The Open Mind: Free Speech and Due Process, Part 1
In this edition of The Open Mind, Burt Neuborne speaks about how the first Amendment is sugar-coated and his perspective on it. (Taped 1-16-97) In May 1956, Richard D. Heffner, American...
By: cunytv75
Continued here:
The Fremont City Council approved two of three proposed changes to a zoning code amendment on Tuesday prior to unanimously passing a group of amendments intended to open Fremonts doors wider to home-based businesses and home occupations.
The council heard public opposition and support during first reading of the three zoning codes on Sept. 29, but there was no opposition on Tuesday when the council, with Kevin Eairleywine and Steve Navarrette absent, approved all three amendments.
The first amendment differentiates between home-based businesses and home occupations, a distinction that didnt exist in current codes.
Under the new language, home occupations are operations run only by people who live within the household. A home-based business, on the other hand, can have up to two employees who do not live in the home.
Creating the distinction, interim City Planner Justin Zetterman explained at an Oct. 12 council meeting, allows zoning codes to be more liberally applied to home occupations than to home-based businesses. Home occupations will be allowed in nearly all residential districts, while home-based businesses will be allowed in some districts, and require a conditional use permit in others.
The Fremont Planning Commission, on Sept. 15, voted 4-3 against that amendment, and did not bring to a vote the two ensuing amendments outlining regulations on home-based businesses and home occupations. It was the second of those two ensuing amendments where Councilman Larry Johnson on Tuesday proposed changes before voting on the amendment itself.
Johnsons first change, refining language about allowable signage at home-based businesses, passed 6-0.
His second alteration, adding tattoo parlors to the list of businesses explicitly prohibited in residential districts, passed 4-2 with Jennifer Bixby and Michael Kuhns opposed. Other prohibited businesses include stables and adult entertainment establishments.
Ive talked to no one who wants a tattoo parlor in their neighborhood, Johnson said. If were going to exclude some of those other things, I think we should make it clear that thats not something that we would be approving by our changes here.
Its not necessarily the number of people, its the atmosphere, he said. I happen to drive up Main Street when Im going anywhere, and I look at the tattoo parlor that was on Main and Military, and there are regularly folks outside that just arent enhancing the image of the community, or they wouldnt be enhancing the image of a residential neighborhood.
Read the original:
Jaunty Anaconda and the Quest for the First Amendment
This is a First Amendment Video Project from the Animas High School senior class of 2015. This video shows the 5 types of unprotected speech through 5 Monty ...
By: ahshumanities12
Excerpt from:
Jaunty Anaconda and the Quest for the First Amendment - Video
A Photographer #39;s Guide to the First Amendment (and what to do if you get arrested)
Great informational video.
By: EMSNews Arizona
Read more:
A Photographer's Guide to the First Amendment (and what to do if you get arrested) - Video
Lawful Larry and the First Amendment
In this excellent episode, Larry and Larry embark on an epic quest to uncover the somewhat shady events surrounding the Tinker, Fraser, and Hazelwood standards. On a mission to exhibit student #39;s...
By: Ande Lloyd
See the article here:
IX Tab - Dance Dance Dance
a short promo for the second IX Tab album, ROC, featuring a first amendment of the track St James and The 28 Pieces that I had lying around.
By: saxonroach
Go here to read the rest:
The First Amendment (Historically Speaking) - Episode #6
Frederick Douglass Dixon hosts this weekly segment on UPTV.
By: UPTV6
Excerpt from:
The First Amendment (Historically Speaking) - Episode #6 - Video
Posted: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:57 pm
Letter: The Second Amendment Philip Jones, junior in computer science technicianonline.com
More people need education about the Second Amendment and why the Second Amendment was created in the first place. The Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment as a means to protect the peoples rights throughout future generations. They also created the Second Amendment to be prepared for the next revolution. However, gun control laws are taking these rights away. The more gun control laws on the books, the weaker our country gets. Gun-free zones right here at North Carolina State and other colleges is not only an infringement of our law-abiding rights, but it also makes the campus more unsafe. Campus police is a great resource to have. However, they can only respond so quickly. Concealed carry should be supported on campus, not feared. There have been no incidents since the gun rights in-car campus gun laws were passed. About 99 percent of concealed carry permit holders are law-abiding citizens because criminals will not go through the process to get a concealed carry. Having concealed carry on campus would make our campus and other colleges safer. Off campus, the worst thing to hear is people saying, The Founding Fathers only had muskets. Well, that is also saying the First Amendment should only apply to print media and not television or the Internet. The same applies to the Second Amendment, such as AR-15s and AK-47s. I would hate to see the day when the next revolution comes to our home country and we are unprepared because of tyranny from our lawmakers. Too many people died for the freedom of the Second Amendment, and my generation and future generations are the only people who can be more educated about our Constitution, and stop tyranny from the government.
Posted in Opinion, Letters to editor on Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:57 pm.
Excerpt from:
Tavares Florida/First Amendment Audit
PINAC Reporter Detained for Photographing Courthouse, Accused of Being Possible Terrorist By Andrew Meyer http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/10/24/jeff-gray-detained-police-taking-photog.
By: HONORYOUROATH
Follow this link:
Protections for political donations
Chattanooga, Tenn.; Agoura Hills, Calif.; and Clearwater, Fla. The Sept. 11 online article Is money still speech? Yes, as constitutional amendment bid fails in Senate (CSMonitor.com) touches on one of the most important points of campaign finance the First Amendment and the rights that it gives citizens. The First Amendment gives all US citizens the right to freedom of speech. Therefore, if an individual wishes to express his or her political viewpoints by donating to political campaigns, the government has no right to restrict that.
Caitlin Brown Chattanooga, Tenn.
Regarding the Oct. 13 cover story, The whale savers: I especially appreciated the closing quote by researcher Scott Kraus: [Y]ou dont just save the animals, you save the home of the animal. If you dont save the home, there wont be any animals.
I live near the best spot for animals to cross the 101 freeway in Los Angeles. Currently the free movement of mountain lions and other wildlife in search of mates and more habitats is restricted by the freeway; the animals options are a freeway exit under a bridge or a deadly sprint across the road.
Local citizens, schoolchildren, area politicians, and groups such as the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation are joining in an effort to have a wildlife corridor constructed in this area. The venue is quite different, but the problem is similar.
Anne Hughes Agoura Hills, Calif.
In response to the Oct. 10 online article Nobel committee dodges controversy by choosing Malala, Satyarthi (CSMonitor.com): At 17 years old, Malala Yousafzai has already survived an assassination attempt and won a Nobel Peace Prize for her unrelenting advocating for girls right to education. Not only is Malala an inspiration, but shes become a legend in her own time as well.
Joann Lee Frank Clearwater, Fla.
Continued here:
Sometimes the First Amendment guarantees access to public records (generally limited to court records). Often Freedom of Information Acts and Public Records Acts are seen as fulfilling broader First Amendment values, by facilitating speech about how the government operates. But in Thursdays Roe v. Anderson (W.D. Wash. Oct. 23, 2014), a federal district judge relied on the First Amendment to block a state public records request.
Washington law requires erotic dancers to get licenses, and the Washington Public Records Act apparently mandates the release of licenses generally, including these licenses. But the dancers, the district judge held, have raised serious questions regarding whether this violates their First Amendment rights, because revealing their names and other personal information can expose them to harassment and threats to their physical safety. (Compare Doe v. Reed (2010), which applied First Amendment scrutiny to disclosure of the names of petition signers, though held that, given the government interests supporting such disclosure, the disclosure was indeed constitutional.) According to the Steve Maynard (Tacoma News Tribune), the man who requested the names said he was curious and he wants to pray for the strippers. I would pray for those dancers by name, David Van Vleet said after the hearing. Im a Christian. We have a right to pray for people.
I should note that this case might be relied on by analogy in Second Amendment cases, in situations where people try to use public records laws to get the names of registered gun owners, or of registered holders of gun carry licenses. (The Supreme Court said, in D.C. v. Heller (2008), that there is no constitutional right to concealed carry, but some courts the Seventh and Ninth Circuit and the Illinois Supreme Court have held that there is a constitutional right to some form of carry, and in some states a license is required for any sort of carrying.) Its always uncertain, of course, how much courts will accept such analogies.
In any event, here are some excerpts from the opinion:
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
10. Under PCC 5.14.100 and 5.14.110, managers and dancers at an erotic dance studio are required to apply for and maintain managers and dancers licenses that are issued by the Auditor. Under PCC 5.14.080 and 5.14.090, these licenses expire and are renewed on an annual basis.
11. Dancers at Dreamgirls at Foxs identify themselves to patrons by a pseudonym commonly known as a stage name. The purpose of the stage name is to maintain the dancers privacy and to protect them from stalking, harassment, discrimination, public embarrassment, and violence when they are outside the club.
15. Defendants Anderson and Pierce County are subject to the requirements of the Washington Public Records Act, (hereinafter PRA) .
16. The manager and dancer licenses issued and maintained by Defendant Anderson are public records as defined RCW 42.17.020, subsections (36) and (42).
17. Agencies such as the Auditors Office and Defendant Pierce County are required by the PRA to disclose public records upon request to anyone making the request and disclosure of the records is mandatory. The only public records protected from disclosure are those specifically mentioned in a statutory exemption.
Read this article:
Volokh Conspiracy: First Amendment vs. freedom of information law
Get Breaking News First
Receive News, Politics, and Entertainment Headlines Each Morning.
By Cherri Gregg
PHILADELPHIA (CBS) The Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union says it is preparing to file a lawsuit to get the states new Revictimization Relief Actoverturned.
Signed into law on Tuesday, the law whichthe ACLU says is unconstitutional bans conduct by criminal offenders that causes mental anguish to their former victims.
We are cautiously optimistic that a federal judge will take a quick look at this and say, Youve got to be kidding me, Vic Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, tells KYW Newsradio.
(File photo)
-
He says they are working to file a First Amendment lawsuit to block the law, which allows personal injury victims to sue their offenders, whether theyre in or no longer in prison.
The law was fast-tracked and approved just days after convicted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal gave an October 5th commencement speech to a Vermont college.
See the article here:
ACLU Says New Pa. Law Violates First Amendment Rights of Convicts
What Does the First Amendment Mean to You?
Group Members: Rex, Breeze, Keagan, Conner - Animas High School, Seniors - Feel free to view the rest of the seniors #39; videos at http://ahshumanities12.weebly...
By: ahshumanities12
More:
All-Class Lecture: Political Corruption and the First Amendment
Tim Wu, the Isidor and Seville Suzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and newly appointed head of the Poliak Center at Columbia Graduate School of Journalism discusses the ...
By: Columbia Journalism School
View original post here:
All-Class Lecture: Political Corruption and the First Amendment - Video
First Amendment Video Project
Group Members: Noah, Dylan, Josh, and Riley - Animas High School, Seniors - Feel free to view the rest of the seniors #39; videos at http://ahshumanities12.weebl...
By: ahshumanities12
Read the original here:
Contact Information
Available for logged-in reporters only
Newswise WASHINGTON, DC (October 23, 2014)One billion Facebook users generate 2.7 billion likes per day (or 1,875,000 every minute). Increasingly, social media has become a form of social and political engagement, and 47 percent of Facebook users have liked political cause-related comments. Protected free speech is a luxury the Western world has long enjoyed. Does clicking the universally understood thumbs-up like constitute actual speech? It conveys a message understood by most, but should it command constitutional protection? A recent article in the National Communication Associations First Amendment Studies journal explores legal precedents surrounding this form of communication and surveys Facebook users attitudes.
In the case of Bland v. Roberts, an employee was fired for liking a campaign lobbying against his boss. The employee claimed the right to free speech, but the judge ruled that in the absence of sufficient speech, the case could not proceed to trial. The employee was not reinstated. An ensuing debate revealed that large numbers of individuals felt this judgment would lead to fear and inhibition, and deter free expression of ideas and opinions onlinethe chilling effect. Ironically, the First Amendment protects symbolic language, even rude gestures such as the finger. If it can stretch this far, then surely it is not unreasonable to expect coverage for the Facebook thumbs up. In the context of todays morphing methods of communication, is the law failing to keep up?
The authors developed a study of Facebook users and devised a First Amendment Scale to examine the value of computer source code communication and its relation to free speech. Four hundred forty-four participants took part. More than half had liked political content in the past. Four hypotheses were tested and all proved true:
1. Like users most certain of who would see their like expected recipients to understand their meaning. 2. Those who felt they had sent a message with a like were sure that recipients understood. 3. Participants believed when using like on political content that their posts were constitutionally protected. 4. Those using like to convey a message believed that this should be protected by the First Amendment.
The most common interpretations for like amongst participants were agree, support, and generally endorse a person, place, or idea. Overall, participants believed that a like was akin to speech as described in the First Amendment.
The twist in the tale is that on appeal, the Bland v. Roberts judgment was reversed, finding that the thumbs up indeed qualified for protection. In both offline and online domains, each community of social practice negotiates its own language conventions and creates its own democracy of meaning. The parsing of the First Amendment will continue to be influenced by these communities, note the studys authors, Susan H. Sarapin of Troy University and Pamela Morris of the University of WisconsinLa Crosse. They finish by urging further research on the chilling effect and its potential negative impact on freedom of speech online.
###
NOTE TO JOURNALISTS
See the article here:
Im glad to hear this, since I think the dissenting judge on the panel had the much better argument. Here is the post I put up about this when the decision came down on Aug. 27:
The free speech rights here were as in many free speech cases the rights of pretty rude speakers, certainly ones whose message and manners I do not endorse. But the First Amendment protects the rude as well as the polite, especially given how subjective government judgments of rudeness usually end up being.
Here are the facts, from the majority opinion in Bible Believers v. Wayne County (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2014) (some paragraph breaks added throughout the block quotes below):
The City of Dearborn in Wayne County, Michigan, has hosted the Arab International Festival every summer from 1995 until 2012. A three-day event that was free and open to the public, the Festival welcomed roughly 250,000 attendees and featured carnival attractions, live entertainment, international food, and merchandise sales. [The panel later agreed that the festival was a "traditional public forum" at which public speech is fully constitutionally protected, rather than private property or even public property that was temporarily exclusively leased by a public organization. -EV]
[T]he Bible Believers came bearing strongly worded t-shirts and banners:
[Chavez] wore a t-shirt with the message, Fear God on the front and Trust Jesus, Repent and Believe in Jesus on the back. Fisher wore a t-shirt with the message, Trust Jesus on the front and Fear God and Give Him Glory on the back, and he carried a banner that said on one side, Only Jesus Christ Can Save You From Sin and Hell, and on the other side it said, Jesus Is the Judge, Therefore, Repent, Be Converted That Your Sins May Be Blotted Out. Other messages conveyed on t-shirts, signs, or banners displayed by the [other Bible Believers] included, among others, Fear God, Trust Jesus, Repent and Believe in Jesus, Prepare to Meet Thy God Amos 4:12, Obey God, Repent, Turn or Burn, Jesus Is the Way, the Truth and the Life. All Others Are Thieves and Robbers, and Islam Is A Religion of Blood and Murder.
One Bible Believer carried a severed pigs head on a stick, which Chavez explained protected the Bible Believers by repelling observers who feared it. Appellants soon began preaching using a megaphone, and a small crowd formed around them almost immediately. [The police eventually told the speakers that megaphone use was forbidden by ordinance, and the speakers stopped; that restriction is not challenged here. -EV] Chavez castigated the crowd for following a pedophile prophet and warned of Gods impending judgment. As this evangelizing continued, the crowd yelled back. At this point, a ribbon-cutting at the opposite end of the Festival occupied a majority of the [Wayne County Sheriff's Office] officers, but one officer watched from the outskirts of the crowd.
As the Bible Believers moved deeper into the Festival, the crowd a good portion of which appeared to be minors continued to gather and yell. Some people started throwing debris including rocks, plastic bottles, garbage, and a milk crate at the Bible Believers. Someone in the crowd also shoved one Bible Believer to the ground. Some WCSO officers detained debris-throwers while other officers hovered at the edges of the crowd. Eventually, after about thirty-five minutes, the Bible Believers temporarily stopped preaching and stood as the crowd harangued them and hurled objects. Several officers, including some mounted units, attempted to quell the crowd.
After about five minutes of standing quietly, the Bible Believers began to move and preach again. As they did so, the cascade of objects intensified. Deputy Chiefs Richardson and Jaafar approached them a few minutes later. Jaafar explained that they could leave and that their safety was in jeopardy because not enough officers were available to control the crowd.
The Bible Believers, however, continued to preach, followed by what had swelled into a large crowd. Richardson and Jaafar then took Chavez aside to speak with him. Richardson noted his concern that Chavez was bleeding from where a piece of debris had cut his face. Richardson explained that he was responsible for policing the entire Festival, that Chavezs conduct was inciting the crowd, and that he would escort the Bible Believers out of the Festival
View original post here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Sixth Circuit agrees to rehear hecklers veto decision
First Amendment restrictions at the Baltimore County Animal Shelter
TAKE ACTION: http://bit.ly/1sd0Vej No cute animal pics? Sarah Hardy took pictures of dogs and cats at the Baltimore County Animal Shelter to help them find h...
By: ACLU Maryland
Original post:
First Amendment restrictions at the Baltimore County Animal Shelter - Video
Pro-life protestors had planned to put a JumboTron outside the Alamo with abortion images on it, but the City of San Antonio shut down the protest Wednesday morning. Demonstrators said it's a violation of their First Amendment rights.
Protestors have put up a JumboTron with abortion images in other cities already and Love of Truth ministries said they cleared a permit with the City of San Antonio to do so a month ago. It wasn't until Tuesday night that the City said the demonstration violates a sign ordinance.
"Part of the permit, which would have enabled them to put a JumboTron on the plaza, was revoked this morning," said San Antonio Police Chief William McManus.
"If we were going to preform abortion today the city would allow that, cause that's legal, but showing it, somehow they're finding a way to find that against the law," said Mark Harrington, national director of Created Equal that was co-hosting the protest.
Harrington said now his organization has two causes to fight for; the end of abortion and first amendment rights.
"Unpopular speech is the reason the First Amendment was written to begin with. It protects disturbing, unpopular, offensive speech," said Harrington.
Several people visiting the Alamo Wednesday said they had differing opinions on whether the JumboTron should be allowed.
"When people don't have the choice whether to see those images or not, I don't think that's right," said Shannon Thomas who was at the Alamo Wednesday.
"I think they should be allowed to do what they were permitted for, and I think it's just the government trying to squelch anything that has to do with religion, or anything faith based," said Ava Tanner who was also visiting the Alamo.
"I don't necessarily agree with their tactics, but I do believe that to a certain extent it's protected by the First Amendment," said Lyndon Lee, another Alamo visitor.
Go here to read the rest:
San Antonio tells pro-life protestors they can't use JumboTron at Alamo
San Francisco, CA - infoZine - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), along with reddit and the Internet Archive, filed formal comments with the New York State Department of Financial Services opposing the state's proposed regulations for digital currencies such as Bitcoin. In the letter, EFF argues that on top of damaging privacy and harming innovation, New York's "BitLicense" regulatory scheme also risks infringing on First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and association.
The State of New York is currently considering BitLicense, a sprawling regulatory framework that would mandate licenses for a wide range of companies in the digital currency space. The regulations would force applicants to submit significant personal information to the state, including fingerprints and head-shot photographs. The policy would also require these companies to maintain detailed records about all transactions for 10 years, including identity data of users.
EFF notes that digital currency protocols are used for more than just paymentsthey have expressive and associational uses, too. Bitcoin-like systems are used for organizing and engaging with groups or communities. In addition, Bitcoin block chains frequently contain political speech, such as famous quotes and portraits of prominent historical figures. As currently written, EFF argues, the BitLicense regulations place an unacceptable burden on free speech and association.
"The courts have long recognized that code is speech protected by the First Amendment," EFF Special Counsel Marcia Hofmann said. "At their core, digital currency protocols are code. Attempts to regulate code must include robust protections to ensure constitutionally protected speech is not stifled, and the BitLicense proposal would undermine those First Amendment principles."
On Oct. 15, EFF launched an online activism campaign encouraging Internet users to oppose the BitLicense proposal by submitting comments to the New York State Department of Financial Services.
Read the original post:
EFF, Internet Archive, and Reddit Oppose New Yorks BitLicense Proposal