Monthly Archives: March 2017

A Texas high school's on-site prayer room -- which serves as a spot where Muslim students can pray -- is stirring controversy.

Liberty High School in Frisco established the room in 2009, but Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is concerned that the room may be off-limits to students of other religious denominations.

He said in a letter Friday to the school district that any exclusion would be inconsistent with the First Amendments protection of religious liberty.

A school district spokesman responded that the classroom is available to students of all walks of life in the afternoon when it is vacant.

The leader of a large Baptist church in Dallas told "Fox & Friends" Sunday that he is okay with the practice.

I believe as long as students had equal access to the room its not a First Amendment issue, Pastor Robert Jeffress said. I believe we really as conservatives need to be careful that we dont pervert the First Amendment like liberals do to use it for their own agenda.

Muslim-American Mustafa Tameez, a Democratic political consultant, told "Fox & Friends" that Paxton is trying to create a controversy where one doesnt exist.

In airports we have a chapel where people can go pray, he said. So its not necessarily just for Muslim students. Its for anybody, anybody of faith that wants to use a room to communicate with their creator."

Follow this link:
First Amendment controversy brews over Texas high school's prayer room - Fox News

NEW YORK (AP) Whenever Donald Trump fumes about fake news or labels the press the enemy of the people, First Amendment scholar David L. Hudson Jr. hears echoes of other presidents but a breadth and tone that are entirely new.

Trump may not know it, but it was Thomas Jefferson who once said, Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper, said Hudson, a law professor at Vanderbilt University.

But whats unusual with Trump is the pattern of disparagement and condemnation of virtually the entire press corps. Weve had presidents who were embittered and hated some of the press Richard Nixon comes to mind. But I cant think of a situation where you have this rat-a-tat attack on the press on virtually a daily basis, for the evident purpose of discrediting it.

Journalism marks its annual Sunshine Week, which draws attention to the medias role in advocating for government transparency, at an extraordinary moment in the relationship between the presidency and the press.

First Amendment advocates call the Trump administration the most hostile to the press and free expression in memory. In words and actions, they say, Trump and his administration have threatened democratic principles and the general spirit of a free society: The demonizing of the media and emphatic repetition of falsehoods. Fanciful scenarios of voter fraud and scorn for dissent. The refusal to show Trumps tax returns and the removal of information from government websites.

And in that battle with the Trump administration, the media do not have unqualified public support.

According to a recent Pew survey, nearly 90 percent of respondents favored fair and open elections while more than 80 percent value the system of government checks and balances. But around two-thirds called it vital for the media to have the right to criticize government leaders; only half of Republicans were in support. A recent Quinnipiac University poll found that Americans by a margin of 53-37 trust the media over Trump to tell the truth about important issues; among Republicans, 78 percent favored Trump.

Were clearly in a particularly polarizing moment, although this is something weve been building to for a very long time, says Kyle Pope, editor in chief and publisher of the Columbia Journalism Review, a leading news and commentary source for journalism.

I think one of the mistakes the press made is we became perceived as part of the establishment. And I think one of the silver linings of the moment were in is that we have a renewed sense of what our mission is and where we stand in the pecking order, and that is on the outside, where we belong.

Hudson, ombudsman of the Newseums First Amendment Center, says its hard to guess whether Trump is serious or bloviating when he disparages free expression. He noted Trumps comments in November saying that flag burners should be jailed and wondered if the president knew such behavior was deemed protected by the Constitution (in a 1989 Supreme Court ruling supported by a justice Trump says he admires, the late Antonin Scalia).

Hudson also worries about a range of possible trends, notably the withholding of information and a general culture of secrecy that could close a lot of doors. But he did have praise for Trumps pick to replace Scalia on the court, Neil Gorsuch, saying that he has showed sensitivity to First Amendment issues. And free speech advocates say the press, at least on legal issues, is well positioned to withstand Trump.

We have a really robust First Amendment and have a lot of protections in place, says Kelly McBride, vice president of The Poynter Institute, a nonprofit journalism education center based in St. Petersburg, Florida. That doesnt mean that attempts wont be made. But when you compare our country to what journalists face around the world, I still think the U.S. is one of the safest places for a journalist to criticize the government.

The First Amendment, which states in part that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, is far broader and more uniquely American than when ratified in 1791.

At the time, free expression was based on the legal writings of Britains Sir William Blackstone. The First Amendment protected against prior restraint, but not against lawsuits once something was spoken or published. Truth was not a defense against libel and the burden of proof was on the defendant, not the plaintiff. And the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government, but not to individual states, which could legislate as they pleased.

The most important breakthrough of recent times, and the foundation for many protections now, came with the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan case of 1964.

The Times had printed an advertisement in 1960 by supporters of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that noted King had been arrested numerous times and condemned Southern violators of the Constitution. The public safety commissioner of Montgomery, Alabama, L. B. Sullivan sued for libel. He was not mentioned by name in the ad, but he claimed that allegations against the police also defamed him. After a state court awarded Sullivan $500,000, the Times appealed to the Supreme Court.

Some information in the ad was indeed wrong, such as the number of times King was arrested, but the Supreme Court decided unanimously for the Times. In words still widely quoted, Justice William Brennan wrote that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. He added that a libel plaintiff must prove that the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

It was breathtakingly new, First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams said of Brennans ruling. It was an extraordinary step the court was taking.

But freedom of speech has long been championed more in theory than in reality. Abraham Lincolns administration shut down hundreds of newspapers during the Civil War. Woodrow Wilson championed the peoples indisputable right to criticize their own public officials, but also signed legislation during World War I making it a crime to utter, print, write, or publish anything disloyal or profane about the federal government. During the administration of President Barack Obama, who had taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, the Wilson-era Espionage Act was used to obtain emails and phone records of reporters and threaten James Risen of The New York Times with jail.

Predicting what Trump might do is as difficult as following his views on many issues. He often changes his mind, and contradicts himself.

During the campaign last year, he spoke of changing the libel laws to make it easier to sue the media. But shortly after the election, he seemed to reverse himself. He has said he is a tremendous believer of the freedom of the press, but has worried that Our press is allowed to say whatever they want and get away with it.

Trumps disparagement of the media has been contradicted by high officials in his administration. Secretary of Defense James Mattis said recently that he did not have any issues with the press. Vice President Mike Pence was an Indiana congressman when he helped sponsor legislation (which never passed) in 2005 that would protect reporters from being imprisoned by federal courts. In early March, he spoke at a prominent gathering of Washington journalists, the Gridiron Club and Foundation dinner.

Be assured that while we will have our differences and I promise the members of the Fourth Estate that you will almost always know when we have them President Trump and I support the freedom of the press enshrined in the First Amendment, he said, while adding that too often stories make page one and drive news with just too little respect for the people who are affected or involved.

Read more from the original source:
NATIONAL: Advocates say First Amendment can withstand Trump attacks - Stanly News & Press

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 11:06AM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson, Larimer, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, Weld

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 8:25AM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Kit Carson

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 8:25AM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Yuma

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 4:05AM MDT expiring March 19 at 8:00PM MDT in effect for: Fremont, Huerfano, Las Animas, Pueblo

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 3:20AM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson, Morgan, Washington, Weld

Fire Weather Warningissued March 19 at 3:20AM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Boulder, Larimer, Logan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Weld

Fire Weather Watchissued March 18 at 9:09PM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson, Morgan, Washington, Weld

Fire Weather Watchissued March 18 at 12:41PM MDT expiring March 19 at 7:00PM MDT in effect for: Yuma

Fire Weather Watchissued March 18 at 2:59PM MDT expiring March 19 at 8:00PM MDT in effect for: Fremont, Huerfano, Las Animas, Pueblo

View post:
First Amendment expert: DPD public records dispute raises ... - The Denver Channel

Someone asked recently why we have posted the First Amendment as a regular feature on this page.

Well its just a reminder that we can all have a voice in the defense and perpetuation of our great Democratic Republic.

The fact is, many people make reference to the First Amendment when theyve never actually read it, or else they havent read it in a very long time.

The First Amendment is the front door of our great Constitution. Without it, claiming the many protections for the individual in this document would be a cumbersome and inefficient process.

There have been efforts through the years to erode the First Amendment, but fortunately the concept attributed to Voltaire and echoed by Patrick Henry has prevailed. I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Such a noble stand!

Routinely we get comments from the public that paraphrased collectively say, He shouldnt be allowed to say that.

Well, we do have libel and slander laws which establish some parameters on our speech, but those provisions allow for evidence and a process of jurisprudence.

But the aforementioned reference, He shouldnt be allowed to say that typically involves contrasting opinions that come in the purview of fair game and often involves politics.

Keep in mind that the First Amendment also addresses freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to peacefully assemble and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment is sort of an antidote to tyrants, big and small. It embraces concepts foreign to many governments around the world. It provides for broad discourse and robust debate elements that helped found our nation.Simply put, its the crown jewel of our Constitution and metaphorically speaking, should be worn on our sleeves!

Read more here:
First Amendment: Crown jewel of our Constitution - Moultrie Observer

Im 7-foot-4 and three times as smart as you. The president of Trinidad and Tobago bugged my smart TVlast summer and recorded me watching Moonshiners marathons. Disgraceful! Did you notice the cool new flag hanging on my porch? The design is called a Swastika. I created it.

The First Amendment, by the way, was a cockamamie idea, promulgated by men who favored powdered wigs and wooden teeth.

For those of you scoring at home, the preceding rant included outright lies, unprovable assertions, reckless accusations, infantile insults and provocative bravado. What do they have in common? Theyre all protected by the First Amendment and the right to free speech which isnt entirely free.

There is a price to pay when one has to listen ascousin Wilbur enlivens Thanksgiving dinner with pointed political discourse. Or when an extremist peddling incendiary rhetoric shows up at the local university intending to elicit mushroom clouds of outrage. Or when the president of the United States tweets yet another prefabricated whopper.

Unprecedented and dangerous times?

Been there, heard that, says Saint Marys College politics professor Steve Woolpert, whose academic research includes the Constitution and Supreme Court.

Its not pretty, and it doesnt make you feel great to be a citizen of a country where this stuff is going on, Woolpert said. Its not unprecedented. Look tothedebate over ratifying the Constitution. The rhetoric was extremely heated and nasty. Around the Civil War, it was worse, because people were killing each other. People were being more virulent in their rhetoric then.

Thats difficult to believe given howIowa Congressman Steve King recently advocated for stringent immigration policies: We cant restore our civilization with somebody elses babies.

Or the dismissive manner with which President Donald Trump regards courts and judges.

Or the Brentwoodman who has decided to fly the Confederate flag outside his house as a history lesson. Neighbors who have been subjected tothe drive-by honks and hollers no doubtwish free speech could be a bit more serene.

The First Amendment is something people support in the abstract, Woolpert said. Support for free speech is quite limited when it comes to speech we hate. Ideally, what would happen is that it would broaden their understanding of why free speech is important.

It didnt work that way Feb. 1 when MiloYiannopoulos, then a senior editor at right-wing website Breitbart, was scheduled to give a talk at UC Berkeley. It was unlikely his message would find a receptive audience on a college campus in the liberal-leaning Bay Area. But he had the right to deliver it. Instead,his right to free speech was abridgedby demonstrators at a cost of more than $100,000 in property damage.

Woolpert is right. We tend to regard the First Amendment as a subjective document, embracing those passages we can conform to our world view. Itcould probably be said for the entire Bill of Rights that we revere it more than we understand it.

Or as our president said recently:

If the Constitution prevented me from doing one or two things, Id chalk that up to bad luck, Trump said after his revised travel ban was struck down by a judge. When literally everything I want to do is magically a violation of the Constitution, thats very unfair and bad treatment.

Could be worse.

Woolpert reminds that our second president, John Adams, signed into lawthe Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to criticize the government. Such an act enacted today, of course, would result in the extermination of many websites and most cable news outlets.

I can remember the civil rights era when people were having crosses burned on their lawn and people were being shot and lynched for asserting their (free speech) rights, Woolpert said. And despite all that, the First Amendment, it seems to be aprinciple that people support.

See the article here:
No worries, Trump First Amendment still protecting free speech, even yours - The Mercury News