Jill Abramson on the First Amendment
Video created with the Socialcam app: https://socialcam.com.

By: Mo Krochmal

Read the original here:

Jill Abramson on the First Amendment - Video

Day 38 Continuing Discussion of First Amendment

By: Greg Brousek

Read the original here:

Day 38 Continuing Discussion of First Amendment - Video

First Amendment Challenge
Can you name the five amendments while multitasking? #1forAllus #Matador5.

By: Teerexar

See the rest here:

First Amendment Challenge - Video

Satanists Win Right to Put Up "Hell" Display by Nativity Scene at Florida Capitol
http://www.undergroundworldnews.com Florida agreed Thursday to let the Satanic Temple put up a holiday display at the Capitol, effectively putting to end a First Amendment lawsuit being filed...

By: Dahboo777

View post:

Satanists Win Right to Put Up "Hell" Display by Nativity Scene at Florida Capitol - Video

Published December 04, 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."

Original post:

California college settles First Amendment suit with student

The protests surrounding the police killings of black men have provided fertile ground for a discussion of First Amendment issues and today Providence, Rhode Island, is the latest example.

In Providence, the First Amendment allows this:

but not this:

Why not?

Because hes a Providence firefighter and he saluted the flag-burning while standing in the citys public safety building.

Today, Boston.com reports officials say hell be disciplined.

They have their first amendment right to exercise, but while they are on-duty public safety officers cannot be inciting a crowd of protesters, Providence public safety commissioner Steve Pare tells the Providence Journal.

Bob Collins has been with Minnesota Public Radio since 1992, emigrating to Minnesota from Massachusetts where he was vice president of programming for Berkshire Broadcasting Company. Previously, he was an editor at the RKO Radio network in New York, and WHDH Radio in Boston. He was the founder of MPR News website.

Excerpt from:

The limits of free speech in protests

Day 37 First Amendment

By: Greg Brousek

Here is the original post:

Day 37 First Amendment - Video

Camp Blanding First Amendment Audit
description.

By: HONORYOUROATH

Read more from the original source:

Camp Blanding First Amendment Audit - Video

LAPD Trampling Rights - Tom Zebra Assaulted Arrest
Chief Beck is lying to the public through main stream media about LAPD (pretending) to respect the First Amendment, but his officers on the street are sending an entirely different message.

By: Tom Zebra

See the article here:

LAPD Trampling Rights - Tom Zebra Assaulted & Arrest - Video

A pair of University of Hawaii at Hilo students is claiming a victory for free speech after the school agreed Tuesday to settle a First Amendment lawsuit filed in April.

Merritt Burch and Anthony Vizzone sued the university after an administrator stopped Burch from passing out copies of the U.S. Constitution and another told them to restrict a protest of the National Security Agency to a free speech zone on campus.

In line with the settlement, the university revised its speech policies systemwide to allow free speech and the distribution of literature in all areas generally available to students and the community without requiring that students seek permission first. UH also agreed to pay $50,000 in attorneys fees and damages. It also creates a dispute resolution process for students who think their First Amendment rights have been violated.

The students filed the suit with the help of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) as part of its Stand Up For Speech Litigation Project.

Im so happy that the University of Hawaii has revised its policies, and Im grateful for the help from FIRE and our attorneys, Burch said. Now, students across the University of Hawaii system can exercise their First Amendment rights without fear that they will be disciplined.

Her co-plaintiff agreed.

It is great to see these changes and to know that we can express ourselves freely throughout campus, Vizzone said.

In a press release issued Tuesday morning, FIRE President Greg Lukianoff praised the students for standing up to the university system.

The lawsuit led to a constructive conversation with UH, and today President David Lassner has set an example by implementing policies that guarantee free speech to the 59,000 students enrolled in the UH system, he said.

In an emailed press release issued Tuesday afternoon, the UH system confirmed settling the federal lawsuit, saying it expects the case to be dismissed with prejudice in the next several weeks, meaning it cannot be re-filed.

Go here to see the original:

UH settles First Amendment suit

JUDY WOODRUFF: When writing in social media, like Facebook, what is defined as a threat and what is protected by free speech? That was the question at the center of a case before the Supreme Court today.

Jeffrey Brown has the story.

And a warning: This case contains some graphic language.

JEFFREY BROWN: In 2010, Anthony Elonis began writing Facebook posts about his ex-wife, angry rants filled with violent language. She filed a restraining order. And eventually Elonis was charged with threatening to injure another person and sentenced to four years in prison.

Now the Supreme Court must decide were indeed threats under the law or an exercise of his First Amendment rights.

And Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal was of course at the court today to hear the arguments.

Marcia, first, give us a little bit more details, a little bit more background on this case.

MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal: All right.

Mr. Elonis was obviously having difficulties after he separated from his wife and his children. He was unable to do his job at an amusement park outside of Allentown, Pennsylvania. He was sent home from work several times by his employers because he was crying at his desk.

And also he was accused of sexual harassment by a co-worker, at least one co-worker. Ultimately, he was fired by his job, and he did do a post involving his co-workers at the amusement park that wasnt a very good one, but he wasnt charged under that. It was the posts that he made involving violent statements against his wife, against law enforcement officials in particular, an FBI agent who visited his home after the FBI began monitoring his posts, and also against elementary schools, threatening possibly to go in and have a major mass shooting.

See the rest here:

Supreme Court tests limits of free speech online with case on social media threats

First Amendment Challenge- Hellgert Almontes
1forAllus #Matador5 You have to record yourself reciting the First Amendment while multitasking and nominate someone you know.

By: SGHSTheMatadorOnline

Read the original post:

First Amendment Challenge- Hellgert Almontes - Video

When your parents told you to watch what you post on social media, did you roll your eyes thinking it was an overreaction? Anthony Elonis, a man who posted a threat to his ex-wife as a Facebook status, should have heeded that advice.

According to a CNN article, Elonis case regarding his posts will be heard by the United States Supreme Court, marking the first time an official ruling will take place regarding social media and freedom of speech. His ex-wife, Tara Elonis, moved for a protective order because of the posts.

While the First Amendment protects free speech, including harsh words and commentary, it never should be used to justify a threat. Elonis posted, Fold up your protection from abuse order and put it in your pocket. Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?" He posted several similar status updates that would make anyone consider him as a major threat to society, and especially to Tara.

Elonis attorney, John Elwood, told CNN that the posts were a way to blow off steam, defining them as therapeutic. However, Facebook is not a good place to let off steam. If Elonis had desires to murder his ex-wife, he should have consulted a licensed psychiatrist, not a social media website. When someone spreads panic in a public domain, it should not be protected under the First Amendment.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., who will lead the prosecution for the United States during the Supreme Court case, agreed with this assertion, comparing Elonis statements to a bomb threat.

Even if Elonis did not intend to carry out these threats, he should still be liable for the consequences of creating panic. A Pennsylvania jury found Elonis guilty earlier this year, and he was sentenced to 44 months in prison.

Elwood likened Elonis statements to a rap artist blowing off steam in a song, as an artistic and creative outlet. It does not matter how creatively a threat is written. A threat is a threat, no matter how one masks it.

Supporters of Elonis claim that the First Amendment protects the death threats he posted on Facebook. However, the First Amendment cannot protect Elonis ex-wife from a potential gunshot.

The underlying point is that everything we post on Facebook is public, and the author is responsible for what they post. Elonis could have used privacy settings or personal messages to keep his threatening feelings a secret; but the moment he posted them to his wall, he created a panic for his ex-wife.

In this case, Elonis deserved what he got.

Read the original here:

First Amendment does not justify Facebook threats

Boy, the St. Louis police really know how to cool things down, don't they? They've taken a controversial protest by a handful of football players, and mixed it with a whiff of bullying authority and a profound misunderstanding of the First Amendment, to create a bigger and more heated argument than it had to be.

Sound familiar?

Five pass catchers for the St. Louis Rams raised their hands in a don't shoot gesture during their on-field introductions Sunday, in a sign of solidarity with protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, where a grand jury refused to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown.

An infuriated spokesman for the St. Louis Police Officers Association, Jeff Roorda, called the display unthinkable, and has demanded the NFL discipline Stedman Bailey, Tavon Austin, Chris Givens, Kenny Britt and Jared Cook for making their feelings known so publicly. But Roorda didn't stop there. He added a veiled suggestion that the only thing protecting the Rams and the NFL from mob violence at games is the cops.

And then he said:

I know that there are those who say that these players are simply exercising their First Amendment rights. Well, I've got news for people who think that way. Cops have First Amendment rights, too, and we plan to exercise ours.

Set aside for a moment the vaguely threatening tone of the I've got news for people who think that way statement. What's even more disturbing about Roorda's remarks is that he clearly doesn't know what the First Amendment says, though he is a former cop and member of the Missouri House of Representatives.

Whatever you may think about the Rams players, their gesture is a good excuse to sort out some First Amendment issues. What right did those players have to speak, and what right does the NFL or the police have to tell them to shut up?

The First Amendment protects free speech only against government action. That's all it does. It doesn't protect the St. Louis players from NFL owners, or league commissioners or talk-radio hosts who disagree with them. But it does protect them from the government. So the person in danger of abusing the First Amendment here is not the football player with the edgy gesture in a public stadium. Or the NFL owner who might want to tell them to shut up to protect advertising. It's the governmental agent like, say, a cop who seeks to punish someone for expressing certain views. Like it or not, private corporations or entities have the right to restrict speech of employees, and they do it all the time.

Typically an employer can, says Ken Paulson, president of the First Amendment Center. You have no guarantee of free speech rights in the workplace, and if you think otherwise, try marching on your boss's office and demanding a raise.

View post:

Note to police: Rams gesture was free speech

Ex-CBS Reporter: Spineless Media Bosses Eroding Our First Amendment
Former CBS investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson joins Larry with her personal story of harassment, intimidation spying by the federal government and about the media bosses who allow...

By: RT America

See the original post:

Ex-CBS Reporter: Spineless Media Bosses Eroding Our First Amendment - Video

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday heard arguments in the case of a Pennsylvania man convicted of using Facebook to threaten his ex-wife and declare his intention to commit a Columbine-style attack on an elementary school. At issue is whether Anthony Elonis online rants were criminal or, as vile as they were, a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

The outcome of Elonis v. United States could determine the limits of free speech on social media and Internet forums, which are increasingly becoming platforms for vitriolic wars of words on a range of political and social issues.

Expressing concern the lower courts may have overreached in convicting Elonis of communicating a threat across state lines, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said convictions based only on an assumption of the defendants intent could set a chilling precedent. How would the government prove whether this threat in the mind of the threatener was genuine? Ginsburg asked from the bench.

In questioning the states case, Justice Elena Kagan noted, We typically say that the First Amendment requires a kind of buffer zone to ensure that even stuff that is wrongful maybe is permitted because we dont want to chill innocent behavior.

Taking an opposite tack, Justice Samuel Alito said First Amendment protections must be weighed against the states obligation to protect individuals from Internet speech that poses a very grave threat of domestic violence, a transcript of the sessionshows.

Chief Justice John Roberts also appeared to be leaning toward favoring victims rights over free speech arguments. Roberts scoffed at Elonis defense his rants, some of which were written in verse, signaled no more violent intent than, say, a rap song. All he has to do is say, as I understood your brief, its therapeutic, its a good thing I could do this, or its art, Roberts said to attorney John Elwood, who is representing Elonis.

On a narrow legal basis, the justices will decide what standards should be applied to online threats. In cases of traditional harassment, say through telephone calls, state courts are split on whether prosecutors must prove defendants subjectively intended their words would be taken as a true threat or that its sufficient to show a reasonable person would feel threatened.

On balance, Mondays arguments indicated the court "is likely to adopt some form of subjective intent, said Clay Calvert, director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project, which filed an amicus brief in the case. Calvert said such a threshold would protect everyday rants, which have become common on the Internet. The question is whether you treat a threat less seriously because it was made on Facebook as opposed to a direct message or other form of one-to-one communication, Calvert said.

Elonis began his campaign of harassment in 2010 with a Facebook post directed at his ex-wife that in part read, Im not going to rest until your body is a mess. He followed up with posts that said he was bent on mass murder. Im checking out and making a name for myself. Enough elementary schools in a 10-mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined, one post said.

Its a hot-button issue in an era when the Internet is increasingly being used as a tool to settle scores and launch harassment campaigns. In the ongoing Gamergate scandal, a group of bloggers launched highly personal attacks against a female game developer and her supporters. I think that many of the speakers who are online and many of the people who are being prosecuted now are teenagers who are essentially shooting off their mouths or making sort of ill-timed, sarcastic comments which wind up getting them thrown in jail, Ellwood said.

View post:

Supreme Court May Protect Facebook Rants Under First Amendment

MGN Online

WASHINGTON It's a First Amendment test for the Supreme Court in a case being heard Monday.

At issue are the free-speech rights of people who use violent or threatening language on Facebook and other social media.

A Pennsylvania man was sentenced to nearly four years in prison for posting graphically violent rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent.

The man says he was just venting his anger over a broken marriage and that he never meant to threaten anyone.

But a jury convicted him of violating a federal law that makes it a crime to threaten another person. A federal appeals court rejected his claim that his comments were protected by the First Amendment.

The rest is here:

Supreme Court to consider Facebook threats case

WASHINGTON - Anthony Elonis claimed he was just kidding when he posted a series of graphically violent rap lyrics on Facebook about killing his estranged wife, shooting up a kindergarten class and attacking an FBI agent.

But his wife didn't see it that way. Neither did a federal jury.

Elonis, who's from Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, was convicted of violating a federal law that makes it a crime to threaten another person.

In a far-reaching case that probes the limits of free speech over the Internet, the Supreme Court on Monday was to consider whether Elonis' Facebook posts, and others like it, deserve protection under the First Amendment.

Elonis argues that his lyrics were simply a crude and spontaneous form of expression that should not be considered threatening if he did not really mean it. The government says it does not matter what Elonis intended, and that the true test of a threat is whether his words make a reasonable person feel threatened.

One post about his wife said, "There's one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I'm not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts."

The case has drawn widespread attention from free-speech advocates who say comments on Facebook, Twitter and other social media can be hasty, impulsive and easily misinterpreted. They point out that a message on Facebook intended for a small group could be taken out of context when viewed by a wider audience.

"A statute that proscribes speech without regard to the speaker's intended meaning runs the risk of punishing protected First Amendment expression simply because it is crudely or zealously expressed," said a brief from the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.

But so far, most lower courts have rejected that view, ruling that a "true threat" depends on how an objective person perceives the message.

For more than four decades, the Supreme Court has said that "true threats" to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. But the court has been careful to distinguish threats from protected speech such as "political hyperbole" or "unpleasantly sharp attacks."

See the rest here:

When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech?

A Lehigh Valley man is at the center of a debate that has people talking.

Should you be able to post whatever you want on social media?

Anthony Elonis of the Bethlehem area was convicted of making threats after prosecutors say his posts on Facebook in 2010 violated federal law.

Some of the posts you see here are what the United States Supreme Court is now reviewing to see if it counts as free speech.

I see this as less of a social media case as a regular first amendment free speech case. Just like ones that existed before Facebook ever existed, Civil Rights attorney Barry Dyller said.

Among the Facebook posts by Elonis was this apparent message to his ex-wife: Fold up your PFA and put it in your pocket. Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?

He now says he posted rap lyrics because it was a therapeutic way to address traumatic events in his life.

A federal appeals court rejected his claim, and now its in the hands of the United States Supreme Court.

For each of us individually as a society, we want free, robust and open speech, Dyller said.

At the Luzerne County courthouse detectives say there have been a few cases this year that they have investigated on social media.

Read the rest here:

Should the First Amendment Cover Free Speech On Social Media?

PREVIEW: Ex-CBS Reporter: Spineless Media Bosses Eroding Our First Amendment | Politicking
PREVIEW: Ex-CBS Reporter: Spineless Media Bosses Eroding Our First Amendment | Politicking SUBSCRIBE to Larry King #39;s YouTube Channel:http://bit.ly/131HuYM Fo...

By: Larry King

The rest is here:

PREVIEW: Ex-CBS Reporter: Spineless Media Bosses Eroding Our First Amendment | Politicking - Video