WALLINGFORD The Hartford Courant swept the top three awards at the Connecticut Society of Professional Journalists' annual contest, winning honors for public service, investigative journalism and First Amendment protection.

The Courant won the Stephen A. Collins Public Service award for its coverage of resilience and recovery in Newtown in the year following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. (Read some of the coverage here.)

Top investigative honors went to The Courant for a series on deaths in group homes for the developmentally disabled. (Read the series here.)

The First Amendment award honored an expose of a behind-the-scenes effort to limit access to public records.

"As we celebrate our 250th anniversary, these awards are a clear reminder of the vital role The Courant continues to play in the life of Connecticut," said Courant publisher Nancy A. Meyer.

The Courant's coverage of Newtown in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, cited by the society, asked a difficult question: How do you rebuild a community after so devastating a tragedy? The coverage included profiles of parents who lost children, efforts to help those left behind recover and a special section "To Honor Their Lives: Remembering the Joys of Those Who Died At Sandy Hook." That focused on how the victim's memories have been celebrated and cherished by family and friends in various ways, including playgrounds, non-profit organizations and fundraisers.

The Sandy Hook coverage included work by Alaine Griffin, Josh Kovner, Matt Sturdevant and Dave Altimari, among others.

"The events at Sandy Hook were horrific. But in the year that followed, members of our staff documented how an act of extraordinary evil was slowly washed away by extraordinary acts of kindness hope and love," said Courant Editor Andrew Julien.

The Theodore Driscoll Award for Investigative Reporting went to Courant reporters Dave Altimari, Matthew Kauffman and Josh Kovner for "Fragile Lives, Needless Deaths," a series that exposed how dozens of developmentally disabled people died in public and private group homes, institutions and nursing homes through what investigators concluded was abuse, neglect or medical error from 2004 through 2010.

The investigation found that substandard care was cited during investigations into the deaths of 76 intellectually disabled people receiving state services or 1 out of every 17 clients who died over those seven years.

Read this article:

Courant Wins Several Top Awards In SPJ Contest

Published: Friday, May 23, 2014 at 17:46 PM.

I too must wag a finger at Mr. Krauss, for stating that Regis Houllions anti-gay language was inflammatory and disrespectful. He was only exercising his First Amendment right to express his bigotry and favorable views of inequality. Was Clippers owner Don Sterling merely exercising his First Amendment right with his views on inequality? Was rancher Clive Bundy merely exercising his First Amendment right with his racists views and bigotry? And cant the Grand Dragon of the KKK spew his hatred of blacks via the First Amendment? The answer to all the above is yes.

So to you Mr. Krauss, I say shame on you. This is America dagnabbit, not Russia or North Korea. We are free to say any hateful, disrespectful, bigoted, racist or inflammatory words we wish.

On a side note ... never yell fire in a crowded theater or yell hi to your friend Jack, on a crowded airplane. Never ever!

Daniel McCauley, Trent Woods

The rest is here:

Letter: Wag a finger

Speaking at a Family Research Council pastors retreat yesterday, Senator Ted Cruz warned the audience that Senate Democrats want to repeal the first amendment with a new amendment placing more limits on campaign finance that Cruz said is meant to muzzle peoples ability to speak out against bad government practices.

He charged that the 41 Democrats co-sponsoring the amendment want to give Congress unlimited authority to regulate political speech, which means they have signed onto repealing the First Amendment.

And what Cruz found most troubling is how the amendment says it protects freedom of the press, but makes no similar statements about freedoms of speech and religious liberty. He warned that if the amendment passes, politicians will have the power to muzzle each and every one of you.

Watch the video below, via CNS News:

[h/t Right Scoop] [image via screengrab]

Follow Josh Feldman on Twitter: @feldmaniac

Continue reading here:

Ted Cruz: Senate Dems Are Trying to Repeal the First Amendment

TheSpeaker ... A Film About Freedom
This controversial movie was produced by the American Library Association in 1977 to encourage discussion around the First Amendment and freedom of speech. It was digitized and provided in...

By: OIFTube

Originally posted here:

TheSpeaker ... A Film About Freedom - Video

First Amendment Under Attack? MVI 2258
It appears that many of my video #39;s that I post on YouTube, and Facebook are not being posted by either one of these sites. I assume that Google might be doin...

By: Gabor Zolna

See the original post:

First Amendment Under Attack? MVI 2258 - Video

Sen. Roberts to Harry Reid: First Amendment Can #39;t be Amended to Stifle Critics
U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules, today took to the Senator floor to tell Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to abandon misguided attempts to...

By: SenPatRoberts

See original here:

Sen. Roberts to Harry Reid: First Amendment Can't be Amended to Stifle Critics - Video

Benghazi The Real Story: Totalitarianism and the First Amendment
http://Agenda21Radio.com.

By: Paul Preston

View post:

Benghazi The Real Story: Totalitarianism and the First Amendment - Video

The Kansas state attorney general approved a revised policy that states any employee at a public university in the state can be fired over improperly using social media, raising questions that their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon.

"It's too broad; it's too vague, and it's already causing people to chill themselves in the way that they use social media," Doug Bonney, the legal director for the ALCU of Kansas, told Think Progress.

The Kansas Board of Regents approved last week an amended version of the new social media policy. The Wichita Eagle reported that the new policy allows a university's chief executive to fire any faculty member who uses social media and posts a comment that could incite violence, disclose confidential information or otherwise damage the university.

One of the elements of the new policy that has legal experts confused is the part that says a faculty member can face disciplinary action for "speech contrary to the interests of the university."

"Unless you had access to every piece of information pertaining to the university, you would never know what affects its interests," Ken Paulson, the president of the First Amendment Center, told Think Progress.

The regents developed the social media policy after an anti-NRA tweet in September 2013 by David Guth, a University of Kansas journalism professor. He reportedly tweeted, "blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters."

The tweet caused an uproar over the bounds of social media.

Under the policy, social media covers blogs and social networking sites.

Kirk McClure, a professor in the Department of Urban Planning at Kansas University, said the social media policy would hamper the ability for Kansas schools to compete for top faculty.

"The social media policy makes it even harder to sell KU to top faculty candidates. A new faculty member can be disciplined, even terminated for a tweet," McClure said.

Visit link:

ACLU blasts Kan. university social media policy

A St. Paul judges ruling will level the playing field for political donations in Minnesota, halting a law that plaintiffs argued dishes out First Amendment rights on a first-come, first-served basis.

Only weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal limits on campaign donations in McCutcheon v. FEC, U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank on Monday applied that precedent to a Minnesota campaign finance law that allowed some Minnesotans to donate more than others to the same candidate in state elections.

The federal court directed Minnesota officials to halt enforcement of the states special sources limit law. Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, initiated the case.

The government should not be using campaign finance laws to play favorites, said Anthony Sanders, lead attorney for IJ in the constitutional challenge. This ruling means that all Minnesotans who want to support political candidates will enjoy the same rights, no matter when in the election they make their contribution.

Under the law, 12 contributors could donate up to $1,000 to a candidate for the state House. The 13th contributor, however, would be restricted to a donation of $500, due to a $12,500 special sources limit for large contributions. Similar limits with larger dollar amounts applied to candidates for state Senate and constitutional offices.

Click for more from Watchdog.org

Read the original:

Federal court puts MN campaign finance limits on hold

First Amendment Radio Judea and Samaria
Ezra Ridgley appears on the show "Barry Chamish Presents" on "First Amendment Radio" Ezra talks about the new Documentary by the Jewish Heritage Project. htt...

By: Ezra Ridgley

Read the rest here:

First Amendment Radio Judea and Samaria - Video

Kids speak at OAS
Child comments on his other friends being afraid to come down and exercise their first amendment rights.

By: ZFG Street-Art

Read the original here:

Kids speak at OAS - Video

Dear readers, we need to review this First Amendment thing again.

Since former Wolfeboro Police Commissioner Bob Copeland admitted calling President Barack Obama the n-word in public (Copeland resigned under pressure this week), some have claimed that demanding his resignation violates his right to free speech. Thats not how the First Amendment works.

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, the amendment states. The 14th Amendment then applied that restriction to the states as well. Copeland was an elected government official who said something awful (he called President Obama the n-word), stuck by it, and doubled down on it. The Founding Fathers would hardly have objected to the idea that the people should hold elected officials accountable for what they say.

The First Amendment is not a shield to deflect all barbs tossed in response to ones words. It protects against government censorship and punishment, not the reproach of the people. Copeland remains free to call people names as often as he wishes. And the people of Wolfeboro remain free to hold their elected officials to higher standards of behavior.

Visit link:

Copeland's rights They were not violated

If the court sides with the meat industry, the fallout could have far-reaching consequences, as it would potentially undermine a wide range of labeling laws, particularly COOL regulations, which require companies to disclose where their products and ingredients are produced and manufactured through the display of packaging labels. Most American consumers are familiar with common COOL labels like "Made in China" or "product of the United States" from everything from sneakers to frozen hamburger patties, even if they are not aware of how exactly they are regulated.

The meat industry made its case during Mondays en banc review -- an uncommon type of proceeding conducted before all 11 judges on the court rather than the typical three-judge panel --that the COOL laws as revised in 2013 infringe on companies First Amendment rights by compelling speech.

Chief Judge Merrick Garland said that in order to decide that First Amendment rights were being violated under the regulations, the court would have to strike down at least half a dozen statutes on the books since the 1930s, according to Politico. He also pointed out that many products far beyond the scope of the meat industry, including the razor he shaved with Monday morning, are required to display COOL labels, Politico reported.

As such, a decision by the court that the COOL labels infringe on companies free speech rights could mean changes for industries that rest far beyond the food realm.

A three-judge panel of the court handed down a decision on March 28 suggesting that the en banc hearing on just the First Amendment issues be held at a future date, but otherwise affirming a district courts decision not to allow a preliminary injunction against the 2013 COOL laws. The case is known as American Meat Institute vs. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

We suggest that the full court hear this case en banc to resolve for the circuit whether, under Zauderer, government interests in addition to correcting deception can sustain a commercial speech mandate that compels firms to disclose purely factual and non-controversial information, the three-judge panel wrote in the March 28 decision.

The National Farmers Union and other American farmers and food production industry groups like the U.S. Cattlemens Association and the Consumer Federation of America continue to support the laws, which provide clarity about food origins.

The information required by the regulation to be provided is factual and noncontroversial, NFU President Roger Johnson said, according to the Ohios Country Journal agricultural publication. I am hopeful that the full Circuit will affirm the panels prior decision and continue to deny the preliminary injunction requested by appellants.

But the American Meat Institute has consistently argued that the laws will have serious negative impacts on the meat industry.

It is incomprehensible that USDA would finalize a controversial rule that stands to harm American agriculture, when comments on the proposal made clear how deeply and negatively it will impact U.S. meat companies and livestock producers, AMI Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and General Counsel Mark Dopp said last year. This rubber stamping of the proposal begs the question of the integrity of the process: many people spoke, but no one at USDA listened.

Read the original post:

Food Labeling Laws Could Be Undermined By First Amendment Court Challenge

Published: Monday, 5/19/2014 - Updated: 47 seconds ago

BLADE STAFF

COLUMBUS The Blade won the First Amendment Award given by the Ohio Associated Press Media Editors on Sunday for the newspapers pursuit of freedom of information to obtain a police-created map of gang territory in Toledo last year.

The Blades request for a copy of the citys map that shows gang boundaries was denied, prompting a lawsuit by the newspaper and a months-long court battle.

Additionally, Blade reporter Taylor Dungjen, who spoke about the project at the awards ceremony, and photographer Amy Voigt who worked on the series Battle Lines: Gangs of Toledo, were awarded first place in the best enterprise reporting category for newspapers with a daily circulation of more than 75,000.

After the police and city administrators refused to make the citys map public, The Blade created one, using information from gang members and Toledo police sources.

The gang series, which has received awards from other news organizations, has sparked a series of community forums on the causes of racism and remedies for gangs and gang violence.

The first place investigative reporting award was given to Kris Turner for the series Deals Gone Bad, which outlined the states costly investments in failed solar-power firms.

Mr. Turner was awarded third place under best explanatory reporting for his Going to Pot story.

First place also was awarded to Tom Fisher for best illustration for his Monster Hits. Blade artist Jeff Bastings was awarded third in the same category for his Portrait of a Pointer.

See the article here:

Blade earns First Amendment award

Sex and the First Amendment: Jessica Mitford on How Society Deals with Sexual Matters (1991)
Jessica Lucy Freeman-Mitford (11 September 1917 -- 22 July 1996) was an English author, journalist, civil rights activist and political campaigner, who was o...

By: The Film Archives

Read more here:

Sex and the First Amendment: Jessica Mitford on How Society Deals with Sexual Matters (1991) - Video

The "First Amendment Zone" nearby Bundy Ranch
This is the first thing you see when coming off the main highway.

By: Chris Callesen

Visit link:

The "First Amendment Zone" nearby Bundy Ranch - Video

First Amendment
Lynn Klyde-Silverstein, a journalism professor at the University of Northern Colorado, explains the importance of Freedom of the Press.

By: Lynn Klyde

Originally posted here:

First Amendment - Video

"Free Speech in the 21st Century" with Professor Leslie Kendrick
University of Virginia law professor Leslie Kendrick reviews recent First Amendment cases, particularly those involving the free speech of businesses, at an alumni luncheon on May 9, 2014....

By: University of Virginia School of Law

Read the original:

"Free Speech in the 21st Century" with Professor Leslie Kendrick - Video

CENSORSHIP, LOSS OF 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, CARRIE GEREN SCOGGINS. END TIMES PROPHECY NEWS
AMENDING THE FIRST AMENDMENT, RELIGIOUS BIBLE CENSORSHIP, ENDING THE LEGAL RIGHT TO OPPOSE THE DEMOCRAT PARTY PLATFORM #39;S VIEWS! THE LEGAL RIGHTS TO DEBATE THE ISSUES http://youtu.be/sCbA3NDznd8...

By: Carrie Geren Scoggins

Read this article:

CENSORSHIP, LOSS OF 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, CARRIE GEREN SCOGGINS. END TIMES PROPHECY NEWS - Video

Reid Seeks To Change First Amendment To Stop Koch Brothers
Wants Congress to have control over who can contribute to campaigns and how much can be spent http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/15/after-reid-refuses-amendments-senate-republicans-k/...

By: TheAlexJonesChannel

See the rest here:

Reid Seeks To Change First Amendment To Stop Koch Brothers - Video