How to Teach Social Studies: First Amendment Lesson Introduction
Does the 1st Amendment truly guarantee anything? Not really. This metaphor will help your students put 1st Amendment cases into context and help them analyze them. Why don #39;t the defendants...
By: Jeffrey Sanders
Read the original here:
How to Teach Social Studies: First Amendment Lesson Introduction - Video
Radio Attitude - Exercising The First Amendment - Hour One - Part 01
Live From KVNF Paonia CO Saturday, July 27th 1996.
By: Radio Attitude
Read more from the original source:
Radio Attitude - Exercising The First Amendment - Hour One - Part 01 - Video
2015 National Freedom of Information Day Conference: Miriam Nisbet
Hosted by the Newseum Institute #39;s First Amendment Center in cooperation with OpenTheGovernment.org and the American Library Association, the annual Freedom of Information Day Conference ...
By: Newseum
Read the rest here:
2015 National Freedom of Information Day Conference: Miriam Nisbet - Video
Port of Entry First Amendment Test - U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Boxed Camera
Port of Entry First Amendment Test - U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Lukeville, Arizona, Boxed Camera, 14 March 2015.
By: Robert Trudell
View post:
Port of Entry First Amendment Test - U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Boxed Camera - Video
First Amendment Test - Lukeville Port of Entry, Mexico to U.S.A., Customs and Border Protection
First Amendment Test - Lukeville Port of Entry, Arizona, Mexico to U.S.A., Customs and Border Protection, 14 March 2015, Civil Disobedience 0:00:59.954,0:01:01.314 [Ready for Officer] 0:01:05.000,...
By: Robert Trudell
See the original post:
MidPoint | Robert Muise, Attorney who represents the American Freedom Defense Initiative
Attorney who represents the American Freedom Defense Initiative in a first amendment case involving their group wanting to put signs linking Islam to Hitler on Philadelphia buses and trains....
By: NewsmaxTV
Read more from the original source:
MidPoint | Robert Muise, Attorney who represents the American Freedom Defense Initiative - Video
HCSO - First Amendment Audit.
description.
By: HONORYOUROATH
Here is the original post:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agent shuts camera off at Lukeville Port of Entry, GP013755
Customs and Border Protection Agent shuts camera off at Lukeville Port of Entry, 14 March 2015, GP013755 Part One of this First Amendment Test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk9UUg9lMxk...
By: Robert Trudell
See the original post here:
George Gabel has a tie he wears on special occasions: Its red and sprinkled with many tiny American flags.
Those special occasions? He gives a grin: This is the tie I like to wear when Im arguing First Amendment cases.
Those flags, he figures, are a not-so subtle reminder to judges and anyone else of the importance of a free press and open government. Its something Gabel, a Jacksonville attorney with a courtly, soft-spoken manner, has been fighting for since the 1960s.
For that work, he was honored Tuesday in Tallahassee with the First Amendment Foundations Pete Weitzel/Friend of the First Amendment Award.
Frank Denton, editor of The Florida Times-Union, nominated Gabel for the award, calling him a warrior for the First Amendment. He cited numerous cases in which Gabel tangled with judges and politicians on behalf of the publics right to know what is going on, noting that Gabel is always there to stand up in court on behalf of the Sunshine Laws and the First Amendment.
It is a point of passion for Gabel, who likes to quote Thomas Jefferson on the matter. And he mentions a T-shirt that Judy, his wife of 52 years, bought him emblazoned with quote from Martin Luther King Jr. that reads: Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
Without a pause, he then said: One of the things that matters to me is the First Amendment and open government.
Gabel is an attorney at Holland & Knight and has an office on the 39th floor of the Bank of America Tower, where he has miles-long views of the water and land of his hometown.
Hes become something on an institution in Jacksonville. Walking through downtown toward a lunch spot last week, it was hard for him to get more than 20 yards without someone hailing him by name.
Gabel, 75, grew up in the Murray Hill neighborhood, the second of five children. His childhood was pretty idyllic, he said people seemed nicer then, and life was simpler, safer.
Link:
Jacksonville attorney George Gabel honored as Friend of the First Amendment
Heres Boston College law professor Kent Greenfield, writing at The Atlanticabout the racist-chant scandal at the University of Oklahoma:
We are told the First Amendment protects the odious because we cannot trust the government to make choices about content on our behalf. That protections of speech will inevitably be overinclusive. But that this is a cost we must bear. If we start punishing speech, advocates argue, then we will slide down the slippery slope to tyranny.
If that is what the First Amendment means, then we have a problem greater than bigoted frat boys. The problem would be the First Amendment.
Catos brief inWalker v. Texas Division(the Confederate flag license-plate case) pokes plenty of fun at government censors who would protect us from offensive speech, but this is no laughing matter.
H/t Trevor Burrus
View original post here:
First Amendment Week Eboo Patel 2 25 15 MPEG 4
By: ROAR Network
Originally posted here:
University of Oklahoma President David Boren has expelled two members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity on his campus for leading a horrifying racist chant. Does his decision violate their First Amendment rights? And if it does, whats wrong with this picture, in which a public university wouldnt be able to sanction students who not only bar blacks from their organization, but also refer to lynching in the process?
A public university is bound by the First Amendment because its an organ of the state. Admittedly, there is something weird about this fact, because a public campus isnt inherently different from a private one with respect to educational function and goals. Some strange free-speech anomalies can arise from treating a university like the government. For example, professors sanction speech based on its content all the time, by grading wrong answers lower than right ones. But usually free speech bars such content discrimination.
Discipline is another anomaly. A university is meant to be a community of learning, and making such a community work requires rules of decorum that are more restrictive than those that should apply in the public square. The First Amendment generally guarantees us the right to yell, scream, insult, offend, condemn and denounce. None of these forms of speech belong in the classroom, and few belong on a well-functioning campus.
In a perfect world, there might be a broad First Amendment exemption for public campuses. But there isnt so Borens decision has to be judged by First Amendment standards.
Applying ordinary free-speech doctrine, the expulsion looks unconstitutional, as professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law has pointed out. Racist speech is still protected speech under the First Amendment, no matter how repulsive. The fraternity can be banned for race discrimination, which is prohibited conduct. Speaking in favor of discrimination, however, is generally protected.
But Borens explanation for the expulsion rests on a different theory. He said specifically that the students were being expelled for their leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant, which has created a hostile educational environment for others.
The important words here are hostile educational environment. Under federal anti-discrimination law, as interpreted by the Department of Education, a university has an affirmative duty to guarantee students an educational environment in which they are free of hostility based on race or sex.
You may have heard about this principle in connection with Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The law has similarly been interpreted by Education Department to require universities to protect students against a hostile educational environment based on sex discrimination, including sexual harassment.
In the business context, the analogy would be to an employers obligation to protect against a hostile workplace environment.
So Boren was saying that the students are being expelled not for their opinions per se, but because their speech was a form of discriminatory conduct that would create a hostile educational environment for black students. Given that the speech was literally designed to inculcate the value of racial discrimination by making pledges recite their commitment never to admit a black member to the fraternity, this conclusion seems plausible. Removing the chant leaders from campus is intended to fulfill the educational goal of creating a nonhostile educational environment.
Go here to see the original:
The First Amendment and Gay Rights - Let #39;s Get Political!
Today we #39;re taking a look at how the First Amendment relates to the issue of gay marriage rights! Intro song ownership belongs to Mothy, all images courtesy ...
By: Justica
See more here:
The First Amendment and Gay Rights - Let's Get Political! - Video
2015 First Amendment Awards Presenter Tim Busch of Nexstar
Executive Vice President of Nexstar discusses what it means to present the First Amendment Service Award to President Perry Sook at RTDNF #39;s 2015 First Amendm...
By: RTDNA
Originally posted here:
2015 First Amendment Awards Presenter Tim Busch of Nexstar - Video
The First Amendment at the University of Oklahoma
After the expulsion of two fraternity members at the University of Oklahoma, Joe questions whether this is the direction we really want to go when it comes t...
By: Joe Walsh
Excerpt from:
First Amendment Tuesday 3-10-2015
Description.
By: Reagan Peterson
See original here:
The First Amendment...(Historically Speaking) - Episode #19
Frederick Douglass Dixon hosts this weekly program on UPTV.
By: UPTV6
Read more:
The First Amendment...(Historically Speaking) - Episode #19 - Video
BOSTON Judges across Massachusetts are sealing court documents with increasing regularity, forcing news organizations and First Amendment groups into costly and time-consuming legal battles to ensure the basic workings of the judicial system remain public.
In the run up to Aaron Hernandez's ongoing murder trial in Fall River, for example, a judge sealed search warrants and hundreds of pages of related documents following the former New England Patriots star's 2013 arrest.
In Falmouth, similar documents were barred from release related to the Feb. 5 shooting of two Coast Guard officers and a local Bourne police officer by Coast Guardsman Adrian Loya.
In both cases, the defense lawyers argued that the release of information could harm their client's constitutional right to a fair trial. Judges eventually unsealed the records after news organizations challenged the rulings, but journalists say the documents should never have been secret in the first place.
"What we're talking about is some of the most basic public information that has been always presumed to be available and transparent," said Paul Pronovost, editor-in-chief of the Cape Cod Times, which prevailed in its challenge in the Loya case.
Advocates and news editors say it's not clear the extent of the problem or its causes.
Matthew Segal, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, suggests the tendency toward secrecy stems, in part, from post-9/11 concerns about national security and how that thinking now pervades all levels of government across the country.
But he also submits that it is driven by factors unique to Massachusetts: The state has one of the weakest public records laws in the nation, and some government agencies have a tendency not to honor even those low standards.
"There isn't exactly a cheerful willingness to do what the law requires," Segal says. "You have to fight for every inch. The culture here does not favor openness."
News editors and First Amendment advocates say the problem is not exclusive to high-profile cases.
Continue reading here:
Are Facebook and Twitter justified in taking down content that they deem to be abusive, hateful or likely to promote violence, even if such posts might enjoy free-speech protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? That question touched off a feisty debate today at the South by Southwest (SXSW) conference in Austin, Texas.
Theres no end of controversies oncerning what people can and cant say on the two giant social-media sites. Government in India, Turkey and Pakistan last year submitted a total of more than 8,000 requests for Facebook content restrictions in the first half of 2014, chiefly because of posts that ran afoul of local political or religious strictures. (Facebook complied with some but not all of those requests.) Twitter, meanwhile, is being urged by U.S. lawmakers to delete accounts that have been associated with terrorist activities. And both Twitter and Facebook have signaled a willingness to clamp down on personal postings, targeted at specific users, that fit into a pattern of menacing behavior.
In a panel discussion at SXSW, George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen urged Twitter and Facebook to allow just as much free speech as the U.S. government permits under the First Amendment. He argued that 21st century social media should stick to the standards expressed by Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis in the 1920s, in which stifling measures should be taken only in the event of an imminent risk of evil.
(Credit: mhkmarketing.com via Flickr/Creative Commons)
Rosen went on to voice concern that Facebook and Twitter because of their sheer size now have more power over what people can say, or what can be heard, than any king, politician or Supreme Court Justice. Facebook has about 1.4 billion active monthly users around the world. Twitter has288 million. Rosen observed that Facebook allows more restriction of hate speech than the U.S. government does. He deemed that problematic, saying it reminded him of Brandeiss concern about the biggest U.S. banks many decades ago taking actions that curtailed peoples liberties.
Monika Bickert, Facebooks head of global policy management, rejected the notion that her company is trying to act like a quasi-government, seeking to decide whether content is in the public interest or not. Instead, she said, Facebooks overriding goal is to make sure that members feel safe on the site, and feel safe sharing. That means creating a system where members can report what they regard as hate speech, with Facebook then taking down objectionable content as warranted.
Bickert noted that Facebook is willing to keep some graphic and violent content on the site, if it was posted in an effort to draw world attention to some injustice. But if people are sharing to make fun of the victim, or to encourage violence, we will remove it. Refereeing such situations is difficult, but Facebook believes that with the help of outside advisers and local experts, it can make correct judgments.
Matt Zimmerman, Twitters senior product counsel, added that his company wants to make sure people arent disuaded from coming on the platform. As a result, Twitter will take down posts or restrict offenders ability to keep using the site, in situations that involve illegal activities, harassment and abuse.
More:
Facebook, Twitter -- And A Tussle At SXSW Over First Amendment
MVI 5619 Sean Hannity, Get Off You #39;er High-Horse!
Sean Hannity attacked the Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity Student #39;s, saying that they were bigot #39;s. Sean should spend sometime reviewing the First Amendment.
By: Gabor Zolna
See more here: