America #39;s Forum | Dr. Richard Land and Kerri Kupec : Pt. 2
President of the Southern Evangelical Seminary talks about Pastors in Houston, Texas being subpoenaed to turn over their sermons as part of lawsuit and the huge first amendment constitutional...
By: NewsmaxTV
See the rest here:
America's Forum | Dr. Richard Land and Kerri Kupec : Pt. 2 - Video
The First Amendment (Historically Speaking) - Episode #5
Frederick Douglass Dixon hosts this week #39;s The First Amendment on UPTV.
By: UPTV6
Read more:
The First Amendment (Historically Speaking) - Episode #5 - Video
First Amendment: Religion and ExpressionWhat is the First Amendment?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.The First Amendment Defined:The First Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 1st Amendment:The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the passing or creation of any law which establishes a religious body and directly impedes an individuals right to practice whichever religion they see fit.The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights and the amendment which disables an entity or individual from practicing or enforcing a religious viewpoint which infringes on the freedom of speech, the right peaceable assemble, the freedom of the press, or which prohibits the petitioning for a governmental evaluation of grievances.In its infancy, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by Congress; however, the following Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court developed that the Due Process Clause attached to the Fourteenth Amendment applies the fundamental aspects of the First Amendment to each individual state, including all local governments within those states.The Establishment clause of the First Amendment is the primary pronouncement in the Amendment, stating that Congress cannot institute a law to establish a national religion for the preference of the U.S. government states that one religion does not favor another. As a result, the Establishment Clause effectively created a wall of separation between the church and state. How the First Amendment was created:When the original constitution was created there was significant opposition due to the lack of adequate guarantees for civil freedoms. To offer such liberties, the First Amendment (in addition to the rest of the Bill of Rights) was offered to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789 and later adopted on December 15, 1791.Court Cases tied into the 1st AmendmentIn Sherbert v. Verner, the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard of review to the Establishment Clause, ruling that a state must demonstrate an overwhelming interest in restricting religious activities.In Employment Division v Smith, the Supreme Court went away from this standard by permitting governmental actions that were neutral regarding religious choices.Debs v. United States on June 16, 1919 tested the limits of free speech in regards to the clear and present danger test.1st Amendment: Freedom of SpeechFreedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment and is re-established in the majority of state and federal laws. This particular clause typically protects and individuals right to partake in even distasteful rhetoric, such as racist or sexist comments and distasteful remarks towards public policy.Speech directed towards some subjects; however, such as child pornography or speech that incites an imminent threat, as well commercial forms of speech are regulated.State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of RightsNew Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article IIMaryland:December 19, 1789; approved allNorth Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved allSouth Carolina: January 19, 1790; approved allNew Hampshire: January 25, 1790; rejected article IIDelaware: January 28, 1790; rejected article INew York: February 27, 1790; rejected article IIPennsylvania: March 10, 1790; rejected article IIRhode Island: June 7, 1790; rejected article IIVermont: November 3, 1791; approved allVirginia: December 15, 1791; approved allGeorgia, Massachusetts and Connecticut did not ratify the first 10 Amendments until 1939
First Amendment: Religion and ExpressionWhat is the First Amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment Defined: The First Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.
The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.
Stipulations of the 1st Amendment: The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the passing or creation of any law which establishes a religious body and directly impedes an individuals right to practice whichever religion they see fit.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights and the amendment which disables an entity or individual from practicing or enforcing a religious viewpoint which infringes on the freedom of speech, the right peaceable assemble, the freedom of the press, or which prohibits the petitioning for a governmental evaluation of grievances.
In its infancy, the First Amendment only applied to laws enacted by Congress; however, the following Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court developed that the Due Process Clause attached to the Fourteenth Amendment applies the fundamental aspects of the First Amendment to each individual state, including all local governments within those states.
The Establishment clause of the First Amendment is the primary pronouncement in the Amendment, stating that Congress cannot institute a law to establish a national religion for the preference of the U.S. government states that one religion does not favor another. As a result, the Establishment Clause effectively created a wall of separation between the church and state.
How the First Amendment was created: When the original constitution was created there was significant opposition due to the lack of adequate guarantees for civil freedoms. To offer such liberties, the First Amendment (in addition to the rest of the Bill of Rights) was offered to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789 and later adopted on December 15, 1791.
Original post:
SCOTUSblog on camera: Laurence H. Tribe (Part two) Case law
Two important cases -- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (public access to trials) and Larkin v. Grendel #39;s Den, Inc. (the First Amendment Establishment Clause and a church #39;s power to...
By: SCOTUSblogoncamera
See the original post:
SCOTUSblog on camera: Laurence H. Tribe (Part two) Case law - Video
INFOWARS Nightly News: with Jakari Jackson Wednesday October 15 2014: Plus Special Reports
Wednesday: The Infowars Nightly News. A Chilling Assault On The First Amendment In Houston, Texas. Plus, Media Ratings Numbers Shell Game Revealed. --SUBSCRIBE TO PRISONPLANET.
By: Ron Gibson
Follow this link:
INFOWARS Nightly News: with Jakari Jackson Wednesday October 15 2014: Plus Special Reports - Video
First Amendment Fight - Houston We Have A Problem - The Fight For Faith - Fox Friends
First Amendment Fight - Houston We Have A Problem - The Fight For Faith - Fox Friends Houston We Have A Problem - City Accused Of Retaliating Against Pasto...
By: NSTP - Wake The Hell Up America!
See the article here:
First Amendment Fight - Houston We Have A Problem - The Fight For Faith - Fox & Friends - Video
Kevin Sabet Tour - Ready for the First Amendment
Waiting outside the La Grande Armory for the threat of being removed from a political event for displaying a political banner on my car.
By: Russ Belville
The rest is here:
Mike Huckabee Opening Statement - "Houston We Have A Problem" - Attack On First Amendment
Mike Huckabee Opening Statement - "Houston We Have A Problem" - Attack On First Amendment - Freedom Of Religion! =========================================== **Please Click Below to ...
By: NSTP - Wake The Hell Up America!
Read more:
Mike Huckabee Opening Statement - "Houston We Have A Problem" - Attack On First Amendment - Video
The City of Houston subpoenas ministers sermons, First Amendment violation?
A group of ministers sued the City of Houston over the rejection of petitions to get a referendum on the ballot attacking the City #39;s Equal Rights ordinance. The City subpoenaed the sermons...
By: Chris Tritico
Read this article:
The City of Houston subpoenas ministers sermons, First Amendment violation? - Video
Scott Roeder, imprisoned for the murder of Wichita abortion provider George Tiller, is awaiting a Leavenworth County judges ruling over whether the Kansas Department of Corrections wrongly disciplined him after concluding he threatened another abortion provider.
Roeder is represented by Topeka attorney Billy Rork, who said he thinks the department violated Roeders right to freedom of speech.
Rork said Friday he is working free of charge to represent Roeder, an acquaintance since they were teenagers, who wrote him a letter asking for his help. Rork said he took the case mainly because Im a big First Amendment guy.
Rork appeared on Roeders behalf at a Sept. 2 Leavenworth County hearing before Judge Dan K. Wiley, who has yet to rule in a civil suit Roeder filed last year against the corrections department. Court records show attorney Sherri Price represented the KDOC at the hearing.
Roeder, 56, is an inmate at Ellsworth Correctional Facility. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 50 years after being convicted of first-degree murder in the May 31, 2009, shooting death of Tiller, one of the nations few late-term abortion providers. Tiller was attending church in Wichita when Roeder shot him point-blank in the forehead. Roeder also was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault after he pointed the gun at two other men in the church.
The Associated Press reported Roeder was being held last year at Lansing Correctional Facility when the corrections department disciplined him after concluding he made threats of violence against a different Wichita abortion provider during a telephone interview with an anti-abortion activist. The activist put a recording of the call on YouTube.
The recording included discussion about how Julie Burkhart, executive director of the abortion rights group Trust Women, had opened a womens health center providing abortion services in the Wichita building Tiller used. Roeder could be heard saying it was death-defying for someone to reopen that clinic.
He added, To walk in there and reopen a clinic, a murder mill where a man was stopped, its almost like putting a target on your back saying, Well, lets see if you can shoot me.
The Associated Press reported Roeder was given 45 days in disciplinary segregation with no outside communication, followed by 60 days of loss of privileges and a $20 fine.
Rork said Friday that Roeder hadnt realized the activist was recording the conversation and would post it online.
Go here to read the rest:
Topeka attorney defends abortion provider's killer in First Amendment case
Political Correctness More Important Than Fighting Ebola
Alex Jones breaks down the continued war on free speech and the first amendment using political correctness as their weapon. http://www.infowars.com/the-secret-life-of-gov-paid-trolls/ Stay...
By: THElNFOWARRlOR
Read more:
Political Correctness More Important Than Fighting Ebola - Video
Dr. Alan Keyes: Honored With Christopher Reeve First Amendment Award
In a WND TV interview, Dr. Alan Keyes talks about his prestigious Christopher Reeve First Amendment Award. To learn more about this story visit... http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/alan-keyes-to-receive...
By: WNDTV
Read this article:
Dr. Alan Keyes: Honored With Christopher Reeve First Amendment Award - Video
#GamerGate, Free Speech, and the First Amendment
By some accounts, the court system is being used to silence critics of video game journalism. I intend to find out the truth.
By: Michael Cernovich
Read this article:
Huston Pastors #39; Sermons Subpoenaed - First Amendment? - The Kelly File
Huston Pastors #39; Sermons Subpoenaed - First Amendment? - The Kelly File =========================================== **Please Click Below to SUBSCRIBE for M...
By: NSTP - Wake The Hell Up America!
Visit link:
Huston Pastors' Sermons Subpoenaed - First Amendment? - The Kelly File - Video
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, now defendingActivision Blizzard inManuel Noriegas Call of Duty: Black Ops II lawsuit, called the legal matter an outrageous offense to the first amendment during a recent press conference (via The Hollywood Reporter). Giuliani spoke following a hearing at the Los Angeles Superior Court in which the Activision Blizzard legal team arguedfor a special motion to strike on the grounds that the games inclusion of Noriegas likeness is protected under the first amendment.
Giuliani contended that, should thelawsuit succeed, it would send us down a dangerous, slippery slope toward censorship. The reason Im involved in this case is I see the significance of the First Amendment, he said. Should Noriega be allowed tosucceed, it would virtually destroy the historical novel, the historical movies like The Butler and Zero Dark Thirty, inwhich historical figures are portrayed. If Noriega were to succeed in this case, as I told the judge,Bin Ladens heirs would be able to sue for Zero Dark Thirty.
Related:Former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani to represent Activision against Manuel Noriega
His response then turned into a personal attack on Noriega:I think a man that engaged in selling $200 million of cocaine in the United States, who knows how many children he killed, a man who was a dictator of his country in which he tortured people for nine years, a man who laundered money in France, a man who chopped the head off of one of his allies and then was convicted in three countries, who is sitting in jail in Panama, trying to recover because he is a minor, minor figure in a very excellent game, Call of Duty by Activision, is an outrage,
Noriega, for his part, responded to Activision Blizzards motion to dismiss with a statement clarifying his position.I first became aware that my image and likeness was being utilized in Call of Duty: Black Ops II, the former Panamanian dictator explained,when my grandchildren played the game and asked why, in the video game, their target was to capture my character.
Incidents such as this andLindsay Lohans similar lawsuit against Rockstar Games overGrand Theft Auto Vare setting important, legal precedent for the future of gaming. As the medium grows up and starts to tackle more serious subject matter, it will fall under increasingly serious scrutiny. The path fromentertainment to art form is fraught,but these uncomfortable conversations are vital tothe mediums future.
The rest is here:
Noriegas Call of Duty lawsuit an outrageous offense to basic protections, Giuliani says
QUEENSOLE: 1st AUTHENTIC UNBOXING #39;GAMMA #39;
AIR JORDAN 11 RETRO #39;GAMMA #39; HIT: LIKE, COMMENT, SUBSCRIBE...THANKS for watching!!!! Disclaimer :The First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights protect my freedom of speech and ...
By: CALLurREPS
More:
The draft sent more than 2 million Americans to Vietnam, many of them baby boomers. Millions more avoided the war through deferments. Draft dodgers burned their cards to protest the war. (Loan, Gary E. Stevens)
The First Amendment took center stage in anti-war demonstrations 49 years ago this week, as the first draft card was burned in public amid nationwide protests decrying U.S. involvement in the escalating Vietnam conflict.
In August 1965, Congress passed a law prohibiting the willful destruction of draft cards. Two months later, a young Catholic pacifist, David Miller, burned his draft card in front of a crowd a rally in New York part of the Vietnam Day Committees International Days of Protest Oct. 15-16. Miller was later arrested by the FBI and sentenced to 30 months in prison. Despite the law, draft card burning became a common form of anti-war protest, even though numerous court decisions including the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court caseUnited States v. OBrien ruled that the law did not violate protesters First Amendment rights to free speech.
When Newseum curators were collecting artifacts for The Boomer List exhibit, they wanted to include a draft card from the era as a defining symbol of the boomer generations story. But they were having a hard time finding one to display. On a hunch, director of collections Carrie Christoffersen called her father, who promptly unearthed his draft card and mailed it to the Newseum, still in its plastic wallet sleeve. Why did he have it after all these years? Christoffersen said her father told her, half-jokingly, Its a federal document! You cant get rid of that kind of thing.
Continue reading here:
It's former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani versus former Panama dictatorManuel Noriega in the latter's lawsuit alleging that video game developerActivision Blizzard violates his name and likeness in its best-sellinggame Call of Duty: Black Ops II. Giuliani, now a named partner atBracewell & Giuliani, is defending the game publisher, and to hear himtell it, the former dictator's claims are an "outrageous offense to the First Amendment."
In a press conference Thursday following a Los Angeles Superior Courthearing on the case, Giuliani went after Noriega personally for suingover his likeness in the game. "I am morally outraged that a man likeNoriega is seeking to inhibit our creative rights in the United States.If creative rights have to be sacrificed, they shouldn't be sacrificedfor someone like Noriega, nor should anyone have to send millions ofdollars down to a Panamanian jail because this madman is making absurdclaims," he told reporters.
Also readManuelNoriegaon 'Call of Duty': My Grandchildren Asked Why I Was the Target
"I think a man that engaged in selling $200 million of cocaine in theUnited States, who knows how many children he killed, a man who was adictator of his country in which he tortured people for nine years, a manwho laundered money in France, a man who chopped the head off of one of his allies and then was convicted in three countries, who is sitting injail in Panama, trying to recover because he is a minor, minor figure ina very excellent game, Call of Duty by Activision, is an outrage,"Giuliani continued.
Noriega was convicted in the United States for money laundering and drugtrafficking in 1992. Then extraditions led to prison sentences in Parisand Panama, where he has been since 2011. In July, he nevertheless filedsuit against Activision Blizzard, claiming that he is given a defamatorydepiction in two Black Ops II levels set in 1980s Panama. His character is the villain, and he's "portrayed as the victim of numerous fictionalheinous crimes," his complaint alleges.
See more Hollywood's 100 Favorite Films
The lawyers for the video game publisher, who include Kelly Klaus atMunger, Tolles & Olse alongside Giuliani, have filed a special motion tostrike on the grounds that the game's use of the Noriega character isprotected by first amendment legislation. If Noriega wins, it will openthe gates for historical figures of all stripes to censor their inclusionin creative works or even historical documentation, they argue.
"The reason I'm involved in this case is I see the significance of the First Amendment," Giuliani told reporters. "Should Noriega be allowed tosucceed, it would virtually destroy the historical novel, the historical movies like [Lee Daniels'] The Butler and Zero Dark Thirty, inwhich historical figures are portrayed."
He added, "If Noriega were to succeed in this case, as I told the judge,Bin Laden's heirs would be able to sue for Zero Dark Thirty."
In a response to the game developer's motion to strike the lawsuit, filed weeks ago, Noriega's attorneys argued that regardless of the time for which the character is present, the mission that includes him is "a major if not the most key level of the game." They included numerous snapshots of the gameplay to establish the Noriega character's prominence, including "Noriega with a shotgun in hand," "Noriega getting choked" and "Noriega in the first-person shooter's crosshairs."
Original post:
First amendment denied at Baldwin county al clerks office
Just holding public servants accountable sorry the vid sucks first one very nervous.
By: Thomas Duke
Read the original:
First amendment denied at Baldwin county al clerks office - Video