Monthly Archives: July 2017

News & Observer

Does the campus free speech bill protect First Amendment rights or restrict them? News & Observer Call for the UNC-system Board of Governors to develop a policy preventing schools from shield[ing] individuals from speech protected by the First Amendment, including, without limitation, ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even ...

More:
Does the campus free speech bill protect First Amendment rights or restrict them? - News & Observer

Dear Editor:

Re LETTER: Ill take separation of church and state, by Eileen D. Minogue, July 20, 2017: I recently read an article by Roman Catholic Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, which I found most enlightening, including the following paragraphs:

The First Amendment, which places freedom of religion as number one, protects the churches from intrusion by the government, not the government from religion.

[Alexis de] Tocqueville asked himself how a country so vast, so diverse, so open to everybody, so bold, under a constitution so daring and unprecedented could ever survive. His answer? Because the American people are religious!

Id like to hope our country has not strayed so far that its people no longer profess what early Americans professed in their Pledge of Allegiance one nation, under God.

Advertisement

Those who object have the freedom to eliminate what they feel objectionable, but not impose their views on the majority.

Joan Saehloff

Port Ewen, N.Y.

Editors note: The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted by Congress in 1942. The words under God were added to the pledge in 1954.

Go here to see the original:
LETTER: First Amendment is a one-way protection for religion - The Daily Freeman

We've been covering a recent First Amendment lawsuit targeting President Donald Trumpa novel legal argumentin which Twitter users claim their constitutional rights were violated because the commander-in-chief blocked them from his personal @realDonaldTrump Twitter handle.

To be sure, it's a digital-age-basedconstitutional theory about social media rights in a day and age when politicians, from the president on down, are using their private accounts to discuss public affairs.

Now there's some legal precedent on the matter. It comes from a federal judge in Virginia who said that a local politician had violated the First Amendment rights of a constituent because the politician briefly banned the constituent from the politician'spersonal Facebook account.

"The suppression of critical commentary regarding elected officials is the quintessential form of viewpoint discrimination against which the First Amendment guards," US District Judge James Cacheris wrote Tuesday in a suit brought by a constituent against Phyllis Randall, the chairwoman of the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors in Virginia.

The judge didn't issue any punishment against Randall, as the Facebook ban for constituent Brian Davison only lasted about 12 hours. That said, the judge noted Randall committed "a cardinal sin under the First Amendment" by barring the constituent who posted about county corruption. What's more, the judge pointed out from the first sentence of the ruling that "this case raises important questions about the constitutional limitations applicable to social media accounts maintained by elected officials."

Randall's Facebook page, the judge ruled, "operates as a forum for speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution."

This suit, at its most basic level, is nearly identical to the one lodged against Trump two weeks ago. Like the Virginia suit, the lawsuit against Trump names the chief executive's private account, which Trump uses on an almost daily basis as his political mouthpiece to the world.

"The @realDonaldTrump [Twitter] account is a kind of digital town hall in which the president and his aides use the tweet function to communicate news and information to the public, and members of the public use the reply function to respond to the president and his aides and exchange views with one another," according to the lawsuit (PDF) filed in New York federal court.

The Trump suit was brought by a handful of Twitter users Trump blocked after they posted critical comments. The lawsuit, to which Trump has yet to respond in court, seeks a ruling that the president's actions were unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, Judge Cacheris noted that Randall still had the right to moderate Facebook comments and that it's not always unconstitutional to block commenters.

"Finally, government officials have at least a reasonably strong interest in moderating discussion on their Facebook pages in an expeditious manner. By permitting a commenter to repeatedly post inappropriate content pending a review process, a government official could easily fail to preserve their online forum for its intended purpose," the judge wrote.

What's more, the judge said that allowing online speakers to hijack or filibuster online conversations would "impinge on the First Amendment rights" of other forum participants.

"Given the prevalence of online 'trolls,' this is no mere hypothetical risk," the judge said.

Judge Cacherishad recently tossed a similar lawsuit from Davison, a software consultant. In that suit, Davisonclaimed his First Amendment rights were breached because a prosecutor had removed hiscomments from the prosecutor's official Facebook page. The judge noted that the deletion of the comments was acceptable because they were "clearly off-topic" comments.

See the original post here:
Politicians' social media pages can be 1st Amendment forums, judge says - Ars Technica

Dear Editor: There have been issues on campuses across the U.S. on free speech. As the argument of hate speech versus free speech continues, many speculate that public campuses have liberal biases. This is due to disproportionate numbers of conservative speakers getting rejected to speak on campuses compared to liberal speakers. A CNN article titled War on campus: The escalating battle over college free speech suggests that these speculations are true: The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education maintains an incomprehensive database of more than 300 attempts to disinvite campus speakers since 2000. About three-quarters of the attempts involved pressure from liberals.

In Wisconsin, GOP representatives have responded to these issues by proposing free speech policies on the UW System. These policies are suggested as precautionary, threatening future speech disrupters with suspension and/or expulsion. But such policies are criticized as damaging the rights of those who oppose the views of speakers and minorities.

The relationship between Americas future leaders and the United States First Amendment must continually be closely observed.

Currently on the Press Freedom Index, the United States is ranked at the 43rd position. Obamas onslaught on whistleblowers and Trumps attempts to thwart press coverage are listed as problems that contribute to the United States position.

Media conglomerates are an obstacle to press freedom. A statistic from morriscreative.com shows that in 2012, six media companies owned 90 percent of American media, compared to 50 companies that owned 90 percent of American media back in 1983.

These attacks on freedom of speech and press threaten one of our most sacred rights. People should care more about free speech.

Michael Flores

Madison

Send your letter to the editor to tctvoice@madison.com. Include your full name, hometown and phone number. Your name and town will be published. The phone number is for verification purposes only. Please keep your letter to 250 words or less.

Here is the original post:
Michael Flores: Attacks on our First Amendment need more attention - Madison.com