Daily Archives: June 1, 2017

The ACLU of Kansas says a new policy adopted by the Shawnee Mission School Board may violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. It has sent a letter to Board President Sarah Goodburn, urging the board to rescind the policy.

In its letter, the ACLU highlights an exchangeGoodburn had with a parent at a board meeting May 22. At that meeting, resident Jeff Passanraised concerns about an alleged conflict of interest by board member Deb Zila, involving Zila's vote to approve a new district contract with insurance broker CBIZ. CBIZ employs Zila's daughter.

After naming Zila, Passan was interrupted by Goodburn.

"You got this beforehand? What we can and cannot talk about in open forum? Naming specific people is really not allowed," Goodburn said.

She was apparently referring to the Board's recently modified guidelines for speakers at a meeting. It says, in part, that speakers should be "civil, use respectful language and refrain from any personal attacks." The policy also states "matters related to a specific student or employee" should not be discussed.

In a video of the May 22 meeting, Passan looks briefly flummoxed, then responds to Goodburn:

"So, if in the future there is a particular vote which I, as a person who lives in the Shawnee Mission School District, disagree with and want to publicly ask about that, am I not allowed to do that?" he asked.

Goodburn can be heard on the video responding to Passan, repeating the wording of the guidelines. After Passaninterjects that he is "being civil and respectful", Goodburn says: "You can say a 'board member' but a specific board member you cannot say."

The Shawnee Mission Post reported Goodburn later acknowledged Passan had not technically been in violation of the speaker guidelines because Zilais not an employee of the district.

The ACLU, in its letter, says that's not good enough.

"People have a well-established First Amendment right to criticize both elected officials and other public servants," the letter says (emphasis by the ACLU). "By prohibiting commenters from discussing "matters related to a specific student or employee", the Board's current guidelines are overbroad and inconsistent with the First Amendment."

The letter ends by urging the board to "remove the guidelines" and "in the future, refrain from admonishing commenters who mention board members by name."

In an emailed statement, a district spokesperson wrote the district had received the ACLU's letter.

"As the Board continues its review of draft guidelines," the spokesperson wrote, "it will take the comments in the letter into consideration as it balances the privacy rights of individual students and employees with the free speech rights of individual citizens."

Kyle Palmer is KCUR's morning newscaster. You can follow him on Twitter @kcurkyle.

Read the rest here:
ACLU Says Shawnee Mission School Board Policy Violates First Amendment - KCUR

Quad-City Times Editorial Page Editor Jon Alexander was recognized with a national award for editorials written in 2016 pushing for government transparency.

He received the APME First Amendment Award, competing against work by newspapers nationwide in the 40,000 to 149,999 circulation category. His editorials, published in early 2016, pushed against the practice of closed-door meetings by Davenport City Council, which are now open to the media and the public.

The 2017 Associated Press Media Editors Awards were given to watchdog journalism that saved lives, exposed bias, held government officials accountable and shed light on hidden practices.

This is a huge honor to be recognized by our peers on a national stage for doing what I believe to be one of the key roles of newspapers, to advocate for our readers, Quad-City Times Executive Editor Autumn Phillips said.

Alexander will receive the award during a reception in October in Washington, D.C., at APMEs annual News Leadership Conference.

Other recipients of the First Amendment Award this year were The (Charleston, S.C.) Post and Courier, in the 150,000 and over category and the Peoria Journal Star, in the 39,999 and under circulation category.

The Chicago Tribune earned the grand prize in Public Service for Dangerous Doses, which exposed pharmacies that were dispensing drug combinations that could cause harm or death.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune and Springfield (Ill.) State Journal-Register also received top honors in Public Service.

The annual APME contest honors excellence and innovation in journalism and reflects the Associated Press Media Editors mission of fostering newsroom leaders, empowering journalists to succeed and cultivating ideas that work. Teams of judges are comprised of APME national board members and top editors at The Associated Press. Phillips is on the board of APME but was not a judge in the First Amendment contest.

"I believe quality journalism and the commitment to the communities we serve is central to our newspaper's success," said Publisher Deb Anselm. "A big part of that is to watch out for this community by exercising our First Amendment Rights."

Read more:
Quad-City Times wins national First Amendment Award - Quad City Times

Donald Trump calls the press 'the enemy.' If that's the case, there's a lot more people on that list, says columnist E.J. Montini.

Criticisms of Ducey and Trump are rooted in muddled thinking about the First Amendment's free speech protections.(Photo: Photo: Getty Images)

Gov. Doug Ducey was right to veto the legislation (Senate Bill 1384) limiting the ability of school administrators to regulate the content of student newspapers. Much of the criticism of the veto was rooted in muddled thinking about the First Amendments free speech protections.

The First Amendment is a negative injunction: Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...

That gives Americans the right to write or say what they want. But it doesnt guarantee an audience. Or a publisher.

At the high school level, the publisher of a student newspaper is clearly the school. The vetoed bill would have sharply curtailed the authority a publisher usually has over content. Administrators could only exercise oversight over material that is defamatory, violates privacy or law, or creates an imminent danger of inciting disorder or unlawful conduct.

Those are all nebulous standards, subject to judgment, disagreement and litigation. The bill stated that the school isnt liable for content published in the student media, but thats a doubtful immunity.

The Arizona Constitution is highly protective of the right to sue. Courts are likely to look askance at letting the adults in the equation, and the only deep pockets in the picture, off the hook.

Schools exercising the usual authority of a publisher isnt an infringement on the First Amendment rights of student journalists. If the publisher of this newspaper took the advice of some of you and discontinued this column, my First Amendment rights wouldnt have been violated.

MONTINI: Ducey praises 'free speech' law that could put you in jail

A school punishing a student for content published on a private blog or Facebook might implicate First Amendment rights. But not publishing something in a publication paid for by the school doesnt. Thats exercising the prerogatives of a publisher.

This is a minor point, but not an irrelevant one. One of the challenges our schools face is maintaining an orderly learning environment. Schools arent helped by the Legislature concocting another legal thicket for them to negotiate.

Its unfair to Ducey to bring Donald Trump into the conversation at this point. Ducey behaved responsibly with his veto. Trump is behaving irresponsibly in his war with certain media. Nevertheless, much of the commentary regarding Trumps war with the media is also rooted in muddled thinking about the First Amendment.

The New York Times has a First Amendment right to write what it wants about Trump. And Trump has a First Amendment right to say what he thinks about what The Times writes about him.

Trump exercising his First Amendment rights doesnt curtail or threaten The Times First Amendment rights.

Some commentators make a more subtle point. By attacking certain media, they assert, Trump is undermining the role of the press that the First Amendment was intended to protect.

This is a historical miscue. At the time the First Amendment was adopted, the press, mostly newspapers and pamphleteers, were fiercely and transparently partisan.

The notion of the media as neutral and objective transmitters of information is a modern-era pretense. And the American people have never bought it.

In 2013, Gallup asked how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media such as newspapers, TV, and radio when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or none at all? Well before Trump twitter storms became an important element of public discourse, 55 percent of respondents answered not very much or none at all.

There have been reports that the Trump administration was mulling abandoning the daily White House briefing or even booting reporters out of the White House, and this has been decried as an attack on the First Amendment. This has been the most muddled thinking of all.

Nothing in the First Amendment guarantees self-selected media office space in the White House or an administration spokesman to play gotcha with on a daily basis. Getting rid of both might reduce the herd mentality and emphasis on gotcha journalism and produce more diverse and substantive reporting.

Trump is frequently reckless and irresponsible in his attacks on the media. But so long as we are free to write and say that, the First Amendment is not under siege.

Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com.

MORE FROM ROBB:

Attorneys fleece Target for $18.5 million

Tom Horne's case proves the system is broken

There's a better way to boost teacher pay

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2sdReli

Excerpt from:
Robb: No, your First Amendment rights aren't being attacked - AZCentral.com

Ted Wheeler, mayor of Portland, Ore., denounced the fatal stabbings of two men by a suspect accused of going on an anti-Muslim rant on May 27. Wheeler said the "current political climate" allows too much room for "bigotry." (Reuters)

As his city mourns two men who were killed after confronting a man screaming anti-Muslim slurs, Mayor Ted Wheeler is calling on federal officials to block what he called alt-right demonstrations from happening indowntown Portland, Ore.

His concern is that the two rallies, both scheduled in June, will escalatean already volatile situation in Portland by peddling a message of hatred and of bigotry. Although the organizers of the rallies have a constitutional right to speak, hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment, Wheeler told reporters.

But history and precedentare not on Wheeler's side.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech, no matter how bigoted or offensive, is free speech.

The high court did so in 1969, when it found that a state law banningpublic speech that advocates for illegal activities violated the constitutional rights of a Ku Klux Klan leader.

It did so again in 1992, when the justices found that a city ordinance prohibiting the display of symbols that arouse anger toward someone based on race, religion and other factors is unconstitutional.

And again in 2011, when the court ruled in favor ofchurch members who picketed and carried signs with homophobic slurs at a soldier's funeral.

[Portland mayor asks feds to bar free-speech and anti-sharia rallies after stabbings]

Although certain forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment,hate speech isn't one of them, Eugene Volokh, a law professor and free speech expert, wrote last month. For it to be banned, experts say, it must rise to the level of threat or harassment.

Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas, Volokh said. One is as free to condemn, for instance, Islam or Muslims, or Jews, or blacks, or whites, or illegal immigrants, or native-born citizens as one is to condemn capitalism or socialism or Democrats or Republicans.

The American Civil Liberties Union agrees.

Following Wheeler's announcement, the nonprofit's Oregon chapter criticized the mayor, saying banning a group from holding a rally merely because of what it seeks to express steps into dangerous territory of government overreach.

The government cannot revoke or deny a permit based on the viewpoint of the demonstrators. Period, the ACLU of Oregon said in a Facebook post Monday. It may be tempting to shut down free speech we disagree with, but once we allow the government to decide what we can say, see, or hear, or who we can gather with, history shows us that the most marginalized will be disproportionately censored and punished for unpopular speech.

In alengthy Facebook post Monday,Wheeler called on federal officials torevoke a permit authorizing a June 4 Trump Free Speech Rally at a federal plaza in downtown Portland. Another event by the same organizers, March Against Sharia, is scheduled for June 10 but has not received permits. He also asked the organizers of the rallies to cancel the events.

I urge them to ask their supporters to stay away from Portland, Wheeler wrote. There is never a place for bigotry or hatred in our community, and especially now.

[Brave and selfless Oregon stabbing victims hailed as heroes for standing up to racist rants]

Wheeler's announcement came three daysafterTaliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, 23, and Ricky John Best, 53,were killed after they tried to protect two young women from a man who was screaming anti-Muslim slurs at them. A third man who also intervened was injured.

Destinee Mangum and her 17-year-old friend, who is Muslim and was wearing hijab, were harassed on Portland light-rail train on May 26. The man, Joseph Christian, fatally stabbed two other passengers on board and seriously injured another after they tried to stop him from harassing the women, according to police. (Reuters)

Jeremy Joseph Christian, 35, whom the Southern Poverty Law Centerhad described as someone who holds racist and extremist beliefs, is facing aggravated murder and other charges in connection to the killings. According to the hate watch group, Christian was seen at an earlier free-speech rally held by the same organizers.A photo shows him giving the Nazi salute.

Joey Gibson, lead organizer of the rallies, tried to distance himself from Christian and said he preaches limited government and free speech, not hate.

What I say, the things that I say, the things that I preach goes against everything that Jeremy Christian would've said,he said in a Facebook Live video in response to Wheeler's statement.

Gibson also criticized Wheeler for trying to silence him and those who plan toparticipate in the rallies. He saidhis June 4 event, which would feature live music and speakers, is not a platform for racism and bigotry.

If they pull our permits, we cannot kick out the white supremacists. We cannot kick out the Nazis. Do you get that? Gibson said. If anyone has a sign, a racist sign or anything, they will be gone. If anyone screams anything racist, they will be gone. But if they pull our permit, we will not have that right.

Wheeler is not the first to argue that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean did soin atweet last month.

Dean, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, was responding to a tweet from a former New York Times reporter who referenced a 15-year-old Ann Coulter statementsaying she regretsthat convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeighdidn't go inside the Times building.

[No, Gov. Dean, there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment]

In an article criticizing Dean's tweet, Volokh, the free speechexpert, argued that the First Amendment does not protect legitimate threats or face-to-face insults that incite a fight. But most forms of free speech don't fall into this narrow category.

Even if Coulter was speaking seriously (which I doubt), such speech isn't unprotected incitement, because it isn't intended to promote imminent illegal conduct, Volokh wrote.

The First Amendment, he said, provides a strong protection to ordinary citizens, even in cases that involve the most bigoted and racist of speeches.

In the 1992 case, which was spurred after several teenagers allegedly burned a cross on a black family's lawn in Minnesota, the Supreme Court ruled that a local ordinance under which the teens were charged isfacially unconstitutional because it bans otherwise permitted speechbased solely on the recipient.

The government, according to the opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules.

In the 2011 case, which was prompted after Westboro Baptist Church members traveled to Maryland to picket the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the picketers who held signs thatsaid, Thank you for dead soldiers, Fags Doom Nations, America is Doomed, Priests Rape Boys and You're Going to Hell.

Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in the opinion: Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and as it did here inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.

Derek Hawkins contributed to this story.

READ MORE:

In tweet, Trump recognizes Portland victims for standing up to hate and intolerance

Suspected attacker Jeremy Joseph Christian stood out amid rising tensions in Portland

The white flight of Derek Black

See original here:
'Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,' Portland mayor says. He's wrong. - Washington Post

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler wants to cancel two rallies planned for his city in June because he believes hate speech is not a constitutional right. Spencer Platt / Getty Images

Portland is understandably tense after of the killing of two people who tried to stop a man's anti-Muslim tirade on public transit. But is Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler correct when he argues that two upcoming "alt right" protests in the city should be shut down because, in Wheeler's words, "hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment"?

The Washington Post says Wheeler is flat-out wrong to claim that "hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment." And Stranger reporter Ana Sofia Knauf wound up at the same answer as the Post when she explored this question back in May.

"It's a hard pill for progressives to swallow," a University of Washington law professor told Knauf, "but hate speech is protected."

As poorly timed and inflammatory as the upcoming protests may be, when it comes to trying to stifle them because of concerns about hate speech, "history and precedent are not on Wheeler's side," as the Post put it.

For what it's worth, Wheeler has simultaneously taken a different tack. In the same Facebook message in which he called on the federal government to deny permits for the upcoming rallies, he wrote:

I am appealing to the organizers of the alt-right demonstrations to CANCEL the events they have scheduled on June 4th and June 10th. I urge them to ask their supporters to stay away from Portland. There is never a place for bigotry or hatred in our community, and especially not now.

See the original post:
Portland Mayor Claims "Hate Speech Is Not Protected by the First ... - TheStranger.com

Keith Wood, was arrested and charged with jury tampering and obstruction of justice for handing out 50 FIJA fliers. These fliers are not meant to sway nor influence the jurys decision, as would be required under the charges levied, but are meant to educate anyone who may take the flier, about the power of the jury to nullify the charges being brought by the state. Jury Nullification

A jurys knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jurys sense of justice, morality, or fairness.

Jury nullification is a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury. It is considered to be inconsistent with the jurys duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case. The jury does not have a right to nullification, and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury. However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law.

See U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997).

Almost two years later Mr. Woods case is going to trial, not for the felony charges, those were dropped, but for the misdemeanor charge of jury tampering.

Mr. Woods Attorney gave these comments to FOX 17, Its not enough to hand out a general information pamphlet with somebodys perspective, right or wrong, on what juror rights are, said Kallman.

Do we have the right to speak freely and express our opinions when its not directed at a specific case? Thats what this is about.

The villain in this is Mecosta County District Judge Peter Jaklevic, former long-time Mecosta County prosecutor, he said he was very concerned when he saw some of his jury pool carrying the pamphlets into the courtroom.

My concerns had to do with extra-judicial information, information being brought from outside the courtroom, said Judge Jaklevic.

It appeared to me to be an effort to bring information to the jurys attention that wasnt from the court.

The reality is that the courts and those who carrying the influence with the courts, do not want the citizens making the decisions, as if that is not exactly who should be making the decision based upon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. As these powers and authority granted to these officials is done so only by the consent of the governed, and when the people no longer give consent to be governed, then the people will be governed by force.

Continued here:
First Amendment Protected Activity On Trial in Michigan - PINAC News - PINAC News