment not only protects speech, it also protects four other rights, among them religious liberty. It begins, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Respect for religious liberty is even more critical today than it was in 1787, as our nation is now vastly more diverse.

Which brings me to the topic of abortion.

When and under what circumstances abortion should be legal is a highly nuanced and contentious issue. For the religion of my mother, an embryo was to be protected absolutely from the moment of conception. It was believed, too, that the prohibition against direct abortion at any time during pregnancy and for any reason should not just be a personal religious/moral decision, but legally prohibited for allregardless of the embryos or fetuss viability, regardless of the threat to the mothers life, and regardless of an individuals religious convictions.

The dilemma for me as a citizen is whether my own personal religious beliefs, and/or those of my mother, should be imposed on everyone else regardless of their own theology. Personally, I think not, absolutely.

Denise Fazio, Ed.D.,Boulder County

Like Loading...

Read the original:

First Amendment rights The Mountain-Ear - The Mountain -Ear

A presidential election like no other in history, a global pandemic causing an unprecedented economic and emotional toll on our communities, and a remote learning environment where virtual communication reigns, whether in the school setting or through social media. What are the rules to navigate discussion and debate on these issues and others in the public school setting, and how can administrators work within them to model respectful discourse not just for students but for our school communities at large? This episode covers the Seemore+

A presidential election like no other in history, a global pandemic causing an unprecedented economic and emotional toll on our communities, and a remote learning environment where virtual communication reigns, whether in the school setting or through social media. What are the rules to navigate discussion and debate on these issues and others in the public school setting, and how can administrators work within them to model respectful discourse not just for students but for our school communities at large? This episode covers the rights of employees and students to exercise their first amendment rights and respect the rights of others, whether teaching on controversial topics, sponsoring student clubs or publications, or navigating political messages shared by school community members through personal social media. Seeless-

Continue reading here:

They Said What? First Amendment Issues in 2020 | Franczek PC - JD Supra

The American Humanist Association recently filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) in their Supreme Court case involving a Christian students claim against their university. Many AHA supporters have taken to social media to question this unlikely partnership between two very different organizations. And indeed, the AHA did not expect to be filing such a brief a year ago when it was on the opposite side of ADF in American Legion v. American Humanist Association.

However the case in question here, Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski presents a starkly different issue than American Legion. First, the matter revolves around the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, not the Establishment Clause. Second, the court is poised to obliterate one of the key enforcement tools of the First Amendment. Doing so will directly impact future cases brought by ADF, AHA, and any other organization or individual seeking to vindicate their First Amendment rights, whether it be under the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause.

In ADFs case, Chike Uzuegbunam, a Christian student, was denied the ability to use a designated free-speech zone to distribute literature and speak to other students at Georgia Gwinnett College, a public institution in Lawrenceville, Georgia. Uzuegbunam was cited for open air speaking, not covered under permissive speech in the schools freedom of expression policy, and disorderly conduct under the colleges student code of conduct. This denial occurred even though he properly reserved the space pursuant to the schools policy.

The schools actions against Uzuegbunam deterred another student, Joseph Bradford, from using the free-speech zone for fear of similar treatment. Both students filed a claim seeking a declaration and injunctions against the freedom of expression policy and the student code of conduct, and nominal damages for the violation of their First Amendment rights. In response, the college changed its policies, striking the challenged portions. The court then dismissed the case in full, determining all claims were moot, meaning there was no longer any issue for Uzuegbunam to litigate since the policies at issue no longer existed.

The problem that concerns the AHA is the dismissal of nominal damages. These damages are, as the name implies, nominaltypically an award between $1 and $10. Despite this low value, these damages tend to be the only form of relief for a First Amendment violation.

The lifespan of a First Amendment claim goes through many trials and tribulations involving claims for equitable and monetary relief. Equitable relief is asking a court to order the opposing party to stop doing whatever it was that gave rise to the violationan injunctionor to state that the conduct does in fact violate a righta declaration. Monetary relief is asking the court to order compensation for a violated right that results in some measurable losstypically compensatory relief. The important difference is that equitable relief can be mooted. If that action or conduct is stopped before an injunction or declaration is given, theres no reason for either. In contrast, monetary relief isnt mooted because the measurable loss exists regardless of whether the action or conduct does. However, qualified immunity bars monetary relief from public officials and employees.

Enter the problem: Religion Clause violations rarely produce actual damages and often stem from easily mootable laws. As such, what relief can someone claim for a First Amendment violation by a government or public entity? This is where nominal damages play a pivotal role. Nominal damages are predominantly considered non-mootable even where injunctions and declarations are unavailable. They are also not considered monetary relief as they are not based on a measurable loss nor do they compensate a claimant. As such, they survive regardless of who violated your rights and regardless of whether theyve ceased the act or conduct causing the violation.

For many, this may seem like a non-issue. If there is no issue anymore, why should a claim continue through the litigation process? But now apply this to Uzuegbunam: a student is denied the ability to exercise their First Amendment right, whether it is promoting theistic or nontheistic religion. The student files a claim, paying all of their necessary fees and/or attorneys fees. The school answers with a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgement. The student files responses defending the claim, again paying the required fees. Then, the school changes its policies and the entire claim is dismissed, with no ability to recoup what youve already invested. Practically speaking, such a scenario would deter most from pursuing a claim for their First Amendment rights. This example can be applied to children in public schools forced to pray or be involved in a religious exercise, requirements that one swear on a religious text to speak at a town hall, denying atheist prisoners the right to form groups, or even to the censorship of theistic, nontheistic, or atheist speech and practice.

Thats precisely why the AHA filed its amicus brief on behalf of ADF. First Amendment rights protect not just mainstream religions, but all theistic and nontheistic beliefs. Without the guarantee that a right can be vindicated, the ability to protect those rights will be detrimentally impeded and the government will be given a free pass to violate those rights. This detriment will only be amplified for the nonmainstream religions and worse still for the nonreligious. As such, the AHA views ADFs case as the necessary momentum to prevent the Supreme Court from taking away nominal damages.

As AHA Legal Director Monica Miller aptly notes in the amicus brief, if this court affirms, the Supreme Court will be telling Congress, the executive branch, every state, and every municipality in our nation that it is proper to experiment on our liberties by passing laws that violate the First Amendment. Further, Miller stresses, In todays political climatefueled by a global pandemic and the death of at least 200,000 Americans, an economic recession, widespread racial injustices, record-setting fires, and now the heartbreaking passing of iconic Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgthe message sent by such a Supreme Court ruling will cause more damage to our country than the ruling itself.

Go here to see the original:

The Enemy of My Enemy: A Joint Effort Protecting the First Amendment - The Humanist

ASU's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication in downtown Phoenix.(Photo: The Republic)

An Arizona State University journalism student is suing after she says she was removed from leading the student-run radio station over a controversial tweet.

The suit names the Arizona Board of Regents, ASU, the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication and Kristin Gilger, Cronkite interim dean.

The lawsuit claims that the university violated RaeLee Kleins First Amendment rights to free expression by refusing to allow her to continue as station manager of Blaze Radio because of her tweet.

The university, in a statement to The Arizona Republic on Tuesday, refuted that claim, saying, Kleins conduct in the aftermath of the tweet rather than the tweet itself meant that she was no longer able to perform the job for which she was hired.

But Klein said she was first scolded about her tweetand later scolded for her media appearances and conversations with elected officials as her situation gained attention.

"They were first upset by my free speech and now theyre upset that Ive become this cause clbrefor free speech, so its just disappointing to see them keep taking the same stance and not want to work or correct the situation," Klein told The Republic.

Jack Wilenchik, Kleins attorney, filed the complaint in U.S. District Court on Monday.

Klein faced swift backlash from within and outside her radio stationafter a tweet she posted in the aftermath of police shooting Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Aug. 23. Klein shared a New York Post article with graphic details from a police report accusing Blake of sexual assault.

The Aug. 29 tweet, deleted later, was captioned, Always more to the story, folks. Please read this article to get the background of Jacob Blake's warrant. You'll be quite disgusted.

Many interpreted her tweet as justifying or excusing police brutality against Black people. Klein defended it as sharing truthful information and an additional perspective, as journalists are taught.

The radio station board quickly voted to remove Klein, but Klein refused to step down. In the weeks of turmoil following, Klein said she was told that she could not stay on as station manager and was offered several other job alternatives.

The school has said Klein was not removed because of the views she expressed.

Klein's lawsuit states that ASU is unlawfully preventing Klein from being station manager based on the content of her free speech. It asks the court to rule for her to remain in that position.

Because ASU is an entity of state government, it cannot legally deny benefits like a job at the radio station on the basis of speech, according to the lawsuit. The university also cannot restrict a student'sright to speech or require a student toendorsea certain public policy view, the lawsuit says.

Rae'Lee Klein in the Blaze Radio studio at Arizona State University. Klein has sued the school in the aftermath of her controversial tweet.(Photo: Courtesy of Rae'Lee Klein)

The complaint states that Klein's tweet was in line with journalistic ethics and standards, which require the open exchange of views, even views journalists find repugnant. The tweet was from her personal account and expressed an "objectively uncontroversial opinion" that Blake's alleged sexual assault was upsetting, per the lawsuit.

Cronkite students are required to tweet and are graded on their social media engagement, according to the filing. The complaint highlights the school's social media policy and instances where the radio station faculty adviser and journalism dean shared political or opinionated views on social media.

After the tweet controversy,Blaze Radio board members deleted Klein's online account so she no longer could do her job, the lawsuit says. ASU funds and owns Blaze Radiobut has failed or refused to restore Klein's access, according to the complaint.

Klein said she hopes she will be reinstatedbut also wants to serve as an example for other students.

(I hope)to be able to encourage students to set the tone and change the tune that free speech is absolutely protected on college campuses," she said. "Im hoping it kind of changes the tone of how universities perceive it as well as the confidence of students to be able to feel protected by it.

Wilenchik, Kleins attorney, said he had discussions with ASUs in-house attorney before filing the lawsuit. Wilenchik said he asked school officials to confirm they had no intention of removing Klein from her position and that they would restore her access to the online station account. As the situation still couldnt be resolved,Wilenchik said he filed suit.

Wilenchik said hes representing Klein for free because he believes in her cause. He said when students locked her out of the station account, they said they wanted unity, but free speech isabout disunity.

Its all about not having homogenous thought, its all about challenging people with new ideas, new perspectives, new facts," Wilenchik said. "Running a radio station, running a journalism school, running a news agencyis not about unity it never will be and never should be it is about having that kind of debate, having that kind of exchange of ideas that this country was founded on and stands for.

ASU has hired attorney David Bodney, a media law and First Amendment expert, to defend its position.

There was no First Amendment violation here, and Ms. Kleins claims are meritless, Bodney said in a statement provided by ASU. ASU and the Cronkite School have deep and abiding commitments to free speech and excellence in journalism, and this lawsuit disregards an array of facts that show just how baseless these claims really are.

ASU said Kleins conduct after the tweet meant she no longer could lead a student radio station with hundreds of members.

Several radio station board members previously told The Republic that Klein had lost the confidence of those in the organization and caused students at the station to feel alienated.

Klein was not fired as a Cronkite student-employee, but was rather offered several new roles instead of Blaze Radio station manager, including the option of starting her own radio station, ASU said.

But she rejected those opportunities,insisting instead on a right to lead the organization even after it was clear that she had lost the confidence of the student volunteers and board members and could no longer effectively do so, per the university statement.

Reach the reporter at Alison.Steinbach@arizonarepublic.com or at 602-444-4282. Follow her on Twitter @alisteinbach.

Support local journalism.Subscribe to azcentral.com today.

Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-education/2020/10/13/journalism-student-sues-asu-citing-free-speech-rights/3645632001/

Visit link:

ASU journalism student sues, claiming university violated her First Amendment rights in fallout from controversial tweet - The Arizona Republic

The U.S. Army esports team is streaming its members playing video games on Facebook. After troubles facing down activists and trolls on Twitch, the U.S. Army has largely moved its streaming operation to Facebook. On Tuesday, during a game of Counter: Strike Global Offensive, several gamers found the stream and began to ask the Army about war crimes, much as they did on Twitch. The Army banned them from commenting on the stream, which is a possible violation of the First Amendment according to the Knight First Amendment Institute, a nonprofit that prosecutes First Amendment cases.

The Army is still streaming on Twitch, but its broadcasts are intermittent. It takes long breaks, as many as six days, between streams on Twitch. It streams more frequently on Facebook. On Tuesday, when it started to stream, viewers began asking hard questions.

How ya gonna groom zoomers on Facebook? Did yalls feelings get hurt too much on Twitch? Mark Slatera pseudonymasked.

According to OConnell and Slater, the Army removed both of these comments and prevented them from commenting on the stream, a possible violation of the First Amendment. Later, the comments were reinstated and Slater and OConnell could comment again. When that occurred I couldn't say, Slater told Motherboard on Discord. Once I received the message that the comment was removed I could no longer comment additionally in the livestream. However, I could interact with previous streams. Slater and OConnell provided Motherboard with screenshots showing the moderator removed their comments.

According to the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, a nonprofit that takes on First Amendment cases and successfully sued Donald Trump for blocking people on Twitter, even a temporary ban could be a violation of the First Amendment.

Even if the ban was temporary in nature, the governmentin this case, the Armycannot ban a user from commenting on their esports livestream on Facebook or any other platform based on comments critical of the military, Lyndsey Wajert, a legal fellow at the Knight, told Motherboard in an email. This type of viewpoint discrimination runs afoul of the First Amendment, and we will be looking into this matter further.

The U.S. Army esports team moderates its chat on Facebook and Twitch. The rules on Facebook dont appear until someone attempts to chat during a livestream, at which point the rules pop up. They are be accepting, respect boundaries, no profanity, keep it clean, dont self promote, dont be rude, dont flood chat, dont criticize.

The absurdity of the U.S. Army esports presence on Facebook is that a government entity sincerely puts Dont criticize on their chat rules, Slater told Motherboard on Discord.

For OConnell, asking the military tough questions in a public space is about far more than just trolling. I think its important to question the Armys activities on Facebook because they are preying on young gamers in an attempt to boost their recruitment numbers, he told Motherboard in a Twitter DM. What they are doing is predatory and harmful to young teenagers. They are equating video games with real life combat.

The Pentagon has recently turned to video game streaming as a way to bolster recruitment and build the militarys brand. The U.S. Air Force, Army, Navy, and National Guard are all streaming video games, mostly on Twitch but also on Facebook. It hasnt been going well.

The Navy spent $2 million to get into Twitch, but is on a break from streaming right now after a Sailor played on a stream where one of his friends named his character after a veiled reference to a racial slur. A National Guard streamer repeated an anti-semetic phrased on stream. The Army is streaming intermittently and mostly on Facebook. And Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) attempted to pass legislation to prevent the Pentagon from using its budget to stream video games online.

No one has been banned from U.S. Army eSports Team channels on our platforms. There have been cases where individuals have been timed out for excessive spamming or harassment, Lisa M. Ferguson, Deputy Director and Media Relations Chief of U.S. Army Recruiting Command Public Affairs, said. In these cases, individuals have saturated the channel with their content not allowing any others to chat or post. The time out feature allows the team to pause that persons ability to chat or post for limited time. This allows for others to then have their voices heard as well. The posts are not censored or removed, and they are allowed to continue once their time out is up.

Update: This story has been updated with comment from the U.S. Army.

See the rest here:

The U.S. Army Is Now Possibly Violating the First Amendment on Facebook - VICE

Every statewide elected official takes an oath to uphold the constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As your elected State Treasurer, I have the added responsibility of watching all state expenditures, billions of dollars every year, and making sure that your taxpayer dollars are not being used in a way that violates the Constitution.

In recent weeks, there have been stories circulating nationwide about the efforts of the Archbishop of San Francisco to overturn the punitive limits imposed on churches by the mayor of San Francisco. The last few days have seen a resurgence in the targeting of Orthodox Jewish communities in New York, as well as other houses of worship, by imposing hard caps of 10 and 25 people per service, regardless of the size of the church or synagogue. As efforts to protect civil liberties in those areas moves forward, we must remember that the targeting of religious exercise by state and local officials is not limited to the coastal blue states.

Kentucky, whose politics will never be confused with New York or California, has itself seen multiple federal courts strike down executive orders issued by Governor Andy Beshear, on the grounds that the orders limiting religious services, travel, or protest, violated the fundamental, constitutional rights of Kentuckians. In any other time in our history, a series of defeats of this magnitude would have been met with much greater attention and demand for accountability.

Due to my role as a watchdog of public spending, I directed my office to review the way taxpayer dollars were being spent to enforce the administrations questionable executive orders relating to First Amendment activities. Protecting our Commonwealth and its great citizens need not be done at the expense of the First Amendment. It is possible to protect the Commonwealth while respecting, and adhering to, a principle upon which this country was founded. My office requested information from a number of health departments around the Commonwealth, and received responses from several departments, as well as the Kentucky State Police.

Our investigation uncovered numerous instances of law enforcement being used to monitor or shut down faith-based services; derogatory or confrontational comments made about religious exercise by those in leadership; and selective, targeted enforcement of mass gathering prohibitions, in violation of the First Amendment. The actions taken at a local level seem to be directly correlated to the decisions made, and the tone set, by the Governors administration in Frankfort, which itself has too often used daily briefings and press releases as opportunities to disparage or threaten any person or institution that questions the legality and appropriateness of the administrations orders.

On October 22, I will be presenting my offices findings to the Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary in Frankfort. This will be an opportunity for legislators to consider what we have uncovered in relation to executive actions during last few months, and for the public to learn more about how taxpayer dollars have been spent to enforce arbitrary government orders.

Kentuckians have established a constitution and laws that demand respect for the First Amendment rights of all citizens, regardless of their religious or political beliefs. During the 1930s, as our nation was trapped within the economic catastrophe of the Great Depression, and facing the rise of dangerous forces around the world, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes reminded the country that [t]he Constitution was adopted in a period of great emergency. He astutely noted that [e]mergency does not create power and that [e]mergency does not increase granted power. The extraordinary challenges presented in 2020 do not provide justification for expanding the Governors powers, or for ignoring the fundamental tenets that separate our democracy from failed and oppressive autocratic states arounds the world.

The First Amendment must be vigorously defended by all elected officials, particularly in times of emergency, when it is the easiest for the government to justify unconstitutional restrictions. I encourage every Kentuckian to continue to demand that our government adhere to the constitution and laws of the Commonwealth, and I look forward to continuing to serve the Commonwealth as your State Treasurer.

More here:

Crisis of conscience: Government suppression of the first amendment during the COVID pandemic - Hopkinsville Kentucky New Era

By Jim ThompsonHCP columnist

For many Americans, the most important events of 2020 do not include the COVID-19 virus, as painful and hurtful as that has been for many, many people.

No, the most important events of 2020 have been the appalling degradation of the 1st and 2nd Amendments to the Constitution. Attacks against these two bastions of American freedom have gone on for a long time, but this year the actions against them have reached unimaginable heights.

There is the couple in St. Louis being brought up on charges for standing in front of their own home with guns. What happened to Second Amendment rights? Youve no doubt read the story. Ill not bother with the details here.

Are we not allowed to defend our own home any longer?

After that one, I put three infrared cameras around our home, which record every movement and put it in cloud storage. We may be killed by "peaceful protesters," but there will be a file of evidence available, if there is any police force left to be interested in it.

It has been a year where one cannot feel free to speak their mind, our First Amendment rights. The only public place I feel I can even come close to speaking my mind is here in The Highland County Press, and even here I am very careful. I am not just talking about offering comments about current events; in most venues, I no longer feel it is safe to make statements about global warming and other subjects that are not considered mainstream no matter how wrong I think they are. There is no room for discourse any longer, if you are not on the right side of most issues, being shouted down may be the least of your worries.

For a long time, it has not been safe in many venues to talk about ones religion, but that is one I will not give up. They can put me in jail or kill me for that one if they want to, that one will continue to be out front.

Then, recently, the New York Post had new information on Hunter Bidens relationship with Ukraine, information that has not been seen before anywhere. What happens? Both Facebook and Twitter censor it immediately.

This is probably the scariest thing that has happened to our freedoms this year. If the big tech companies feel fearless when it comes to censoring free speech, we have lost it.

They should be of common carrier status like the old Ma Bell was, totally agnostic about what is said on their sites. These truth squads they have filtering free speech are ridiculous. I have friends who occasionally post scenes of Jesuss crucifixion in recent months, Facebook has been covering those up as being violent and disturbing. They do the same thing with pictures of the Twin Towers on 9/11.

I know there are many people who read this paper who only listen to one side of the news. It is obvious by their comments. That is a persons choice, if they only want to hear one side of the news, it is their right, even if it makes them look uniformed.

But it is our right as Americans to hear all sides of the news if we want to do so and to say what we think (except the old example, dont yell fire in a theater).

We are at a serious place when it comes to the amendments that are there for our rights and our protection. I hope, in the brief time that is left, you look carefully at the choices on Nov. 3 where you live and then vote to protect your rights and your freedoms. We lose these freedoms and there is nothing else to talk about. We are no better than the most despotic governments of the last 150 years.

Jim Thompson, formerly of Marshall, is a graduate of Hillsboro High School and the University of Cincinnati. He resides in Duluth, Ga. and is a columnist for The Highland County Press. He may be reached at jthompson@taii.com.

Original post:

The most important events of 2020 - The Highland County Press

Policy requires state employees to opt in to union dues deductions annually to ensure dues are collected with voluntary waiver of First Amendment rights

Lansing, MI (October 15, 2020) A Michigan Civil Service Commission (MiCSC) policy which helps safeguard the First Amendment rights of the states workers under the landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision survives after United Auto Workers (UAW) union bosses abandoned their lawsuit seeking to overturn the rule in federal court.

The rule, which was adopted by MiCSC in October following detailed comments from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, requires Michigan state agencies to annually obtain the consent of state employees before deducting any union dues from their wages. The rule reminds state employees of their constitutional right to refuse such payments and ensures that the state deducts no union dues unless workers first waive their right not to pay.

National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix commented on the development:

The Civil Service Commission rules endurance is a victory for Michigan state employees, who will now have their First Amendment right to refuse to subsidize union activities respected and safeguarded. That union officials so quickly dropped their attempts to scuttle the rule speaks to the strength of the legal case for it, namely that the Supreme Court clearly delineated in Janus v. AFSCME that union dues can only be taken from public employees paychecks with their affirmative and knowing consent.

Given this example, public officials in other states should enact similar measures to protect their workers, because union bosses across the country continue to manipulate state laws and internal union policies to keep workers trapped in union payments against their will in violation of their First Amendment rights.

UAW officials abandonment of their lawsuit comes after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan rejected their request for a preliminary injunction against the rule earlier this month. Judge George Caram Steeh ruled that union lawyers not only failed to show that the rule was causing irreparable harm but that a recent Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals suit foreclosed union bosses ability to file one of the two claims in their suit in the first place.

The District Courts decision denying the injunction cited arguments first presented in an amicus brief from National Right to Work Foundation and Mackinac Center Legal Foundation staff attorneys, which the judge said was timely and helpful.

Other states that are taking steps to shore up their public employees Janus rights include Alaska, where Gov. Mike Dunleavy signed an executive order creating similar protections for state employees in September 2019. Also, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill both issued legal opinions earlier this year urging public employers to notify employees that they have a First Amendment right to refuse to fund a union unless they opt-in to such payments.

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

Read the original here:

UAW Bosses Abandon Case Seeking to Overturn Civil Service Commission Rule Protecting Workers' First Amendment Janus Rights - National Right to Work...

On Friday, Oct. 9, SUNY Oswegos School of Media, Communication and the Arts announced the theme for the 16th annual Dr. Lewis B ODonnell Media Summit, which will take place virtually on Oct. 28. This years theme is On the Front Lines with the First Amendment.

The summit will analyze freedom of the press and speech through the lens of 2020. The three major prongs to the discussion will be the press impact or role in Black Lives Matter protests, the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 Presidential Election. These three were selected during the spring 2020 semester, when the committee was unsure what would still be relevant in October.

We have to choose a theme fairly early on, so we can select the right people on the panel. We thought COVID, and then when Black Lives Matter happened, we thought maybe we should address that We didnt want to choose something that would be out of date or old news, said Julie Pretzat, the Dean of the School of Media, Communications and the Arts. We figured the overarching theme for a lot of these things, COVID as well as Black Lives Matter as well as some of the political things, has been the first amendment. Its freedom of speech. Its how journalists are being treated. When Black Lives Matter marches started, there was some violence and some against journalists.

In an era of media mistrust, it is critical to inform the American public about the goals of good journalism. These goals, according to the Society of Professional Journalists, include seeking and reporting truth, acting independently and being accountable and transparent, among others.

While some people do not necessarily know this side of the media, the Media Summit can act as a way to educate the community regarding the importance of good journalism.

Good journalism is crucial, Pretzat said. Theres bad journalism on both sides of the [political] spectrum, but good investigative journalism is crucial to our country remaining a free democracy.

In a time as complex as 2020, the constitution brings things back into perspective. During the Black Lives Matter protests, journalists were reporting live in the streets risking their own lives to inform the public. Other people on the scene were not as passive, as there were several incidents where police shot foam bullets or hit journalists on the scene, in cities like Minneapolis, Minnesota; Los Angeles, California; and New York City.

People get caught up in the volatility of a specific situation and they forget we have a constitution that tells us really good guidelines about the importance of freedom of the press and freedom of speech, Pretzat said. If you dont have a free press, and you dont have investigative journalism, governments can run amuck. It is really really crucial that we have checks and balances in our government.

Good journalism has become exceptionally important in the political world. Good journalism goes beyond what a demographic wants to hear, it is giving them all the information they need to make good decisions. The Media Summit provides broadcasting and journalism students, as well as all students who want to learn about how the major events of 2020 and the First Amendment have interacted, a chance to learn what good journalism truly is.

It is [important] to remain in the middle, Pretzat said. And to hear both sides so the American people can make their own decisions about things.

Photo By Nicole Hube | The Oswegonian

Like Loading...

Related

Follow this link:

Media Summit theme to look at 2020 through lens of first amendment - Oswegonian

I just heard my colleague, Senator Coons, make a reference to an old case, the Griswold case, which I can only assume is another hit at Judge Barretts religious faith, referring to Catholic doctrinal beliefs, Hawley said. I dont know what else it could be since no one has challenged this case. Its not a live issue and has not been for decades Clearly this was a senator looking for a fight.

Hawley also referenced the much-quoted comment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., at Barretts 2017 confirmation to a U.S. appeals panel that the dogma lives loudly within you. He accused her of using the very terminology of anti-Catholic bigotry current in this country a century ago.

Hawley, an evangelical Christian, may have been justifiably incensed by the Feinstein comment, but no one at the first day of the confirmation hearings had referenced those ill-advised comments or the religious faith of the Supreme Court nominee until Hawley leapt in with claws out. He was clearly planning on a First Amendment clash about the free exercise of religion.

This is not the 1960s, and people of faith should not be picking fights where no punches have been thrown. The Supreme Court has been packed in evangelicals favor, but the moral decline in public and political discourse has been stark. The rhetoric of President Donald Trump deserves some of the blame. He has been a man on the prowl for scapegoats and imaginary enemies during his entire tenure.

More here:

Bill Tucker: In the case of Christian v. Christian, everyone loses - STLtoday.com

")), n = v(f[r.size_id].split("x").map(function (e) { return Number(e); }), 2), i.width = n[0], i.height = n[1]), i.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce(function (e, r) { return e[r.key] = r.values[0], e; }, { rpfl_elemid: s.adUnitCode }), e.push(i)) : g.logError("Rubicon: bidRequest undefined at index position:".concat(t), c, d), e; }, []).sort(function (e, r) { return (r.cpm || 0) - (e.cpm || 0); }); }, getUserSyncs: function getUserSyncs(e, r, t, i) { if (!R && e.iframeEnabled) { var n = ""; return t && "string" == typeof t.consentString && ("boolean" == typeof t.gdprApplies ? n += "?gdpr=".concat(Number(t.gdprApplies), "&gdpr_consent=").concat(t.consentString) : n += "?gdpr_consent=".concat(t.consentString)), i && (n += "".concat(n ? "&" : "?", "us_privacy=").concat(encodeURIComponent(i))), R = !0, { type: "iframe", url: a + n }; } }, transformBidParams: function transformBidParams(e) { return g.convertTypes({ accountId: "number", siteId: "number", zoneId: "number" }, e); } }; function _(e, r) { var t, i = 0 e.length) && (t = e.length); for (var r = 0, n = new Array(t); r '; var r, n; }; }; var a = function a(e) { var r = 0 = e && r.innerWidth r.length) && (e = r.length); for (var t = 0, n = new Array(e); t b ? a : b; } /** * Fast loop through watched elements */ function onScroll() { list.forEach(updateVisibility); } /** * updates seen property * @param {Visble} item * @param {{}} evt * @fires Visible#shown * @fires Visible#hidden */ function updateSeen(item, evt) { var px = evt.visiblePx, percent = evt.visiblePercent; // if some pixels are visible and we're greater/equal to threshold if (px && percent >= item.shownThreshold && !item.seen) { item.seen = true; setTimeout(function () { item.trigger("shown", new VisibleEvent("shown", evt)); }, 15); // if no pixels or percent is less than threshold } else if ((!px || percent = 0 && rect.left >= 0 && rect.bottom 1) { result += getLinearSpacialHash(remainder, Math.floor(stepSize / base), optimalK - 1, base); } return result; } /** * @param {ClientRect} rect * @param {number} innerHeight * @returns {number} */ function getVerticallyVisiblePixels(rect, innerHeight) { return min(innerHeight, max(rect.bottom, 0)) - min(max(rect.top, 0), innerHeight); } /** * Get offset of element relative to entire page * * @param {Element} el * @returns {{left: number, top: number}} * @see http://jsperf.com/offset-vs-getboundingclientrect/7 */ function getPageOffset(el) { var offsetLeft = el.offsetLeft, offsetTop = el.offsetTop; while (el = el.offsetParent) { offsetLeft += el.offsetLeft; offsetTop += el.offsetTop; } return { left: offsetLeft, top: offsetTop }; } /** * Create a new Visible class to observe when elements enter and leave the viewport * * Call destroy function to stop listening (this is until we have better support for watching for Node Removal) * @param {Element} el * @param {{shownThreshold: number, hiddenThreshold: number}} [options] * @class * @example this.visible = new $visibility.Visible(el); */ Visible = function Visible(el, options) { options = options || {}; this.el = el; this.seen = false; this.preload = false; this.preloadThreshhold = options && options.preloadThreshhold || 0; this.shownThreshold = options && options.shownThreshold || 0; this.hiddenThreshold = options && min(options.shownThreshold, options.hiddenThreshold) || 0; list.push(this); updateVisibility(this); // set immediately to visible or not }; Visible.prototype = { /** * Stop triggering. */ destroy: function destroy() { // remove from list list.splice(list.indexOf(this), 1); } /** * @name Visible#on * @function * @param {'shown'|'hidden'} e EventName * @param {function} cb Callback */ /** * @name Visible#trigger * @function * @param {'shown'|'hidden'} e * @param {{}} */ }; Eventify.enable(Visible.prototype); VisibleEvent = function VisibleEvent(type, options) { var _this = this; this.type = type; Object.keys(options).forEach(function (key) { _this[key] = options[key]; }); }; // listen for scroll events (throttled) $document.addEventListener("scroll", _throttle(onScroll, 200)); // public this.getPageOffset = getPageOffset; this.getLinearSpacialHash = getLinearSpacialHash; this.getVerticallyVisiblePixels = getVerticallyVisiblePixels; this.getViewportHeight = getViewportHeight; this.getViewportWidth = getViewportWidth; this.isElementNotHidden = isElementNotHidden; this.isElementInViewport = isElementInViewport; this.Visible = Visible;}]);}, {}];require=(function e(t,n,r){function s(o,u){if(!n[o]){if(!t[o]){var a=typeof require=="function"&&require;if(!u&&a)return a(o,!0);if(i)return i(o,!0);var f=new Error("Cannot find module '"+o+"'");throw f.code="MODULE_NOT_FOUND",f}var l=n[o]={exports:{}};t[o][0].call(l.exports,function(e){var n=t[o][1][e];return s(n?n:e)},l,l.exports,e,t,n,r)}return n[o].exports}var i=typeof require=="function"&&require;for(var o=0;o

Read the original here:

Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation hearings; the First Amendment and disinformation; and the latest election machinations. - Slate