CHICAGO (FOX 32 News) -

A new eavesdropping bill is generating some First Amendment concerns before it even becomes law.

The law will replace the previous one, which was declared unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court. However, some nebulous language is causing concerns among some groups who fear it could have a chilling effect on people videotaping the police.

The law makes it illegal to record any conversation unless everybody in the conversation consents or no one in the conversation has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Well, what does it mean to have a reasonable expectation of privacy? This law doesn't tell you how to know that, said Jacob Huebert, Sr. Attorney with the Liberty Justice Center.

But the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois said those concerns are misguided.

When you see a police officer having an interaction in public, and you can hear what they're saying, you can record it, said Ed Yohnka, Communications Director with the ACLU of Illinois

Yohnka said people who have been marching in the streets of Chicago to vent their frustrations over the Eric Garner death in New York City should not have to worry about recording their interactions with police, or any other public interaction with law enforcement, as long as it's in a public place.

That right was established by the decision issued by the Illinois Supreme Court back in the spring when it ruled the old eavesdropping law was unconstitutional, according to the ACLU.

Yohnka said the new law would put the onus on police officers to take steps to have any private conversations in places where they could clearly expect privacy. He added prosecutors and police need to make it clear to their officers that people do have the right to record them doing their job in public.

They have a right, under the First Amendment, to gather that kind of information, you know to try to redress wrongs, to try to correct a situation, to make a complaint about the actions of a particular public official, Yohnka said.

See the article here:

Illinois eavesdropping legislation focuses on 'private' dialogue

SlutWalk and the First Amendment
Our Journalism project that looks into SlutWalk and Victim Blaming and how it pertains to the First Amendment.

By: Margaret Silhasek

Continued here:

SlutWalk and the First Amendment - Video

Reappropriate: The Podcast, Ep #12 | Free speech vs. online threats
The Supreme Court is considering a case that might radically redefine what is considered a threat when made through digital media, with possible First Amendment ramifications. To talk about...

By: Jenn Reappropriate

Read the rest here:

Reappropriate: The Podcast, Ep #12 | Free speech vs. online threats - Video

The case of a Pennsylvania teacher fired because of blog posts that criticized her own students has taken an interesting turn, as her lawyers claim viral Internet and television interest in the story protect her First Amendment rights.

The teacher, Philadelphias National Constitution Center is the first and only nonprofit, nonpartisan institution devoted to the most powerful vision of freedom ever expressed: the U.S. Constitution. Constitution Daily, the Centers blog, offers smart commentary and conversation about constitutional issues in the news, drawing insights from Americas history and a variety of expert contributors., caused a quite a stir back in 2011 and became a national media figure. Munroe lost her job at a suburban Philadelphia public high school after writing a series of blog posts that called her students jerks, rat like and whiny, among other things.

Monroes attorneys filed a civil suit against the Central Bucks school district in 2012, seeking $5 million in damages. In late July 2014, a federal district court judge in Philadelphia ruled against Munroe. But her attorneys have appealed.

Third District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe only decided one of two questions presented in the lawsuit. Rufe said Munroes statements werent protected by the First Amendment under a test established in two Supreme Court cases, so she didnt need to decide if the statements directly caused her termination.

In 1968 in a Supreme Court decision calledPickering v. Board of Educationand a later decision from 2006,Garcetti v. Ceballos, a balancing test was set by the Court about public employee statements and the First Amendment.

Commonly known as the Pickering test, a plaintiff such as Munroe must prove that her First Amendment interests as a public employee, and also as a citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern outweigh her public employers need to promote efficient public services.

Judge Rufe found that in this case, Munroes speech, in both effect and tone, was sufficiently disruptive so as to diminish any legitimate interest in its expression, and thus her [First Amendment] expression was not protected.

Rufe stated that, although Munroe may have occasionally written as a private citizen on matters of public concern, she chose to do so in an opprobrious tone that was likely to generate a strong reaction from anyone connected with the school who read it.

Read the rest here:

Do viral stories protect our 1st Amendment freedoms?

People across the country are using their First Amendment freedoms to respond to the results of the grand juries in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases. They are speaking out to draw attention to issues including race, police brutality and the workings of our justice system. Whats happening in your town?Are you covering local events and protests for your school newspaper or magazine?

If so, please email your story to DigitalClassroom@newseum.org! We will consider sharing it on our blog and for possible inclusion in our Digital Classroom Civil Rights Media Map. The deadline is Fri. Dec. 12 at 11:00 EST.

To learn more about the protests, and how they relate to the First Amendment, be sure to read the following Newseum-produced story and blog post. We will look for stories that also discuss how the First Amendment has played a role in the actions in your town.

Be sure to include your name, grade, name of newspaper, publication date, and the name and email address of your faculty advisor to the newspaper.

We want to have the chance to share your story so Newseum blog readers across the nation-and around the world-can learn more about how students are reporting on this volatile issue. We look forward to reading your story!

Go here to read the rest:

Calling All Student Journalists

Facebook and Twitter news feeds are often clogged with opinions written in a bout of rage from old high school acquaintances or distant family members. However, those posts of outrage may not fall under free speech laws depending on the language used in messages.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide whether rants posted on social media such as Facebook can be considered threats or if they are protected by free speech.

The case stems from a Pennsylvania man, currently serving a 44-month sentence in prison, who posted statements on his Facebook page directed at his estranged wife, FBI agents and a kindergarten class.

The comments made by Anthony Elonis were violent and included death threats directed at his wife. Even after a court issued an order to keep Elonis away from his wife, he threatened her again and went on to threaten a kindergarten class, which earned him a visit from the FBI. Following the visit from a female FBI agent, Elonis went on to threaten her as well.

Elonis claims his postings, which were written in the form of rap lyrics, were a way to vent his frustration, first at his wife and later at the FBI agent who questioned him.

The first amendment issue has to do with the fact hes tying to tie it to creative speech rap lyrics and saying that makes it protected under the first amendment, said Dirk Deam, senior lecturer in political science.

Deam said the fact it is online really does not matter in this case. It is more about the way he presented the speech.

In most respects, its not the medium [of spoken word or online] that controls, its the character of the speech, Deam said about whether the form of speech is relevant to the case or not.

For ISU students who use multiple forms of social media, Captain Carrie Jacobs, patrol commander for the ISU Police Department, has some advice.

Jacobs said the ISU PD receives reports a couple times a week about threats and harassment online. She said they frequently receive these types of reports from a third party.

Read more:

Supreme Court weighs free speech, threats online

December 8, 2014 at 2:44 PM

Nyland earns quick support across Seattle school system: In four months, interim Seattle superintendent Larry Nyland hasmanaged to earn support from many of the districts key players.The Seattle School Board will vote Wednesday on whether to extend his contact for two more years.

Seven biggest districts pledge to offer computer science (AP): The White House announced Monday that the seven largest school districts in the country are committing to make computer science a standard offering at high schools or middle schools. The College Board also announced a new course calledAP Computer Science Principles will debut in the fall of 2016.

First Amendment dispute over religious expression at Everett school (KUOW): A student at Cascade High School in Everett has filed a federal lawsuit against Everett Public Schools after he was suspended multiple times for passing out religious literature and preaching to other students. The student claims his First Amendment right to free speech was violated; the district said his actions were a significant disruption.

More headlines:

| More in News | Topics: round-up

The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only, and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.

View original post here:

Round-up: Nyland earns quick support, First Amendment dispute at Everett school

are you recording me first amendment
my brother and i were recording all of the empty store by the mall and a lady saw us and tried to confront us. what dumbass.

By: harry zimbler

See original here:

are you recording me first amendment - Video

By Rachel Raczka

Boston.com Staff | 12.08.14 | 9:39 AM

ICYMI the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week about whether or not violent statements posted on social media are proof of intent to harm. And before you hit post on that status update about how Tommy So-and-So in your office is driving you so crazy you could strangle him, listen up.

The case at hand involves an Allentown, Penn., man named Anthony Elonis, who posted violent rants and threats against his estranged wife, schoolchildren, and law enforcement on Facebook in 2010. He was found guilty of making threats and the court sentenced him to 44 months in prison. Elonis appealed to the Supreme Court, where he argued that he didnt actually intend for his words to be threatening.

Words like this:

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

If I only knew then what I know now/I would have smothered your ass with a pillow/Dumped your body in the back seat/Dropped you off in Toad Creek and made it look like a rape and murder

Not pretty. But heres the catchElonis claims these were rap lyrics. Rather than a threat, theyre just an expression of creativity and therefore protected by the First Amendment, just as they are for musicians and rappers who have garnered praise and awards for lyrics like these for years. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. even quoted Eminems 97 Bonnie and Clyde during the debate.

The Supreme Court seems hung up on whether theres a difference in the creative liberties allowed to artists and those allowed to independent individuals. The intent of a statementwhether or not it is meant to incite fear and/or violencehas been paramount in previous cases brought before the justices and the lower courts. Also, in some cases, its more about who the threats are directed atthe military, the President of the United States, your family and peers. Sometimes a test known as the Dinwiddie factors, which gauges the frequency, medium, and reaction to a said threat, is used to determine whether or not its valid.

If the court decides that Eloniss intent was to show off his rap prowess and not to terrify two women and a bunch of children, it would set a problematic precedent, as Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. notes:

See the original post here:

The Supreme Court Is Tackling Facebook, Rap Lyrics, and the First Amendment

First Amendment Challenge- Emmanuel Maresca

By: SGHSTheMatadorOnline

Read the rest here:

First Amendment Challenge- Emmanuel Maresca - Video

First Amendment Challenge- Carolina Loaisiga
Our Sports Editor, Carolina Loaisiga, was nominated by Multimedia Editor Emmanuel Maresca to do the First Amendment Challenge. The challenge is to recite you...

By: SGHSTheMatadorOnline

More here:

First Amendment Challenge- Carolina Loaisiga - Video

First Amendment Challenge- Carolina Garcia
Our Opinions Editor, Carolina Garcia, was nominated by Sports Editor Carolina Loaisiga to do the First Amendment Challenge. Little did the nominator know that the nominator will be subject...

By: SGHSTheMatadorOnline

View post:

First Amendment Challenge- Carolina Garcia - Video

Apparently this Cop has Never Heard of YouTube OR the First Amendment Now He Will
CHARLOTTE COUNTY FLORIDA SHERIFF CORRUPTION https://www.facebook.com/Charlottecountyflcopwatch.

By: charlottecountyflcopwatch2

Go here to see the original:

Apparently this Cop has Never Heard of YouTube OR the First Amendment Now He Will - Video

First Amendment Test
So as I was taking pictures in down town albuquerque I decided to test the Bernalillo County sheriff #39;s with A First Amendment test.

By: Cop-Watch-ABQ

Read the original:

First Amendment Test - Video

Published December 07, 2014

This photo, provided by FIRE, shows Citrus College student Vincenzo Sinapi-Riddle.

A California community college has settled a lawsuit with a student who claimed it violated his First Amendment rights when an administrator threatened him for collecting petition signatures outside of a small, designated "free speech zone."

Student Vincenzo Sinapi-Riddle, with help from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, sued Glendora, Calif., Citrus College after the incident, which occurred on Sept. 17, 2013 - the day designated as "Constitution Day." Sinapi-Riddle was collecting signatures for a petition condemning the federal National Security Agency's domestic surveillance activities. When he left the area for a lunch break and headed to the student center, he and another student discussed the petition, prompting an administrator to intervene, according to FIRE. Claiming that a political discussion could not take place outside of the free speech zone, the unidentified school employee threatened to eject Sinapi-Riddle from campus for violating the policy.

- Greg Lukianoff, FIRE

I feel that free speech and the ability to express oneself freely is a very important right for all students, said Sinapi-Riddle.

After a suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the school agreed to pay Sinapi-Riddle $110,000 in damages and attorneys' fees, as well as to revise its free speech policies. In a statement, the school noted the settlement figure was far less than the anticipated cost of fighting the lawsuit and defended its policies as in compliance "with a long line of U.S. Supreme Court cases relating to speech activities in public places, including college campuses." But the school affirmed its support for free speech and agreed to change some campus regulations.

"Freedom of expression is crucial in the higher education community, and the District and its Board of Trustees have done much to protect and advance this cherished right," the statement read. "As part of the settlement, the District will be implementing new procedures that will expand its current free speech area to include most open spaces on campus, enhance the Districts co-curricular program by streamlining internal procedures that apply to activities of recognized student clubs and organizations, and help to ensure the safety and security of students involved in such activities."

FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said his group had taken on Citrus College before, and reached a similar agreement, only to have the school go back to the old policy.

"Citrus College agreed to eliminate its restrictive 'free speech zone' in the face of a FIRE lawsuit back in 2003, but later reinstated its speech quarantine when it thought no one was watching," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said in a statement on the group's website. "But FIRE was watching, and well continue to do so. If the speech codes come back again, so will we."

View original post here:

FIRST AMENDMENT FIGHT Calif. college settles suit over 'free speech zone'

Opening federal courtrooms to electronic news coverage would re-create the public square atmosphere that the framers of the U.S. Constitution envisioned in the 18th century, a Buffalo-based First Amendment expert told a subcommittee of the House of Representatives.

Mickey H. Osterreicher, general counsel for the 7,000-member National Press Photographers Association, appeared before the House judiciary panel considering a Sunshine in the Courtroom bill to open federal courts to the same electronic coverage that now exists in state and local courts.

Osterreicher argued that the framers envisioned an openness of the judicial system as a means of assuring the integrity of our system of justice.

He told the panel that while the Internet has expanded the ability of the print media to cover courts, full electronic coverage of federal court proceedings will bring transparency to the system, provide increased accountability from litigants, judges and the press and educate citizens about the judicial process and assure the public that judicial proceedings are conducted fairly and that government systems are working correctly.

Electronic media equipment now is inaudible, requires no flashes or extra lights that would interfere with court proceedings and can be operated by a limited number of trained professionals, Osterreicher said.

In 2014, electronic coverage is the unblinking eye of the public and to deny its unrivaled potential to convey information instantly and to the widest audience is to deny reality, he told the panel.

Osterreicher conceded that most courtroom proceedings, especially in the average civil case, do not make for compelling viewing and are more like watching paint dry. He also noted that while courtroom artists have greatly contributed to the coverage of courtroom proceedings in the absence of cameras, they are something more akin to cave drawings in an age of high-definition television.

Osterreicher is currently a counsel to the Buffalo law office of Hiscock & Barclays Media & First Amendment Law Practice Area. He was an award-winning photographer for the former Buffalo Courier-Express and a photographer, reporter and producer for WKBW-TV. He is also a former director of legal affairs for the Erie County Department of Social Services.

email: mgryta@buffnews.com

See more here:

House panel urged to open federal courts to electronic coverage

First Amendment: Religious and Political Freedom

By: Amanda C

Continue reading here:

First Amendment: Religious and Political Freedom - Video

Democrats Protest Black Conservative Event Smack My Camera
Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu and her allies prove once again that the Democrats idea of the First Amendment is shouting down conservatives voices, especially black conservatives. I #39;ve...

By: Lee Stranahan

Read more:

Democrats Protest Black Conservative Event & Smack My Camera - Video

304 First Amendment video

By: michelle czosnyka

Visit link:

304 First Amendment video - Video

Whistleblowers, Leaks, and the Media: The First Amendment and National Security
"Whistleblowers, Leaks, and the Media" is a broad-based introduction to the legal and policy issues regarding the media #39;s coverage of national security. A jo...

By: The Heritage Foundation

Link:

Whistleblowers, Leaks, and the Media: The First Amendment and National Security - Video