Daily Archives: March 1, 2017

When Lester Packingham beat a traffic ticket a few years back, he couldnt contain his joy. He went online and wrote, No fine. No court cost, no nothing spent. Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks, JESUS!

For this he was arrested and convicted of a heinous crime: using Facebook.

Who is legally forbidden to use Facebook? In North Carolina and a handful of other states, a registered sex offender. In 2002, Packingham, then 21, pled guilty to two counts of statutory rape of his girlfriend, 13 (he claimed he did not know her age). This netted him a suspended sentence and 30 years on the registry.

His case made it to the Supreme Court Monday, where he argued that not being allowed on social media violated his right to freedom of expression.

The judges seemed to grasp the profound role of social media in our lives today. Justice Elena Kagan said that a person banished from major platforms like Facebook is effectively shut out of society.

This is the way people structure their civic community life, she said. Not only can the banished not communicate the way everyone else does, they cannot go onto the presidents Twitter account to find out what the president is saying. (I imagine her mentally inserting a winking emoji here.)

For its part, North Carolinas lawyer Robert Montgomery insisted that sex offenders should be barred from any Internet sites minors might use, just as theyre barred from playgrounds and parks. This Court has recognized that they have a high rate of recidivism and are very likely to do this again. Even as late as 20 years from when they are released, they may recidivate.

Its true the court recognized this high rate of recidivism, but its also true that it was mistaken. As the scholar/lawyer Ira Ellman wrote in a stunning expose a few years ago, the frightening and high recidivism risk cited by Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2002 a rate the justice said has been estimated to be as high as 80 percent was based on what turned out to be a single article by a single therapist in an old copy of Psychology Today.

The therapist didnt even cite any evidence.

Actual studies have found the sex-offender recidivism rate to be about 5 percent.

So Montgomerys argument is based, in part, on a falsehood. But the question remains: Do sex offenders have a right to be part of the world at all?

Montgomery argued that they could lurk online, gathering information on potential victims. At which point Justice Stephen Breyer seemed to tease the man:

Breyer: Can you have a statute that says convicted swindlers cannot go on Facebook or cannot go on the Internet on sites that tell people that tell people where to gather to discuss money?

Montgomery: Im not sure about that.

Breyer: We can think of you know, pretty soon, youre going to have everybody convicted of different things not being able to go anywhere and discuss anything.

Its true that people can and do discuss anything and everything online, nice and nasty. That is precisely why keeping sex offenders off social media opens the door to keeping almost anyone else off it for almost any reason.

And yet, the justices seem to be mulling, the Internet is the new town square. In the real-world town square, even people with criminal pasts are allowed to come and go, speak their mind and resume their lives. They can stand on a soap box and present their case for changing the laws that, for instance, turn an I beat my traffic ticket! status update into a crime.

Banning those found guilty of sex offenses from social media forbids speech on the very platforms on which Americans today are most likely to communicate, to organize for social change, and to petition their government, said Packinghams lawyer, Stanford Laws David Goldberg.

But of course, if your goal is to outlaw freedom of speech and assembly, its brilliant to start with a reviled group. First they came for the sex offenders, and so on and so on.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case by the end of June.

Lenore Skenazy, author of the book and blog Free-Range Kids, is a contributor at Reason.com.

Read more from the original source:
Do sex offenders have a right to free speech? - New York Post

Much like 1960s America, we live in an era of cultural tension and unrest. During times like these, the freedoms protected under the first amendment, especially those of freedom of speech, press and assembly, are flexed more than ever. Schools and college campuses, which serve as places of learning and spaces where voices are listened to, become the prime battleground for rhetoric and discourse of political ideas.

This immense cultural unrest and its consequential outcry, which can be heard and seen across Americas school campuses, plays a crucial role in interpreting and understanding our constitutional rights. Harping back to the time of the Vietnam war, Justice Abe Fortas famously said in the ruling of the monumental Tinker v. Des Moines, It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

But modernly, the fine line between abusing and violating the first amendment is drawn even thinner. What if those students or teachers willingly shed their rights of expression for the creation of a more safe and peaceful space? Are they not utilizing their freedom of speech in another way, by denying themselves speech? In the age of political correct (P.C.) culture, the legal and moral standards associated with our first amendment have become murkier.

As the way in which we are able to exercise our freedom of speech is debated, the stakes of those exercises of freedom are elevated as well. In 1965, Tinker v. Des Moines began over the instance of five students being suspended for wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam war. Only a few weeks ago, over fifteen hundred people at UC Berkeley protested against the alt-right guest speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos, resulting in damages to the campus of $100,000 and the cancellation of his speech.

This recent event has been a recurring story in the news. On college campuses across the nation, and including our very own demonstrations resulted in guest speakers on campus discontinuing or canceling their speeches.

The hundreds of protesters at UC Berkeley assembled peacefully for about an hour before 150 masked agitators swayed the protest into a more violent and destructive atmosphere. On the very same campus that once served as a major battleground in the fight for free speech, Yiannopoulos was evacuated and the school was forced to cancel the event.

Not only did our President then threaten to cut federal funds to UC Berkeley, but Yiannopoulos also took to social media saying, The Left is absolutely terrified of free speech and will do literally anything to shut it down.

This particular event exemplifies the issues that arise when making the assumption that P.C. culture infringes upon first amendment rights. The conception that those protesters violated his first amendment rights is a myth because the first amendment holds that congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. The protesters are not in the position of congress, therefore the government is not restricting anyones freedom of speech in this case.

However, one may also argue that because UC Berkeley is a public school, their decision to cancel Yiannopouloss speech can be seen as a de facto violation of the first amendment under the guise of safety.

The protesters, who can arguably be blamed for inciting the cancellation, were in their rights to assemble. It was only in the violence and destruction of property that they abused and stepped out of their rights. Yiannopoulos, too, was in his right to give a speech, however inflammatory or hateful that speech would have been.

Legally, as set by the supreme court in the case of National Socialist Party v Skokie, people in a public space are within their rights when [m]arching, walking or parading or otherwise displaying the swastika on or off their person; [d]istributing pamphlets or displaying any materials which incite or promote hatred against persons of any faith or ancestry, race or religion.

Essentially, the only speech that is not protected by the first amendment are those that include obscenity and fighting words, words legally defined by the supreme court as those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction.

Regardless of the cultural unrest in our day and age, the legal standards of freedom of speech are being upheld and rightfully contested. Before moving on to investigate the claims of moral standards, a close consideration should be made to the first amendment itself and how its defined and interpreted by the supreme court.

Eve Peyser writes in Esquire goes on to claim that, The heart of [P.C. culture] isnt about making sure what you say doesnt offend, but how people with radically different beliefs should best talk to each other. The intentions stated and the plea for communication addressed here, by an defender of P.C. culture, seem inherently reasonable. But its almost redundant to plea for protection of freedom of speech when the negative effects of P.C. culture on college campuses are under fire from both conservatives and liberals alike.

Language and communication are powerful, these are acts both sides of the political spectrum can agree with. Language dictates our law, but language and meaning in itself is incredibly malleable. The language of law in the case of freedom of speech raises further questions and contestations, especially with the emergence of P.C. culture and recent demonstrations on college campuses.

These campuses are spaces where people with opposing opinions should have the opportunity and the platform to exercise the power of their first amendment rights. It is here where anyone, regardless of political orientation, can delve into the murky meaning of language and law and attempt to find the answers to those questions and contestations.

In the same space where those that are accused of limiting free speech utilize their first amendment rights to assembly, those that accuse P.C. culture of suppressing free speech can also find a platform to voice their opinions. Here, in this complex and controversial dynamic, the beauty in interpreting and exercising the first amendment is made outside of the courts and instead, on college campuses.

This editorial is a reflection of the opinions of The Sundial editorial board.

More:
Editorial: freedom of speech in an era of political-correctness, part one - Daily Sundial

BUCKHANNON Dissent is patriotic.

Thats the message the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia delivered to a small crowd gathered in Wesley Chapel on the campus of West Virginia Wesleyan College Sunday night.

Joseph Cohen said the United States is at a watershed moment when it comes to being patriotic via social activism and various protest movements across the country.

Were right now in the midst of this explosion of social activism and its maybe unparalleled in American history, Cohen said, referring to the many protests organized throughout the United States, including those put on in opposition to President Donald Trumps so-called Muslim ban and the Womens March on Washington.

Theres so many people who are getting actively engaged in protest movements, and its really people who have woken up to this that need to make their voice heard people who have never been involved in protest activities, people who have never been involved in mass movements, are taking to the streets in incredible numbers, and we think thats beautiful at the ACLU, Cohen said.

We love when people exercise their right to freedom of speech, we love when people exercise their right to freedom of assembly, we love when people exercise their right of freedom of association, he continued. In our opinion, theres nothing more American than dissent than telling your government why theyre wrong, why they screwed up, why you disagree with them. That is the very basis of our whole democratic system.

Cohen began his presentation by reviewing the history and purpose of the ACLU of W.Va. The ACLU is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization whose mission is to protect and expand civil liberties for West Virginians; its an affiliate of the national ACLU, which has been in the news quite frequently lately.

A major focus of our work is to extend civil liberties to those who are traditionally denied those protections, and that particular part of our mission seems more relevant today than maybe in our countrys history, Cohen said. We accomplish our goals through litigation that is, suing the government lobbying, grassroots organization and education.

Cohen said the ACLU has been in operation in the Mountain State since 1920, and its first case here was representing coal miners who were imprisoned for organizing labor unions. He went on to note that although the ACLU isnt typically thought of as a nonpartisan organization, it has sued every presidential administration.

Weve sued Barack Obama many, many times, and weve sued Donald Trump many, many times already, and Im sure were going to be suing him a lot more, Cohen said. Theres this massive increase in First Amendment activity around the country and in West Virginia, and this has not happened before in this state. With all the other crazy things that are going on the attacks on Muslims, the attacks on immigrants, the attacks on women and all the other groups that are being targeted weve nationally and in West Virginia made one of our top priorities ensuring that peoples free speech rights are honored, so you or anybody else involved in protest activity where you think you might have encounters with police are protected.

Cohen said protecting peoples First Amendment rights is especially important in rural areas like West Virginia, where police dont have as much experience handling protesters and rallies.

Its one thing when its at the Capitol grounds, because there are protests all the time and the police kind of know what they shouldnt be doing, Cohen said. But especially when state police get involved, thats when the problems happen, because theyre just not used to dealing with protesters.

Cohen said although the ACLU is an anti-racist, civil rights organization, it has a responsibility to protect all speech, regardless of whether its officials philosophically agree with that speech or not.

We protect all speech, he said. Speech that we agree with is not usually prohibited by the government, but speech we disagree with frequently prohibited, ugly speech, speech that we find reprehensible as individuals and as an organization. And we dont make those distinctions if the government tries to infringe upon someones constitutional protected right to speech or to assemble, we will fight it, and it does not matter who it is that includes the (Ku Klux) Klan, that includes the Nazi party.

Although free speech is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution as well as freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom to peacefully assemble civil disobedience is not protected. Civil disobedience includes nonviolent, unlawful action as a form of protest. Cohen said classic civil disobedience is a refusal to follow laws that one feels are unjust or immoral, Rosa Parks being the most famous example.

She refused to give up her seat to a white person, but at the time, that was unlawful, Cohen said, adding that those who engage in civil disobedience should expect to be arrested and sometimes even want to be arrested to draw attention to the cause.

Cohen said two movements that have led up to the peak in protest activity currently going on are the Black Lives Matter movement in response to the killing of Trayvon Martin in 2013 as well as the 2016 protest in North Dakota against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Its continuing to grow this mass increase in protest activity, Cohen said. I believe this is another watershed moment. The Womens March in Washington, D.C. several weeks ago drew over 3 million people who took part in the protest that day. It was the largest single protest in American history; more than 1 percent of Americans took part in that.

Cohen said since the election of President Donald Trump and his inauguration, the ACLU has seen a significant spike in activism.

Within 24 hours of Donald Trump signing his unconstitutional and outrageous so-called Muslim ban executive order, tens of thousands of people descended on airports all over the country chanting, Let them in! Let them in!, Cohen said. At the same time, the ACLU was filing lawsuits and we were winning. These people were going to shut down the airports.

Shutting down the airports essentially shuts down the entire U.S. economy, Cohen said.

That is power right there, he added.

Cohen offered a few lessons for those who wish to stage a successful protest organize, create powerful imagery, be prepared to sacrifice and stand your ground, the last being probably the most important.

Nothing scares power more than a refusal to move, Cohen said. We all take up space because were all made of atoms, we all take up mass. If you literally refuse to move, theyre going to pay attention to you at some point.

Read more:
ACLU fights for free speech - Record Delta