Regulating Sex Businesses, Part 1: Principles and Foundations - First Amendment
This course shows how to lay the foundation for ordinances that mitigate the negative effects of sex businesses while conforming with constitutional requirements under the First Amendment....
By: Planetizen
Excerpt from:
Regulating Sex Businesses, Part 1: Principles and Foundations - First Amendment - Video
First Amendment and Commercial Speech
Panel 1 of Maryland Carey Law #39;s 2015 JBTL Symposium, "The Impact of the First Amendment on American Businesses" touched on how the First Amendment is applied with regards to commercial ...
By: Maryland Carey Law
Read more:
Sen. Bill Cassidy: Religious Freedom Acts help protect First Amendment
Senator Bill Cassidy says the Religious Freedom Acts are just in place to help people protect their First Amendment right of freedom of religion. Subscribe to WDSU on YouTube now for more:...
By: WDSU News
Read more:
Sen. Bill Cassidy: Religious Freedom Acts help protect First Amendment - Video
Rebele Symposium: Shaping Your Speech - Media Reform, Past and Present
From the First Amendment to Net Neutrality, How Media Regulation Affects What We Say. The Sixth Rebele Symposium for the First Amendment featuring Mignon Clyburn, Victor Pickard and Morgan...
By: CommStanford
See the rest here:
Rebele Symposium: Shaping Your Speech - Media Reform, Past and Present - Video
UMD campus outraged over offensive email
The University of Maryland #39;s president says a student #39;s racist and sexist email to fraternity brothers was "hateful and reprehensible," but it #39;s protected by the First Amendment and doesn #39;t...
By: ABC7 WJLA
See the rest here:
The Constitution resembles a basket of kittens. It is a tangle of fuzzy edicts pushing, pulling and scratching to test at each others boundaries. For most of American history, people relied on the OG of religious liberty protections the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment. It says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
What does the Free Exercise Clause actually promise? Constitutional lawyers can argue about it for days on end not only because many are nitpickers by nature but because these few words offer scant guidance.
In the first 200 years, the Free Exercise Clause was interpreted cautiously. Clearly the government could not specifically target religious groups or compel people to join a church. But otherwise, if people of faith objected to a neutral law, they had to asklegislators forexemptions. People who challenged laws in court using a religious freedom argument tended to be unsuccessful, as law professor Michael McConnell explained in a history of these cases for the Harvard Law Review.
That all changed in 1963 with Sherbert v. Verner, a Supreme Court case involving a woman who lost her job because her religion prohibited her from working on Saturdays. Adeil Sherbert filed for unemployment benefits, but the state of South Carolina denied her, saying it was her own fault she couldnt find work.
By that time, the justices had significantlydeveloped theirview of civil rights law. Rulings in Korematsu v. United States the Japanese internment case and later in Brown v. Board of Education established a procedure for reviewing laws in conflict with peoplesrights.
First, the government had to prove there were very important goals at stake. Then it had to prove that there was no good way to accomplish those goals except to infringe on peoples rights with such a law. In legalese, laws had to serve a compelling interest and also had to be narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
This standard became known as strict scrutiny, and it offers the legal systems strongest protection, used against laws that interfere with constitutional rights.
Laws that discriminate based on race are subject to strict scrutiny because the14th Amendment promises the equal protection of the laws. Laws that limit certain kinds of speech are also subject to strict scrutiny because the First Amendment promises there will be no laws abridging the freedom of speech. They are presumed unconstitutional unless the governmentshowsthey are extremely important and necessary.
In 1963, the Supreme Court decided in Sherbert v. Verner that laws infringing on the exercise of religion should also be examined with strict scrutiny.
View post:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Thursday that bombmaking guides like The Anarchist Cookbook and al Qaedas Inspire magazine are not protected by the First Amendment and should be removed from the Internet.
The California Democrat was commenting on the arrests Thursday of two women accused of plotting a terror attack in New York City, CNS News reported.
I am particularly struck that the alleged bombers made use of online bombmaking guides like the Anarchist Cookbook and Inspire Magazine, Ms. Feinstein said in a statement shortly after the arrests were announced. These documents are not, in my view, protected by the First Amendment and should be removed from the Internet.
SEE ALSO: Anarchist Cookbook author William Powell wants his own book banned
The arrests of two women in New York accused of plotting to carry out bombings remind us that the threat of terrorism inside the United States endures, she said. We must remain vigilant against these types of attacks and place a high priority on tracking and interdicting such plots.
The Anarchist Cookbook was published in 1971 by author William Powell, whodeclared in 2013 that it should be taken out of print following a high school shooting in Colorado.
Inspire is an English language online magazine reported to be published by the organization Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).
Continued here:
Dianne Feinstein: 'Anarchist Cookbook' not protected by First Amendment
By Bruce Barry April 2 at 10:45 AM
A lot of ink has been spilled in recent days over Indianas new religious objection law. Some business owners say they need to safeguard First Amendment rights to religious expression, while opponents vilify it as a pretext for discrimination. Rather fewer people pay attention to the rights of business employees to express their beliefs. What happened recently to Shanna Tippen of Pine Bluff, Ark. reminds us that most American workers dont have a right to express themselves without being fired.
Tippen, a minimum wage motel employee at a Days Inn in Pine Bluff, agreed to be interviewed for a Washington Post story in mid-February about Arkansas newly enacted 25-cent minimum wage hike and its effect on the working poor. Tippen shared some details of her challenging household economics with The Posts Chico Harland, and also mentioned that she was one of the many who signed petitions to get the minimum wage hike on the Arkansas ballot last year.
This week brought a dispiriting follow-up story: Tippen called Harlan to share the news that she was fired by the owner of the motel for talking to The Post. Realizing that journalists often run the risk of unintentionally influencing events in a story they cover, Harlan lamented that writing about Tippens plight may have made her situation worse.
[After a story is published, a minimum wage worker loses her job]
Harlan heard a different story from the Days Inns general manager Herry Patel, who claims that Tippen wasnt fired, but instead walked out after a disagreement. However, Patel had also called Tippen stupid for talking to The Post, had told Harlan that he thought the wage hike was bad for Arkansas because everybody wants free money in Pine Bluff, and subsequently threatened Harlan with a lawsuit if the story ran. Even if the general managers story is as he claims it is, the more important point about American law is that he could have fired Tippen for talking to The Post, with no legal repercussions.
Many people assume that First Amendment rights to free expression should insulate them from punishment by their employer for speech off the job that has little or nothing to do with work. In one national survey, 96 percent said firing a worker for expressing political views with which the employer disagrees with is unacceptable. Unfortunately, many workers mistakenly assume that unacceptable equals protection: in that same survey, 80 percent said (incorrectly) that its illegal to fire someone for expressing contrary political views.
The employment-at-will system that dominates labor law in the U.S. lets an employer fire a worker for just about any reason (or no reason) without legal liability. There are several exceptions, most notably bans on discrimination, as well as employment contracts that limit causes for termination. There is also a public policy exceptionwhich suggests that workers should not be subject to a punitive action by an employer that would be an affront to public interest. For example, workers should not be fired for refusing to commit perjury at their employers request or for taking time off for jury duty. It would violate the public interest if employees could be fired for doing these things.
Arkansas is an employment-at-will state, along with every other state except (oddly) Montana. Shanna Tippen, like most American workers is employed at-will, which means that she can be fired for expressing an opinion to a reporter or to a friend or a stranger or a brick wall for that matter. She would have some protectionand possibly a wrongful termination claimif she had a public sector job. In the private sector, however, First Amendment rights for individual workers to keep their jobs dont exist.
The most plausible reason that most Americans disapprove of firing people for their political views and indeed believe that it is illegal is that they think that free expression is in the public interest. Healthy democracy should allow people to engage in politics and say what they like without fearing that they will lose their jobs for saying something that their employer doesnt like. There are a few states where political activity does get some protection from an employers wrath, even in the private sector. California, for instance, bars employers from restricting or controlling workers political activity off the job. A few states have broad-based lifestyle discrimination statutes preventing employers for penalizing workers for anything they do off the job that is legal, as long as it doesnt create a conflict of interest or hamper the employees ability to do the job. Unfortunately, Tippen doesnt live in one of those states, so if she was fired for talking to a reporter about her life on the minimum wage and her views on the law, she has no recourse.
See the article here:
Monkey Cage: Businesses First Amendment rights dont extend to their employees
What is the biggest takeaway you want your students to have about the First Amendment when lecturing
http://www.reellawyers.com/ivo-labar.
By: ReelLawyers
See the article here:
April 1, 2015|10:55 am
(Heritage Foundation)
Dr. Edwin Feulner is Founder of The Heritage Foundation, a Townhall.com Gold Partner, and co-author of Getting America Right: The True Conservative Values Our Nation Needs Today .
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." The words of the First Amendment couldn't be plainer. Yet more than two centuries after the Bill of Rights was written, they remain the subject of fierce debate.
Actually, I should amend that (no pun intended). These words would be the subject of debate if debate were permitted. But these days, apparently, we're all so thin-skinned that we can't bear to hear an opinion that challenges our worldview.
This is even true, ironically, at our institutions of higher learning. Some colleges are far more interested in swaddling their students in a protective bubble than in teaching free speech.
Consider what happened to Omar Mahmood. The University of Michigan student last year wrote a satirical piece for the campus newspaper, the Michigan Daily, listing the ways that the pervading culture of right-handedness victimizes left-handed people.
"The biggest obstacle to equality today is our barbaric attitude toward people of left-handydnyss [sic]," he wrote. "It's a tragedy that I, a member of the left-handed community, had little to no idea of the atrocious persecution that we are dealt every day by institutions that are deeply embedded in society."
Anyone familiar with the political correctness that pervades so much of society will recognize what Mahmood was lampooning. The victim mentality is particularly acute on many campuses, with professors nursing and even inflaming cultural conflicts on every level, leaving everyone walking around on eggshells.
In such an environment, Mahmood's column could have served a valuable purpose. An actual debate -- imagine! -- could have ensued.
Original post:
Protecting the First Amendment and Muzzling the Marketplace of Ideas
The Louisiana American Civil Liberties Union says the principal at Walnut Hill Elementary and Middle School violated students First Amendment rights when he sent a letter to parents urging them to pray.
Principal Albert Hardison sent out a March newsletter to parents asking them to pray for students before they took their LEAP and PARCC tests.
Hardison also quoted a Bible verse from Phillipians 4:13 that says "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."
The First Amendment of the Constitution forbids school-sponsored prayer and says that public school employees can not use their position to impose their personal beliefs on students.
The Louisiana ACLU says Hardison clearly violated his students First Amendment rights.
The Caddo Parish School Board released the following statement:
Caddo Parish Public Schools has commenced an internal investigation into an open letter sent by the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana. The district will certainly look into it and make certain there is no violation. In this instance, questionable materials subsequently have been removed from district webpages while the investigation continues. If there is a violation, we will make certain we act swiftly to ensure we do not have any further violations. Caddo Parish Public Schools works to ensure no constitutional rights are violated at any school. We take concerns and complaints seriously and make sure to follow the law.
At the same time, the district remains committed to protecting student freedoms. This includes their abilities tolead and participate in prayer and other religious activities, and we will equally continue to work to ensure student freedoms are not inhibited. Staff training will be scheduled in the coming weeks to refresh staff members regarding constitutional freedoms as well as limitations.
Link:
ACLU accuses local school of violating students First Amendment rights
CADDO PARISH, LA (KSLA) - One Caddo Parish school principal is in hot water after a complaint was filed to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) regarding a letter that was sent to parents.
The complaint alleges principal Albert Hardison violated the First Amendment.
Hardison reportedly included a reference to Philippians 4:13 in the March newsletter that went to parents and staff.
The newsletter read:
Dear Parents:
As our students prepare to take the state mandated tests, LEAP, iLEAP and PARCC, please pray that our God will give them the strength and mental fortitude, the patience, the wisdom, and the energy to do their best. Please help our children understand the meaning of Phillippians 4:13...I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me.
KSLA News 12 was told the person who filed the complaint doesn't have a child at Walnut Hill but is reportedly afraid that if it's happening at one school, it could spread throughout the parish.
On Monday the ACLU of Louisiana's executive director, Marjorie Esman, sent an open letter to Caddo Schools Superintendent Dr. Lamar Goree saying walnut Hill "has engaged in a pattern of religious proselytization by sending messages to parents invoking prayer, and through a lengthy 'Principal's Message' on the school's website."
The letter stated that Hardison's messages "must stop immediately."
"No school employee may tell a student what religion to practice or even to practice religion at all, nor may a school official tell students or their families to teach any religious texts," Esman wrote.
See more here:
Burt Neuborne - Recovering Madison #39;s Music: Toward a Democracy-Friendly First Amendment
The current Supreme Court majority reads the First Amendment as if James Madison threw a pot of ink at the wall and allowed the splatter to dictate the order and placement of the provisions...
By: Berkeley Law
Continue reading here:
Burt Neuborne - Recovering Madison's Music: Toward a Democracy-Friendly First Amendment - Video
Does the First Amendment include a right to gather information using flying drones? The federal trial court decision in Rivera v. Foley (D. Conn. Mar. 23) is to my knowledge the first court decision to consider the matter, and its largely skeptical of the First Amendment claim though of course it wont be the last word on the subject, both because it is just a trial court opinion, and because it mostly holds that any right to use drones wasnt clearly established at the time of the events.
Here are plaintiff Pedro Riveras factual allegations (keep in mind that they are just the allegations):
[Rivera] is employed as a photographer and editor at a local television station. [O]n February 1, 2014, he heard on a police scanner that there was a serious motor vehicle accident in the City of Hartford. [Rivera] responded to the accident site and began operating his personally owned drone, which [he] describes as a remote-controlled model aircraft outfitted for recording aerial digital images, to record visual images of the accident scene. [Rivera] was standing outside of the area denoted as the crime scene by officers responding to the accident in a public place, operating his device in public space, observing events that were in plain view. [F]rom his position, [Rivera] maneuvered his drone into the demarcated crime scene area by causing it to hover over the accident scene at an altitude of 150 feet.
Officer [Edward] Yergeau and other uniformed members of the Hartford Police Department at the scene of the accident surrounded [him], demanded his identification card, and asked him questions about what he was doing. [Rivera] informed Officer Yergeau and the other police officers that he was a photographer and editor at a local television station, but that he was not acting as an employee of the television station at the time. [Rivera] also acknowledged to Officer Yergeau and the other police officers that he does, from time to time, forward the video feed from his drone to the television station for which he works.
Officer Yergeau and the other police officers demanded that he cease operating the drone over the accident site and leave the area. [I]mmediately after he was ordered to leave the accident site, Officer [Brian] Foley contacted [Rivera]s employer and complained to [Rivera]s supervisor that [Rivera] had interfered with the Departments investigation at the accident site and compromised the crime scenes integrity. Officer Foley either requested that discipline be imposed upon the [Rivera] by his employer, or suggested that the employer could maintain its goodwill with the employer [sic] by disciplining the [Rivera]. [A]s a direct and proximate result of Officer Foleys contact with [Rivera]s employer, [Rivera] was suspended from work for a period of at least one week.
Because Rivera was suing for damages, and because he couldnt show any city policy of blocking drone overflights, he could prevail only if he could overcome the police officers qualified immunity he had to show that the officers conduct violate[d] a clearly established constitutional right, and any reasonable officer would have realized this. The court concluded that no right to gather information through videorecording had been recognized under Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent. (Several decisions from other circuits have recognized such a right, but two others have held that no such right was clearly established at the time of those decisions, and in any event the Second Circuit, in which this particular case arose, hadnt spoken.)
But the court went further, concluding that, even if a right to videorecord was recognized, it did not clearly extended to hovering above even 150 feet above the site of a major motor vehicle accident and the responding officers within it, effectively trespassing onto an active crime scene (paragraph break added):
[I]n cases where the right to record police activity has been recognized by our sister circuits, it appears that the protected conduct has typically involved using a handheld device to photograph or videotape at a certain distance from, and without interfering with, the police activity at issue. See, e.g., Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 84 (1st Cir. 2011) ([T]he complaint indicates that Glik filmed the officers from a comfortable remove and neither spoke to nor molested them in any way. Such peaceful recording of an arrest in a public space that does not interfere with the police officers performance of their duties is not reasonably subject to limitation.); Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 607 (7th Cir. 2012) (While an officer surely cannot issue a move on order to a person because he is recording, he police may order bystanders to disperse for reasons related to public safety and order and other legitimate law-enforcement needs. Nothing we have said here immunizes behavior that obstructs or interferes with effective law enforcement or the protection of public safety.).
By contrast, here [Rivera] directed a flying object into a police-restricted area, where it proceeded to hover over the site of a major motor vehicle accident and the responding officers within it, effectively trespassing onto an active crime scene. See, e.g., U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 266 (1946) (holding that invasions to airspace situated within the immediate reaches of land including airspace so close to the land that invasions of it affect the use and enjoyment of the surface of the land are in the same category as invasions to the land itself). Even if recording police activity were a clearly established right in the Second Circuit, [Rivera]s conduct is beyond the scope of that right as it has been articulated by other circuits.
This is probably the most First-Amendment-skeptical part of the courts analysis, and Im not sure its right. Practically, its not clear to me why videorecording a scene from 150 feet above is any more of an intrusion into a police investigation than videorecording it from 150 feet away horizontally or diagonally (if the drone had been off to the side but looking down at angle), at least unless a police helicopter was nearby or was likely to be nearby.
Originally posted here:
Volokh Conspiracy: No drone surveillance of crime scene (even from 150 feet above), police say
Burt Neuborne on His New Book #39;Madison #39;s Music: On Reading the First Amendment #39; - Excerpt
By: Uprising with Sonali
The rest is here:
Burt Neuborne on His New Book 'Madison's Music: On Reading the First Amendment' - Excerpt - Video
Freedom of the Press in the U.S.
Do reporters have rights on what they report? How has social media impacted our first amendment right? Logan Crawford Mustafa Tabanli Youhuru Williams Paul Levinson Joe Roselius.
By: TheFreshOutlook
Go here to see the original:
Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment
By: pppoooiipoi
See the article here:
Indiana law protects Christians from gays+Co Pilot was on drugs
Indiana Governor and likely Presidential contender Mike Pence said Gay Rights are not harmed by the Indiana legislation protecting business owners from attacks on their first amendment rights....
By: Breaking News
Follow this link:
Indiana law protects Christians from gays+Co Pilot was on drugs - Video
How the First Amendment affects your specialty license plate
Does the state of Texas have the right to issue specialty license plates featuring a Confederate flag? Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal fills in Gwen Ifill on the case being argued...
By: PBS NewsHour
Continued here:
How the First Amendment affects your specialty license plate - Video
The HHS Mandate Violates The First Amendment
This video was a long time coming. Unfortunately the HHS mandate is still a problem. To all politicians, no more word games! The freedom of worship is NOT the same thing as the freedom...
By: Poor Sinner
Continue reading here: