1. First Amendment

Category Archives: First Amendment

Los Angeles Court Says Condom-less Sex Isnt Protected Free Speech

Posted on by

by Maurice Bobb 2 hours ago

The adult entertainment industry has been arguing against a law that would require porn actors to wear condoms, but they suffered another setback when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles rejected their First Amendment argument on Monday (Dec. 15).

Simply put, the adult entertainment industrys position revolves around the idea that condomless sex is part of their right to free speech. Vivid Entertainment and the other plaintiffs in the suit were seeking relief from the 2012 law (Measure B), which was voter-initiated, in response to the widespread transmission of sexually transmitted diseases among porn industry workers.

While the entertainment industry is indeed content-based though, the 9th Circuit ruled that speech that is sexual or pornographic in nature earns an exception to free speech when the primary motivation behind the regulation is to prevent secondary effects like STDs, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Vivid also argued that condomless sex onscreen is essential because it projects a particular fantasy for viewers, one where sex doesnt have real-life consequences like disease or pregnancy.

But ninth Circuit Judge Susan Graber saw the safe-sex precaution a different way, and explained in part in the ruling:

To determine whether conduct is protected by the First Amendment, we ask not only whether someone intended to convey a particular message through that conduct, but also whether there is a great likelihood that the message would be understood by those who viewed it. Here, we agree with the district court that, whatever unique message Plaintiffs might intend to convey by depicting condomless sex, it is unlikely that viewers of adult films will understand that message. So condomless sex is not the relevant expression for First Amendment purposes; instead, the relevant expression is more generally the adult films erotic message.

The federal courts decision means that the law requiring porn actors wear condoms during their onscreen expressions doesnt conflict with their First Amendment rights.

Outside of the legal ramifications of the ruling and the effect it will have on the porn industrys fanbase, the question we have to admit to wondering about is: Did the justices have to actually watch porn to rule on this matter?

What do you think? Should condomless sex be protected under the First Amendment?

See the rest here:

Los Angeles Court Says Condom-less Sex Isnt Protected Free Speech

Sonys Legal Threats in Hacking Scandal Face First Amendment Hurdle

Posted on by

Would Sony Pictures Entertainment have a legal basis to stop news media from publishing stories about company secrets unearthed in the giant hacking scandal?

As WSJ reported, Sonys lawyer, David Boies, sent a letter Sunday to media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and Bloomberg News, warning them not to publish or use anything discovered in the trove of internal files stolen in last months Sony cyberattack and leaked online.

The effort by Sony to keep a lid on the hacked documents has renewed First Amendment questions over the legality of publishing information stolen by hackers. Legal experts say Sony and Mr. Boies probably wouldnt get very far in court if the company followed through with a lawsuit.

It would be very hard for Sony to block media outlets from publishing most anything thats in the public interest, University of Minnesota Law School professor William McGeveran, who specializes in information law and data privacy, told Law Blog. And courts, he said, are quite deferential to the established media and its judgment about whats newsworthy.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, over at the Washington Posts Volokh Conspiracy blog, also says that Sony most likely wouldnt have a legal leg to stand on.Thats true, he said, at least as to most of the information that media outlets would want to publish.

He and Mr. McGeveran point to two key legal precedents.

The first is Bartnicki v. Vopper, a Supreme Court case from 2001. The high court ruled 6-3 in favor of a radio broadcaster that aired a cellphone conversation between a teachers union president and a top union negotiator that someone else had recorded illegally. In this situation, in which the station played no part in the illegal interception, First Amendment interests trumped privacy concerns.

A strangers illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern, wrote then-Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority.

The other case is a U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruling from 1969 involving a lawsuit filed by then-U.S. Sen. Thomas J. Dodd against two investigative reporters, Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, over articles they published based on leaked documents that ex-staffers had purloined from the Connecticut lawmakers office.

When information is on a matter of public concern, the court held, the fact that it was illegally leaked doesnt make publishing it an invasion of privacy, writes Mr. Volokh, summing up the decision.

See the original post:

Sonys Legal Threats in Hacking Scandal Face First Amendment Hurdle

Police Harassment First Amendment Test Aliso Viejo Orange County Sheriff – Video

Posted on by


Police Harassment First Amendment Test Aliso Viejo Orange County Sheriff
12-10-2014 Decided to go out and take some video, was questioned and followed by the Orange County Sheriffs Department in Aliso Viejo Ca. I tried to stay pol...

By: TheJunkyard News

Go here to see the original:

Police Harassment First Amendment Test Aliso Viejo Orange County Sheriff - Video

Justice Brennans Fight to Preserve the Legacy of New York Times v. Sullivan – Video

Posted on by


Justice Brennans Fight to Preserve the Legacy of New York Times v. Sullivan
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the case that changed the First Amendment, has protected the freedom of expression for the past 50 years. Join First Amendment lawyer Lee Levine and veteran...

By: NCC Video

See the article here:

Justice Brennans Fight to Preserve the Legacy of New York Times v. Sullivan - Video

Jason Patric's Sperm Spawns First Amendment Battle

Posted on by

Jemal Countess/Getty Images

Jason Patric

On Thursday, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge will hear a novel First Amendment battle over the extent to which an in vitro father can mention his child's name.

STORY:CNN Gets First Amendment Victory in Video Captioning Dispute

At the center of the dispute is actor Jason Patric, who has been locked in a custody battle with his ex-girlfriend Danielle Schreiber over their four-year-old son Gus, who was born through artificial insemination. Thanks to California law, which grants the mother full custody unless there is a written agreement establishing parental rights before conception, a judge has denied The Lost Boys star access to his son.

As the custody issue goes to an appellate court next month, Patric has launched an organization called Stand Up for Gus to raise awareness of parental alienation. At a fundraising event last autumn, Matt Damon, Kiefer Sutherland and Jon Hamm were among the celebrities on hand. Patric has also built awareness for the project with interviews on shows like 20/20 and The View. The actor has also established Twitter and Facebook pages that mention and picture Gus.

According to Patty Glaser, one of the Glaser Weil attorneys representing Schreiber, this amounts to a "public relations tirade" from a father who she says didn't want his name on the birth certificate so as to avoid attention from the paparazzi.

STORY:'Freeway' Ricky Ross vs. Rick Ross: First Amendment Protects Hip-Hop Persona

Schreiber is now demanding a restraining order. "We are asking him not to use the childs name and likeness for commercial purposes without moms permission," Glaser tells The Hollywood Reporter.

In the past, celebrities like Liam Neeson and Sandra Bullock have been the ones leaning on likeness rights laws to stop the unauthorized use of their fame. Other celebrities have asserted privacy laws to keep the media from intruding upon their space. In this case, it's the other way around, as the celebrity is the one raising a First Amendment defense.

Originally posted here:

Jason Patric's Sperm Spawns First Amendment Battle

NYC's SantaCon kicks off with First Amendment lesson

Posted on by

Published December 13, 2014

FILE- In this Dec. 11, 2010 file photo, SantaCon participants John Paul, center, dressed as an Elf and Michael Smallwood, dressed as Santa, ride the E train downtown New York. The annual event has faced mounting pressure from politicians, police and community groups as it grew from hundreds to thousands of costumed participants in roughly a decade. This years festivities fall on the same day as a planned march to protest recent killings of unarmed civilians by police. Santacon organizers are asking celebrants to keep their partying indoors (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)(The Associated Press)

NEW YORK New York's costumed pub crawl known as SantaCon is under way after a prominent civil rights lawyer gave attendees lesson in the First Amendment.

Lawyer Norman Siegel said Saturday the government cannot ban SantaCon. But he said the government can reasonably regulate the event.

SantaCon organizers retained Siegel last week as part of an effort to tame the excesses of the daylong party. Attendees started spreading out among midtown bars shortly after he spoke.

New Yorkers have complained in past years about drunken Santas vomiting in the streets. But organizers say last year's SantaCon raised $60,000 for charity, mostly through partnerships with participating bars.

This year's festivities fall on the same day as a planned protest over killings by police.

SantaCon organizers have expressed respect for the demonstration.

Visit link:

NYC's SantaCon kicks off with First Amendment lesson

Clothed in controversy: Statue sparks First Amendment debate

Posted on by

A piece of art displayed for less than four hours on the University of Iowa campus has sparked national attention. A seven-foot-tall, sculpted set of Klu Klux Klan robes composed of articles depicting the history of racial tensions in America was on display at the university's free speech zone, the Pentacrest on Dec. 5, inciting outrage across the campus.

Serhat Tanyolacar, a visiting assistant professor at the University of Iowa and artist of the work, said the meaning of the piece was misunderstood.

"The intent was to raise awareness on contemporary issues on racism and create open discussion on those issues," Tanyolacar said.

University of Iowa officials were able to remove the display because Tanyolacar did not acquire the correct permits to display the piece. The university went on to say in a memo that it "considers all forms of racism abhorrent and is deeply committed to the principles of inclusion and acceptance."

"It's hard to start dialogue about something upsetting without showing something upsetting," said Frank LoMonte, executive director of University of Iowa's Student Press Law Center.

LoMonte said the University of Iowa was not in the wrong by removing the artwork due to Tanyolacar's inability to obtain a permit for the work.

"The government does have the ability to enforce reasonable permit conditions, so long as they are not selectively enforcing," LoMonte said.

LoMonte also said it is hard to start a conversation on something considered disturbing without showing something that is itself disturbing. The university was within its rights in removing the statue so long as the permit qualifications were the only reason they removed the piece.

"Picking and choosing who is okay to hate is a violation of First Amendment rights," LoMonte said.

The First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, does not address hate speech, nor protect citizens against encountering it.

View post:

Clothed in controversy: Statue sparks First Amendment debate

Loudoun attorney says LCPS in violation of First Amendment

Posted on by

John Flannery, a Loudoun litigator and former federal prosecutor, raised the subject to Loudoun County Public School Superintendent Eric Williams at the Loudoun Democrats monthly meeting Dec. 4, where Williams was a guest speaker.

Flannery filed a Freedom of Information Act request with LCPS requesting school facility community use applications, revealing 33 religious groups using school facilities.

According to the documents, 40 percent of the county's public school buildings are used for religious worship services on weekends.

Flannery believes religious services of any kind that are held in public school buildings are unconstitutional and break the First Amendment of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from passing laws establishing religion or hindering religious expression.

There are cases that basically say that [worship services in public schools] is essentially the establishment of religion, Flannery said to Williams at the meeting. Religions can use the schools in certain contexts, but they can't use them for worship services, as that's establishing a religion. I was wondering what you propose to do about that?

Williams said that he was not familiar with court cases in which worship service in schools was considered a violation of the First Amendment.

I am accustomed to working in school divisions in which the norm was [schools allowing worship services when not using the building], Williams said. Obviously I'm familiar with the case law in terms of separation between church and state as it relates to school day practices and so that is important. I will tell you that's just not my understanding in terms of what's appropriate in terms of weekend use.

Williams said he was happy to have the board's attorney look into the issue.

Flannery has begun a discussion with school and county officials on whether or not worship in public school buildings is appropriate, saying it violates the First Amendment.

Its time to declare that religious worship is an impermissible use of our public schools, Flannery wrote in a letter he sent to School Board members and the Loudoun Board of Supervisors. Some jurisdictions take great pains to ban religious worship in the public schools so that they wont breach the constitutional barrier designed to separate church from state action It is indicative of establishment when the disputed practice is religious rather than secular, when the practice advances religion, and, finally, when the government is entangled with the religious practice.

Continued here:

Loudoun attorney says LCPS in violation of First Amendment

#Ferguson, #FirstAmendment

Posted on by

Nov. 25, 2014 front page of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. (Newseum)

Something more than fires and rage has been sparked in the streets of Ferguson. There is a growing awakening and reawakening of hundreds and thousands of protesters to their First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I saw it firsthand as I talked to men and women, young and old, black and white, before and after a grand jury decided not to indict former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown.

Before this sleepy suburb in my hometown of St. Louis morphed into an international flashpoint for race relations and police tactics in America, for many of the protesters the 45 words in the First Amendment had as much interest or meaning as the Yellow Pages. Now, the First Amendment, like Ferguson, is a rallying cry, a hashtag, ammunition they can use to protect themselves from any government authority that tries to quell their voices.

Voices like Thomas Bradley. The 24-year-old barber works on the stretch of West Florissant Avenue in Ferguson that suffered the most damage. A week before Brown was killed, Bradley said he was physically and verbally harassed by a Ferguson policeman. In the aftermath of Browns death and the grand jurys exoneration of Wilson, Bradley has taken a place beside other young demonstrators on the citys streets.

I didnt know anything at all about the First Amendment, at least not as much as I should have, he said. Now I do. This is not just about Mike Brown but everybody who has ever been abused by the police department.

Voices like 63-year-old Beverly Adams of University City, Mo., who knew about her constitutional rights but hadnt exercised them in years.

I was enraged when [Browns body] was left out in the street for four and a half hours, she said. I started marching on Canfield, the street where Brown died. Thats where I always go, by myself. I think when all is said and done, there will be a special law in his name against police brutality.

Voices like Ericka Hughes, 42, a business owner in Jennings, Mo., who made some of the T-shirts worn in the Ferguson protests. She took to the streets within the first few days of Browns shooting.

This is not the first time I have marched for a cause, she said. Browns death hit so close to home in so many ways. I have nephews and cousins and stepsons. This affects everybody.

Go here to see the original:

#Ferguson, #FirstAmendment


  1. First Amendment