1. First Amendment

Category Archives: First Amendment

Boston officials urge protesters to show restraint during First Night event

Posted on by

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.

See more here:

Boston officials urge protesters to show restraint during First Night event

Do NYC Cops Have a First Amendment Right to Protest De Blasio?

Posted on by

Do New York City police officers have a First Amendment right to protest Mayor Bill de Blasio?

In a CBS interview Sunday, Police Commissioner William Bratton said it was very inappropriate for officers to turn their backs on the mayor at a funeral for one of two slain officers.

While theres no indication that any officer who participated in the symbolic rebuke of Mayor Bill de Blasio will face sanction, some commentators have suggested that the protesting officers should be punished.

The speech rights of public employees can often be a legal gray area. The situation involving the back-turning cops is no exception, say legal experts.

The answer is nobody knows, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told Law Blog.

Mr. Volokh said he thinks the police officers were speaking as citizens not as part of their official duties about matters of public concern. Courts have said government employees have the right to speak freely as private citizens on matters of public concern, with some exceptions.

Courts also consider the potential of speech to disrupt government functions. Mr. Volokh said the value of the speech would have to be weighed against its disruptive potential.

Its potentially disruptive because it undermines the authority of management, he said.

Dennis R. Nolan, a retired labor law professor at the University of South Carolina, said he doesnt think its clear whether the police officers who turned their backs were speaking as citizens or acting in an official capacity. Organized activity by [uniformed] police officers mourning the deaths of their colleagues could look like it was work-connected, he said.

The Supreme Court has laid down broad guidelines for looking at the speech rights of public employees.

Follow this link:

Do NYC Cops Have a First Amendment Right to Protest De Blasio?

'The Interview' and First Amendment rights

Posted on by

News that the controversial comedy movie The Interview will be shown on Christmas Day is dredging up a rather complicated, and confused, argument about the Constitutions First Amendment.

As of Christmas Eve day, here is a quick recap of where we stand:

Sony Pictures is now allowing independent theaters to show the movie in more than 200 locations, after Sony and major theaters pulled the film initially. Sonys computers were hacked by folks with alleged connections to North Korea. The hackers also made threats to harm people who attended movie screenings at the theater chain venues.

Then, President Barack Obama called out Sony and the national theater chains.

We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States, Obama said last Friday.

Obamas comments and a huge push back from the entertainment industry were partially driven by concerns that North Korea, or at least its proxy in the form of the hackers, could dictate what companies can publish, in the form of a film, or any other type of digital content.

They also drew a quick response from Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton, who said, First, I was surprised by the remark. But, I think actually the president and I are coming from the same place. We are obviously both strong proponents of the First Amendment.

Sony also quickly pointed out that the major theater groups pulled the plug on the movie.

Read the original here:

'The Interview' and First Amendment rights

SJC: Harassment not protected by 1st Amendment

Posted on by

Rep. Lyons

BOSTON -- Posting false advertisements online can be considered criminal harassment unprotected by the First Amendment, according to a Supreme Judicial Court decision Tuesday, which upheld the conviction of two people who directed "pranks" against an Andover lawmaker.

Rep. James Lyons, a Republican, was not yet a member of the House in 2008 when William and Gail Johnson enlisted their friend Gerald Colton to use personal information about Lyons and his wife to harass them, according to the SJC. Lyons had opposed the couple's plans to develop property abutting their home.

Colton advertised free golf carts at the Lyons' home, posted another ad offering "my late son's" motorcycle for sale with Lyons' phone number, and sent Lyons a message that said, "Remember, if you aren't miserable, I aint happy! Let's Play." William Johnson also committed the crime of falsely reporting Lyons to the Department of Children and Families for alleged child abuse.

In a ruling written by Justice Robert Cordy and released Tuesday morning, the SJC denied an appeal from the Johnsons and found the defendants' speech was not protected by the First Amendment. Cordy said the case is the court's first to consider the "type of conduct at issue here."

The case involves the use of the classified ad website Craigslist to steer unwitting people against a target.

The SJC found that though the "methods were indirect" the phony posts were "intended solely" to cause strangers to contact the Lyons.

"Where the sole purpose of the defendants' speech was to further their endeavor to intentionally harass the Lyonses, such speech is not protected by the First Amendment," the SJC wrote.

"I thought it was a very well written opinion and my wife and I are extremely grateful for the Supreme Court's decision in this case," Lyons told the News Service. "These people literally tortured my wife, my boys and myself, and to this day shown not one ounce of remorse."

Lyons, who was elected in 2010, said the Johnsons are no longer his neighbors and said both were incarcerated as a result of their convictions. The husband was sentenced to serve 18 months imprisonment and his wife was sentenced to serve six months, the SJC stated.

See the original post:

SJC: Harassment not protected by 1st Amendment

SJC: Harassing not free speech

Posted on by

BOSTON -- Posting false advertisements online can be considered criminal harassment unprotected by the First Amendment, according to a Supreme Judicial Court decision Tuesday, which upheld the conviction of two people who directed "pranks" against an Andover lawmaker.

Rep. James Lyons, a Republican, was not yet a member of the House in 2008 when William and Gail Johnson enlisted their friend Gerald Colton to use personal information about Lyons and his wife to harass them, according to the SJC. Lyons had opposed the couple's plans to develop property abutting their home.

Colton advertised free golf carts at the Lyons' home, posted another ad offering "my late son's" motorcycle for sale with Lyons' phone number, and sent Lyons a message that said, "Remember, if you aren't miserable, I aint happy! Let's Play." William Johnson also committed the crime of falsely reporting Lyons to the Department of Children and Families for alleged child abuse.

In a ruling written by Justice Robert Cordy and released Tuesday morning, the SJC denied an appeal from the Johnsons and found the defendants' speech was not protected by the First Amendment. Cordy said the case is the court's first to consider the "type of conduct at issue here."

The case involves the use of the classified ad website Craigslist to steer unwitting people against a target.

The SJC found that though the "methods were indirect" the phony posts were "intended solely" to cause strangers to contact the Lyons.

"Where the sole purpose of the defendants' speech was to further their endeavor to intentionally harass the Lyonses, such speech is not protected by the First Amendment," the SJC wrote.

"I thought it was a very well written opinion, and my wife and I are extremely grateful for the Supreme Court's decision in this case," Lyons told the News Service. "These people literally tortured my wife, my boys and myself, and to this day shown not one ounce of remorse."

Lyons, who was elected in 2010, said the Johnsons are no longer his neighbors and said both were incarcerated as a result of their convictions. The husband was sentenced to serve 18 months imprisonment and his wife was sentenced to serve six months, according to the SJC.

Lyons praised the police investigation that identified the culprits and said William Johnson pled guilty to the additional crime of witness intimidation against Lyons and his sons after the arrest.

Excerpt from:

SJC: Harassing not free speech


  1. First Amendment