Daily Archives: August 1, 2017

A federal court has ruled that Loudoun Chairwoman Phyllis J. Randall (D-At Large) violated a Loudouners right to free expression by temporarily banning him from her Chair Phyllis J. Randall Facebook page.

Judge James C. Cacheris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia handed down a mixed result for Brian C. Davison, who filed suit against Randall both personally and in her official capacity for violating his rights to freedom of expression and due process under the Virginia and U.S. Constitutions. The court issued a declaratory judgment clarifying Davisons rights, but declined to order injunctive relief and said in the due process argument that Davisons legal theory is somewhat unclear.

Davison, a critic of the School Board and frequent commenter on newspaper websites and social media as Virginia SGP,was at a joint School Board/Board of Supervisors meeting in February 2016. One of the questions he submitted in advance was selected and read aloud, asking whether the School Board should follow the example of the then-recently-adopted Board of Supervisors Code of Ethics. Davison has often accused School Board members of corruption.

Unsatisfied with Randalls answerwhich she began by calling the question a set-up question and saying that the Board of Supervisors ethics pledge is not a tool to accuse somebody or hit somebody over the head, before going on to answerDavison tweeted at Randall: @ChairRandall set up question? You might want to strictly follow FOIA and the COIA [Conflicts of Interest Act] as well.

Davison claimed that after he tweeted, Randall began glowering at him. Randall said she didnt know Davison and couldnt have identified him in the crowd, which the court found credible.

He then posted on Randalls Chair Phyllis J. Randall Facebook page. Neither Davison nor Randall could recall exactly what he wrote, but Randall recalled that it included allegations of corruption among School Board members.

Randall then deleted Davisons comment and banned him from her page. She said in court that was because if [Davison] was the type of person that would make comments about peoples family members, then maybe [Randall] didnt want [him] to be commenting on [her] site.

The next day, Randall reconsidered and lifted Davisons ban. In total, the court said, he was banned at most 12 hours.

This raises a novel legal question: when is a social media account maintained by a public official considered governmental in nature, and thus subject to constitutional constraints? Cacheris wrote in the ruling.

The court found Randall had created a public forum with her official Facebook page, which she uses frequently to communicate to the public, and therefore Davison did enjoy First Amendment protections.

Cacheris found that Davisons comment raised ethical questions about the conduct of School Board officials, alleging conflicts of interest involving their family members.

Quoting from the courts decision in Rossignol v. Voorhar, a 2003 case which found off-duty deputies had violated First Amendment protections by buying up every copy of a newspaper expected to contain writing critical of the local sheriff, Cacheris wrote Such criticism of . . . official conduct is not just protected speech, but lies at the very heart of the First Amendment.

At the same time, Cacheris found that practically speaking, the consequences of Defendants actions were fairly minor, because Davisons ban was short-lived and he was able to post essentially the same thing elsewhere on Facebook. Davison had also asked the court to order injunctive relief, although Cacheris wrote it is not clear what precisely Plaintiff seeks in the way of injunctive relief.

So far as the Court can tell, Plaintiff seeks an injunction simply requiring that Defendant henceforth follow the law, Cacheris wrote.

I value our right to free speech and I have fought to defend that right, Randall said in a statement. The courts decision, however, does not mean that people should make disparaging, untrue, or slanderous remarks about elected officials or their family members on social media.

This case required a considerable amount of public resources only to determine that we acted appropriately and that no substantive change in how we operate our Facebook pages is needed, said County Attorney Leo Rogers, echoing a complaint Plowman made about the public money it took to defend his case. The court refused to issue an injunction because we are already in compliance with the law.

All of this isnt to say that public officials are forbidden to moderate comments on their social media websites, or that it will always violate the First Amendment to ban or block commenters from such websites, Cacheris wrote. Indeed, a degree of moderation is necessary to preserve social media websites as useful forums for the exchange of ideas. He also wrote that given the prevalence of online trolls, this is no mere hypothetical risk.

It wasnt the first time Davison has taken Loudoun officials to court. In April 2016, a Richmond Circuit Court judge sided with Davison in deciding the Virginia Department of Education must release Loudoun County Public Schools Student Growth Percentile scores by school and by teacher. Davison, a parent of two Loudoun students, said the scores are a better indicator of students year-over-year progress and they would help administrators identify the divisions most effective teachers.

In that case, the court also ordered VDOE to pay Davison $35,000 to cover attorneys fees and other costs.

In April of this year, Cacheris tossed out a similar case against Commonwealths Attorney Jim Plowman, in which Davison argued Plowman violated his First Amendment rights by deleting Davisons comments on Plowmans official Facebook page. The court found Davisons comments were off-topic, and that in that case Plowman could legally police the discussion on his page.

Davison, who acted as his own attorney, has not yet returned a message requesting comment.

rgreene@loudounnow.com @RenssGreene

See original here:
Court Rules Randall Violated First Amendment on Facebook - Loudoun Now

By a margin of over two to one, Republicans support using the courts to shut down news media outlets for biased or inaccurate stories, according to a recent poll from The Economist and YouGov.

When asked if cracking down on the press in this manner would violate the First Amendment, a narrow majority of Republicans agreed that it does, seeming to create a contradiction. However, a further question gave them a chance to clear the air and reaffirm the primacy of principle over political expediency: Which is more important to you? it asked, (A) Protecting freedom of the press, even if that means media outlets sometimes publish biased or inaccurate stories; (B) Punishing biased or inaccurate news media, even if that means limiting the freedom of the press; (C) Not sure.

Shockingly, a full 47 percent of Republicans support punishing biased or inaccurate news media, even if that means limiting the freedom of the press, versus just 34 percent who support protecting freedom of the press, even if that means media outlets sometimes publish biased or inaccurate stories. By contrast, 59 percent of Democrats said they prioritize protecting the freedom of the press, dwarfing the 19 percent who see it the other way.

On this issue, the Democrats are right. Freedom of the press is included in the Bill of Rights for two reasons: It matters, and there is perpetually an illiberal temptation to extinguish it. Republican politicians will always call CNN and the New York Times biased and inaccurate. Democratic politicians will always say the same about Fox News and Breitbart.

Both sides are right, and it doesnt matter: None of those organizations should be forcibly shuttered. Thats what happens in Turkey or Russia when a newspaper offends the ruling party. In America, if you think a media outlet is biased, your best recourse is to say so, convincing others with reason instead of blocking their access to information you dont like. This way, individuals decide which outlets deserve their trust. The only other option, the one that is apparently favored by a plurality of Republicans, is for the state to make those decisions for all of us.

This would be incredibly dangerous, even under the best of circumstances. Who, after all, can agree on what is or is not biased, or what amount of bias can be tolerated? Republicans correctly complain, for example, that ostensibly neutral fact-checkers like Politifact are themselves biased and sometimes inaccurate. The same is true of judges and politicians. In fact, I remember when every right-wing talk-radio host would decry the fairness doctrine, which also sought to suppress speech under the guise of eliminating bias.

In fact, giving the state the power to shut down media outlets for bias or inaccuracy is an admission of a lack of confidence in our ability to self-govern as a free people. A free people could deliberate and vote without relying on the fist of the state to crush all sources of information that might mislead them.

The proximate cause of the yearning for that fist among Republicans, it is only reasonable to assume, is President Trumps strident criticism of the media. Trump seems to be obsessed with the media, constantly denouncing it on Twitter and elsewhere for crimes both real and imagined. He even called it an enemy of the American people. To some conservatives, this is such a joy to behold that it has almost become an acceptable substitute for tangible accomplishments.

This is a grave mistake. Though it may satisfy a human yearning, punishing ones enemies should not be the purpose of our politics. Conservatives and Republicans have plenty of ideas to improve the country, and they have the power to implement them. From education to tax policy to abortion, we could make America more fair, more free, more prosperous, and more humane. But instead, Trump directs Republican power and attention at CNN and MSNBC.

Ignoring our principles and subordinating the First Amendment to the impulses of the moment, Republican voters, if the poll is in fact representative, seem to have let the desire to punish overwhelm them. This is both an effect and a cause of the Trumpified conservatism that some, including National Reviews own Jay Nordlinger, have warned us not to indulge.

Trump does not speak, you may have noticed, of freedom or tradition or principle. He has little time for imagined republics and principalities in which ought overshadows is. He prefers victory, even if it requires an untraditional and un-conservative approach. Forget principle: To win is now to be virtuous.

It is not hard to see the appeal of this ultimately ruinous mindset. Its viscerally satisfying to punish ones enemies, after all. But American conservatives would do well to remember Nietzsches dictum, and Distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. Though the policies we have to enact are more constructive than our impulse to punish the media for its bias, we risk becoming too free from the burden of principle to care.

READ MORE: Free Speech at the Supreme Court Anti Free Speech Radicals Never Give Up Liberals & Conservatives Need to Disarm Over Free Speech

Elliot Kaufman is an editorial intern at National Review.

See the rest here:
Free Speech & Republicans: First Amendment Trumps Punishing ... - National Review

Columnist Edward Fitzpatrick looks at two new state laws.

On June 30, an epic impasse between Rhode Island House and Senate leaders left the states $9.2-billion budget in limbo along with scores of other pieces of legislation. But amid the State Houses marble maze of power politics and clashing priorities, two bills managed to emerge at the last minute that will bolster press freedom and create a more open government.

Before the legislative session came to an abrupt halt, the House and the Senate had unanimously approved one of those bills the Student Journalists Freedom of Expression Act, which protects student journalists and their advisers from censorship and retaliation.

To become law, the House and Senate versions of that bill needed to cross over for votes in the other chamber. But just as those votes were about to take place on June 30, the Senate moved to amend the budget and House Speaker Nicholas A. Mattiello, D-Cranston, sent the House home in protest.

We thought that was it, said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, based in Washington, D.C. I was staying up, watching and refreshing the [General Assembly] website until 10:30 p.m. before I gave up hope.

But just before midnight, Steven Brown, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island, contacted LoMonte, saying the Senate had passed the House version of the student press freedom bill. That was a little more thrilling of a roller coaster ride than I would have liked, LoMonte said. But I am happy where it landed.

The Senate bill, introduced by Sen. Gayle L. Goldin, D-Providence, landed in limbo. But the House bill, introduced by Rep. Jeremiah T. OGrady, D-Lincoln, landed on Gov. Gina Raimondos desk, and she signed it into law on July 18.

So why does the new law matter? Let two student journalists explain.

Peder S. Schaefer, editor of the Providence Country Day student newspaper, The Roundtable, noted that earlier this year student journalists in Kansas dug into the background of their newly hired principal, revealing questionable credentials and leading to her abrupt resignation.

This bill would enable stories like that to happen, Schaefer said. Especially in high school, schools have the power to shut things like that down very quickly. This bill puts protections in place that allow students to go after stories like that or to write about school policies, such as school start times.

Mary Lind, co-editor of the Lincoln High School student newspaper, The Lions Roar, said she called state legislators and the governors office, urging them to adopt the law to prevent the horror stories of censorship in other parts of the country.

It will show students in Rhode Island that although theyre under 18, their voices still matter and that they are still reliable sources, she said. They are not fake news.

Back in March 2016, I wrote about how a student at The Met High School, Yanine Castedo, launched the local push for a student press freedom bill, working with the Providence Student Union. Zack Mezera, executive director of the Providence Student Union, said student journalists now wont have to worry about censorship if, for example, they write about the condition of school buildings.

More broadly, he said, It protects journalism in an age when journalism is under attack, and it sends a message about protecting youth as people with valid, legitimate experiences.

Rhode Island became the 13th state to pass a student press freedom law, joining Nevada and Vermont in enacting such a law this year. And LoMonte noted the House and Senate floor votes were unanimous, saying, Its always gratifying that support crosses party lines and ideological lines. Freedom of the press should not be a partisan or political issue.

LoMonte also pointed out that the new Rhode Island law protects high school and college journalists in both public and private schools.

You could argue that its the most comprehensive law of its kind in the country, he said. Its certainly one we will show to other states as a model.

Such laws are necessary, LoMonte explained, because the U.S. Supreme Courts 1988 ruling in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier upheld the right of a public high school to censor student newspaper stories about teen pregnancy and the effects of divorce on children. Since then, states have been passing anti-Hazelwood laws.

And now LoMonte hopes Rhode Island schools will adopt rules reflecting the new law so that disputes over student journalism can be handled internally rather than in state court.

The student press freedom law wasnt the only bill to narrowly escape Smith Hill purgatory on June 30. Senate Majority Leader Michael J. McCaffrey and Rep. Evan P. Shanley, both D-Warwick, had introduced legislation to make two significant changes to the state Open Meetings Law. While McCaffreys bill ended up in limbo, the Senate passed the House version, and Raimondo signed that bill into law on July 18.

The new law requires all public bodies to keep minutes of open meetings (not just on the state level but also the city and town level), and it excludes weekends and holidays from the calculation of the 48-hour public notice requirement.

These reforms to the Open Meetings Act were significant and will affect every citizen of Rhode Island positively, said John M. Marion, executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island. Right now, municipalities dont have to put minutes online, but theyre going to have to. Thats great because there are a lot more municipal bodies than state bodies, and they affect citizens on a daily basis setting property taxes, hiring school superintendents, managing municipal pensions.

The ACLU had reviewed public-meeting notices a couple of years ago. And we were quite shocked to see how often public bodies posted notices of a Monday meeting late on a Friday afternoon, Brown said. These werent just small agencies no one has heard of; these were city councils and school committees.

Its not only that people dont learn about the meetings in advance, but they have very little time to prepare if they want to speak out on an issue.

Marion said the idea for the new law originated with some conservative constituents in McCaffreys district. Open government is an issue that unites the left and the right, he said.

Indeed, thats a key lesson for students of journalism and politics: A free press and open government serve both sides of the partisan divide, helping to inform citizens and hold whoever is in power accountable.

Edward Fitzpatrick is director of media and public relations for Roger Williams University, a New England First Amendment Coalition and Common Cause Rhode Island board member, and a former Providence Journal columnist. His First Amendment column appears monthly in The Journal. This piece first appeared on the universitys First Amendment blog at firstamendment.rwu.edu.

Here is the original post:
The First Amendment: Free press, open meetings laws survive RI State House standoff - The Providence Journal

The limits of constitutionally protected speech and freedom of assembly are being put to the test in Charlottesville.

In less than two weeks, members of the National Socialist Movement, the pro-secessionist League of the South and hundreds of their allies in the Nationalist Front and alt-right movement will gather in Emancipation Park for the Unite the Right rally.

Arranged by self-described pro-white activist Jason Kessler, the rally is expected to also draw hundreds of confrontational counter-protesters who will be able to gather at McGuffey and Justice parks, per event permits recently secured by University of Virginia professor Walt Heinecke.

While the stage for Aug. 12 is nearly set, with massive demonstrations and protesters expected, questions regarding the enforcement of law and order remain.

City officials said they have been working with Kessler to relocate the rally elsewhere because of the number of people the event is expected to draw to the downtown area. Kessler, however, does not want to change venues, according to authorities.

The director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression says the city is allowed to move the event in order to maintain public safety and prevent disruption to traffic and business downtown.

They should be able to relocate it to a more suitable location, said the centers director, Clay Hansen. As long as its for legitimate reasons and they dont try to minimize or hide the rally in some far-off corner of the city.

S. Carolina group moves event to Darden Towe Park

An attorney supporting Kessler, however, says the city is prohibited from doing so.

It would be ridiculously unconstitutional for the city to try to move the event elsewhere on that basis, said Kyle Bristow, an attorney and director of the Michigan-based Foundation for the Marketplace of Ideas, a self-described nonpartisan civil liberties nonprofit.

The groups board of directors includes Mike Enoch, a white nationalist commentator and podcaster. Enoch will be one of the featured speakers at the Unite the Right rally.

In an email last week, Bristow said his recently founded legal network is quickly becoming the legal muscle behind the alt-right movement. The alt-right is considered a far-right movement that combines elements of racism, white nationalism and populism while rejecting mainstream conservatism, political correctness and multiculturalism.

Two local conservative activists are distancing themselves from Jason Kessler, who invited anti-Semitic and white nationalist speakers to headline his rally.

Earlier this year, according to Bristow, his organization helped coordinate the legal case that led to an Alabama court requiring Auburn University to let white nationalist Richard Spencer speak on campus. Auburn settled the case earlier this year with a $29,000 payout to cover the legal fees of the student who filed the suit, according to the universitys student-run newspaper, The Auburn Plainsman.

In recent weeks, business owners, activists and others have commented on the possibility of violence at the rally, sometimes comparing it to the melees between self-styled anti-fascist protesters and alt-right ideologues at protests in Berkeley, California, earlier this year.

In a letter to city officials last week, Bristow said law enforcement officials could potentially deprive the right-wing activists of their constitutional rights if authorities do not prevent leftist thugs from attacking people at the rally.

If the Charlottesville Police Department stands down on Aug. 12, it would not be farfetched to postulate that the alt-right rally participants will stand up for their rights by effectuating citizens arrests or by engaging in acts of self-defense, Bristow said.

It would be imprudent, reckless, unconstitutional and actionable for the Charlottesville Police Department to not maintain order, he said, adding that anyone who interrupts the rally also could be sued.

Bristow alleged in his letter that Kessler recently was told that law enforcement officials would not have to intervene should left-wing protesters attack the rally attendees. A police spokesman refuted that claim Friday, saying that the department officials met with Kessler and a representative of his security staff earlier this month and discussed several security concerns.

At no time was Mr. Kessler informed officers would not take action against those that attempted or committed violence towards another, said Lt. Steve Upman.

Kessler did not reply to calls and messages last week.

Some suspect that the possible violence could be the result of intentional right-wing agitation, as local activists with Solidarity Cville have recently exposed posts on social media and far-right blogs in which supporters of Unite the Right rally seemed to revel in the possibility of violence and call on others to prepare for a fight.

Republicans and Democrats alike have cast the hardcore conservatives and populists associated with the alt-right movement as racist for its provocative leaders explicit anti-Semitism and unabashed calls for a white-ethno state.

While their beliefs and activism have turned off many, the rallys primary goal of protesting the citys effort to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee has caused some Southern heritage supporters and political moderates to become sympathetic to Kesslers cause.

But the slow revelation that the events extreme far-right elements will be met by liberals, leftists and anti-racists has scared others away.

Business owners say they are concerned for the safety of their businesses and patrons if the rally gets out of hand.

According to Albemarle County spokeswoman Lee Catlin, the organizers of the Patriot Movements planned 1Team1Fight event in Darden Towe Park, which was being relocated from Greenville, South Carolina, have called it off.

Catlin said the organizers reportedly canceled their event because of unknown variables with the opposition.

Earlier in the week, an organizer for the event, who goes by the name Chevy Love on Facebook, said the event was not affiliated with the Unite the Right rally, saying that she did not want to associate with any of the hate groups expected to attend, listing both left- and right-wing activist groups.

Earlier in the week, before the organizers canceled the event in Darden Towe Park, the National Socialist Movement announced that members will be in attendance at the Unite the Right rally to defend Free Speech and our Heritage at the Lee Monument.

In an interview, Butch Urban, the movements chief of staff, said the organization had been planning to attend the event after it was arranged by Kessler earlier this summer.

The event also will draw leaders and followers of other groups in the Nationalist Front, an alliance of groups such as the Traditionalist Worker Party and The League of the South all of which are united in working toward the creation of an ethno-state for white people.

Although National Socialism is typically cited as the definition of Nazi ideology, Urban said his organization is not a neo-Nazi group.

Thats what everybody takes it to be. Thats not what it is, Urban said. National Socialism is about your country and your people come first. You dont support wars around the world and giving billions of dollars to other countries.

As for the calls for a white-ethno state, Urban said multiculturalism has only been pushed down everyones throat in the last 30 to 40 years. Thats not what everyone wants, he said.

Take a look at Chicago, theres a prime example of multiculturalism, he added, citing the citys reputation of having high murder and unemployment rates.

In the decades following World War II, U.S. courts have grappled with the First Amendment questions involving Nazi demonstrations and displays. Many of those cases have determined that Nazi and white supremacist rhetoric is constitutionally protected speech.

And while many object to those ideals, authorities cannot justify restricting speech despite the threat of violence and public disorder a principle known as the Hecklers veto. Both Bristow and local attorney Lloyd Snook recently mentioned the doctrine in recent comments about the upcoming rally.

In First Amendment theory, it is fundamental that a government cannot regulate speech based on its content, including on the fact that some people may be hostile to it, Snook wrote on his law firms website.

Published earlier this month, about two weeks after a North Carolina chapter of the Ku Klux Klan held a rally in Justice Park to protest the planned removal of the Lee statue, Snook wrote that there has been a disturbing complaint about law enforcement being hand in hand with the Klan and white nationalists.

In fact, the city police department is required to preserve order to allow the demonstration to go forward, Snook said. This is not a matter of choice, but of constitutional law.

In his commentary, Snook cited the 1992 Supreme Court decision that invalidated an ordinance in Forsyth County, Georgia, that required fees for any parade, assembly or demonstration on public property.

According to Snook, the Forsyth County government passed the ordinance after a violent civil rights demonstration in 1987 cost over $670,000 in police protection.

Two years later, when the Nationalist Movement had to pay fees to hold a protest against the federal Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, the group sued the county.

The case eventually came before the Supreme Court, which in a 5-4 opinion decided that the countys ordinance violated the First Amendment. Snook said the court struck down that ordinance because it had the possibility of being applied such that it would cost more to express unpopular viewpoints.

In recent weeks, some opposed to the Unite the Right rally have called on the city to make sure that Kessler pays the associated fees and obtains a liability insurance policy of no less than $1 million that the city requires for special events.

In an email last week, city spokeswoman Miriam Dickler clarified that the city makes distinctions between demonstrations and special events, and that the two are not interchangeable under the citys regulations.

The differences are attributable to United States Supreme Court decisions involving the First Amendment, Dickler said.

According to the citys Standard Operating Procedure for special events, a demonstration is defined as a non-commercial expression protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (such as picketing, political marches, speechmaking, vigils, walks, etc.) conducted on public property, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers.

Regardless, she said that Kessler has provided a certificate of insurance voluntarily, and that the citys Special Events Coordinator has been communicating with Kessler since he filed the application.

Looking at another Supreme Court case, Hansen, of the local Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, said the courts 1977 decision in the National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie case feels closest to what were dealing with here in the city.

The case centered on a planned National Socialist demonstration in the village of Skokie, Illinois, which at the time had a large population of Jewish residents who survived detention in Nazi concentration camps or were related to a Holocaust survivor.

Fearing violence would be directed at the demonstrators who were planning to dress in Nazi-era uniforms with swastika armbands, a local court prohibited the event, an action that the U.S. Supreme Court later found to be unconstitutional in a 5-4 opinion.

In particular, the litigation in that didnt have to do with the march and the gathering itself it was more about symbols, Hansen said, explaining that the Supreme Court had to decide whether Nazi imagery could constitute fighting words, a legal distinction that prohibits some forms of speech that are likely to incite violence.

The court ultimately found that those symbols do not pass that threshold, which has in recent years largely fallen out of favor as doctrinal tool, Hansen said. Instead, the doctrine in recent years has morphed into a new rationale thats based on allowing authorities to stop speech that could lead to imminent lawless action, he said. Its useful if something goes wrong.

While the city could theoretically stop the Unite the Right rally as its happening, according to Hansen, its not a decision to take lightly, he said, adding that its unlikely that authorities will do so.

Its a high hurdle to legally justify stopping a demonstration, Hansen said.

The city has an obligation to handle any crowds that are on site as a result of a lawful and protected speech activity, he said. In a public park, and given the proper permit police are obliged to make sure that the event goes unimpeded.

Concerned that people protesting the Unite the Right could be arrested for participating in an unlawful assembly, Heinecke earlier this month applied to hold demonstrations at McGuffey Park and Justice Park.

At the Klan rally earlier this month, 22 people were arrested on various charges. About half of the arrests occurred after the rally had ended and authorities declared that the hundred or so people still on the street were illegally gathered. Authorities eventually used tear gas to force the crowd to disperse.

The best way to avoid that is to have some free-assembly zones at the parks, Heinecke said. He said the permits will allow the protesters to gather from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Aug. 12. The Unite the Right rally is scheduled for noon to 5 p.m.

Heinecke said there will be programming at the two parks. He declined to say which activist groups and organizations hes collaborating with to contend with Kesslers rally.

Alluding to the countrys legacy as it relates to racism against African-Americans, he said Charlottesville in particular has unfinished business when it comes to racial justice.

I think the city will be the epicenter of a conversation about racial justice in a new era were going toward with changing racial demographics, he said.

Asked about the alt-right activists concern that the nations changing demographics are tantamount to a displacement of white people, Heinecke said it saddens him that they are so fearful.

I think theyre operating out of fear rather than seeing an opportunity to create a diverse and equal society, he said.

Thats a sad thing when theres an opportunity to think about what the United States of America really means.

Read the rest here:
Unite the Right rally sparks First Amendment questions - The Daily Progress

U.S. Sen. James Lankford inserted himself on Monday into a squabble between a conservative legal advocacy group and ABC News.

In a letter to ABC News President James Goldston, Lankford lodges his displeasure with a July 12 on-line story that quotes the Southern Policy Law Center's description of the Alliance Defending Freedom as an "anti-LGBT hate group."

Lankford says the story "classified a religious liberty non-profit, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), as a hate group using a standard set by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). I found it odd that ABC would designate ADF as a hate group not based on any actual crime or action, but apparently based on their belief in religious liberty or traditional marriage."

Many people, especially conservatives, object to groups like the alliance being classified with with neo-Nazis and reconstituted versions of the Ku Klux Klan as hate groups. Lankford's staff said the majority of ADF's cases are not related to LGBT issues.

The ADF has been very open in its disdain for non-traditional sexual identification, and it's desire to overturn same-sex marriage. Lankford asserts that is the organization's First Amendment right as a matter of religious freedom and free speech.

Its attorneys have spoken about the "deification of deviant sexual practices" and "made-up sexual identity. For awhile, a web site affiliated with ADF said its goal was to "restore the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries."

Lankford says that doesn't qualify as hate speech and that ABC shouldn't have given credence to SPLC's designation of it as such.

"SPLCs definition of a 'hate group' is overly broad and not based in fact or legal accuracy," Lankford writes. "The Alliance Defending Freedom is a national and reputable law firm that works to advocate for the rights of people to peacefully and freely speak, live and work according to their faith and conscience without threat of government punishment."

At issue in the ABC story was a closed-door speech to the group by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the Justice Department's refusal to release information about it.

Continued here:
Randy Krehbiel: Lankford says anti-LGBT organization is exercising First Amendment rights - Tulsa World (blog)