Axovant to Participate in Upcoming October Conferences and Provide AXO-Lenti-PD Program Update the Morning of October 6th – GlobeNewswire

Posted on by

NEW YORK, Oct. 05, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Axovant Gene Therapies Ltd. (Nasdaq: AXGT), a clinical-stage company developing innovative gene therapies, today announced that the Company will present at upcoming conferences and will announce six-month safety and efficacy data from the second cohort of its AXO-Lenti-PD program the morning of Tuesday, October 6, 2020. Additionally, as previously announced the Company will hold a Parkinsons Disease R&D Day on Friday, October 30.

Information on the upcoming presentations can be found below:

Chardan 4th Annual Genetic Medicines Conference

2020 ARM Virtual Cell and Gene Meeting on the Mesa

AXO-Lenti-PD Parkinsons Disease R&D Day

A live webcast of the presentations will be available in the Events section of Axovant's website at http://www.axovant.com.Replays will be available for approximately 30 days following the conferences.

About Axovant Gene Therapies

Axovant Gene Therapies is a clinical-stage gene therapy company focused on developing a pipeline of innovative product candidates for debilitating neurodegenerative diseases. Our current pipeline of gene therapy candidates target GM1 gangliosidosis, GM2 gangliosidosis (also known as Tay-Sachs disease and Sandhoff disease), and Parkinsons disease. Axovant is focused on accelerating product candidates into and through clinical trials with a team of experts in gene therapy development and through external partnerships with leading gene therapy organizations. For more information, visit http://www.axovant.com.

Contacts:

Media & Investors

Parag MeswaniAxovant Gene Therapies Ltd.(212) 547-2523media@axovant.cominvestors@axovant.com

See the original post here:

Axovant to Participate in Upcoming October Conferences and Provide AXO-Lenti-PD Program Update the Morning of October 6th - GlobeNewswire

Investigational Gene Therapy Fast Tracked for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy – Monthly Prescribing Reference

Posted on by

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted Fast Track designation to the investigational gene therapy candidate, PF-06939926 (Pfizer), for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD).

PF-06939926 is a recombinant adeno-associated virus serotype 9 (rAAV9) capsid carrying a shortened version of human dystrophin gene under the control of a human muscle-specific promoter. The Company has chosen the rAAV9 capsid due to its potential to target muscle tissue.

The designation was based on data from an ongoing phase 1b study evaluating the safety and tolerability of a single intravenous infusion of PF-06939926 in 9 ambulatory boys with DMD aged 6 to 12 years. Preliminary results showed that PF-06939926 was well tolerated during the infusion period and dystrophin expression levels were sustained over a 12-month period.

The Company plans to launch a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PF-06939926 in boys with DMD. The study will include patients who are at least 4 years old and less than 8 years old; all participants will need to be on a daily dose of glucocorticoids for at least 3 months prior to enrolling and to stay on daily glucocorticoids for the first 2 years of the study. The primary outcome of the study (change from baseline in North Star Ambulatory Assessment) will be assessed at 52 weeks; patients will be followed for 5 years after treatment.

The FDAs decision to grant our investigational gene therapy PF-06939926 Fast Track designation underscores the urgency to address a significant unmet treatment need for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, said Brenda Cooperstone, MD, Chief Development Officer, Rare Disease, Pfizer Global Product Development. We are working to advance our planned phase 3 program as quickly as possible.

The FDAs Fast Track designation allows for expedited review of therapies that are meant to treat serious or life-threatening conditions. Generally, the designation is granted to drugs that are expected to have an impact on factors such as survival and daily functioning.

For more information visit pfizer.com.

Pfizer receives FDA Fast Track designation for Duchenne muscular dystrophy investigational gene therapy. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20201001005382/en/Pfizer-Receives-FDA-Fast-Track-Designation-for-Duchenne-Muscular-Dystrophy-Investigational-Gene-Therapy. Accessed October 2, 2020.

Read more:

Investigational Gene Therapy Fast Tracked for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy - Monthly Prescribing Reference

Genprex to Present at the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine’s Virtual Cell and Gene Meeting on the Mesa – Business Wire

Posted on by

AUSTIN, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Genprex, Inc. (Genprex or the Company) (NASDAQ: GNPX), a clinical-stage gene therapy company developing potentially life-changing technologies for patients with cancer and diabetes, today announced that it will be presenting at the Alliance for Regenerative Medicines (ARM) virtual Cell and Gene Meeting on the Mesa, taking place October 12-16, 2020. Michael Redman, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Genprex, will lead the companys presentation.

The 2020 Cell and Gene Meeting on the Mesa will be delivered in a virtual format over the course of five days where attendees will be able to watch company presentations on-demand, in addition to two live-streaming panels each day. The Cell and Gene Meeting on the Mesa is the sectors foremost annual conference, bringing together senior executives and top decision-makers in the industry to advance cutting-edge research into cures. Tackling the commercialization hurdles facing the cell and gene therapy sector today, this meeting covers a wide range of topics from clinical trial design to alternative payment models to scale-up and supply chain platforms for advanced therapies.

For more information on the conference, or to register, please visit https://www.meetingonthemesa.com.

About Genprex, Inc.

Genprex, Inc. is a clinical-stage gene therapy company developing potentially life-changing technologies for patients with cancer and diabetes. Genprexs technologies are designed to administer disease-fighting genes to provide new treatment options for large patient populations with cancer and diabetes who currently have limited treatment options. Genprex works with world-class institutions and collaborators to develop drug candidates to further its pipeline of gene therapies in order to provide novel treatment approaches. The Companys lead product candidate, GPX-001 (quaratusugene ozeplasmid), is being evaluated as a treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). GPX-001 has a multimodal mechanism of action that has been shown to interrupt cell signaling pathways that cause replication and proliferation of cancer cells; re-establish pathways for apoptosis, or programmed cell death, in cancer cells; and modulate the immune response against cancer cells. GPX-001 has also been shown to block mechanisms that create drug resistance. In January 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted Fast Track Designation for GPX-001 for NSCLC in combination therapy with osimertinib (AstraZenecas Tagrisso) for patients with EFGR mutations whose tumors progressed after treatment with osimertinib alone. For more information, please visit the Companys web site at http://www.genprex.com or follow Genprex on Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.

Forward-Looking Statements

Statements contained in this press release regarding matters that are not historical facts are "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Because such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding the effect of Genprexs product candidates, alone and in combination with other therapies, on cancer and diabetes, regarding potential, current and planned clinical trials, regarding the Companys future growth and financial status and regarding our commercial partnerships and intellectual property licenses. Risks that contribute to the uncertain nature of the forward-looking statements include the presence and level of the effect of our product candidates, alone and in combination with other therapies, on cancer; the timing and success of our clinical trials and planned clinical trials of GPX-001, alone and in combination with targeted therapies and/or immunotherapies, and whether our other potential product candidates, including GPX-002, our gene therapy in diabetes, advance into clinical trials; the success of our strategic partnerships, including those relating to manufacturing of our product candidates; the timing and success at all of obtaining FDA approval of GPX-001 and our other potential product candidates including whether we receive fast track or similar regulatory designations; costs associated with developing our product candidates and whether patents will ever be issued under patent applications that are the subject of our license agreements. These and other risks and uncertainties are described more fully under the caption Risk Factors and elsewhere in our filings and reports with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. All forward-looking statements contained in this press release speak only as of the date on which they were made. We undertake no obligation to update such statements to reflect events that occur or circumstances that exist after the date on which they were made.

Read more:

Genprex to Present at the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine's Virtual Cell and Gene Meeting on the Mesa - Business Wire

Generation Bio to Present at 2020 Virtual Cell & Gene Meeting on the Mesa – GlobeNewswire

Posted on by

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Oct. 05, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Generation Bio Co. (Nasdaq: GBIO), an innovative genetic medicines company creating a new class of non-viral gene therapy, announced today that Phillip Samayoa, vice president of strategy and portfolio development, will present a company overview at the annual Cell & Gene Meeting on the Mesa. The presentation will be available for registered participants to view on demand throughout the conference, to be held virtually Oct. 12-16, at meetingonthemesa.com.

Geoff McDonough, M.D., Generation Bios president and chief executive officer, will participate in a panel on the future of gene delivery. That discussion will be available to view on demand on the conference website starting Oct. 13.

About Generation Bio

Generation Biois an innovative genetic medicines company focused on creating a new class of non-viral gene therapy to provide durable, redosable treatments for people living with rare and prevalent diseases. The companys non-viral platform incorporates a proprietary, high-capacity DNA construct called closed-ended DNA, or ceDNA; a cell-targeted lipid nanoparticle delivery system, or ctLNP; and an established, scalable capsid-free manufacturing process. The platform is designed to enable multi-year durability from a single dose of ceDNA and to allow titration and redosing if needed. The ctLNP is designed to deliver large genetic payloads, including multiple genes, to specific tissues to address a wide range of indications. The companys efficient, scalable manufacturing process supports Generation Bios mission to extend the reach of gene therapy to more people, living with more diseases, in more places around the world.For more information, please visitgenerationbio.com.

Contact:

InvestorsChelcie ListerTHRUST Strategic Communicationschelcie@thrustsc.com910-777-3049

MediaStephanie SimonTenBridge Communicationsstephanie@tenbridgecommunications.com617-581-9333

Read the original:

Generation Bio to Present at 2020 Virtual Cell & Gene Meeting on the Mesa - GlobeNewswire

First Amendment Right to Record Child-Protection Visit to Your Home – Reason

Posted on by

From yesterday's Pennsylvania appellate decision in In re Y.W.-B., by Judge Carolyn Nichols, joined by Judges Mary Murray and James Gardner Colins:

Mother and Father are the parents of Y.W.-B., born in June 2012, and N.W.-B., born in January 2015 (collectively, Children). On May 31, 2019, DHS filed the instant petitions to compel Mother's cooperation with a home visit.

In its petitions, DHS [Department of Human Services] alleged, in part, that on May 22, 2019, it received a report that three weeks earlier, the family slept outside a Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) office, and that on May 21, 2019, Mother was outside the PHA office from 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. with a child. The petitions further stated that Mother told a Project Home outreach worker that she was not homeless, but that her previous residence was burned down. According to the petition, it was "unknown if [Mother] was feeding [Children while] she stood outside of the PHA office for extended periods of time." According to the petitions to compel, DHS workers attempted to assess the family's home on the same day it received the GPS report, but Mother and Father refused them entry to the home or access to Children.

The appellate court held that "DHS presented the trial court with probable cause to search Mother's home in support of its petitions to compel cooperation," but vacated a trial court order that "Mother is NOT to record or video" the visit. The court quoted Fields v. City of Philadephia (3d Cir. 2017), which had said:

The First Amendment protects the public's right of access to information about their officials' public activities. It goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw. Access to information regarding public police activity is particularly important because it leads to citizen discourse on public issues, the highest rung of the hierarchy of the First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection. That information is the wellspring of our debates; if the latter are to be uninhibited, robust, and wideopen, the more credible the information the more credible are the debates.

To record what there is the right for the eye to see or the ear to hear corroborates or lays aside subjective impressions for objective facts. Hence to record is to see and hear more accurately. Recordings also facilitate discussion because of the ease in which they can be widely distributed via different forms of media. Accordingly, recording police activity in public falls squarely within the First Amendment right of access to information. As no doubt the press has this right, so does the public.

The court went on to note, relying on Commonwealth v. Bradley (Pa. Super. Ct. May 5, 2020):

"The Third Circuit [in Fields], however, cautioned that all recording was not protected or desirable. 'The right to record police is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.' The court, however, did not address the constitutional limits of this important First Amendment right because the defendants offered no justification for the action. Accordingly, the court noted that no 'countervailing concerns' existed to justify a departure from the general right to free speech under the First Amendment."

In Bradley, this Court addressed such "countervailing concerns" in a case in which the defendant challenged his conviction for defiant trespass for recording in the lobby of a police station in which there was a "no-filming" policy in place. The Bradley Court specifically concluded that the no-filming condition in the lobby passed constitutional muster, reasoning:

"The Commonwealth presents several countervailing concerns to [the a]ppellant's argument that he had an absolute right under the First Amendment to videotape in the Lobby. Principally, the Commonwealth highlights Corporal McGee's testimony that the police department's no-filming condition in the Lobby was based on several reasons: (1) preventing the disclosure of confidential information relating to ongoing investigations discussed within secure areas of the police department; (2) safeguarding the identity of confidential informants and undercover officers; (3) ensuring their safety by preventing the risk of retaliation against them; and (4) ensuring and preserving the privacy of crime victims. Indeed, the trial court found 'Corporal [ ] McGee testified with regard to numerous grounds upon which the no[-]filming policy was based, citing confidentiality and victim safety as fundamental components.' Thus, the restriction or condition at issue is reasonable.

"The no-filming condition applies to all members of the public who visit the Lobby. In other words, members of the public are granted a license to enter and remain in the Lobby, provided that they abide by the condition. Among other things, the no-filming condition ensures the integrity of police investigations and activity. The condition applies only to the Lobby and the interior of the police station, and not to areas outside of the police station, such as steps or entrances. Admittedly, it prohibits only the recording, taping, and photographing within the Lobby. The condition does not bar the use of parchment and quill in the Lobby. It, therefore, is a reasonable restriction under the First Amendment because it is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, i.e., to ensure the safety, security and privacy of officers, informants and victims. Moreover, it prevents interferences with police activity. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the recording or filming in the Lobby by members of the public is not a protected activity under the First Amendment."

Fields recognized that "[a]ccess to information regarding public police activity is particularly important because it leads to citizen discourse on public issues, the highest rung of the hierarchy of the First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection." Although this case involves DHS officials rather than police, and official actions within Mother's home rather than in public, we conclude that First Amendment protections extend to restrictions on "the stock of information from which members of the public may draw" when discussing public issues. Therefore, we conclude that Mother's claim that the trial court improperly curtailed her right to record the DHS officials conducting a home visit is subject to intermediate scrutiny.

In the instant case, there was no evidence of any countervailing interests to support DHS's request for a no-recording provision. See [Transcript] (indicating that the trial court denied DHS's request to recall Ms. Richardson and granted DHS's request for a no-recording provision based on DHS's counsel's assertion that there were "videos, photography taken, posted on social media that made her feel intimidated").

[W]e acknowledge the trial court's concerns regarding the privacy interests of Children. However, our review is necessarily limited to the issue raised in this appeal, specifically, the right to record, under the First Amendment, DHS employees conducting an assessment of a home, and not Mother's posting of such videos on social media. {We add that there were no indications that Mother took videos containing images of Children or DHS employees interacting with the Children during her previous interactions with DHS.}

Therefore, under the specific circumstances of this case, and in light of Mother's and DHS's arguments, we conclude that DHS failed to establish that its request for a no-recording provision was reasonable. We emphasize that our holding does not make the right to record absolute, consistent with established case law, it is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

Link:

First Amendment Right to Record Child-Protection Visit to Your Home - Reason

Another Voice: Coney Barrett should explain First Amendment views – Buffalo News

Posted on by

Freedom of and from religion are equally important in our culture and under our constitution to secure the blessings of liberty for all of our citizens.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett needs to be questioned extensively at her confirmation hearings about her legal views on the relationship of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. Will she continue the dangerous trend the Supreme Court has exhibited recently?

This past term, in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, the court held that the Little Sisters could not be compelled to provide employees with insurance coverage for contraceptives, on the ground that doing so would infringe upon the Little Sisters right to practice its religious beliefs free from state interference.

Fulfilling a legal obligation to provide contraceptive insurance coverage is not practicing religion. It does not compel anyone to buy and use contraceptives. Nor does it imply approval of contraceptive use. Taking the coverage away from employees does do one thing for certain: It penalizes them financially if they decide to exercise their liberty interest and legal right to obtain and use contraceptives.

Also this past term, the court held in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berry that the government may not interfere with religious schools decisions to hire or fire their lay teachers, that the schools decisions are outside of the protections afforded by fair employment laws, even though these laws are designed to protect the liberty interests of the public-at-large regardless of their religious beliefs.

Visit link:

Another Voice: Coney Barrett should explain First Amendment views - Buffalo News

COOMBES: Put the First Amendment first – University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily

Posted on by

As bars and restaurants began to reopen this summer, so did religious institutions. The operation of churches posed the issue of remaining in close quarters for extended periods of time in the midst of a pandemic. Last month, Opinion Writer Nicole Chebili argued that the University should cease unconstitutional exemptions for religious gatherings. However, the United States Constitution enshrines the right to free speech, press, assembly, petition and religion. Supreme Court precedent has clearly established that public universities have no exception to these fundamental freedoms.

The freedom of religion has an essential role in United States history, given that the country was founded on that very ideal. This underscores why its so important for the government to uphold religious freedom, especially in times of political unrest and uncertainty. Universities serve to educate the next generation of leaders and must act to protect rather than restrict these freedoms. The First Amendment is often referred to as the first liberty because freedom of thought and belief is thought to be of utmost importance. Diversity of thought and belief should be at the forefront of the learning community at the University.

In this column, Chebili claims that the University should continue to restrict students from going to religious services in Charlottesville. It is important to note that as long as they are not directly affiliated with the University, religious institutions must already follow city ordinances, which require gatherings to remain under 50 people. It is not the Universitys job nor is it the Universitys right to interfere with students' ability to worship. It sets a dangerous precedent to restrict the freedom of religion by any means. The freedom of religion was a founding pillar of our American Democracy and it must be upheld.

Chebili also mentions that online services provide the same quality sermons, community building and worship. This statement lies in direct contradiction to the religious beliefs of many Christians, for example, who place a great importance on worshiping in person. It is indeed not the same to worship online, as in-person fellowship is essential to Christian life, as well as many other religions. Furthermore, it is not the governments right to dictate the means by which its citizens practice religion.

Next, the column claims that protesting is essential and protected under the Constitution, but religious gatherings are not. The right to assemble dually covers protests and gathering for religious reasons. Under her own line of reasoning, religious gatherings are in fact equally essential, and should be regarded as such by the University. Calling for the University to restrict student attendance of any religious service without applying the same standards to protests is blatantly hypocritical.

Recently, students and the University alike have repeatedly called for restrictions to the religious clause of the First Amendment. In another article, students called for the Fellowship of Chiristian Athletes to be disbanded at the University. This is based on the fact that the Fellowship requires students who wish to hold a leadership position to sign a statement of faith that includes the traditional definition of marriage. No matter how some students feel, the University should not restrict religious freedoms and should reject calls to do so. Disagreement with the beliefs of a particular religion does not suddenly grant the University the power to restrict its practice.

Religion is critical to many students on Grounds. There is great diversity in religious organizations, and they provide an essential space for students to practice their religious beliefs. For many, religion is sacred and the opportunity to practice that religion on Grounds is paramount.

It can be difficult to see CIOs promote ideals that one disagrees with. There exist groups like the College Republicans or the University Democrats who highly encourage their members to affiliate with the party. The University is supposed to be a place for intellectual growth and discovery, groups with different opinions on Grounds contribute to and diversify the learning community. The University must not shut down an individual or groups ability to speak or assemble simply because others dont agree with them, on any matter from political speech to religious expression.

Historically, the University has protected and upheld the First Amendment, while other schools have fallen behind the curve, restricting speech with free speech zones. U.Va must continue to lead in this area. It is fitting that the University was founded by Thomas Jefferson, the very man who inspired the Bill of Rights, drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and led the charge against the restriction of the church by the state. In keeping with the ideals set forth by Thomas Jefferson, the University must reject calls to restrict the freedom of religion.

Devan Coombes is a Viewpoint Writer for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.

The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.

Read more here:

COOMBES: Put the First Amendment first - University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily

First Amendment scholars weigh in on legality of Terminal Tower Biden Harris light display – cleveland.com

Posted on by

CLEVELAND, Ohio Two First Amendment scholars question whether the Biden-Harris light display projected onto Terminal Tower last Tuesday by the United Steelworkers violated city or state law as the the buildings owner contends.

And even if the display did violate local or state laws, the scholars said, the laws might be trumped by First Amendment protections of free speech given the unusual facts of the case that the display amounted to projected light and was in support of political candidates.

Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer reached out to Kevin ONeill, associate professor at Cleveland State Universitys Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, and Andy Geronimo, a lecturer at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, to examine the debate over the displays legality.

Whats at issue?

The United Steelworkers claimed responsibility for the light display, projected ahead of the debate in Cleveland between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, and referencing Biden and his running mate, former Sen. Kamala Harris. The union also contends the display was legal.

Doug Price, CEO of the management group that owns Terminal Tower, told cleveland.com that the United Steelworkers projected the display without his companys permission and that city prosecutors subsequently provided him with three laws that prohibit such displays.

Prices company, K&D Management, cited those laws in a cease-and-desist letter sent to the union. They are:

*A city prohibition against posting or sticking any advertisement, poster, sign or handbill or placard of any description on any private building or structure without the owner or occupants permission. It also prohibits printing, marking, writing, printing or impressing or in any manner attach[ing] any notice or advertisement or the name of any commodity or thing or any trademark, symbol or figure of any kind upon anothers property without permission.

*A city criminal mischief law that, in part, prohibits people from moving, defacing, damaging, destroying, or otherwise improperly tampering with anothers property.

*A state law that requires most political communications to clearly identify the entity that issued them.

Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer shared the three laws with Geronimo and ONeill.

What does Geronimo say?

Geronimo said the city laws K&D cited do not neatly address light projections such as the one displayed on Terminal Tower, and the incident demonstrates the difficulty of applying these ordinances to this kind of action.

The two city laws might not hold up in court because a judge might question whether the intangible nature of light is actually covered by those laws, which seem intended to address the physical overtaking of the building in a way thats irreversible.

Because this is light, its hard to say its damaging or destroying the building, he said. It is a very nuanced problem, and the laws as written now, and as courts have engaged with applying these laws, dont fit neatly to this problem.

The city could better address the issue by passing another law or amending current law to specifically include non-permanent light displays. But such a law would need to be crafted with First Amendment protections in mind, because it would be regulating free speech.

More generally, First Amendment violations would come into play if the police, a court or the city had tried to stop the union from displaying its message.

If K&D filed a nuisance or trespassing lawsuit against the union, the union might be able to successfully use its First Amendment protections as a defense.

In that case, the projectionist might say I have a free speech right and the state shouldnt use its power to order me to stop doing this under threat of criminal or civil penalty.

A constitutional question might also arise if police try to stop the projectionist while the projectionist is standing on public sidewalks or streets, which are often considered public forums.

If the projectionist was standing on private property, however, the owner of that property could report it to police as a trespassing complaint, which would allow police to legally remove the projectionist.

(A Steelworkers spokeswoman previously told cleveland.com she was unsure where the projectionist was standing when shining the light on Terminal Tower. Price previously told cleveland.com it appeared the source of the light was from one of the bridges over the Cuyahoga River.)

What does ONeill say?

I dont think a judge would see a problem with this, he said. If there were a [local law prohibiting this, the law] might be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Whats the harm? Its simply the expression of light onto a faade.

ONeill noted that hes never encountered a First Amendment court challenge specifically related to light projections. But the first thing a lawyer or judge would want to know when considering such a case is whether a local ordinance prohibits the practice. If there isnt one, the light display would not be illegal.

If a local ordinance is in place, one would have to determine whether that law is unconstitutional, because it might very well be hard for the government to justify under existing First Amendment law.

To be considered constitutional, the local ordinance would likely need to be content-neutral, narrowly tailored to achieve a substantial government interest and also leave open ample alternative channels for communicating the message.

If Cleveland had a law specifically prohibiting the projection of a message or image onto a building, theres a chance a court would uphold it as constitutional, he said.

But theres also a chance a court would say such a law wasnt narrowly tailored, or that it takes away a novel method of expression that doesnt harm the public and, theres no significant or even important governmental interest that would be served by banning such expression.

What does the city say?

Cleveland spokeswoman Latoya Hunter Hayes did not respond to questions from cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer seeking confirmation that city prosecutors had provided Price with laws applicable to the case of the light display on Terminal Tower.

In an email, Hunter Hayes said only that projecting a light display sign on anothers property without the property owners permission, and without a permit when required, would violate city laws governing signs.

Obtaining a permit is the responsibility of a property owner, she said, but did not say whether a permit would have been needed by the United Steelworkers.

Read more:

First Amendment scholars weigh in on legality of Terminal Tower Biden Harris light display - cleveland.com

EFF and ACLU Ask Ninth Circuit to Overturn Government’s Censorship of Twitter’s Transparency Report – EFF

Posted on by

Citing national security concerns, the government is attempting to infringe on Twitter's First Amendment right to inform the public about secret government surveillance orders. For more than six years, Twitter has been fighting in court to share information about law enforcement orders it received in 2014. Now, Twitter has brought that fight to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. EFF, along with the ACLU, filed an amicus brief last week to underscore the First Amendment rights at stake.

In 2014, Twitter submitted a draft transparency report to the FBI to review. The FBI censored the report, banning Twitter from sharing the total number of foreign intelligence surveillance orders the government had served within a six-month period. In response, Twitter filed suit in order to assert its First Amendment right to share that information.

Over half a decade of litigation later, the trial court judge resolved the case in April by dismissing Twitters First Amendment claim. Among the several concerning aspects of the opinion, the judge spent devoted only a single paragraph to analyzing Twitters First Amendment right to inform the public about law enforcement orders for its users information.

That single paragraph was not only perfunctory, but incorrect. The lower court failed to recognize one of the most basic rules underpinning the right to free speech in this country: the government must meet an extraordinarily exacting burden in order to censor speech before that speech occurs, which the Supreme Court has called the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.

As we explained in our amicus brief, to pass constitutional scrutiny, the government must prove that silencing speech before it occurs is necessary to avoid harm that is not only extremely serious but is also imminent and irreparable. But the lower court judge concluded that censoring Twitters speech was acceptable without finding that any resulting harm to national security would be either imminent or irreparable. Nor did the judge address whether the censorship was actually necessary, and whether less-restrictive alternatives could mitigate the potential for harm.

This cursory analysis was a far cry from the extraordinarily exacting scrutiny that the First Amendment requires. We hope that the hope that the Ninth Circuit will say the same.

Read the rest here:

EFF and ACLU Ask Ninth Circuit to Overturn Government's Censorship of Twitter's Transparency Report - EFF

Judge amy coney barrett and the First Amendment – Lexology

Posted on by

The nomination of fellow Notre Dame Law alum Judge Amy Coney Barrett has generated considerable controversy. Some of that is related to the process. There are those who feel that the winner of November 3ds Presidential election should make the nomination. That appeared to be the unwritten rule in 2106 when President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, only to see the Senate sit on their collective hands and not conduct a hearing, given the (sort of) pending 2016 election. Apparently, at some point between 2016 and 2020, there was an unwritten amendment to the unwritten rule, such that it is all of a sudden vitally important to confirm Judge Barrett ASAP.

And aside from the procedural controversy, progressives are concerned with Judge Barretts expressed views on abortion and gun control. Given that her appointment will leave the court in a 6-3 conservative versus progressive split, one can understand the concern coming from that side of the aisle.

But Ive been wondering about how Judge Barrett might view the First Amendment and other matters that might affect the journalists I work with. So I was pretty excited when I saw this headline: Would Justice Amy Coney Respect Press Freedom? I was hoping it would shed light on the subject. Unfortunately, it really didnt. The premise is essentially that President Trump appointed her, and President Trump hates the press, so look for anti-press rulings.

A more accurate assessment comes from The Institute for Free Speech. And their report is that she is really a blank slate. Shes been a Judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals since 2017, and in that time has apparently not written on the issue. It appears that she didnt weigh in as an academic either.

I do think there are some pressing issues in the First Amendment world, not the least of which is the future of New York Times v. Sullivan the 56 year old precedent that is the foundation for First Amendment jurisprudence in the world of journalism. Judge Barretts former boss, Justice Antonin Scalia was not a fan of the holding, nor is Justice Thomas.

So, it might be nice to ask Judge Barrett in her confirmation hearing just what she thinks about the holding in that case. Was it correctly decided? If not, why not? And what should the court have done?

If a future court were to overrule Sullivan, the fallout would be tremendous. We have a right to know where she stands on this.

See the original post here:

Judge amy coney barrett and the First Amendment - Lexology

Judge Authorizes Appeal In PEN America’s First Amendment Fight With Trump 10/05/2020 – MediaPost Communications

Posted on by

A federal judge has authorized an immediate appeal of herdecision to allow PEN America to proceed with claims that President Trump violated the First Amendment by retaliating against journalists based on their critical coverage.

In a decision issuedThursday, U.S. District Court Judge Lorna Schofield in New York ruled that the dispute presented legal questions that lent themselves to appellate review -- including whether a judge could issue adeclaratory judgment against a sitting President over his discretionary conduct.

Schofield said that question implicates constitutional considerations, and that its resolutionwould materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

The ruling paves the way for the Department of Justice to as the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene inthe matter.

advertisement

advertisement

The fight dates to 2018, when the organization PEN America sought a declaratory judgment that Trump violated the constitution by retaliating against journalists based on theirviewpoints, and by threatening the media in a way that could chill free speech.

PEN America also sought an injunction prohibiting the federal government from taking action against mediaorganizations and journalists for their criticism of the White House.

Among other claims, PEN Americaalleged that the administration wrongly revoked the press credentials of CNN's JimAcosta after a contentious November 2019 press conference. (A federal judge in Washington, D.C. subsequently ordered the government to restore Acosta's press pass.)

Schofield ruled in March that PEN America was entitled to pursue its request for adeclaratory judgment. But she said the organization couldn't proceed with its request for an injunction, given that Trump has discretionary authority over matters like securityclearances.

The Department of Justice then asked Schofield for permission to appeal to the 2nd Circuit.

The administration said it wanted to raise several arguments, including whetherTrump can be subjected to a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment based on non-ministerial actions he performed in an official capacity.

See the article here:

Judge Authorizes Appeal In PEN America's First Amendment Fight With Trump 10/05/2020 - MediaPost Communications

Trump Admin. Says First Amendment Is Moot In WeChat Case – Law360

Posted on by

Law360 (October 7, 2020, 6:37 PM EDT) -- The U.S. government should be able to limit any service that poses a threat to the country's national security, whether or not that company facilitates communications, the Trump administration has argued in its bid to ban WeChat in the U.S.

In a Tuesday court filing, the administration told a California federal judge that the simple fact that Tencent-owned WeChat is a mobile communications app doesn't entitle the company to First Amendment protection orpreclude the government from cracking down on it for national security purposes.

"Were Tencent to sell electricity to U.S. consumers and, in so doing, systematically collect and send payment...

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know whats happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Read more:

Trump Admin. Says First Amendment Is Moot In WeChat Case - Law360

A vote for Trump is a vote against the First Amendment – Poughkeepsie Journal

Posted on by

The President of the United States our role model, our leader, the most powerful man in the world stood in front of a throng of people on a recent September evening in Minnesota, riffing like a comedian.

Wasnt it a beautiful sight, he said.

Donald John Trump was describing the fact that police officers at a demonstration protesting the killing of George Floyd had fired into the crowd and unknowingly hit prominent MSNBC broadcaster Ali Veshi in the knee with a rubber bullet. Veshi was covering the rally, a protected freedom of assembly event, and was retreating from police and the front lines when he was shot.It is why we have journalists: they go where we cannot sometimes dangerous places and report back to us.

Beautiful, the President said. It's called law and order."

And the crowd cheered his remarks.They cheered the shooting of an American journalist. A few days later at another rally, he repeated the refrain: Seeing the reporter thrown aside. like he was a little bag of popcornits a beautiful sight.

President Donald Trump speaks to supporters during a rally.(Photo: [Lucy Schaly/for BCT])

Protecting the First Amendment would be this President's priority

Amid clash with Trump, Facebook should follow Twitter and protect freedom: Opinion

Coronavirus: Trump covering eyes, quieting critics won't stop virus' deadly impact

No wonder that at Trump rallies his minions can be seen wearing no masks but t-shirts emblazoned with, Rope, tree, journalist. Some assembly required. He eggs them on. He exhorts them to taunt and threaten the fake news purveyors.

Of course, to Trump fake news is simply anything that is critical, that puts him in a bad light or doesnt agree with whatever lies he floats from a disappearing virus to the myth of his business acumen. It is the hallmark of authoritarians, dating back to the Kings of Europe who would cut off the hands of disliked writers.

When allowed, I wrote in this space in September 2018, the authoritarians, the unscrupulous in power, will try to meddle, control, block and suffocate dissent and disagreement.When you expose or criticize or give space to the opposition, you must be the enemy.

The President of the United States, running for re-election on Nov. 3, was in quarantine this week, and we wish him and his family well.But the fact of the matter still remains: He is the worst and most dangerous First Amendment President America has ever seen. He has offered a treasure trove of material for people like me who write about freedom of speech.

But for the Constitution and democracy he is a menace, failing to understand why the Framers put these protections in writing in 1791, four years after actually adopting a constitution.They knew autocrats, like Trump, would try to drown out opposition parties and shut down anyone who got in the way of their holding power. Lock up those pesky reporters and broadcasters!

As the election nears Ive looked back over the 45 free speech columns I have written since Trump was elected, and they document a growing menace, a brooding and petulant man who, as Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bernard Stein told me, doesnt seem to have any grasp of the prohibitions (on his power). He just chafes against them. It is not a good thing to have authoritarian impulses. If your reaction is to put your fingers in your ears, you are missing something valuable.

What he is missing is the heartbeat of democracy: a civil debate on the problems that confront us and discussion of how to deal with them.

The first maxim of the First Amendment is that people can peaceably gather.Its their chance to yell at City Hall, to protest police practices, to complain they dont like to be told to wear masks or squawk that the Presidents maskless rallies are spreading the virus. Take to the public square and vent your spleen!And the government cannot stop you based for dislike of your speech.

Pulitzer Prize-winning editor Geneva Overholser told me the Presidents attitude toward free speech and press was truly scary.And she is right because as I wrote in July 2019, When the First Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1791, one of the major concerns was to find a way to stop the central governmental authorities from controlling our speech, in essence, from trying to control our thoughts.Think it, say it, publish it and you are protected. No Big Brother can stop you.

But Big Brother Trump doesnt get it. This President will kick you out of the square if you dissent from his view of the world, like the football players who kneeled in silent protest at police brutality.He doffed his presidential cap to the white nationalists but declined to support peaceful protests of racism.Until a federal judge reminded him that the First Amendment doesnt allow censorship of critics, he tried to block opponents on his Twitter page.

And dont you dare let him hear about his mistakes, if youre a reporter.The Saudis can assassinate Washington Posts Jamal Khashoggi, but dont dare ask an impudent question at a press conference, especially if you are woman.Off to the Gulag!

The atmosphere of hate against the press has been caused by Trump.When you repeatedly call a treasured, protected institution an enemy of the people, you lay the seeds for attacks on the press. When you constantly demean reporters, impugn their integrity, point at them at rallies so they can be jeered and go to war with them beyond the expected adversarial relationship you invite violence.

Trump just has never gotten it that the press was never meant to be his arm; it is the peoples arm.

And dont get me wrong, as I wrote in July 2018: The Fourth Branch of government needs to be held accountable, as do all American institutions. A little tongue-lashing is a good thing.But when it comes from the President, when it refuses to recognize the role the press plays as glue and lubricant in democracy and when it seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the institution of journalism, it is beyond worrisome it reeks of dangerous authoritarianism.

But that is what we have: a dangerous authoritarian who seeks to stifle dissenting voices, intimidate critics, discredit the press, hide his personal and governmental activities even during his health crisis and ignore that the Constitutions First Amendment insures that a democratic society have uncensored debate and discussion in order to be self-governing.

When you use the bully pulpit to promote a climate of violence against one of the most vital institutions protecting our liberties, you need to be held accountable. And you need to be denied that bully pulpit.I wrote those words in July of 2018. Now the time has come:Throw the bully, Donald John Trump, out of the pulpit.

Rob Miraldis writings on the First Amendment have won numerous state and national awards.He teaches journalism at SUNY New Paltz. Twitter @miral98 and e-mail miral98@aol.com.

Read or Share this story: https://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/opinion/2020/10/07/vote-trump-vote-against-first-amendment/5905998002/

See more here:

A vote for Trump is a vote against the First Amendment - Poughkeepsie Journal

Use of Trademarks in Creative Works & Lanham Act Liability – The National Law Review

Posted on by

After the debut of hit showEmpire, record label Empire Distribution asserted trademark infringement counterclaims against Twentieth Century Fox Television, who sought a declaratory judgment that its television show and associated music releases did not violate Empire Distributions trademark rights. InTwentieth Century Fox TV v. Empire Distribution, Inc., 875 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2017), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district courts finding that the First Amendment protected Foxs use of the name Empire for an expressive, creative work and ancillary works. In doing so, the appellate panel reaffirmed First Amendment protection for use of marks in creative works where the use of the mark bears some artistic relevance to the underlying work and does not explicitly mislead consumers.

Founded in 2010, Empire Distribution is a record label that records and releases albums in the urban music genre, which includes hip hop, rap, and R&B. In 2015, Fox premiered Empire, a dramatic television series about a fictional New York-based hip-hop record label, and the storylines that revolve around its inception, founding members, executives, and artists. The show features songs in every episode, some of which are original, and Fox contracted with Columbia Records to distribute the music in the show under theEmpirebrand. After receiving several threatening letters from Empire Distribution about Foxs use of the Empire name, Fox filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that itsEmpireshow, its associated music releases, and affiliate merchandise did not violate Empire Distributions trademark rights. Empire Distribution counterclaim for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising. The fight centered on whether Foxs creative work, which utilized the protected name and trademark of Empire Distribution, was exempt from the Lanham Act as a First Amendment expression.

When it comes to First Amendment protections for trademark use, the discussion must start with the test expounded by the Second Circuit inRogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 999 (2d Cir. 1989). Courts generally apply theRogerstest in determining whether an expressive work runs afoul of the Lanham Act where the public interest in avoiding consumer confusion outweighs the public interest in free expression. Pursuant toRogers, use of anothers trademark or protected identifying material in an expressive work does not violate the Lanham Act unless the use has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever, or, if it has some artistic relevance, unless it explicitly misleads consumers as to the source or content of the work.

Analyzing the first prong, the Ninth Circuit found Fox used the word Empire for artistically relevant reasons because the show was set in New York, the Empire State, and its subject matter is a music and entertainment conglomerate. The court rejected Empire Distributions contention that for a use to have an artistic relevance it must refer to the owners mark, in this case Empire Distribution, holding that supporting the themes and geographic setting of the work was sufficient to satisfy the first prong of theRogerstest, which simply requires minimal relevance.

.

Turning to the second prong, the Ninth Circuit found Foxs use of the titleEmpiredid not explicitly mislead consumers. Absent an explicit indication, overt claim, or explicit misstatement that causes such consumer confusion, the second prong of theRogerstest will be satisfied. SinceEmpiredid not mislead consumers into believing it was produced or created by Empire Distribution, the Court affirmed the lower courts grant of summary judgment in favor of Fox.

Tucked away in the Ninth Circuits decision is the acknowledgment that not only is an expressive work protected from trademark infringement liability if it passes theRogerstest, but also are similarly branded ancillary promotional activities and commercial products based on the expressive work. So as long as the attendant commercial use is auxiliary to the expressive work and not explicitly misleading, it falls within the protective umbrella. Thus, Fox can sellEmpirebranded CDs, t-shirts, and music, as well as put on and promoteEmpireconcerts without infringing on Empire Distributions exclusive rights to use the Empire name in conjunction with those goods and services. Although the Ninth Circuits decision may be a significant victory for Fox and other creators of expressive works, brand owners will likely see this decision as a setback to trademark enforcement and an expansion of theRogerstest. With bated breath, we anticipate how other courts apply and expound onRogersin light of the Ninth Circuits decision, and whether the Supreme Court will weigh in on the topic.

Read the rest here:

Use of Trademarks in Creative Works & Lanham Act Liability - The National Law Review

‘Introduction to the First Amendment Museum’ topic of presentation – Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel

Posted on by

The Kennebec Historical Societys October Facebook Live presentation, Introduction to the First Amendment Museum, will begin at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 21, according to a news release from Scott R. Wood, the societys administrative director.

The video also will be available to watch later if preferred. Those who have a question for the Q&A can submit it in the comments on this event, or comment with it during the live video presentation. Here is the link to the KHS Facebook page: facebook.com.

In 1789, James Madison penned the First Amendment protecting our freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. A century later, WH Gannett of Augusta, Maine, used those freedoms to publish Comfort magazine, the first American magazine to reach 1 million paid subscriptions. His son, Guy Gannett, expanded the business to become Gannett Communications and became Maines most celebrated publisher, establishing newspaper, radio and tv brands we still recognize today.

Now, a century after Guy published his first newspaper, his granddaughters are building a museum in his former home on State Street. Join new CEO Christian Cotz as he explores the history of Madison, the First Amendment, and the Gannett family, and shares the latest developments in the evolution of the First Amendment Museum.

According to the release, Cotz was hired to be the CEO at the First Amendment Museum in January. Before that, he spent 20 years managing public programming at James Madisons Montpelier in central Virginia. He was deeply involved in Montpeliers relationship-building work with the descendant community, and was the project director for the celebrated exhibition, The Mere Distinction of Colour, which won six national museum awards.

For more information about the program, call Wood at 207-622-7718.

.

Previous

Next

Follow this link:

'Introduction to the First Amendment Museum' topic of presentation - Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel

Reporters Committee welcomes Inasmuch Foundation Legal Fellow – Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Posted on by

Audrey Greene recently rejoined the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press as the Inasmuch Foundation Legal Fellow, a role focused on First Amendment issues, including libel and protection of confidential sources.

Audrey fields calls to the Reporters Committee legal hotline, drafts amicus briefs and helps provide pre-publication legal review for investigative stories produced by journalists, including documentary filmmakers.

Journalists experience a number of barriers [to press freedom], and I feel the work that the Reporters Committee is doing is increasingly essential, she said.

Audrey said she hopes to gain a deeper understanding of media law and First Amendment issues through her work with the Reporters Committee.

Audreys interest in First Amendment law blossomed in her undergraduate career at Barnard College, a private liberal arts college in New York City, where she worked on the Columbia Daily Spectator, the schools weekly student newspaper, and took courses on the First Amendment.

By the time I graduated, Audrey said, I really had a sense that I wanted to focus on media law and eventually go to law school.

Audrey graduated from Barnard College in 2015 with a bachelors degree in political science and a minor in religion. She then worked as a paralegal on Googles ads legal team before going to law school.

In 2017, she enrolled at The George Washington University Law School, where she wrote for The Federal Communications Law Journal, focusing on telecommunications law, and mentored younger students as part of the mock trial board. Audrey also worked as an intern for the Knight First Amendment Institute and as a legal intern for the Reporters Committee.

She recalled that it was Adam Marshall, a Reporters Committee staff attorney and alumni of GW law school, who inspired her to apply for the internship and, later, the fellowship position.

I came away from those conversations [with Adam] having a great impression of the organization and thinking this would be a cool place to spend some time during or after law school, she said.

Audrey received her J.D. earlier this year.

Audrey Greene is not admitted to practice law.

The Reporters Committee regularly files friend-of-the-court briefs and its attorneys represent journalists and news organizations pro bono in court cases that involve First Amendment freedoms, the newsgathering rights of journalists and access to public information. Stay up-to-date on our work by signing up for our monthly newsletter and following us on Twitter or Instagram.

Read more from the original source:

Reporters Committee welcomes Inasmuch Foundation Legal Fellow - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

FIRST 5: Trump and COVID-19 — How ‘free’ are/should we be? – Salina Post

Posted on by

Gene Policinski. Photo courtesy Freedom Forum

By GENE POLICINSKI

Just how free should a free press be to report on the illness and condition of a sitting president during a national health emergency?

And how free are we to publicly offer our thoughts on the matter?

Both questions have the same legal answer: The First Amendment places no limits on what journalists, bloggers or others might report, and what we might say or speculate about the health of the president.

So, whats left are the First Amendment-ish concerns for reporters from longstanding national security concerns to a possible zone of personal privacy.

And given our fractured, polarized and politically divided society, the rise of social media puts all of us in that kind of -ish situation balancing our right to speak out in any way we choose against the social norms we should consider and the fact that theres no First Amendment insulation for us from the reaction to what we say.

The news that President Trump was infected with the COVID-19 virus came first in his own tweet, not through the news media, just after midnight on Oct. 2. Within minutes, news organizations relayed that dramatic news. Social media began firing up, with comments, forecasts and to put it gently sharp examples of the nations political divide.

To top it all off, a whirlwind of announcements, reports and commentary some contradictory on Trumps illness, brief hospitalization and now his ongoing treatment at the White House is unfolding in the midst of the final weeks of the 2020 presidential campaign.

For the record, U.S. history offers any number of examples of non-disclosure, image manipulation, complaints about White House transparency and press coverage of presidential health and public debate over the public comments about it all.

AfterPresident James Garfieldwas shot in 1881 at a Washington D.C., railroad station, official statements reported his condition as good or stable despite the reality that he suffered for two months from a bullet that could not be removed, before dying. With the bulletins distributed nationwide by telegraph, published in the nations newspapers and followed closely by the public, the story of Garfields fight to survive could be considered Americas first live media event, historianRobert Mitchellwrites inThe Washington Post.

President Woodrow Wilsoncollapsed from exhaustion in 1919 during a national speaking tour, and we now know he suffered a stroke a month later that left him partially paralyzed. Americans didnt learn even basic facts about Wilsons health until he left office.

Not only were there no White House announcements, some historians now dub his wife Edith as the first female president given the 17-month stint in which she consulted with him on virtually all presidential business and screened all contacts and correspondence.

As USA TODAY noted in a story this week, in 1944 a similar scene played out whenPresident Franklin Delano Rooseveltwas diagnosed with acute congestive heart failurethat forced him into seclusion for months. The report noted that the country was in the midst of World War II and the U.S. military was in the final stages of preparing for the D-Day invasion that opened the second front in the war.

Similar national security concerns have been raised about press reports of the details on Trumps condition. Would terrorists or hostile nations seek advantage or perhaps plan an attack in the U.S. or abroad knowing the commander-in-chief of U.S. forces remained on the job even as we learned from journalists that he was hospitalized, or facing medication and treatment for high fever and low blood oxygen levels that could have reduced his ability to converse or process information?

There are two unique circumstances with Trumps illness that werent present even as recently as when President Ronald Reagan was wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt, or underwent colon surgery: A global, instantaneous, 24/7 news environment, coupled with todays pervasive social media.

Beyond the national security concerns, are there some health matters that should remain private and not placed openly before the planet either out of personal consideration or to avoid becoming distorted as election-year fodder?

And there is the often-harsh tenor and frequently unsourced/unverified content of social media. Even a brief sampling showed posts ranging from conservative speakers making unsupported claims that journalists were hoping Trump would die, to Trump opponents posting images comparing Trumps balcony salute as he returned from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center to similar poses struck by dictators such as Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Juan Peron. To be fair, there also were great numbers of well wishes, too.

Again, while the First Amendment save for actual physical threats protects what we could say online, even as it provides no limits or advice on what we should say.

A free-press issue of a different sort has erupted. On Monday, White House Press SecretaryKayleigh McEnanyrevealed she had tested positive for the virus. Various press reports said correspondents were angry they had been exposed during briefings and other meetings with her and other officials over the previous few days.

An unnamed reporter wasquoted inVanity Faironline saying, People are livid. There are a lot of us, like dozens of reporters, who feel its unsafe to be doing it the way its being done. CBS News Ben Tracy commented on Twitter: I felt safer reporting in North Korea than I currently do reporting at The White House. This is just crazy.

As of Tuesday, three journalists in the White House press pool had tested positive. In theVanity Fairreport, White House Correspondents Association PresidentZeke Miller, a reporter for The Associated Press, said that journalists at the White House have been mindful of these risks for months. At the end of the day, were there to keep the American people informed and to be their eyes and ears. That job needs to get done. Were assuming some of these risks, were there to do the job.

In the final analysis, performing that First Amendment job of being a watchdog on government even during a pandemic by reporting the facts, fairly and accurately, as they can be found, is the best medicine for a health democracy.

. . .

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum, and president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at[emailprotected], or follow him on Twitter at@genefac.

More:

FIRST 5: Trump and COVID-19 -- How 'free' are/should we be? - Salina Post

Tennessee voting rights law needs to be repealed for the sake of civil liberty | Opinion – Tennessean

Posted on by

Randy Brockway, Guest Columnist Published 4:00 p.m. CT Oct. 8, 2020

As Tennesseans who believe in truth, equality, and liberty, we cannot allow this Senate Bill 8005 to continue existing in its current form.

Randy Brockway(Photo: Submitted)

On Aug.20 Gov. Bill Lee quietly signed Senate Bill 8005 into law.

There was no public announcement, not even a tweet.

The lack of announcement signals that Gov. Lee knows this is a bad bill aimed at stifling Tennesseans First Amendment rights by enforcing unnecessarily harsh sentencing for protesters.

To understand the silence, the bill itself needs a bit of unpacking. At a high level, the bill calls for harsh sentencing for what are essentially acts that are protected by the First Amendment.

For example, an individual who is caught camping on state property can now be charged with a Class E felony which includes up to sixyearsin prison and loss of voting rights.

Hear more Tennessee Voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought provoking columns.

Due to the vagueness of this statute, in addition to preventing individuals from camping during a peaceful protest, a homeless person caught sleeping in a park, or a family setting up an evening or early morning picnic could potentially be charged in the same fashion.

In contrast, an individual would be charged with a Class A misdemeanor for simple assault on a first responder.

This bill implies it is a more heinous crime to camp on state property than it is to spit on, or physically push a first responder. Does that seem just? Do we truly value state property more than our first responders? One could assume so with the consequences as defined in this bill.

To add to the general vagueness of the bills intent, individuals or groups could be charged and handed a mandatory sentence for disturbing public meetings. This disturbance could be interpreted many ways, however the most obvious would involve being too loud.

For example, those who were peacefully assembling outside of the state capitol and requesting an audience with Gov. Lee, could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor.

The bill does call for harsher penalties for property damageas a result ofaggravated rioting and aggravated assault on a first responder. Rightfully so, the state is calling for this harsher sentencingin an attempt todeter these acts that would move a peaceful assembly or protest to an escalated situation, where bodily harm and property damage could be realized.

Despite the necessary components of this bill, the bill has very severe and questionable unintended consequences for individuals or groups that are exercising their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Does the majority Republican legislature recognize the potential unintended consequences of the bill? Are our elected officials intentionally trying to curb any sort of gathering that would be considered protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?

It is likely we will never know the exact motivations of our elected officials and Gov. Lee with respect to Senate Bill 8005.However, it is clear that this bill needs to be repealed or amended, atminimum.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

As Tennesseans who believe in truth, equality, and liberty, we cannot allow this bill to continue existing in its current form.

Please write your district legislator urging them to raise a bill at the next General Assembly, which convenes in January of 2021, to repeal Senate Bill 8005 or, at a minimum, amend it.

Randy Brockway isDirector ofHuman Resources at ServiceSource and State Leader for Stand Up Republic Tennessee,residing in Franklin, TN.

Read or Share this story: https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2020/10/08/tennessee-protester-law-must-repealed/5923364002/

See the original post:

Tennessee voting rights law needs to be repealed for the sake of civil liberty | Opinion - Tennessean

Airlines really want you to fly this winter, and these Caribbean islands are ready for tourists – The Dallas Morning News

Posted on by

Allen Chastanet, St. Lucias prime minister, thought he was lucky his island was deemed a non-outbreak zone when the Zika virus swept through the Caribbean in 2016, and it was similarly spared from the hurricanes that pummeled its neighbors in 2017. But then came COVID-19.

Its had a devastating effect on our economy and the livelihood of our citizens, Chastanet said.

Indeed, 65% of the islands gross domestic product is garnered through tourism, and the island saw a dramatic 89% drop in arrivals from March to July. That has reduced the governments total revenue by almost 60% so far this year, and attempts to curb the islands already high 25% unemployment rate have spiraled in the opposite direction.

In other parts of the Caribbean, tourism officials started 2020 optimistic that this would be the year to rebound from billions of dollars in hurricane-related losses. But no matter where you look, thats not the way the story went.

St. Lucia lifted its ban on visitors June 4, after 20 long weeks of prioritizing health concerns. It was the first Caribbean nation, along with Antigua and Barbuda, to reopen. By the beginning of July, that list had expanded to include only a handful of other islands, such as Jamaica and the Dominican Republic, plus a couple of start-and-stop efforts that fizzled when new coronavirus cases flooded in.

Now, the waiting game is reaching its apex. Roughly half of the Caribbeans 28 island nations have moved to reopen borders.

Festive season the peak holiday period at the end of the year, when warm-weather destinations make an outsize proportion of their tourism profits is on the horizon, and Caribbean islands are making plans to recapture some of the $44 billion of estimated losses that will be sustained regionwide as a result of COVID-19.

With St. Lucia and its Caribbean neighbors ranking among the most tourism-reliant nations in the world, Chastenet is feeling the pressure. Our tourism industry must coexist with COVID in order to recover, he said.

The playbook shifts, depending on the destination.

While places like the Cayman Islands can more easily remain closed, since they rely on other industries such as offshore banking, the majority of Caribbean destinations simply must let visitors in to survive, said Daniel Marmontello, director of strategy at Apple Leisure Group, whose subsidiaries include CheapCaribbean.com.

While all islands are enacting safety protocols to limit cases of COVID-19, the amount of hoops they ask travelers to jump through differ, not just from country to country but sometimes from week to week. Hotel discounts, hovering around 30% to 40%, are more of a constant.

For travelers keen on a tropical holiday at record-low prices this winter, here are the islands making the strongest cases for visitors to return and all the fine print to think about.

The big sell: Ease of entry. The country opened borders in July, but in September it eliminated the requirement of a negative COVID-19 test upon entry. Instead, its offering all visitors free health insurance as part of its Responsible Tourism Recovery Plan.

Opening status: Yes, you can fly in, but two-thirds of the countrys hotels (mostly all-inclusive properties) have yet to reopen, targeting a November relaunch date.

The fine print: Straightforward policies require you to fill out a health affidavit before arriving, and airports are conducting randomized rapid testing.

Where to stay: With limited COVID-19 restrictions at the governmental level, the onus is now on individual properties to ensure safe practices. For that, Casa de Campo is appealing: The 7,000-acre property is its own secluded haven, with a private airport, marina and on-site hospital.

The big sell: A haven for private flyers. Since no major commercial airlines land on its frightfully short, single runway, there are fewer visitors and threats of COVID-19 washing up on its shores. This summer we flew 400% more charters than normal, said David Zipkin, founder of Tradewind Avation, and 40-50% of [those] private charters were for new clients.

Opening status: The island reopened its international borders June 22.

The fine print: Arriving guests must provide proof of a negative COVID-19 PCR test taken within three days before they land, and all travelers staying longer than a week must take a second test on the seventh day of their visit (expect it to cost upwards of $150).

Where to stay: The beloved Eden Rock with its central, cliffside location is finally reopening on Oct. 22, after a yearslong rebuilding effort that followed hurricanes Irma and Maria.

The big sell: Continue your seclusion in style. Turks and Caicos Islands is currently this winters top destination for villa bookings, according to Amanda Dyjecinski, the chief marketing officer of luxury rental site Onefinestay. The ability to book homes with nannies and private chefs, she said, has made it especially attractive to cautious and long-term travelers.

Opening status: Borders reopened July 22.

The fine print: A COVID-19 PCR test with negative results must be taken less than five days before arrival, and all travelers must provide proof of travelers insurance upon landing.

Where to stay: Private island Como Parrot Cay reopened Oct. 1, with 1,000 acres along a white-sand beach for socially distant biking, hiking, and private outdoor dinners.

The big sell: A time machine that gets you out of the year 2020. The most stringent public health policies in the Caribbean have helped maintain Anguillas pristine COVID-19 track record: Its had only three confirmed cases (and zero deaths) throughout the pandemics duration. The application to visit includes a fee, roughly $250 per person, and covers two PCR tests one administered before arrival and another taken while under a strict quarantine on the island. After that, no masks are required, and life will be like 2019 all over again.

Opening status: Anguilla reopened in August, but only for stays in villas. Hotels and resorts are currently green-lighted for November.

The fine print: Until phase two begins in November, a villa will be your only choice of accommodation, and travelers staying five or fewer days must pay additional fees for relevant COVID-19 monitoring; this costs $500 per couple. Those staying from six to 90 days must also pay fees to cover contact tracing and other containment efforts on the island around $600 per couple.

Where to stay: NI Private Resorts offer an appealing hybrid of villa living with hotel amenities. Once it opens Nov. 1, Belmonds Cap Juluca offers plenty of room to roam around, plus such special little luxuries as chilled towels and chaise-side meal service.

The big sell: Move right in. With the creation of the yearlong Work From Bermuda certificate, which lets visitors bypass the traditional bureaucratic hurdles of a temporary relocation, the Atlantic island is hoping to entice long-stay guests to take their Zoom meetings with real ocean backdrops.

Opening status: International flights resumed July 1, with service from the East Coast, Toronto and London.

The fine print: Travelers must complete a pre-arrival authorization form and have a negative COVID-19 result from a test taken within seven days of flying. A $75 fee will cover an additional test performed upon arrival, plus three further tests for travelers staying two weeks or longer. Visitors are asked to bring their own thermometers and report their temperatures as well.

Where to stay: Harbor view suites at the Rosewood Bermuda start at 1,200 square feet and have proper living and dining rooms perfect for long-term island living.

The big sell: Accessibility. While hotels across the Caribbean have dropped their rates, Prime Minister Chastenet is working with the airlines to offer lower airfare through 2021 as well.

Opening status: International flights resumed in June on all four major American carriers.

The fine print: Travelers must complete a pre-arrival registration form and obtain a negative COVID-19 PCR result within seven days of travel; only approved taxis may be used upon arrival, and guests are relegated to their COVID-19 compliant hotels for the entirety of their stay.

Where to stay: Jade Mountain remains a perennial favorite; its rooms, most with their own infinity pools, are open to the elements and face the majestic Piton mountains.

See more here:

Airlines really want you to fly this winter, and these Caribbean islands are ready for tourists - The Dallas Morning News

BVI Tourist Board Meets With Major Tourism Industry Partners – The St. Kitts-Nevis Observer

Posted on by

ROADTOWN, BVIOctober 7th, 2020The British Virgin Islands Tourist Board and Film Commission held a meeting with tourism industry partners from the private-islands, resorts and large hotel sectors last evening.

The meeting which was considered a success was the first in a series with key industry stakeholders in various sectors of the local tourism industry to be held over the next two weeks.

The session was done virtually with the use of the Microsoft Teams Platform and had over 80 participants.

Premier and Minister responsible for Tourism, Andrew A. Fahie, addressed the meeting and stated that it was imperative that the Government meet with tourism stakeholders to finalize the health protocols as it prepares to open the Territory on December 1stand that he was extremely pleased with the participation and contributions made by the stakeholders.

Premier Fahie said, We were able to share our plans with them and welcomed their feedback. We presented a positive and engaging discussion that will be beneficial in enhancing our guest experience during the COVID era while ensuring that safety remains a priority. I look forward to more discussions with our other industry partners because we are in this together.

Junior Minister for Tourism, Sharie de Castro said the meeting with the stakeholders within the tourism industry was important so that their collective voices can be heard and their concerns recorded.

De Castro said, I believe we were able to explain how far we are in the process, their role in ensuring our preparedness for December 1stand how we intend to support their efforts. I left feeling encouraged, as the partners who participated showed that they are eager to do what is necessary for us to successfully reopen.

The Junior Minister thanked the stakeholders who participated and stated that their contribution was very meaningful and appreciated. She added that she also looked forward to hearing from more industry partners during this consultation phase.

Director of Tourism, Mr. Clive McCoy said, We are meeting with our stakeholders to ensure that they have an opportunity to review our opening plans and protocols and provide input, to ensure that we have the safest reopening protocols. Their input and commitment is very important to a successful reopening on December 1st.

Chairperson of the BVI Tourist Board, Mrs. Kenisha Sprauve also stated that following several one-on-one meetings with industry partners, which helped to shape the draft protocols, the board thought it was time to meet with stakeholders collectively, to get their feedback on the said protocols before they are finalized.

I think we had a successful meeting last evening and look forward to meeting with the other stakeholders as we work together to provide a safe and enjoyable experience for our guests when we welcome them with BVILove beginning on December 1st, she said added.

See the rest here:

BVI Tourist Board Meets With Major Tourism Industry Partners - The St. Kitts-Nevis Observer