Chief Justice: 1st Amendment Only Protects Christians
Roy Moore, Alabama #39;s Chief Justice, says that the First Amendment protects only Christians http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/alabama-chief-justice-christianity http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201...
By: David Pakman Show
Continue reading here:
Chief Justice: 1st Amendment Only Protects Christians - Video
Screw the First Amendment | We cant let people pray?
Screw the First Amendment | We cant let people pray? Recently the Supreme Court ruled that legislative bodies such as city councils can begin their meetings with prayer. Some want to claim...
By: TheShowThatSUX
Originally posted here:
Screw the First Amendment | We cant let people pray? - Video
Call it the Charles Schumer Anti-First-Amendment Act of 2014. Its the bill our senior senator promises to bring to the floor by the years end. Schumer wants to put a dagger through the heart of the Bill of Rights.
He embraced this brainstorm at a Senate Rules Committee hearing last week. He said hed work to pass a constitutional amendment to allow Congress and the states to restrict the peoples freedom to finance elections.
Whats so fascinating about this is that it puts a senator from New York in the league of the cranks. It reminds me of the billboards Impeach Earl Warren, put up by those who couldnt abide the Supreme Courts decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The high court decisions Schumer doesnt like are the recent ones known as McCutcheon and Citizens United.
In McCutcheon, the justices threw out a law that capped the total amount of money a person could donate to various campaigns. In Citizens United, the court let a not-for-profit group distribute a movie criticizing Hillary Clinton, even though she was running for president. In effect, the ruling let labor unions, not-for-profit groups and corporations participate in the public debate at election time.
The two rulings have produced among Democrats a petulance not seen in their party in years. One would have to go back to the 1960s, when another Democrat, Alabama Gov. George Wallace, vowed to stand in the schoolhouse door to block the Supreme Courts integration decisions.
The comparison is not that Schumer is a racist (hes not). Its that the resistance to the court is similar. Particularly since Citizens United, which was handed down in 2010, didnt hamper the Democrats ability to re-elect President Obama by a wide margin.
Yet Democrats still want to gut the First Amendment. Its the one that guarantees freedom of religion, speech and the press, as well as the right to petition the government and peaceably assemble. Citizens United strengthened every one of those freedoms.
The measure Schumer embraced last week was hatched by another unhappy Democrat, Sen. Thomas Udall of New Mexico. It would let Congress block people from deciding how much of their money to contribute to political advocacy during campaign season.
Its not just the federal government the Schumer amendment would unleash against people. Its also state governments, a point that was made by Udall. The amendment being planned would allow the regulation of not just partisan spending but even independent spending.
Schumer is trying to palm off the idea that his scheme wouldnt limit freedom of the press. No, it instead would unleash Congress and state governments to go directly after voters and other citizens. Its hard to recall a more cynical measure having been laid before Congress.
Continued here:
I am writing about Donald Sterlings right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
What the media is doing to Sterling is a classic example of what happens when the billion-dollar, tax-exempt 501 (c)3 left-wing special interest groups and liberal Hollywood, sports and media personalities take a non-event, comments a man said in confidence to his girlfriend, and make them the number one story on the national, local and Hollywood entertainment news to advance their ideology.
An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.
Or, use your linked account:
Need an account? Create one now.
Or, use your linked account:
kAm%96 A6@A=6 4@>A=2:?:?8 23@FE $E6C=:?8D 4@>>6?ED :8?@C65 $E6C=:?8D 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED[ G:@=2E65 9:D AC:G24J 2?5 4@?G6?:6?E=J 7@C8@E 96 H2D 92G:?8 2 AC:G2E6 4@?G6CD2E:@?[ ?@E :?E6?565 7@C AF3=:4 4@?DF>AE:@?] w:D 4@>>6?ED H6C6 :==682==J C64@C565 2?5 C6=62D65 E@ E96 >65:2 7@C E96 D@F= AFCA@D6 @7 A6CD64FE:?8 9:>] (63DE6CD 567:?:E:@? 😀 E@ 277=:4E 4@?DE2?E=J D@ 2D E@ :?;FC6 @C 5:DEC6DD[ 6DA64:2==J 7@C C62D@?D @7 C6=:8:@?[ A@=:E:4D @C C246] %9:D 😀 6I24E=J H92E E96 >65:2 2C6 5@:?8]k^Am
kAm%9:D 😀 ;FDE 2?@E96C 6I2>A=6 @7 E96 =:36C2= DA64:2= :?E6C6DE 8C@FAD :?E:>:52E:?8 3FD:?6DD @H?6CD[ ;FDE =:<6 E96J :?E:>:52E6 A@=:E:4:2?D @C 4@6C46 4:G:4 =6256CD E@ 4@?5@?6 @C 2446AE 46CE2:? EJA6D @7 3692G:@C @C :56@=@8J] x7 J@F 5@?E 28C66 H:E9 E96>[ E96J =236= J@F 2 C24:DE[ D6I:DE @C 3:8@E] p=E9@F89 $E6C=:?8 92D 4@>>:EE65 ?@ 4C:>6[ 96 H2D 7:?65 Sa]d >:==:@?[ 32??65 7@C =:76 2?5 >256 E@ D6== 9:D E62>] yFDE :>28:?6 H92E E96J 4@F=5 5@ E@ J@F :7 J@F 5@?E 8@ 2=@?8 H:E9 E96:C 286?52]k^Am
kAm%96 A6CD64FE:@? @7 $E6C=:?8 2?5 @E96CD[ =:<6 !9:= #@36CED@? @7 sF4< sJ?2DEJ[ 7@C 6I6C4:D:?8 E96:C 7C665@> @7 DA6649[ D9@F=5 36 @7 8C62E 4@?46C? E@ A6@A=6] (92E 5:C64E:@? 😀 E9:D 4@F?ECJ 962565 H96? @?=J E96 =:36C2= >65:2 564:56 H92E 😀 2446AE23=6 2?5 H92E 😀 ?@E]k^Am
kAm%9C@F89@FE 9:DE@CJ A6@A=6 92G6 366? A6CD64FE65 3642FD6 E96J E9:?< 7@C E96>D6=G6D 2?5 92G6 ?@E 8@?6 2=@?8 H:E9 E96 A@=:E:42= 4@CC64E?6DD @7 E96 D6=7AC@4=2:>65 A@E6?E2E6D @7 E96 52J]k^Am
Continue reading here:
A coalition of more than a dozen news outlets is telling the Obama administration that its ban on the commercial use of dronesand "drone journalism" in generalgoes against the First Amendment.
"This overly broad policy, implemented through a patchwork of regulatory and policy statements and an ad hoc cease-and-desist enforcement process, has an impermissible chillingeffect on the First Amendment newsgathering rights of journalists," the media told the National Transportation Safety Board.
The filing was submitted in a Federal Aviation Administration appeal to a National Transportation Safety Board administrative judge's ruling that said the FAA illegally adopted the ban on the commercial use of small drones, and therefore the 2007 regulations are unenforceable.
Tuesday's filing comes four days after the National Park Service announced a rule barring all drone flights from Yosemite, a regulation that experts said was legally questionable.
Regulators' attacks on the commercial use of drones have included everything from drone journalism to a nonprofit search-and-rescue outfit using drones.
The media groups signing on to the filing include Advance Publications (the owner of Cond Nast, Ars Technica's parent company), The Associated Press, Cox Media Group, Gannett, Gray Television, Hearst, McClatchy, the National Press Photographers Association, the National Press Club, The New York Times, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Radio-Television Digital News Association, Scripps Media, Sinclair Broadcast Group, the Tribune Company, and The Washington Post.
In response, the FAA said the administrative law judge's earlier decision puts in jeopardy "the safe operation of the national airspace system and the safety of people and property on the ground."
Here is the original post:
WHAT 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 p...
By: TheRumpledOne
Excerpt from:
WASHINGTON (AP) More than a dozen media organizations challenged the government's ban on the use of drones by journalists Tuesday, saying the Federal Aviation Administration's position violates First Amendment protections for news gathering.
The organizations, including The Associated Press, filed a brief with the National Transportation Safety Board in support of aerial photographer Raphael Pirker. Pirker was fined $10,000 by the FAA for flying a small drone near the University of Virginia to make a commercial video in October 2011. He appealed the fine to the safety board, which hears challenges to FAA decisions.
An administrative law judge ruled in March that the FAA can't enforce its policy against all commercial use of drones when the agency hasn't issued regulations for those uses. The FAA has appealed the judge's decision to the full five-member safety board. Agency officials have said they hope to issue regulations for the use of small drones later this year.
The FAA won't currently issue drone permits to news organizations. Officials have sent warning letters to journalists found to have used small unmanned aircraft most of them no bigger than a backpack to take photos and videos. The agency suggested to one Ohio newspaper that it refrain from publishing video of a burning building taken independently by a drone hobbyist, even though hobbyists, unlike journalists, are permitted to fly drones, according to the brief.
"The FAA's position is untenable as it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding about journalism. News gathering is not a 'business purpose.' It is a First Amendment right," the brief said.
The FAA said in a statement late Tuesday it was concerned that the NTSB judge's decision "could impact the safe operation of the national airspace system and the safety of people and property on the ground."
Media organizations are intensely interested in using drones for photography and videos because they are far less expensive to buy and operate than a manned airplane or helicopter, and because their size and versatility provide visual perspectives often not possible with manned aircraft.
Integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace also has the potential to improve the safety of reporting under less-than-ideal conditions, and unmanned aircraft by their nature pose less risk than helicopters, the news organizations said. Reports on traffic, hurricanes, wildfires, and crop yields could all be told more safely and cost-effectively with the use of unmanned aircraft, it said.
"This brief, filed by the country's leading news organizations, supports the proposition we have argued that federal agencies must consult with the public before banning the use of new technologies that have many beneficial purposes," said attorney Brendan Schulman, who is representing Pirker. "The argument becomes even stronger when First Amendment considerations are taken into account."
Other media groups participating in the brief are Advance Publications Inc., Cox Media Group, Gannett Co., Gray Television Inc., Hearst Corporation, The McClatchy Company, the National Press Photographers Association, The National Press Club, The New York Times Company, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Radio-Television Digital News Association, Scripps Media Inc., Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., the Tribune Company and The Washington Post.
See the original post:
first amendment rights
This video is about first amendment rights.
By: Dawn Lynn
Go here to see the original:
First Amendment Monument Music Video by Daniel Brouse
This song was written on the 1st Amendment Monument, Independence Mall, Philadelphia, PA. For free MP3 downloads, lyrics and chords visit http://idea.membran...
By: Daniel Brouse
See the original post here:
First Amendment Monument Music Video by Daniel Brouse - Video
Endangered Speeches
The precarious state of our First Amendment rights. A film by Matthew Rakowski, Adelphi University class of 2016.
By: Matthew Rakowski
Here is the original post:
"First Amendment ONLY for Christians," Says Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore
"Speaking at the Pastor for Life Luncheon, which was sponsored by Pro-Life Mississippi, Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court declared that the First Amendment only applies to...
By: The Young Turks
Continue reading here:
"First Amendment ONLY for Christians," Says Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore - Video
first amendment test filming Tucson FBI Headquarters.
no violations, private security pass, FBI pass. good job Uncle Sam Proud of you! Let ol glory fly!
By: Anthony Potter
Here is the original post:
first amendment test filming Tucson FBI Headquarters. - Video
Church Uses First Amendment Protections To Perform Same Sex Marriages
"The United Church of Christ argues that a North Carolina law criminalizing the religious solemnization of weddings without a state-issued marriage license violates the First Amendment." ...
By: The Young Turks
Read this article:
Church Uses First Amendment Protections To Perform Same Sex Marriages - Video
Sen. Ed Markey proposes eliminating free speech
U.S. Sen. Edward J. Markey wants the government to study and recommend ways to stop the Internet, TV and radio from "encouraging hate crimes," but First Amendment advocates say the bill is...
By: ramzpaul
Follow this link:
Alabama Chief Justice Stunning Legal Ignorance
Speaking at the Pastor for Life Luncheon, which was sponsored by Pro-Life Mississippi, Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court declared that the First Amendment only applies to...
By: Secular Talk
Read the original post:
The elderly owner of an NBA team spouts racist comments in private that are secretly being recorded. The league ends up punishing him, but is that enough? Should government do something to punish people who say such things?
Hateful and hurtful comments abound daily on the Internet. Sometimes people who harbor such feelings end up committing crimes. Should government monitor cyberspace and take action against such speech?
To students of the United States Constitution and its origins, the answers to such questions are clear. The nations Founding Fathers exhibited extraordinary wisdom when they added a Bill of Rights to the Constitution that included, in its First Amendment, a guarantee of free speech, free press and the free exercise of religion.
The natural inclination of most people in power is to suppress dissent and put an end to ideas that might threaten their power. But the Founders understood that ideas, like commerce, flourish best in a free marketplace, and that the best way to combat hatred and falsehood is to do so head-on, with logic, reason and persuasion.
That wisdom has become only more self-evident since their day.
A government that attempts to ban speech cannot ban the ideas behind that speech.
Left uncontested in societys dark corners, false and dangerous ideas can fester and grow until they burst again into view, too large to confront with reason. On the other end of the spectrum, a government concerned with speech may ban good ideas merely because it perceives them to be a threat.
Unfortunately, Americans are not born with an understanding of these fundamental notions of freedom. Each generation must confront them anew.
One of the most disturbing recent manifestations of this is a bill being sponsored by Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts, a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. It would empower the federal government to analyze information on the use of telecommunications, including the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable television, public access television, commercial mobile services and other electronic media, to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.
This analysis would end with a report that includes recommendations for addressing such hate speech, as long as these are consistent with the First Amendment.
Read the rest here:
In our opinion: Can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment
The elderly owner of an NBA team spouts racist comments in private that are secretly being recorded. The league ends up punishing him, but is that enough? Should government do something to punish people who say such things?
Hateful and hurtful comments abound daily on the Internet. Sometimes people who harbor such feelings end up committing crimes. Should government monitor cyberspace and take action against such speech?
To students of the United States Constitution and its origins, the answers to such questions are clear. The nations Founding Fathers exhibited extraordinary wisdom when they added a Bill of Rights to the Constitution that included, in its First Amendment, a guarantee of free speech, free press and the free exercise of religion.
The natural inclination of most people in power is to suppress dissent and put an end to ideas that might threaten their power. But the Founders understood that ideas, like commerce, flourish best in a free marketplace, and that the best way to combat hatred and falsehood is to do so head-on, with logic, reason and persuasion.
That wisdom has become only more self-evident since their day.
A government that attempts to ban speech cannot ban the ideas behind that speech.
Left uncontested in societys dark corners, false and dangerous ideas can fester and grow until they burst again into view, too large to confront with reason. On the other end of the spectrum, a government concerned with speech may ban good ideas merely because it perceives them to be a threat.
Unfortunately, Americans are not born with an understanding of these fundamental notions of freedom. Each generation must confront them anew.
One of the most disturbing recent manifestations of this is a bill being sponsored by Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts, a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. It would empower the federal government to analyze information on the use of telecommunications, including the Internet, broadcast television and radio, cable television, public access television, commercial mobile services and other electronic media, to advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.
This analysis would end with a report that includes recommendations for addressing such hate speech, as long as these are consistent with the First Amendment.
Continued here:
In our opinion: Why government can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment
Perhaps the most offensive display at the Bundy Ranch Standoff was the posting by the BLM representatives of a sign FIRST AMENDMENT AREA for protestors April 1. This coming days before the standoff certainly demonstrated their foreknowledge of impending opposition. An expandable red plastic three-foot-high wall encircled the area. In other words, those verbalizing disagreement with the BLMs heavy-handed confiscation of Bundy cattle could only express themselves within this restricted area or risk being arrested.
Such was offensive to participants who promptly added to the sign 1st AMENDMENT IS NOT AN AREA and thereafter refused to do their protesting where allowed by the government. Besides the area was too far away from the action causing the protesting. A sympathizer posted on the Internet a map of the United States with the words FREE SPEECH ZONE written over the length of the nation from California to South Carolina; this was the Founders interpretation and reverenced as so until more recent times.
Dave Bundy was the first to be arrested for taking video footage from a state highway of BLM agents rounding up his familys cattle refusing to remain in the restricted area. Video footage now available showed that armed snipers had their guns trained on the family during the incident. Family members were told that they, had no first amendment rights except for up by the bridge where they had established an area for that. One does not have to wonder why the Bundy ordeal attracted freedom buffs from as far away as Connecticut.
I first heard of free speech zones during the George W. Bush Administration when there were so many demonstrations against invading Iraq. College campuses initiated the zones in what appeared to be designed to intentionally limit opposition. They were always too small and if more than one zone were allowed they were separated, seemingly to minimize the size of the opposition. A nephew, in San Francisco demonstrating against the war, was arrested because he could not fit within one of the small circles. He and hundreds more, also unable to fit within the approved dissent areas, were taken to warehouses somewhere in the city and housed until all were processed. He was confined for three days. The slow processing he considered intentional punishment for his dissent. I have spoken out against these 1st Amendment areas since. They do not exist in a free country.
The First Amendment clearly states that, Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Since Congress is the only entity that can make law as per Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution and since they have never passed such a law; the Executive Branch has no authority to pen dissent.
Unfortunately such has been altered by recent court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and mannerbut not contentof expression, hence the origin of free speech zonesdecidedly a court perversion. Though free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was greatly expanded (Wikipedia). After September 11, they were common. President Bush used the Secret Service to make certain such were not near where he might speak or pass by, a procedure closely emulated by President Barack Obama. Dissent is therefore noticeably reduced and less likely to be filmed. If such had been used against Martin Luther King, Jr. the Civil Rights Movement may never have gotten off the ground. Those refusing to dissent only in the governments proper areas are charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, or trespassing. If the approved dissent areas are far from the president (some a half mile away) he may never know that the people are unhappy with him.
For the Bundy friends and neighbors, the governments First Amendment Area had the same shape and similarity as a cattle pen where the people would be cordoned off and neutralized. How can this be seen as petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances? No government! This is nothing more than a ploy to reduce dissent and the more regimental that you are, as in the case of the Bundy Standoff, the more you will use it. Court approval or not it is clearly unconstitutional. The Founders would have called it tyranny.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit http://www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
The rest is here:
HAROLD PEASE: Free speech zones on Bundy Ranch violated First Amendment
Save Us Chuck - First Amendment Zones
http://www.RestartCongress.org / http://www.SaveUsChuckWoolery.com - Game show legend Chuck Woolery discusses the government #39;s restriction of spectator #39;s fir...
By: Save Us Chuck Woolery
Read the original post:
The First Amendment Doesn #39;t Allow us to Silence Opposition; Get Rid of Limits on Political Speech
U.S. Senator Pat Roberts, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, today said McCain-Feingold was a failed attempt to regulate ...
By: SenPatRoberts
Continue reading here: