POSTED: Thursday, May 1, 2014 - 6:54pm

UPDATED: Friday, May 2, 2014 - 5:31am

Tyler (KETK) I always like to hear from the audience and a few of you have weighed in about the crazyNBA owner in LA.

You ask me about his First Amendment rights. Well, yes, he has them. So do you. So do I

That's what I am doing right now. I can speak against the powers that be it state, local or federal government.

In fact, an attorney friend of mine said it best on his Facebook page:"Don't we have freedom of speech?" they asked him. My friend replies by saying, "Please allow me to point out that the First Amendment protects us against attacks by the government on freedom of speech. The First Amendment does not apply to the NBA or other private businesses. "

You can get on the federal government all day long, but what you say here in East Texas may hurt you.

Case in point, I could get mad about somebody or something and trash them right here. You could do it at the grocery store or down at the VFW hall, but what you say can be held against you.

If you run a business, people may never buy from you again because they think you're a nut. You have the right to take on your employer.

They have the right to have the last say and that may not pay very well. I'll wrap up with that old Johnny Paycheck song.

Read the original:

First Amendment common sense

Was Donald Sterling #39;s First Amendment Right to Free Speech Violated?
Basically giving a rundown of how Donald Sterling #39;s first amendment rights to free speech were NOT violated. Cleared up a lot of confusion for me, and hopefu...

By: DRock1042

Read more here:

Was Donald Sterling's First Amendment Right to Free Speech Violated? - Video

A tavern owner has won a First Amendment battle against a New Jersey city over his right to open a bar called Buck Foston.

A federal jury this week found that the city of New Brunswick violated the constitutional rights of Larry Blatterfein by denying him a liquor license. In siding with the 61-year-old businessman, the jury concluded that the city held up the bar in red tape because it objected to its name, an off-color pun evoking the legendary rivalry between the Yankees and the Red Sox.

The dispute began five years ago when Mr. Blatterfein, an International Business Machines Corp. systems engineer-turned tavern owner, drew up plans to develop a sports bar complex in New Brunswick, about 25 miles southwest of New York City. He figured patrons in a city filled with Yankees fans would get a kick out of the name Buck Foston, a type of play on words known as a spoonerism.

But his plans were dealt a blushing crow, er, a crushing blow when the city refused to process his application to transfer a liquor license.

Frustrated by the delay, Mr. Blatterfein in 2011 filed suit in federal court in New Jersey, alleging the city intentionally derailed the project because New Brunswicks mayor, James Cahill, thought the name was vulgar. The citys resistance, Mr. Blatterfein alleged, violated his First Amendment rights.

A spokesman for the mayor said at the time the suit was filed the mayor was opposed to the name but that the license was held up because Mr. Blatterfein hadnt submitted all the necessary paperwork, according to the New Jersey Star-Ledger.

The case went to trial after a federal judge in September refused to dismiss it. After deliberating for two days, the seven-person jury on Wednesday returned a 6-1 verdict in Mr. Blatterfeins favor and awarded him $1.5 million.

A lawyer for the city didnt immediately respond to a request for comment. Mr.Cahill told the Star-Ledger he was disappointed with the verdict but, while it would have been better to win, the verdict was not for the amount Mr. Blatterfein was seeking.

An attorney for Mr. Blatterfein, who was represented by Joshpe Law Group LLP,said the two sides entered into a settlement agreement after the verdict was announced but declined to discuss the details.

Mr. Blatterfein has since decamped to Tampa, Fla., where hes about to open a new bar. In an interview with Law Blog, he says he probably wont revive the Buck Foston project, but still savors his victory. The First Amendment is sacrosanct in our country as it should be, he said.

See the rest here:

Bar Owner Prevails in Buck Foston First Amendment Trial

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.

Originally posted here:

PEASE: Free speech zones on Bundy Ranch violated First Amendment

ConLaw 1 Class 27 - The First Amendment - Free Exercise
Madison #39;s Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, Stansburg v. Marks, Wisconsin v. Yoder, Employment Division v. Smith , Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah,...

By: Josh Blackman

Read the rest here:

ConLaw 1 Class 27 - The First Amendment - Free Exercise - Video

Westfield Mayor to pay $53K in campaign sign violation case
Westfield Mayor Daniel Knapik on Monday accepted a federal judge #39;s ruling that he violated the First Amendment when he ordered campaign signs removed just before the 2011 municipal elections,...

By: WWLP-22News

The rest is here:

Westfield Mayor to pay $53K in campaign sign violation case - Video

Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency The Kelly File
Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency - The Kelly File What Happened To The First Amendment? =========================================== **Please Click Below...

By: Mass Tea Party

Read the original post:

Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency The Kelly File - Video

America was just defeated from within TODAY 4/29/2014 - Martial law is next
We Just forfeited the FIRST Amendment and it was done by those who most need it and want it, Minorities. Because you insist on taking away the free Speech of one racist man, you will thereby...

By: David Vose

Originally posted here:

America was just defeated from within TODAY 4/29/2014 - Martial law is next - Video

Retaining Government Power to Make Economic Policy for Internet Access: Role of the First Amendment
Visit: http://www.uctv.tv/) High-speed Internet access providers claim that government-imposed limitations on their activities raise serious constitutional concerns. But given the current...

By: University of California Television (UCTV)

See original here:

Retaining Government Power to Make Economic Policy for Internet Access: Role of the First Amendment - Video

Donald Sterling is my HERO
Hes exercising his first amendment right . everyone relax!!!!

By: bettinman24

More here:

Donald Sterling is my HERO - Video

Apr 30, 2014 1:43pm

In his first appearance in front of Capitol Hill lawmakers in nearly 30 years, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens made a pitch today for a new amendment to the Constitution.

Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns, Stevens said in front of a Senate Rules Committee.

The amendment is a proposal he had included in his book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, published earlier this month.

But the former justice, who retired from the court in 2010, argued his amendment is even more necessary in the wake of the recent McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court struck down aggregate donation caps on campaign contributions on the basis that the limits violated the First Amendment protection of free speech.

Stevens agreed with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in arguing that classifying any amendment as absolute would do away with limits on acts like screaming fire in a crowded movie theater.

It is fundamentally wrong to assume that preventing corruption is the only justification for laws limiting the First Amendment rights of candidates and their supporters, Stevens said.

(AP Photo)

Shortly before Stevens took the stand, Schumer announced a plan by Senate Democrats to vote this year on a new constitutional amendment by Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., that would allow Congress to make laws restricting campaign finance contributions.

See more here:

Former Supreme Court Justice Wants to Amend the Constitution

(CNN) - This past week, my inbox blew up with e-mails asking whether Donald Sterling's First Amendment rights were violated in the uproar over the Los Angeles Clippers owner's racist remarks about black people. After all, he was simply expressing his views, however unpopular.

While he did have some rights violated, his First Amendment rights remain intact.

The First Amendment protects you from the government punishing you because of your speech. The NBA is a private club, and it can discipline Sterling all it wants.

What about the chorus of criticism? Are we all violating his First Amendment rights by criticizing him? We are punishing him for his speech.

Nope. The First Amendment does not insulate you from criticism. In fact, that's the First Amendment in action. That is how the marketplace of ideas works. We float our ideas in the marketplace, and we see which idea sells.

Most everyone would agree that Sterling's ideas fail in the marketplace of ideas. Nevertheless, I reluctantly stand on Sterling's side today. What happened to him may have been illegal and was morally wrong.

Start with illegal. In California, you can't record a conversation without the knowledge or consent of both parties. The recording featuring Sterling and V. Stiviano may be the result of a crime. Once she gathered this information, someone leaked it (she denies it was her) -- and it went viral. This is where I think things went morally wrong.

We all say things in private that we might not say in public. Sometimes we have ideas that are not fully developed -- we try them out with our closest friends. Consider it our test-marketplace of ideas. As our ideas develop, we consider whether to make them public. Should we not all have the freedom to make that choice on our own?

The Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy made his own stupid and bigoted statements, and he's been nationally pilloried, too -- but he chose to make those statements to the world. He deserves every ounce of obloquy heaped upon him.

But does Sterling? Think about what his public character execution means. It means that we now live in a world where if you have any views that are unpopular, you now not only need to fear saying them in public, but you need to fear saying them at all -- even to your intimate friends. They might be recording you, and then that recording may be spread across the Internet for everyone to hear.

Read more:

What happened to Sterling was morally wrong

In what amounts to a declaration of war on the Roberts Supreme Court, Senate Democrats said Wednesday that they will force a vote this year on a constitutional amendment to overturn several landmark First Amendment campaign finance rulings and give Congress explicit powers to set donation and spending limits for all federal campaigns.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat driving the effort, said the justices have taken the First Amendment too far and need to be reeled in by Congress.

SEE ALSO: Ex-Justice Stevens backs amendment on campaign funds

He said he had the blessing of fellow Democratic leaders to bring the amendment to the floor for a vote rather soon. They acknowledged that they have little hope of succeeding but said the vote was a way to send a message to the justices.

The First Amendment is not absolute, Mr. Schumer said. The only way that we can save American democracy, so that people still believe its one person, one vote and theres a semblance of fairness, is a constitutional amendment.

The move kicks off a fundamental debate over free speech, the limits of congressional powers and the nature of political campaigns.

Opponents said they were shocked that Democrats would attempt to amend the Constitution to limit something that the Supreme Court has called a fundamental right and that the move was another way to try to insulate lawmakers from having to hear from voters.

Campaign finance reform restrictions are always pitched as Lets prevent corruption, lets hold politicians accountable, and they do exactly the opposite, said Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican. Every single restriction this body puts in place is designed to do one thing protect incumbent politicians.

Campaign finance has been a touchy issue for decades but has taken on a more pointed tone in recent years.

In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama scolded the justices, sitting directly in front of him in the House chamber, for their Citizens United decision issued just days earlier.

Continued here:

Senate Dems vow vote to change Constitution, block campaign funding

Doc Rivers: Silver Decision Was Right One

Clippers coach Doc Rivers spoke to the media before Game 5 of LAs first round series against the Warriors. Rivers shared his thoughts on NBA commissioner Adam Silvers decision to ban Clippers owner Donald Sterling from the league for life and the effort to force Sterling to sell the team.

Clippers coach Doc Rivers spoke to the media before Game 5 of LAs first round series against the Warriors. Rivers shared his thoughts on NBA commissioner Adam Silvers decision to ban Clippers owner Donald Sterling from the league for life and the effort to force Sterling to sell the team.

Search crews have found a father and his two children who had been missing for more than two days in the vast woods and swamps of the Congaree National Park in South Carolina, officials said Tuesday.

John Lackey followed his last outing against the Yankeesa gem which manager John Farrell called arguably the right-handers best showing in a Red Sox uniform with another impressive showing Tuesday night, as the Red Sox beat the Rays 7-4 at Fenway Park. Lackey went eight innings, giving up two runs on six hits and a with five strikeouts. He earned the win, improving to 4-2, lowering his ERA from 4.22 to 3.83.

The moment Bruins and Canadiens fans have been waiting for has finally arrived, as the NHL officially announced on Tuesday the date of Game 1 of their series.

The moment Bruins and Canadiens fans have been waiting for has finally arrived, as the NHL officially announced on Tuesday evening the date of Game 1 of their second round series.

An Oklahoma inmate whose execution was halted Tuesday because the delivery of a new drug combination was botched died of a heart attack, the head of the state Department of Corrections said.

Move over Samsung, there's a new endorsement for David Ortiz in town. Ortiz announced on Tuesday that he has signed on to be the spokesperson for Dunkin' Donuts.

An explosion and fire possibly caused by a dust buildup at a Southern California metal-polishing shop injured 11 people Tuesday, including two men who were critically burned, fire officials said.

Go here to see the original:

Were Sterlings First Amendment Rights Violated? Nope.

John Dukes on First Amendment
Wake up Sutter County! This is a man who has at least twice taken the following solemn oath: I, John Dukes, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support...

By: Dragon Flier

Visit link:

John Dukes on First Amendment - Video

PBL in Journalism I, 2014
Watch and listen to journalism I students, under the supervision of adviser Sue Skalicky, pursue a project regarding first amendment right. It #39;s about more than the grade -- it #39;s about making...

By: Mary Palmer

View original post here:

PBL in Journalism I, 2014 - Video

Jemal Countess/Getty Images

Jason Patric

On Monday, Jason Patric prevailed in what is likely a first-of-its-kind legal dispute. The actor's ex-girlfriend Danielle Schreiber demanded a restraining order that would have prevented Patric from using their son's name for "Stand Up for Gus," an advocacy outfit that raises awareness of parental alienation. But a Los Angeles judge decided that to stop Patric from doing things like tweeting Gus' name would be a prior restraint under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

STORY:Jason Patric's Sperm Spawns First Amendment Battle

How the issue got to such a ruling is a twofold story.

First, Patric and Schreiber have been fighting over custody of their four-year-old son, who was born through artificial insemination. Thanks to California law, which grants the mother full custody unless there is a written agreement establishing parental rights before conception, a judge has denied The Lost Boys star access to his son. So as the custody battle heads to an appeals court next month, Gus can be considered in some respects a legal stranger to his father.

Second, in response to the situation, Patric started "Stand Up for Gus" and has been promoting it through media interviews, at fundraising events, on Twitter and on Facebook. Schreiber sought a restraining order preventing Patrric from using the childs name and likeness for alleged commercial purposes without her permission. Usually, celebrities lean upon laws protecting one's likeness to prevent others from exploiting their fame, but in this instance -- and this is why this sort of situation hasn't popped up before -- Patric was using his fame and the name of his in vitro son to promote his cause.

Schreiber's attorney,Patty Glaser, insisted the child's "exploitation" was at stake, while Patric's attorney,Lawrence Iser,focused the judge's attention on the First Amendment. "Our country is founded upon the fundamental rights to speak freely and petition for causes, and the censorship sought by Ms. Schreiber is contrary to those fundamental values," said Iser.

STORY:California Sperm Donor Rights Bill Stalls Despite Actor Jason Patric's Impassioned Plea

At a hearing on Monday, Judge Stephen Moloney agreed that to grant a restraining order would mean a prior restraint. This doesn't necessarily foreclose Schreiber's legal recourse for any improper statements by Patric after they are made, but the judge doesn't see the need to create something that would be tantamount to a gag.

Follow this link:

Judge Won't Stop Jason Patric from Using Son's Name for Advocacy Purposes

A majority of the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court seemed disconcerted Monday by the consequences of one of the court's own rulings on the free speech rights of public employees.

Eight years ago, the conservative court majority, by a 5-4 vote, said public employees have no First Amendment protection for speech "pursuant to his official responsibilities." But Monday, in a case involving subpoenaed testimony in a criminal case, the court seemed headed in a different direction.

The case was brought by Edward Lane, an Alabama official who was fired after he testified truthfully that a state legislator was a ghost employee being paid by the taxpayers for no work.

Lane managed a program for at-risk juvenile offenders that was run out of Central Alabama Community College. After he was hired, he conducted an audit and found that one of the program's employees, a state legislator named Suzanne Schmitz, was a no-show employee in his department.

Lane says that people in his office warned him not to tangle with Schmitz because of her influence, but when she repeatedly refused to come to work, he fired her.

Soon after, he says, the FBI was investigating public corruption in Alabama, and Lane was subpoenaed to testify first before a grand jury, and later at Schmitz' two fraud trials. After Lane's first trial testimony, he was fired by the president of the community college, Steve Franks.

"He told me to clean out my office that day, like I had done something wrong," Lane recalled in an interview on the Supreme Court steps Monday. "When I got in my car, I was in tears. I felt no doubt that it was in retaliation" for testifying.

So Lane sued, contending his First Amendment right to free speech had been violated when he was fired for testifying. A federal appeals court ruled that under its own previous rulings, and under a 2006 Supreme Court decision, public employees have no free speech rights when they testify about information they learn on the job.

Lane appealed to the Supreme Court, and in oral arguments Monday the justices signaled that the lower court had gone too far.

Mark Waggoner, representing the former college president who fired Lane, repeatedly quoted back to the justices their own words from that 2006 decision, Garcetti v. Ceballos.

More here:

Justices Troubled By Their Earlier Ruling On Public Employee Speech Rights

Courthouse News editor sees nationwide plagueand hell get a chance to make his case

Its been a routine for generations of legal beat reporters: Every weekday afternoon, at courthouses across the United States, a reporter steps behind the records counter and thumbs through the lawsuits filed that day, looking for news.

This custom is endangered, though, and not just because files have moved online, or because there arent as many legal beat reporters as there used to be. Many state courts now keep new civil cases out of sight of the press and public for days, and sometimes even weeks, after theyre filed.

Its a nationwide plague, said Bill Girdner, the founder and editor of Courthouse News Service.

But now, a federal trial court in California will have to determine whether the standard delays at a local courthouse are permissibleafter a higher court ruled that Girdners complaints raise First Amendment concerns.

Based in Pasadena, CA, Courthouse News is a wire service that specializes in civil litigation and covers the courts for both its own website and around 3,000 subscribers, including the Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, and other major news organizations.

In 2011, Courthouse News sued the Superior Court of Ventura County, CA, after the court stopped letting the newswires local correspondent see every new civil suit on the day it was filed. A federal judge dismissed the case. But Courthouse News appealed, and on April 7 a panel of three Ninth Circuit judges ruled that the trial court had to hear the case.

Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaws opinion said the case presents an important First Amendment question and thus should be heard in federal court.

Though the government may sometimes withhold information without violating the expressive rights protected by the First Amendment, the First Amendment right of access to public proceedingswhere it appliesis inextricably intertwined with the First Amendment right of free speech, Wardlaw wrote.

The opinion doesnt specifically find that Courthouse News is entitled to records access under the Constitutionthats what the trial court will have to determine. But Wardlaw notes that federal appellate courts have widely agreed that the First Amendment right of access extends to civil proceedings and associated records and documents.

Read the original post:

Federal judge: Delayed access to court records raises First Amendment concerns

CHARLOTTE, N.C. A group of Charlotte-area ministers have helped launch the country's first faith-based challenge to a same-sex marriage ban, claiming in a lawsuit filed Monday that North Carolina's laws block them from practicing their religion.

The local religious leaders, who include a rabbi, are joined by colleagues from Asheville and Raleigh along with a national denomination, the United Church of Christ. All of them support the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

They say state prohibitions, including a constitutional amendment passed by voters in 2012, violate their First Amendment right of freedom of religion.

"The core protection of the First Amendment is that government may not regulate religious beliefs or take sides in religious controversies," says Jonathan Martel, a Washington, D.C., attorney helping with the case.

"Marriage performed by clergy is a spiritual exercise and expression of faith essential to the values and continuity of the religion that government may regulate only where it has a compelling interest."

The lawsuit was expected to be formally announced in 10:30 a.m. Monday press conference at Holy Covenant United Church of Christ. Church pastor Nancy Allison is one of the persons suing Attorney General Roy Cooper and other state officials, asking that the federal courts in the Western District of North Carolina strike the laws down.

It becomes the 66th legal challenge to marriage bans now in the courts, three of them in North Carolina. But it is the first to attack same-sex marriage bans on religious grounds, said Charlotte attorney Jake Sussman, lead counsel for the group.

It also marks the first time an entire denomination has joined the marriage battle. UCC, headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, has more than 1.1 million members and 5,100 local churches. North Carolina is home to more than 24,000 members and 155 churches, including Holy Covenant in Charlotte and Trinity Reformed in Concord.

Joining the denomination and clergy as plaintiffs are same-sex couples in Charlotte, Asheville, Concord and Huntersville. They say the state laws violate their equal-protection and due-process rights under the 14th Amendment.

Betty Mack and Carol Taylor of Asheville have been in a committed relationship for 41 years, the lawsuit says. The women, both in their 70s, say they want to be married in their Unitarian Universalist church, and that they have requested a license but have been turned down.

Here is the original post:

United Church of Christ sues over North Carolina ban on same-sex marriage