Donald Trump is coming to New Hampshire this fall to help honor the First Amendment.

The Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications Inc., announced this weekend that Trump will be the featured speaker at the school's 12th annual First Amendment Awards event. The program is at the Radisson Hotel in downtown Manchester on the evening of Wednesday, Nov. 12.

The event honors First Amendment freedoms and those from New Hamphire who go above and beyond to uphold them.

Honorees have included outspoken school board members and private citizens, newspapers and editors, and a former state attorney general.The outspoken Trump, know to many simply as "The Donald,'' is a successful real estate developer, reality TV host, author and political commentator.

His visits to the First Primary state regularly spark speculation about his own presidential ideas. He has said he is keeping his options open for 2016.Meanwhile, his appearances draw crowds. His speech at a "Politics and Eggs'' business forum at St. Anselm College last winter drew a packed house.

Tickets to the Loeb School event go on sale Sept. 12 at http://www.loebschool.org.

Trump joins a distinguished list of national figures who have donated their time to help the school with its major annual fundraising event.

First Amendment speakers have included the late Tim Russert of NBC, Fox's Bill O'Reilly, Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. Sen. John McCain, commentators Patrick Buchanan and George Will and ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

The school was founded in 1999 by Nackey S. Loeb, the late president and publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader and Sunday News.

Its mission is to promote understanding and appreciation of the First Amendment and "to foster interest, integrity and excellence in journalism and communication.''

More here:

Donald Trump to headline 1st Amendment event in NH

First Amendment,amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States, part of the Bill of Rights, which reads,

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 clauses of the amendment are often called the establishment clause, the free exercise clause, the free speech clause, the free press clause, the assembly clause, and the petition clause.

The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally restricted only what the federal government may do and did not bind the states. Most state constitutions had their own bills of rights, and those generally included provisions similar to those found in the First Amendment. But the state provisions could be enforced only by state courts.

In 1868, however, the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution, and it prohibited states from denying people liberty without due process. Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually interpreted this to apply most of the Bill of Rights to state governments. In particular, from the 1920s to the 40s the Supreme Court applied all the clauses of the First Amendment to the states. Thus, the First Amendment now covers actions by the federal, state, and local governments. The First Amendment also applies to all branches of government, including legislatures, courts, juries, and executive officials and agencies. This includes public employers, public university systems, and public school systems.

The First Amendment, however, applies only to restrictions imposed by the government, since the First and Fourteenth amendments refer only to government action. As a result, if a private employer fires an employee because of the employees speech, there is no First Amendment violation. There is likewise no violation if a private university expels a student for what the student said, if a commercial landlord restricts what bumper stickers are sold on property it owns, or if an Internet service provider refuses to host certain Web sites.

Legislatures sometimes enact laws that protect speakers or religious observers from retaliation by private organizations. For example, Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans religious discrimination even by private employers. Similarly, laws in some states prohibit employers from firing employees for off-duty political activity. But such prohibitions are imposed by legislative choice rather than by the First Amendment.

The freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and petitiondiscussed here together as freedom of expressionbroadly protect expression from governmental restrictions. Thus, for instance, the government may not outlaw antiwar speech, speech praising violence, racist speech, procommunist speech, and the like. Nor may the government impose special taxes on speech on certain topics or limit demonstrations that express certain views. Furthermore, the government may not authorize civil lawsuits based on peoples speech, unless the speech falls within a traditionally recognized First Amendment exception. This is why, for example, public figures may not sue for emotional distress inflicted by offensive magazine articles, unless the articles are not just offensive but include statements that fall within the false statements of fact exception.

The free expression guarantees are not limited to political speech. They also cover speech about science, religion, morality, and social issues as well as art and even personal gossip.

Freedom of the press confirms that the government may not restrict mass communication. It does not, however, give media businesses any additional constitutional rights beyond what nonprofessional speakers have.

Read the original:

First Amendment (United States Constitution ...

The NCAA suggested its main arguments to appeal the Ed O'Bannon ruling allowing college athletes to be paid will focus on amateurism and First Amendment rights on live broadcasts.

In a filing Thursday night with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the NCAA's lawyers responded to a mandatory mediation questionnaire that asks to briefly describe the issues on appeal. The NCAA wrote, The issues on appeal include but are not limited to whether amateurism is presumptively procompetitive for an amateur sports league and whether plaintiffs' claims based on a property right in the use of their (names, images and likenesses) in live broadcasts of sporting events are foreclosed by the First Amendment. USA Today Sports first reported the filing.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled Aug. 8 that the NCAA's restrictions on what Football Bowl Subdivision players and Division I men's basketball players can receive unreasonably restrain trade and violates antitrust law. Wilken's injunction will allow football and men's basketball players to receive scholarships covering their full cost of attendance and deferred payments for the schools' use of their names, images and likenesses (NILs).

For decades, the NCAA's legal defense to avoid paying players has relied upon a landmark 1984 Supreme Court ruling that stripped the NCAA of TV rights and allowed conferences to sell their games. The NCAA has clung to a line from that decision: In order to preserve the character and quality of the (NCAA's) 'product,' athletes must not be paid, must be required to attend class, and the like.

In her October 2013 summary judgment ruling, Wilken wrote the Supreme Court opinion does not stand for the sweeping proposition that student-athletes must be barred, both during their college years and forever thereafter, from receiving any monetary compensation for the commercial use of their names, images and likenesses. In her August judgment after a three-week trial, Wilken noted that the O'Bannon plaintiffs provided enough evidence to show the college sports industry has changed substantially in 30 years.

Wilken also wrote that the Supreme Court opinion stating athletes must not be paid differed from the NCAA's own lawyers in the case. The NCAA's lawyers in 1984 said during an oral argument that the NCAA was not relying on amateurism as a procompetitive justification and might be able to get more viewers and so on if it had semi-professional clubs rather than amateur clubs,' Wilken wrote. In addition, Wilken wrote that the NCAA has inconsistently applied its amateurism rules throughout the association's history and to this day.

Wilken's injunction allows the NCAA to create a cap on the deferred licensing money as long as the cap is not less than $5,000 per year. It's what's called a less-restrictive alternative to the antitrust violation found.

By appealing based on amateurism, the NCAA could find relief or perhaps an even more damaging ruling. Conceivably, the appeals court could determine that amateurism is so illegitimate that it's unreasonable for there to be any cap. That's the argument attorney Jeffrey Kessler makes in his class-action lawsuit against the NCAA and the five major conferences.

Another issue the NCAA suggested it will appeal in O'Bannon relates to the First Amendment and live TV broadcasts -- an area that generates billions of dollars for schools. The O'Bannon plaintiffs have sought to share that licensing revenue.

Earlier in the O'Bannon case, the NCAA claimed that the First Amendment and various state laws prevent college athletes from asserting any rights of publicity during game broadcasts. Wilken rejected that argument in April, writing that the First Amendment does not guarantee media organizations an unlimited right to broadcast entire college football games and questioned whether college athletes validly transfer their rights of publicity to another party.

See the original post here:

NCAA hints at O'Bannon case appeal strategy

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

As Richardson insisted that the Bible Believers leave lest someone a Bible Believer, a Festival goer, or an officer be injured, Chavez asked if they would be arrested if they refused; Richardson replied, Probably we will cite you. This conversation replayed several times, with Chavez pressing for an answer and Richardson replying that the Bible Believers were a danger to public safety. Chavez eventually snapped, I would assume a few hundred angry Muslim children throwing bottles would be more of a threat than a few guys with signs.

See more here:

Volokh Conspiracy: Thuggery wins, free speech rights lose

First Amendment, Under Democratic Attack! MVI 2353
Ted Cruz, said that, 41 Democrats are attacking the First Amendment, The 2014 Mid-Terms are the most important election in our countries history. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX5VG0jToK8.

By: Gabor Zolna

Read the original:

First Amendment, Under Democratic Attack! MVI 2353 - Video

Freedom of Speech Online
A 5-minute primer on the First Amendment and freedom of speech on the Internet by Prof. Mark Grabowski.

By: Mark Grabowski

See more here:

Freedom of Speech Online - Video

by Sam Hananel, Associated Press

kgw.com

Posted on May 27, 2014 at 9:06 AM

Updated today at 9:09 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed protesters free-speech claims against two Secret Service agents who were guarding President George W. Bush during a 2004 campaign trip to Oregon.

In a unanimous decision, the justices said the agents did not violate the protesters' First Amendment rights by moving them farther away from the president while allowing pro-Bush demonstrators to stay nearby.

The protesters claimed the agents moved them only because their loud chants were disturbing Bush's dinner on an outdoor patio and not for genuine security reasons.

The Obama administration said the actions were proper crowd control tactics and argued that agents who make on-the-spot decisions about the president's security should be shielded from liability.

Writing for the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said no legal precedent would have alerted the agents "that they bear a First Amendment obligation to ensure that groups with different viewpoints are at comparable locations all times."

Ginsburg said the protesters' claims are also undermined by a map of the area, which showed that their location presented a potential security risk to the president while the location of pro-Bush supporters did not. The agents, therefore, had a valid security reason for their actions and are entitled to immunity from private lawsuits, she said.

Read the original here:

High court dismisses Portland protester case against Secret Service

DANGER ZONE: First Amendment Under Attack!
Alex covers the absolute race baiting of the american public by the mainstream media, and the attempt by the left wing to demonize the tea party and repeal t...

By: THElNFOWARRlOR

Link:

DANGER ZONE: First Amendment Under Attack! - Video

What #39;s Next? MVI 2358
Senator Ted Cruz said that 41 Democrats want to repeal the First Amendment, if they achieve that, what #39;s next?

By: Gabor Zolna

See the original post here:

What's Next? MVI 2358 - Video

Chapter 1 - Totalitarianism and the First Amendment
http://Agenda21Radio.com Chapter 1 is part of a series that leads up to Benghazi. There will be a DVD available soon "Benghazi, The Real Story" so that peopl...

By: Robert Exter

Read the original:

Chapter 1 - Totalitarianism and the First Amendment - Video

Ted Cruz Senate Dems, Led By Schumer, Want to #39;Repeal the First Amendment #39; This Year
Description TED CRUZ: SENATE DEMS, LED BY SCHMER, WANT TO "REPEAL THE FIRST AMENDMENT" "Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has announced the Senate Democrats are sc...

By: Benedetto Rochio

Visit link:

Ted Cruz Senate Dems, Led By Schumer, Want to 'Repeal the First Amendment' This Year - Video

The Globalist Are Jeffery Dahmer Cannabalizing Our Country
Alex covers the attack of the left on alternative media, the first amendment and the issues that are preventing the bridges of peace being built in our country today. http://www.infowars.com/rand-...

By: TheAlexJonesChannel

Read more:

The Globalist Are Jeffery Dahmer Cannabalizing Our Country - Video

MONTPELIER -- Vermont and the U.S. Senates most senior member are initiating efforts to reverse the U.S. Supreme Courts recent campaign finance rulings but taking different tacks.

The Vermont Legislature became the first in the country last month to pass a resolution that calls for a constitutional convention to reverse the high courts rulings that critics say trend toward looser limits on campaign contributions to the unfair advantage of wealthy donors and big business.

Sen. Patrick Leahy has called a June 3 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he chairs, to address the rulings. But he said Thursday hed rather see Congress craft an amendment, rather than have a constitutional convention that could be open to any topic. He said either route faces long odds, but it was a good idea to "start the conversation."

"Ive always worried about a constitutional convention that could be opened up to all kinds of things -- a constitutional amendment that would do away with most of our environmental laws or ... might dramatically change whos allowed to vote," he said.

The Democrat from Vermont, who will mark 40 years in the Senate in January, said in an interview with The Associated Press that hes interested in a tightly drawn constitutional amendment to reverse the effects of the courts decisions in the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases.

The rulings favor arguments that most campaign money caps are impermissible limitations on free speech.

Three versions of a campaign finance amendment have been offered in the Senate and 11 in the House. All the proposals seek to reverse the effects of the Citizens United decision of 2010 and the McCutcheon decision this year.

In the earlier ruling, the court said government restrictions on corporate independent expenditures on elections were unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment. The McCutcheon decision held that aggregate limits on campaign contributions to multiple candidates and political action committees also are unconstitutional.

A constitutional convention as requested by the Vermont Legislature would be the first since the framers met in Philadelphia in 1787. All 27 amendments have been proposed by Congress. Two-thirds of the states -- 34 -- would have to call for a convention and three-quarters -- 38 -- would be needed to ratify an amendment by convention.

By the congressional route, two-thirds of both the House and Senate would have to support an amendment to reverse court decisions that most Republicans have cheered -- an unlikely prospect in the near term.

See the rest here:

Leahy: Constitutional amendment needed on campaign financing

First Amendment Alert: KrisAnne Hall on Net Neutrality
Don #39;t let unelected bureaucrats in the federal government decide what we see and hear on the internet!

By: Proud Truther

Read the original:

First Amendment Alert: KrisAnne Hall on Net Neutrality - Video

Video: #39;Islamic Jew-hatred #39; ads with Hitler Palestinian leader adorn DC buses
Bus ads linking "Islamic Jew-hatred" with Adolf Hitler are rolling through the streets of Washington, DC, with First Amendment protections guaranteeing they will remain a regular sight on the...

By: RT

Read more:

Video: 'Islamic Jew-hatred' ads with Hitler & Palestinian leader adorn DC buses - Video

Created: 05/23/2014 11:17 PM WHEC.com

After controversial remarks about the transgender community, talk show hosts Kimberley Ray and Barry Beck were suspended and subsequently fired. Friday, the pair issued an apology -- saying "our attempt was to discuss a controversial healthcare issue; however our lack of sensitivity and understanding of the transgender people and their plight created 12 minutes of radio that we wish we could take back."

Many have argued that their comments are protected by the constitution, even if they do offend some people. So News10NBC took quandary to a civil liberties attorney.

While talk show hosts may have the right under the constitution to express themselves and not fear government intervention. That right doesn't necessarily protect them in the private sector. Entercom Media, the company that employed them, determined their words were "hateful" and crossed the line.

Paul Polyak was born in the Ukraine where people could speak freely, but even as an American, with the protections of the constitution, he says people should be careful.

Polyak tells us, "I think you do have the right to say whatever you want to say, but you are held accountable for your words.so if you're saying something in the public domain, there are repercussions for what you say."

Rochester resident Latrice Halter agrees. Especially in situations where people are speaking publicly.

Halter says, "I believe they should be held accountable for what they say, because what you say can hurt other people even though you have the right or the freedom to say it."

But what does the constitution guarantee all americans? We turned to civil liberties lawyer Scott Forsyth.

He says, "People many times confuse the right to speak out and with the first amendment and the limitations of the first amendment."

The rest is here:

What's really protected under the first amendment?

Glenn Greenwald: First Amendment Speech
Glenn Greenwald, honored at the First Amendment awards at the Newseum, addresses his surprising meeting with Edward Sownden.

By: Janet Donovan

Link:

Glenn Greenwald: First Amendment Speech - Video

Glenn Greenwald Accepts Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award

By: nelson88s

Read more:

Glenn Greenwald Accepts Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award - Video

Goldberg: IRS Must Stop Regulating First Amendment Freedoms

By: National Review

See the rest here:

Goldberg: IRS Must Stop Regulating First Amendment Freedoms - Video

Ted Cruz Senate Dems to Repeal the First Amendment
Via CNS http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/ted-cruz-democratic-senators-want-repeal-first-amendment http://SavingtheRepublic.com http://SavingtheRepublic.com/blog Fair Use Clause...

By: STRVidNewsOpinion

Excerpt from:

Ted Cruz Senate Dems to Repeal the First Amendment - Video