Monthly Archives: September 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rest is here:
Donald Trump to headline 1st Amendment event in NH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View post:
NCAA hints at O'Bannon case appeal strategy

The free speech rights here were as in many free speech cases the rights of pretty rude speakers, certainly ones whose message and manners I do not endorse. But the First Amendment protects the rude as well as the polite, especially given how subjective government judgments of rudeness usually end up being.

Here are the facts, from the majority opinion in Bible Believers v. Wayne County (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2014) (some paragraph breaks added throughout the block quotes below):

The City of Dearborn in Wayne County, Michigan, has hosted the Arab International Festival every summer from 1995 until 2012. A three-day event that was free and open to the public, the Festival welcomed roughly 250,000 attendees and featured carnival attractions, live entertainment, international food, and merchandise sales. [The panel later agreed that the festival was a "traditional public forum" at which public speech is fully constitutionally protected, rather than private property or even public property that was temporarily exclusively leased by a public organization. -EV]

[T]he Bible Believers came bearing strongly worded t-shirts and banners:

[Chavez] wore a t-shirt with the message, Fear God on the front and Trust Jesus, Repent and Believe in Jesus on the back. Fisher wore a t-shirt with the message, Trust Jesus on the front and Fear God and Give Him Glory on the back, and he carried a banner that said on one side, Only Jesus Christ Can Save You From Sin and Hell, and on the other side it said, Jesus Is the Judge, Therefore, Repent, Be Converted That Your Sins May Be Blotted Out. Other messages conveyed on t-shirts, signs, or banners displayed by the [other Bible Believers] included, among others, Fear God, Trust Jesus, Repent and Believe in Jesus, Prepare to Meet Thy God Amos 4:12, Obey God, Repent, Turn or Burn, Jesus Is the Way, the Truth and the Life. All Others Are Thieves and Robbers, and Islam Is A Religion of Blood and Murder.

One Bible Believer carried a severed pigs head on a stick, which Chavez explained protected the Bible Believers by repelling observers who feared it. Appellants soon began preaching using a megaphone, and a small crowd formed around them almost immediately. [The police eventually told the speakers that megaphone use was forbidden by ordinance, and the speakers stopped; that restriction is not challenged here. -EV] Chavez castigated the crowd for following a pedophile prophet and warned of Gods impending judgment. As this evangelizing continued, the crowd yelled back. At this point, a ribbon-cutting at the opposite end of the Festival occupied a majority of the [Wayne County Sheriff's Office] officers, but one officer watched from the outskirts of the crowd.

As the Bible Believers moved deeper into the Festival, the crowd a good portion of which appeared to be minors continued to gather and yell. Some people started throwing debris including rocks, plastic bottles, garbage, and a milk crate at the Bible Believers. Someone in the crowd also shoved one Bible Believer to the ground. Some WCSO officers detained debris-throwers while other officers hovered at the edges of the crowd. Eventually, after about thirty-five minutes, the Bible Believers temporarily stopped preaching and stood as the crowd harangued them and hurled objects. Several officers, including some mounted units, attempted to quell the crowd.

After about five minutes of standing quietly, the Bible Believers began to move and preach again. As they did so, the cascade of objects intensified. Deputy Chiefs Richardson and Jaafar approached them a few minutes later. Jaafar explained that they could leave and that their safety was in jeopardy because not enough officers were available to control the crowd.

The Bible Believers, however, continued to preach, followed by what had swelled into a large crowd. Richardson and Jaafar then took Chavez aside to speak with him. Richardson noted his concern that Chavez was bleeding from where a piece of debris had cut his face. Richardson explained that he was responsible for policing the entire Festival, that Chavezs conduct was inciting the crowd, and that he would escort the Bible Believers out of the Festival

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

Here is the original post:
Volokh Conspiracy: Thuggery wins, free speech rights lose