Imprinted in the minds of Indians are Jawaharlal Nehru's words delivered at the stroke of midnight on that most important day: when the soul of a na tion, long suppressed, finds utterance. Everyone longed for their beloved India to sprout wings and fly . I find myself wondering today , what is the point of it all, if the wings are used to fly in the wrong direction? Towards a direction that is not in tune with our innate culture? We made one such unfortunate turn early in our independent history .

Freedom-loving liberals among us must remember and hang our heads in shame at the regrettable turn we took on May 10, 1951. That was the day Jawaharlal Nehru piloted the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution (which was passed into law within a few weeks). Among other restrictions on our fundamental rights, this also restricted freedom of expression.

Many feel that this was in response to the Supreme Court judgment in 1950 on the `Romesh Thappar vs The State of Madras' case, through which the ban on Thappar's magazine (a Marxist journal called Crossroads) was lifted. Many lawyers opine that in effect, the Supreme Court had recognized unfettered freedom of expression as compliant with our original Constitution; just like it was in the US and far better than in Europe at the time. Legal luminaries also hold that since unfettered freedom of expression would have been recognized as a fundamental right, the illiberal IPC Section 295(a), a gift bequeathed by the British Raj, through which many books have been banned, would be overridden.

Why did the Nehru government pass the first amendment? Critics of Nehru will hold this as proof that he was not a classical liberal (defined as one who defends political and economic freedoms for all). Supporters of Nehru will say that he had to ensure unity of purpose in the first few years of independent India to stabilize our country; and some freedoms were a small price to pay for this. I'll let historians pass judgment on this issue.

I merely offer my take on the events that transpired; an observation that is based on my strong belief in freedom of expression. And this is not just as a liberal, but also as an inheritor of a culture that has a proud, millennia-long tradition of ideational freedom.

Freedom of expression is, frankly , the most Indian of values; one that was staunchly defended by Lord Brahma himself in the Natya Shastra. In ancient India one was free to create and encourage various versions of the holiest of epics like the Ramayan and Mahabharat; and all versions, some even unorthodox, were celebrated.In fact, one could even be an atheist in ancient India, as the Charvaks were (probably from the seventh century BC), and nobody would commit violence against them for being `ungodly'. One could practise out-of-the-ordinary rituals, as the Aghoras did (like ritual sex), and unlike in modern India, nobody would ban their practices as long as they didn't hurt another. Everyone had a right to find their own truth, in keeping with the spirit of the Rig Vedic maxim: Ekam Sat Vipraha Bahuda Vadanti. Truth is one, but the wise men speak it as many .

I would ask for only two restrictions to be placed on freedom of expression. On someone who exercises freedom of expression to suppress the freedom of expression of another; that is unacceptable. And on anyone who uses freedom of expression to directly call for violence. In every other case, absolute and unfettered freedom of expression should be practised.Every banned book should be unbanned. Every argument, no matter how troubling it may be, should be allowed expression. Sigmund Freud had said that the first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization.

All of us who count ourselves as liberals and are proud Indians must ask for the First Amendment to be repealed.Moreover, we must not practise the kind of hypocritical freedom of expression that the westerners practise, where views not in alignment with the prevailing orthodoxy are suppressed; not through violence, but by ensuring that one is prevented from visiting various public forums or one's works are not published (for example, the gagging of Ayaan Hirsi Ali). I must state that I disagree with many things Ms Ali says; but we must defend the right to speak even of those whose views are deeply troubling, provided that there is no direct call for violence.

Stopping the free flow of ideas is against India's innate culture. We are not in any sense being "westernized" if we ask for unfettered freedom of expression. In fact, we are being very Indian. Furthermore, as our ancestors realized thousands of years ago, freedom of expression is the foundation of a liberal and decent society .

As the Rig Veda says: `In speech is enshrined blessed glory , is enshrined Mother Lakshmi herself.'

Read this article:

Time to do away with Jawaharlal Nehru's first amendment to the Indian Constitution

Will Police Attack First Amendment Again in Ferguson?
Back in august there was a war on for journalist. A blatant attack on our first amendment. Have the police learned the constitution they are supposed to upho...

By: TheAlexJonesChannel

Follow this link:

Will Police Attack First Amendment Again in Ferguson? - Video

HPD Chief Charles A. McClelland, Jr. on 97.9 the Box
HPD Chief McClelland went live on 97.9 the Box on 11/19 to discuss the situation in Ferguson, MO. HPD respects and encourages those who wish to exercise their First Amendment Rights and will...

By: Houston Police

Read the rest here:

HPD Chief Charles A. McClelland, Jr. on 97.9 the Box - Video

First Amendment Allows Google to Organize Its Search Results
Thanks to Intel (and my patrons) for helping make this video possible. Patrons get tons of daily bonuses, and everybody gets to participate in the Intel Android tablet giveaways! Become a...

By: LockerGnome #39;s Geek Lifestyles

Go here to read the rest:

First Amendment Allows Google to Organize Its Search Results - Video

Attorney General Eric Holder announced Friday that the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services will provide law enforcement officers with a new guide that will compile information, tools, and best practices to maintain public safety while safeguarding constitutional rights during First Amendment-protected events.

TheJustice Department encourages law enforcement officers in every jurisdiction to work with the communities that they serve to minimize needless confrontation, Holder said.

The announcement was made in a video released Friday morning. Holder didnt mention Ferguson by name in the video, but a grand jury decision on whether to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown is expected to come within the next few days.

The grand jury is examining whether the Aug. 9 shooting was justified. Potential charges against Wilson could range from first-degree murder to involuntary manslaughter, though many protesters in the St. Louis suburb are anticipating that Wilson will not be indicted.

Over the past few months, weve seen demonstrations and protests that have sought to bring attention to real and significant underlying issues involving police practices, implicit bias and pervasive community distrust, Holder said in the video. In most cases, these demonstrations have been both meaningful and responsible and have brought vital issues to the attention of the public at large.

Similarly, I want toemphasize this, the vast majority of law enforcement officers have honorably defended their fellow citizens engaged in these peaceful protests.

Holder said that peaceful protests have the potential to spark a sustained and positive national dialogue, but cautioned that as weve seen, durable relationships between the police and their communities do not develop overnight.

He also addressed First Amendment demonstrators in his message, saying that the most successful and enduring movements for change are those that adhere to nonaggression and nonviolence. He encouraged demonstrators to act in a way that respects the gravity of their subject matter.

In a new video released Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced "a new guide" to help law enforcement officers "maintain public safety while safeguarding constitutional rights during First Amendment-protected events." (Department of Justice)

[This post has been updated.]

More:

Holder announces new guidance to law enforcement officers ahead of Ferguson decision

Park service tells me no 1st amendment at parks
Well this park employee on the rail trail told me I can #39;t have any "political " signs on my bike. Well I am exercising my first amendment rights , free speech,freedom of the press, right to...

By: That guy for 2a defend the constitution

See original here:

Park service tells me no 1st amendment at parks - Video

MORE THAN 25 percent of teens and adolescents have been bullied reportedly through the Internet or their cell phones. These statistics were obtained by the i-SAFE foundation. More than a quarter of Americas teens report being harassed and humiliated through electronic media. It is up to the schools to ensure that the learning environment remains undisturbed, up to fellow students to report cyberbullying they may witness, and up to the courts to uphold the First Amendment without allowing these students to be harmed.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states that Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech. However, our First Amendment right does not need to be limited to limit the impact of social comments conveyed through social media. In 1969, the Supreme Court case of Tinker v. Des Moines centered on students protesting the Vietnam war by wearing black arm bands to school. The school insisted the students remove the bands, and the students argued that this limited their right to free speech.

The court ruled in favor of the students, stating that this case does not concern speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students. Although the school did not win in this case, it set the precedent that schools can combat bullying that intrudes upon the work of the schools or the rights of other students, disrupting students education.

However, while a school has the right to punish a cyberbully for disrupting education, it does not have the right to invade students online accounts without cause, as this does violate a bullys First Amendment right. Therefore, it is the duty of the target and the fellow students to stand up and report cyberbullying so the school may then determine whether a students education is being disrupted and, if so, decide consequences for the bully. The saying sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me is less accurate today. Between texting and social media, the words written electronically are forever. A hurtful comment to a peer is no longer just a passing insult in the hallway.The psychological and emotional torture of cyberbullying is real and devastating.

According to ABC News, 160,000 kids stay home from school each day to avoid bullying. About 4,000 young people commit suicide each year, with bully victims being two to nine times more likely to consider suicide, according to Yale University.

While the First Amendment must be protected, so must the lives and the education of students. When students opportunity to learn is ripped from them as a result of cyberbullying, schools have a right and a duty to intervene on behalf of the victim.

As Andrew Johnson once said, honest conviction is my courage; the Constitution is my guide. With the Constitution as a guide, schools must honestly convict those perverting the First Amendment to infringe upon any students right to education.

.

Kayla Bullwinkel is a senior at Millford High School. With this essay, she won this years New Hampshire Constitution Day essay contest, sponsored by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, the Nackey Loeb School of Communications, and several New Hampshire newspapers,

Continue reading here:

Kayla Bullwinkel Schools must go after cyber bullies while respecting the First Amendment

Yesterday the City Council Consumer Affairs Committee heard testimony relating to a bill that would require costumed characters across New York City to register with the Department of Consumer Affairs in order to accept tips or donations. "This straight up seems like fascism to me," Keith Albahaye, a.k.a. The New York Joker, told the councilmembers. "The First Amendment is the First Amendment. I'm not gonna be allowed on 52nd Street and Broadway in the United States of America?"

At the outset of the hearing, the bill's sponsor, Bronx Councilmember Andy King, testified that "the bill is not designed to take away anyone's First Amendment rights," and he added that his aim wasn't to raise questions about a performer's immigration status either. King said that his own five-year-old daughter was traumatized by an encounter with a character this past summer.

"Strawberry Shortcake didn't get the proper tip she wanted, she ripped off her own head and started to berate her father and her family," King said. "In the mind of a five year old, how do you comprehend a head being snatched off? In cartoons you can erase the head and you can draw it back on, but in human life you can't do that. We want to make sure we can maintain that kind of innocence for our children and our families."

Midtown South Commander Edward Winski testified that since 2009, the police have arrested 38 costumed performers in Times Square, 18 of those occurring this year. Most were for aggressive solicitation, but others were more serious, such as when a Spiderman struck a police officer and when Woody from Toy Story was arrested for sexually assaulted a woman by grabbing her buttock.

Councilmember Dan Garodnick, whose district covers a portion of Times Square, noted that King's bill merely reiterates the law prohibiting aggressive solicitation, the enforcement of which is currently up to the NYPD.

"Even under the bill as proposed, those same subtle questions exist," Garodnick said. "I think it still leaves open a lot of those questions which ultimately, if the police are not there to enforce, we're just where we are today."

Int. 467 would make it illegal "for any costumed individual while wearing a costume to solicit in return for posing for photographs or otherwise interacting with the public in public places without having first obtained a license."

Steven Shiffrin, professor emeritus at Cornell Law School and the author of numerous books on the First Amendment, told us in September that a law like this may not pass constitutional muster.

"Wearing costumes is a form of First Amendment expression, and the First Amendment does not permit government to charge its citizens as a pre-condition of exercising their rights," Shiffrin wrote in an email. "This principle takes on special force when the charge is exorbitant and when the purported justification for its imposition is so obviously a pretext."

A representative from the Department of Consumer Affairs also revealed that in addition to the $175 fee for the two-year license, characters would have to pay a $75 fingerprinting fee. There are 14 other licensed professions that require fingerprinting, including auctioneers, auto repair workers, bingo hosts, process servers, pawn brokers, and tow truck drivers. The representative noted that the costume license would be the cheapest, though a general vendor license costs $200. A tow truck company pays $600 per truck.

Continued here:

Times Square Joker Says Costume Law Is "Straight Up Fascism"

Gotta love the First Amendment - handing out chemtrail fliers at a Green Festival
http://StopSprayingUs-SF.com - When I was handing out chemtrail awareness fliers outside a Green Festival in San Francisco #39;s Fort Mason, park officials and police claimed I was breaking the...

By: Patrick Roddie

Originally posted here:

Gotta love the First Amendment - handing out chemtrail fliers at a Green Festival - Video

Beginning in the 1930s, shortly after the Supreme Court had incorporated the First Amendment into the due process clause (thereby making it an enforceable constraint not only on the federal government ["Congress shall make no law . . ."] but on State and municipal governments as well) the Jehovahs Witnesses went on a campaign to attack, in court, restrictions on their ability to proselytize door-to-door and to give voice to unpopular views. During one particular 8 year period (1938 to 1946) they brought no fewer than 23 separate First Amendment actions to the Supreme Court (prompting Justice Stone to quip that they ought to have an endowment in view of the aid they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties). They won some spectacularly important victories West Virginia Board of Ed. v Barnette (1943) (children cannot be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the flag), Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (19420 (establishing the fighting words doctrine, and overturning conviction of a Jehovahs Witness who called a local official a damned racketeer and a fascist), Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton (2002) (overturning municipal ordinance requiring government permits for all door-to-door advocacy).***

They were widely reviled especially during World War II and the Korean War, their position asconscientious objectors to military service and their refusal to salute the flag made them the object of great hostility but in retrospect, we all owe them a great debt of gratitude. It took (and it takes) real courage to stand up to the combined forces of public opinion and the state to voice opinions that others find highly objectionable and even inflammatory, and we all enjoy, in a much stronger First Amendment than we might otherwise have, the benefits of their having had the courage to have done so.

Yesterday the 9th Circuit issued its decision striking down Californias CASE (Californians Against Sexual Exploitation) Act as violative of the First Amendment. The Actrequired previously-convicted sex offenders to provide [a] list of any and all Internet identifiers established or used, a list of any and all Internet service providers used, and to sendwritten notice to law enforcement within 24 hours of adding or changing an Internet identifier or an account with an Internet service provider; it also provided for fairly severe criminal penalties for non-compliance.

This is the latest in what is becoming a large series of cases involving First Amendment challenges to state sex offender registration statutes. There have been cases like this one in Nebraska, Indiana, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, to name a few. Ive blogged about some of them before e.g.,hereand here and (full disclosure) Ive been involved in several of them (including this California case) as an expert testifying on behalf of the challengers.

The courts opinion here at least to someone on the side of the fence that Im on has a terrific analysis of the First Amendment issues at stake, and some strong First-Amendment-protective language that will, I promise you, come in very, very handy in future battles the ones that are coming that will not involve just convicted sex offenders. The court struck down the statute on the grounds that it unnecessarily chills protected speech in three ways: the Act does not make clear what it is that sex offenders are required to report, there are insufficient safeguards preventing the public release of the information sex offenders do report, and the 24-hour reporting requirement is onerous and overbroad. There is, in particular, some very forceful language about the right, under the First Amendment, to speak anonymously an issue that, as I keep harping on, is going to be a major First Amendment battleground duringthe the next decade or so. The court wrote:

Although this is not what some might call the classic anonymous-speech case, where speakers allege they are required to disclose their identities directly to their audience, we conclude that the Act nevertheless chills anonymous speech because it too freely allows law enforcement to disclose sex offenders Internet identifying information to the public. . . .We agree with the district court that the standards for releasing Internet identifying information to the public are inadequate to constrain the discretion of law enforcement agencies and that, as a result, registered sex offenders are unnecessarily deterred from engaging in anonymous online speech.

[S]ex offenders fear of disclosure in and of itself chills their speech. If their identity is exposed, their speech, even on topics of public importance, could subject them to harassment, retaliation, and intimidation. See McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 34142 (The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of ones privacy as possible.); Brown v. Socialist Workers 74 Campaign Comm. (Ohio), 459 U.S. 87, 100 (1982) (holding that disclosure requirements may subject unpopular minority groups to threats, harassment, and reprisals). Anonymity may also be important to sex offenders engaged in protected speech because it provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent.

Pretty strong stuff. It has made me think about the Jehovahs Witnesses. Convicted sex offenders are probably one of a very small number of groups that are even more despised than the Jehovahs Witnesses were in the Thirties and Forties, and they have consequently been singled out for very harsh treatment in the law. Fighting back, theyre helping to make some good First Amendment precedent, and when the government starts cracking down on other speech by other speakers, or attempting to restrict our ability to use anonymizing tools in our Internet communications as itwill well be grateful to them for having done so.

***Shawn Peters excellent Judging Jehovahs Witnessess tells this story in great detail, if youre interested.

David Post taught intellectual property and Internet law at Georgetown Law Center and Temple University Law School until his recent retirement. He is the author of "In Search of Jeffersons Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace" (Oxford, 2009), a Fellow at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and an Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute.

Original post:

Volokh Conspiracy: Convicted sex offenders, Jehovahs Witnesses, and the First Amendment

Packard Pokes At: Jews For the First Amendment And Why It Matters
This podcast and video is dedicated to finding the truth of the news that we get bombarded with every week and having a little fun along the way. Story link ...

By: Packard Pokes At

Continued here:

Packard Pokes At: Jews For the First Amendment And Why It Matters - Video

The First Amendment...(Historically Speaking)
Frederick Douglass Dixon hosts this weekly segment on UPTV.

By: UPTV6

View post:

The First Amendment...(Historically Speaking) - Video

How First Amendment Procedures Protect First Amendment Substance
While the substance of constitutional rights is always important, it is often the procedures surrounding the protection and enforcement of those rights that ...

By: The Federalist Society

Continued here:

How First Amendment Procedures Protect First Amendment Substance - Video

Ferguson: New video shows officer Wilson accosting man on his own property for simply filming him
Ferguson resident Mike Arman alleges that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested by embattled police officer Darren Wilson in 2013, and that the subsequent police report...

By: TomoNews US

Here is the original post:

Ferguson: New video shows officer Wilson accosting man on his own property for simply filming him - Video

Europe and the U.S. continue to drift further apart on Google. Even as European parliamentarians and regulators seek ways to restrain Googles discretion over search results, U.S. courts continue to affirm Googles right to do whatever it wants with search results paid and organic.

A California state court in San Francisco recently granted Googles case-ending motion in lawsuit against the company (per GigaOm). The action, filed in June of this year in San Francisco Superior Court, was called S. Louis Martin vs. Google Inc.

Drafted and filed by the non-attorney publisher of San Francisco Bay Area Tourism website CoastNews.com, the complaint alleged unfair and deceptive business practices against Google.

The basic factual allegations included the claim that CoastNews ranked at the top of search results on Bing and Yahoo for San Francisco neighborhood keywords but didnt rank in a comparable position on Google. Plaintiff Martin asserted that Googles unfair and monopolistic business practices cause him lost revenue and future growth and harmed consumers, as well.

Martin asked for a jury trial and sought roughly $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Google prevailed by framing plaintiffs claim as a SLAPP lawsuit. SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuit against public participation. SLAPP suits are usually filed by corporations or other powerful interests often to intimidate or silence less-powerful critics.

The irony here is that the corporation (Google) was claiming that this individual plaintiff (Martin) was trying to silence its First Amendment-protected speech. The Superior Court agreed.

In its motion, essentially to dismiss the case, Google cited various prior cases and precedents that establish Google has total discretion over the content of its search results as a protected expression of its First Amendment free speech rights.

The 2003 decision Search King, cited above, was the first case (to my knowledge) to hold that Googles editorial control of search results was protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment. That was reaffirmed earlier this year in a US District Court case called Zhang et al.v.Baidu.com (also cited above).

Visit link:

Another Court Affirms Googles First Amendment Control Of Search Results

Posted Nov. 17, 2014, 9:53 am Letter To The Editor

Dear Editor,

In the United States of America, and to an even stronger extent in the State of California, the First Amendment to our federal Constitution (and its state counterpart) guarantees freedom of speech.

To petition, protest, and advocate before governmental bodies and public marketplaces are constitutional rights and therefore protected speech. This lawsuit is an attempt to bully me and silence dissent in the City of Santa Monica, where the pony ride and petting zoo have been the subject of criticism and protests for years, long before my personal involvement.

In consultation with counsel, I intend to file an ANTI-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion to protect my freedom of speech rights and those of others who might otherwise be deterred by coercive litigation from exercising their rights -- and to defend the rights of suffering animals, sentient beings with emotional lives worthy of dignity and compassion.

I have repeatedly made overtures to the pony ride operators, introducing Jason, Tawnis husband, to Phil Brock, the Parks Commissioner, to see if they might be willing to compromise and move their animal exhibits to a more spacious and tranquil environment, where the ponies could be taken off the metal bar and walked with a gentle lead at a city park.

The City Council resolution relating to the ponies directed City staff to explore alternatives elsewhere in the City for the pony ride to operate in a more congenial environment for the animals. To my knowledge, the pony operators have not been interested in compromise and have repeatedly refused to consider more humane alternatives.

While the operators repeatedly and publicly attack my character, I know that I have only told the truth, expressing my opinion, both in words and photographs, throughout this period of protest, in which 1,450 people signed my petition to shut down the animal exhibits. Additionally, records obtained under the California Public Records Act have surfaced past complaints about the animal exhibits.

Beyond that, I learned that a separate protest in 2005 resulted in approximately another thousand petition signatures from market visitors disturbed by the sight of ponies tethered to a metal bar, circling for hours on hard ground, unable to turn around or seek water on their own during a hot summer day.

Not only do local residents find these exhibits objectionable, some of my neighbors boycotting the Main Street farmers market, but Marc Bekoff, noted scientist and colleague of Jane Goodall, with whom I consulted months ago, calls the exhibits thoroughly inhumane -- adding, Tethering animals so they cannot have freedom of movement and the freedom to get away from harassment and noise is as inhumane as keeping the animals in tiny cages in petting zoos, where they suffer physically and emotionally.

Continued here:

Letter To The Editor: First Amendment Guarantees Freedom Of Speech

BLM No Show Pahrump 11/13/2014 First Amendment Area
Description Kenny Bent speaks to the people in front of the Bob Ruud Community Center, where the BLM failed to show and present their Resource Management Pla...

By: Les Moore

See the original post:

BLM No Show Pahrump 11/13/2014 First Amendment Area - Video

The First Amendment...(Historically Speaking) - Episode #7
Frederick Douglass Dixon hosts this weekly program on UPTV.

By: UPTV6

See the original post:

The First Amendment...(Historically Speaking) - Episode #7 - Video

Donald Trump phoned the other day. It was the morning after the Nackey Loeb School had honored the late James Foley with its annual First Amendment award. Trump had been the featured speaker and he met Foleys mom and dad and aunt and uncle and a French journalist who had been held captive with Jim.

Trump said he goes to a lot of events. Sometimes, afterwards, he asks himself, Why did I do that event?

He said that wasnt the case with the Loeb School program. Even though it was in some ways sad, he told me he was glad he had been invited.

He didnt have to say anymore. I know exactly how he felt.

From the moment Dianne Mercier of Peoples United Bank welcomed the audience and directed her own poignant remarks to the Foley family, I had the feeling this was going to be a memorable event, notwithstanding some excellent past recipients and featured speakers.

What James Foley accomplished as a professional journalist in war zones was itself remarkable. In words and pictures, which were shown in a brief video that also included Foley speaking, it became clear that this was a young man passionate about his work, very good at it, and concerned about innocent people being caught up in turmoil.

French journalist Nicolas Henin, himself held captive by ISIS for more than a year, was an impromptu speaker at the event. He had spent time with Foley as a hostage and, as others have noted, said that Foley was always self-effacing, always concerned for other hostages, always upbeat.

Foley would not have been comfortable as the center of attention, Henin told the audience. But he would want people here to remember the suffering going on elsewhere.

Watching and listening to his parents, you could see why Foley was who he was. His dad is a doctor, his mom a nurse. Their New Hampshire roots run deep. Dr. Foleys father was a big part of Plymouth State College for years. Their pride in their family is evident and despite their ordeal, it is they who reach out to comfort others.

I think everyone at the event sensed that. Donald Trump certainly did. His own remarks had gone from bemoaning the state of American affairs, to chiding the President for chewing (nicotine) gum in public, to asking, with a smile, who better to speak of First Amendment freedoms than an outspoken guy like himself.

The rest is here:

The Donald trumped event with praise for Foley, others

Follow CBSMIAMI.COM:Facebook|Twitter

TALLAHASSEE (CBSMiami/NSF) The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously rejected a Republican political consultants efforts to keep his redistricting records private, promising to give the public its first glimpse of documents that helped lead to the states congressional districts being thrown out this summer.

While different justices signed onto two separate opinions about the case, both found that Pat Bainter and his consulting firm, Data Targeting, Inc., waited too long to claim that releasing some of the documents would violate his First Amendment rights.

The documents were requested by voting-rights organizations challenging the states congressional districts.

Writing for five members of the court, Justice Barbara Pariente used unusually harsh language to paint Bainters efforts as part of a months-long stalling tactic as the battle over the congressional map played out in a Leon County court.

We simply do not countenance and will not tolerate actions during litigation that are not forthright and that are designed to delay and obfuscate the discovery process, Pariente wrote.

In the opinion, the court ruled that Bainter tried for months to keep the documents shielded without saying that releasing them would violate his First Amendment rights. Bainter only made that claim after a Leon County judge held Bainter and the company in contempt, Pariente wrote.

By responding to the deposition questions and acknowledging discussions with other political consultants without ever revealing the true nature of those communications or asserting a First Amendment privilege, in conjunction with the failure to timely assert this qualified privilege after the deposition testimony and months of additional hearings, we conclude that Bainter waived his ability to later claim that the documents revealing these communications were privileged on that basis, Pariente wrote.

Joining Pariente in the opinion were Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and Justices R. Fred Lewis, Peggy Quince and James E.C. Perry. In a separate opinion, Justices Ricky Polston and Charles Canady supported the outcome. It was a rare, unified decision from a court that has often splintered on redistricting opinions.

The voting-rights groups, which include the League of Women Voters of Florida, argued that the Republican-dominated Legislature drew congressional districts that violated the anti-gerrymandering Fair Districts constitutional requirements, approved by voters in 2010.

Excerpt from:

Supreme Court: Release Redistricting Documents