DES MOINES, Wash. The owners of Secrets Adult Entertainment have filed a lawsuit against the city of Des Moines over violation of First Amendment rights and being shut down without due process.

On Dec. 5, officials red-tagged the building, citing code violations.

The violation document lists issues such as use of a storage area for retail space, an obstructed exit door, and a second exit door that was sticking.

The owners said they had dealt with code violations before, but usually had the opportunity to fix them for re-inspection. This time, they said they were locked out for 30 days, when they told KIRO 7 they could have addressed the issues within minutes.

Now, workers are allowed inside to make fixes, but the business is still closed with no timeline for reopening.

The owner who filed the suit, Mark White, alleges an assistant fire marshal and a city building inspector made homophobic remarks during their inspection, using the words f-gs and h---s directed at gay clients.

KIRO 7 spoke to a female employee who was present during the exchange. She said the officials even told them they would not be inclined to rescue anyone from the building if it were burning.

Basically they would have a moral issue with coming in and rescuing people from our establishment, said one of the co-owners, Michael, who didn't give his last name. Its just not right for a public official to say something like that.

South King Fire and Rescue issued a statement through its attorney.

South King Fire and Rescue adamantly denies the allegations of discriminatory code enforcement set forth in the plaintiffs complaint. It also adamantly denies that any of its employees made offensive or derogatory comments about the plaintiffs establishment or its customers.

Continued here:

Sex shop owners sue city of Des Moines

Marlon Wayans Beats Actor #39;s Lawsuit Over Offensive Tweet
Marlon Wayans has successfully defended a lawsuit over an allegedly racially insensitive tweet after a California judge took an expansive view of how the First Amendment covers the creative...

By: WochitGeneralNews

Continue reading here:

Marlon Wayans Beats Actor's Lawsuit Over Offensive Tweet - Video

Will any of the 2016 presidential candidates mention the many colleges that widely censor students' free speech? Probably not. But at least a news analyst has followed the lead of FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) in its essential crusade to bring an active First Amendment to college campuses.

An op-ed in last month's Wall Street Journal says:

"Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky famously postulated that the test of a free society is the ability to express opinions in the town square without fear of reprisal."

But dig this: "Most American colleges wouldn't pass that test, according to a new report by ... FIRE" ("Unfree Speech on Campus," The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 12).

The op-ed continues: "The foundation reports that 55 percent of the 437 colleges it surveyed (in 2014) maintain 'severely restrictive' policies that 'clearly and substantially prohibit protected speech.' They include 61 private schools and 180 public colleges.

"Incredibly, this represents progress from FIRE's survey seven years ago, when 75 percent of colleges maintained restrictive free speech codes."

If contempt for the First Amendment in much of American higher learning is to continue for another generation or more, what quality of emerging public officials and voters will we have?

But to show the liberation of expressive Americanism that has taken place, The Wall Street Journal emphasizes:

"Perhaps the biggest breakthrough for First Amendment advocates (in 2014) was a Virginia law that bars 'free-speech zones' on public campuses. As FIRE explains, free-speech zones are a common tool that administrators use to restrict demonstrations to remote areas of campus.

"Colorado Mesa University limits free speech to 'the concrete patio adjacent to the west door of the University Center.'"

The rest is here:

Sending your child to college: Will it be one for free speech?

Catholic League head Bill Donohue is having quite a day. First, he released two statements arguing 1) Muslims are right to be angry at the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, who were partly at fault for their own deaths, which and 2) that free speech doesnt extend to obscene portrayal of religious figures. Then he was on the receiving end of a pretty pissed-off Hugh Hewitt, who told Donohue that his victim-blaming is an embarrassment to Catholics everywhere.

And tonight, Fox News anchor and lawyer Megyn Kelly took strong issue with Donohues views on free speech and the First Amendment.

Donohue argued the cartoonists are pornographers disguised as satirists in the vein of Larry Flynt, but Kelly pointed out that not only does Flynt have First Amendment rights, but his specific First Amendment rights were upheld by the Supreme Court. She read the actual Supreme Court decision to rebut Donohues argument that freedom of speech is not an end.

Donohue also said, Self-censorship is the friend of freedom, because if we dont have self-censorship were gonna have individuals interpreting their rights in an extreme fashion.

Kelly told Donohue it is no defense to say that the cartoonists offended people, no matter how outrageous it may have been.

Watch the full segment below, via Fox News:

Please enable Javascript to watch.

[image via screengrab]

Follow Josh Feldman on Twitter: @feldmaniac

Go here to see the original:

Megyn Kelly Schools Catholic Leagues Bill Donohue on the First Amendment

Joseph Dobrian, Writers Group 9:51 a.m. CST January 7, 2015

Joseph Dobrian(Photo: Thomas Adam)

In the Press-Citizen, recently, appeared a letter from Iowa state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, in which he declared his intention to find a judge-proof way to criminalize desecration of the American flag. Many people agree with him, of course including, unfortunately, many elected officials but for the purposes of this article I'll regard him as the chief spokesman for that position.

In a single paragraph of that letter, Mr. Kaufmann parrots the three morally bankrupt pronouncements that his allies invariably bring to the argument. Then he tops it off with a coda so hypocritical and vainglorious that I literally turned my face away in disgust: "I value our First Amendment rights but just like you cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded movie theater, you should never, ever, be allowed to spit and stomp on our flag while protesting the funeral of someone who died fighting for our freedoms. count on me to fight with a fiery passion to defend the honor of our flag and our fallen soldiers."

No, Mr. Kaufmann: You do not "value our First Amendment rights." Manifestly, you despise them. A single word "but" reveals your contempt for them.

But nothing, Mr. Kaufmann. BUT NOTHING.

Our First Amendment does not exist to protect expressions that most people approve of. Such speech needs no protection. The laws exist, rather, to protect expressions we abominate: expressions that would be deeply offensive to most sensible people. Without the First Amendment, the rest of the U.S. Constitution doesn't much matter. And yet it's the most universally despised item in the Bill of Rights: constantly attacked from left and right.

When we stand up for the First Amendment, we're almost never supporting noble sentiments. Ninety-nine times out of 100, we're standing up for someone who's desecrating a flag or writing pornography about Jesus. Your position, sir, and the position of your allies, is identical to that of infantile liberals who want to suppress expressions that offend them. Same argument.

If anything, liberals are a little less hypocritical, since most of them are frank in their hatred of free speech and a free press. They make no pretense of respecting the First Amendment.

Don't insult our intelligence with that false equivalency about yelling "fire." The consequences of yelling "fire" if a stampede causes injuries or property damage, for example might be punishable. If no stampede ensues, the worst that will happen is that the fire-yeller will be escorted out. Arguably, that fire-yeller is creating a hazard, but in what way does the flag-spitter create a hazard?

Go here to see the original:

There is no but in our First Amendment rights

MARSHALL, MO -- Did a school violate a student's first amendment rights?

Loyal Grandstaff says he loves reading his Bible and decided to bring it to school before the Christmas break so he could read it during his free time, but the 7th grader says his teacher told him it wasn't allowed.

"I like to read my bible because it's a good book," he said.

The 12-year-old says he wasn't reading out loud and he says he wasn't sharing the Bible with his classmates.

"I was just reading, reading because I had free time. A time to do what I wanted to, so I just broke it out and read."

Was he bothering anybody while reading it?

"I shouldn't have been," he replied.

"I feel like it violated his freedom of religion but also his freedom of speech," said Loyal's father, Justin Grandstaff, who says he is trying to raise his children to honor God, work hard and do the right things.

He can't believe his son was banned from reading the Bible. "There's kids walking around disrespecting their teachers, kids walking around cussing and everything else and they're practically getting into no trouble at all."

Lance Tobin, the Principal at Bueker Middle School, says Bibles are not banned from the school, but he needs to look into the situation to get the details before he elaborates further.

Read this article:

Student claims he was banned from reading the Bible in school

Further Reading Back in 2011, the Supreme Court handed down a momentous decision enshrining video games as speech with full First Amendment protections, invalidating a number of attempts by states to ban sales and rentals of violent games to unaccompanied minors. But if one Justice had voted with her personal feelings rather than with her understanding of the law, things might have gone very differently.

Speaking at a forum hosted by Princeton University back in November, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan called Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association the toughest case she'd ever been part of. Kagan responded to an audience question by saying that she is "not usually an agonizer," but in deciding this case she was "all over the map... Every day I woke up and I thought I would do a different thing or I was in the wrong place."

The problem, it seems, is that Kagan's personal feelings on the law conflicted with the direction the First Amendment and established legal precedent were pointing her decision. Speaking about the decision, Kagan halted numerous times to reassemble her thoughts, saying, "I have to say, everything in myit should be that you should not be ableif a parent doesn't want her kids to buy violent video games, that should be the parents'it should be that this law was OK, I guess is what I'm saying."

"But I could not figure how to make the First Amendment law work to make it OK," she continued. "It's clearly a content-based distinction [and] that's usually subject to the strictest scrutiny. There was no very good evidence, not of the kind one would normally need, that the viewing or playing of violent video games was harmful [to minors]. And so I just couldn't make it work under the First Amendment doctrine that we have and have had for a long time."

While seven justices ended up voting to overturn the law under discussion in California, Kagan was one of just five justices that voted to essentially pre-empt any future legislative attempts to restrict game sales. She said there was no clearly established state interest that satisfied the necessary "strict scrutiny" as a First Amendment matter.

In a narrower, concurrent opinion, Justices Alito and Roberts agreed that California's law was too vaguely worded to pass legal muster, but they seemed more open to the idea that a better-written law might serve a valid state interest in helping parents limit their children's access to harmful games."I certainly agree with the Court that the government has no 'free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed,'" Justice Alito wrote. "But the California law does not exercise such a power. If parents want their child to have a violent video game, the California law does not interfere with that parental prerogative."

Furthermore, Alito and Roberts seemed to think that there could be some reason to treat games as legally different from other works of speech. "There is certainly a reasonable basis for thinking that the experience of playing a video game may be quite different from the experience of reading a book, listening to a radio broadcast, or viewing a movie," Alito wrote. "And if this is so, then for at least some minors, the effects of playing violent video games may also be quite different."

If Kagan had voted based on what she says she felt "should be OK" rather than the state of the law, she could have easily joined with Alito and Roberts (along with Thomas and Breyer, who thought the California law was fine as is) in leaving the door open for future laws restricting game sales to minors. In that world, it's easy to see others states trying to succeed where California had failed, attempting to craft a law that was narrow and specific enough to pass muster for that slim majority of the court.

"I kept on going back and forth and back and forth, and we ended up being sort of 5-4 on that important issue," Kagan said during the Princeton forum. "I was in the five that said that the law should be invalidated. That is the one case where I kind of think I just don't know. I just don't know if that's right."

For all the success gaming has had in establishing its place as an art form and social force in recent years, it's worth remembering just how close the medium came to at least partially losing its most important legal victory in the US courts. Gamers would do well to remember and praise Justice Kagan's apparent decision to vote with her interpretation of free speech law rather than her personal feelings in this landmark case.

See the original post here:

Supreme Court justice second-guesses decisive vote in gaming free speech case

Texas Veterinarian Heads to Federal Appellate Court Tomorrow

With One Of First Amendments Most Important Unanswered Questions

The Texas Veterinary Board punished a disabled veterinarian for giving online advice

Professional, online advice question will ultimately head to Supreme Court

Censorship of online advice grows with national expansion of occupational licensing

NEW ORLEANSDoes the First Amendment apply to licensed professionals who give advice over the Internet? That is the question to be presented to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans tomorrow in a high-profile case that pits a veterinarian against the Texas Veterinary Board.

Dr. Ron Hinesa disabled retiree and Texas-licensed veterinarianhad begun to use the Internet in 2002 to help pet owners from across the the world, often in remote locations and often for free. He uses the Internet to remain productive and share his lifetime of wisdom and experience. But in 2012, Dr. Hines stopped because he discovered that he had been on a decade-long crime spree: In Texas, as in a majority of states, it is a crime for a veterinarian to give advice over the Internet without having first physically examined the animal.

Read the original:

Is Advice Given Over The Internet Free Speech?

Updated: Monday, January 5 2015, 10:57 AM CST

NEW ORLEANSDoes the First Amendment apply to licensed professionals who give advice over the Internet? That is the question to be presented to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans tomorrow in a high-profile case that pits a veterinarian against the Texas Veterinary Board.

Dr. Ron Hines -- a disabled retiree and Texas-licensed veterinarian -- had begun to use the Internet in 2002 to help pet owners from across the the world, often in remote locations and often for free. He uses the Internet to remain productive and share his lifetime of wisdom and experience. But in 2012, Dr. Hines stopped because he discovered that he had been on a decade-long crime spree: In Texas, as in a majority of states, it is a crime for a veterinarian to give advice over the Internet without having first physically examined the animal.

On March 25, 2013, the Texas Veterinary Board shut Dr. Hines down, suspended his license, fined him and made him retake portions of the veterinary licensing exam because of his Internet advice. Texas did this without even an allegation that he harmed any animal. In response, Dr. Hines joined with the Institute for Justice to file a free-speech lawsuit in federal court to vindicate his First Amendment right to communicate with people about their pets using the Internet.

"This case is bigger than Ron Hines," said IJ Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes. ";It's about protecting Internet freedom and free speech for Americans everywhere. Rons case raises one of the most important unanswered questions in First Amendment law: When does the governments power to license occupations trump free speech?"

The Institute for Justice is currently litigating two similar cases based out of North Carolina and Kentucky. In North Carolina, the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition wants to use its licensing power to shut down a blogger who uses the Internet to give advice about the low-carb "Paleolithic," or "Paleo," diet. In Kentucky, John Rosemond -- America's longest running newspaper advice columnist -- was

Go here to see the original:

Texas vetenarian heads to Appeals Court in free speech issue

Exercise Your First Amendment Rights $FNMA $FMCC
The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman...

By: David Sims

Original post:

Exercise Your First Amendment Rights $FNMA $FMCC - Video

WallBuilders Live 2015-01-01 Thursday - Foundations of Freedom - The Bible and the First Amendment
Thursday, January 1, 2015 Foundations of Freedom Thursday: The Bible and the First Amendment Guest: David Barton and Rick Green David and Rick answer questio...

By: Astonisher3

View original post here:

WallBuilders Live 2015-01-01 Thursday - Foundations of Freedom - The Bible and the First Amendment - Video

Marquis de Sade #39;s A Midsummer Night #39;s Wet Dream
Our Kindle ebook has been banned by Amazon.com. We fully recognize the right of a private corporation to censor. The First Amendment only protects from "government" censorship, but considering...

By: ChiXiStigma.org

Here is the original post:

Marquis de Sade's A Midsummer Night's Wet Dream - Video

The First Amendment Inc.
Freedom! Use it or loose it.

By: Arthur Howard

Read the original post:

The First Amendment Inc. - Video

What are Your Rights: First Amendment and Fa
Do you have a question about your rights? Email it to whatareyourrights@cbs6albany.com!

By: CBS6 Albany

Visit link:

What are Your Rights: First Amendment and Fa - Video

First Amendment- Simon Yung
Our Staff Writer, Simon Yung, was nominated by Multimedia Editor Anthony Yang to do the First Amendment Challenge. The challenge is to recite your first amen...

By: SGHSTheMatadorOnline

Originally posted here:

First Amendment- Simon Yung - Video

First Amendment Test Traffic Stop Orange County Sheriffs I Do Not Answer Questions
I was recording a traffic stop, when Deputy Perez came over for a conversation. I had not noticed Deputy Prescott sneak behind me.I find it odd that they asked me for ID, yet they know my...

By: TheJunkyard News

See more here:

First Amendment Test Traffic Stop Orange County Sheriffs I Do Not Answer Questions - Video

BOSTON Bostons mayor and police commissioner urged activists Tuesday to hold off on a planned die-in protesting police violence during the citys annual New Years Eve festivities.

Mayor Martin Walsh and Police Commissioner William Evans said the city will honor the protesters First Amendment right to demonstrate on Dec. 31. But they suggested the family-friendly First Night event is not the proper venue to address recent police killings of unarmed black men and boys in the U.S.

This isnt the event to do this, Evans said. If you walk down there, its all 2-, 3- and 4-year-olds. I dont think they have to see [that] behavior. They dont understand what is going on. They are still very innocent.

Walsh agreed: At some point, we have to have a dialogue about where we go from here. Protesting is great to get your point across. But the conversation has to happen around what are the answers people are looking for so that we can explain what we have done as a police department and as a city. Weve done some hard work around race relations, in particular.

Evans suggested many of the protesters are from outside the city trying to capitalize on recent events and do not reflect the relations between law enforcement and the community in Boston. The majority of the community is behind us, he said.

If activists decide to demonstrate as planned at Copley Square, Walsh and Evans said they should be respectful of police and First Night revelers.

Now in its 39th year, First Night draws tens of thousands with a mix of ice sculptures, music, fireworks and other family-friendly activities. Its emphasis on wholesome, non-alcohol-fueled fun has inspired hundreds of similar celebrations around the world.

The group First Night Against Police Violence has said it expects at least 100 people to participate in its New Years Eve die-in, in which activists lie down in the street pretending to be dead.

Originally posted here:

Boston officials urge protesters to show restraint during First Night

Protecting the First Amendment, by watching The Interview
It #39;s our DUTY.

By: Ciscovaras Pictures

Read more here:

Protecting the First Amendment, by watching The Interview - Video

Atheists attack Ground Zero cross
Godless group takes token of peace to court Watch the video about Religion, Personal Freedoms, 911, Bill Of Rights, Christianity, Controversies, First Amendment, National Interest, Values, Edge, US.

By: Fox News

View post:

Atheists attack Ground Zero cross - Video

A New Jersey federal court allows the lawsuit brought by Paul Nichols, a Bergen Dispatch reporter who wants to interview one of the litigants to go forward, and seems sympathetic to Nicholss First Amendment argument, though the case is still at a preliminary stage and no declaratory judgment has been issued. Here are some excerpts from that opinion, Nichols v. Sivilli (D.N.J. Dec. 19, 2014):

Plaintiff Paul Nichols is a reporter for the Bergen County Dispatch who brings a First Amendment challenge to a gag order issued by Judge Nancy Sivilli in Myronova v. Malhan, a divorce and custody suit pending in the family division of the Essex County Superior Court. Nichols wishes to interview one of the parties in Myronova v. Malhan, but is unable to because the Gag Order restrains all parties to the litigation from discussing any aspect of the divorce proceedings.

In order to understand Nichols First Amendment challenge, the Court first must provide a brief overview of the divorce proceedings that are the subject of the Gag Order. In 2011, a New Jersey court granted full child custody to Alina Myronova and stripped all custody rights from her husband, Surrender Malhan, after Myronova alleged that Malhan was an unfit parent.

According to the [Complaint], the state court stripped Malhan of his custody rights on a mere two hours notice without affording him an opportunity to refute Myronovas allegations. For example, the court prohibited Malhan from cross examining Myronova or presenting physical evidence such as bank records or video recordings that would further demonstrate his parental fitness. The [Complaint] alleges that after the 2011 proceeding, Myronova retained sole custody of the children for sixteen months until she agreed to joint custody in June 2012; during that time, Malhan was never granted a plenary hearing.

Malhan, along with five other parents, subsequently filed a class action lawsuit in this District that is currently pending before the Honorable Freda Wolfson: Edelglass, et al., v. New Jersey, et al.. The class action suit alleges that the New Jersey family court system fails to provide adequate due process rights to parents in child custody proceedings. In February 2014, a New Jersey affiliate of a major news broadcasting company interviewed Malhan and two other Edelglass plaintiffs regarding their experiences in family court and their allegations that the family court deprived them of their constitutional rights. In response, Myronova initiated proceedings against Malhan, which resulted in Judge Sivilli entering the Gag Order. The Gag Order reads, in pertinent part:

All parties are hereby enjoined and restrained without prejudice from speaking with, appearing for an interview, or otherwise discussing, the parties marriage, their pending divorce, the within litigation, or the parties children or making any derogatory or negative statements about the other parties to any reporters, journalists, newscasters, or other agents/employees of newspapers or other media outlets on the grounds that it is not in the best interest of the children to have the parties divorce litigation discussed in a public forum or to have public disparaging statements made about any party by the other party.

In addition to restricting their ability to discuss their divorce or related litigation with other individuals, the Gag Order also prohibits the parties from conveying such information on social media. The Gag Order also instructs Malhan to remove all divorce-related information from his blog.

In May 2014, Malhan filed for a temporary restraining order in Edelglass seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Gag Order. In a May 8, 2014 Order, Judge Wolfson expressed her view that the Gag Order raises serious constitutional concerns and that Judge Sivilli failed to meaningfully weigh Plaintiffs First Amendment rights. She nonetheless denied Malhans motion because the relief he sought was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine [which limits federal intervention in state proceedings -EV]. Malhan suffered another defeat when the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey denied his application for an interlocutory appeal of the Gag Order.

After Malhan failed to enjoin enforcement of the Gag Order, Nichols filed the instant action in this Court.2 Nichols wishes to interview Malhan about his experiences in family court, which according to Nichols, are a matter of public interest. Nichols contends that that he is unable to interview Malhan because the Gag Order restricts Malhan from saying anything that relates to his divorce proceedings.

The [Complaint] alleges that Judge Sivilli entered the Gag Order without conducting any meaningful weighing of the First Amendment interests at stake. According to Nichols, Judge Sivilli did not hold a plenary hearing and made no specific findings as to why a gag order was required in this particular case; instead, she issued the Gag Order based on a generalized finding that publicity in family court is not in the best interests of children. Nichols seeks a declaratory judgment that the Gag Order is unconstitutional .

Originally posted here:

Volokh Conspiracy: First Amendment challenge to broad gag order on family court litigants