Monthly Archives: May 2020

Divorcing couples have a First Amendment right to disparage each other on social media even if probate judges are worried the bitterness will impact the mental health of children caught between their warring parents, the states highest court has ruled.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court said free speech rights were wrongly curtailed by a non-disparagement order forbidding the husband or wife from posting about the divorce on Facebook and other social media sites until their child turned 14. At the time the order was issued, the child was a toddler, the SJC said.

We conclude that the nondisparagement orders at issue here operate as an impermissible prior restraint on speech, the SJC ruled. The judge put careful thought into his orders in an effort to protect a child caught in the middle of a legal dispute who was unable to advocate for himself[but since] there was no showing of an exceptional circumstance that would justify the imposition of a prior restraint, the nondisparagement orders issued here are unconstitutional.

The social media ban was crafted by two Norfolk Probate and Family Court judges arising from the divorce between Ronnie Shakand his former wife, Masha M. Shak, who had one son born in 2017 during their 15-month marriage, records show.

In 2018, Ronnie Shak made multiple Facebook postings accessed by members of the former couples synagogue, Masha Shaks relatives, and a Facebook group with more than 700 members. The postings accused Masha Shak of wrongly blocking Ronnie Shak from seeing their son, leading Probate and Family Court Judge Virginia Ward to issue a two-paragraph order that banned both from posting any comments, solicitations,solicitations, references or other information regarding this litigation on social media."

Misha Shak sought a contempt citation when Ronnie Shak posted on Facebook after Wards order. Judge George Phelan then took up the matter and issued an 11-page order banning social media postings until the couples son turned 14. Phelan also put the ban on hold so the SJC could review the constitutionality of his decision, which he said he believed was necessary but raised significant legal issues that the top state court must address.

In a 13-page ruling written by Justice Kimberly S. Budd, the SJC said government has very limited authority to stop someone from publicly expressing their views under the First Amendment and Article 16 of the states constitution. Prior restraint is acceptable when harm is immediate and cannot be prevented by any means other than suppressing the free speech rights, the court noted.

But there was no evidence in this case, the court said in the decision issued Thursday.

The potential impact on a childs mental health at some point in the future does not meet that high legal threshold, especially in this case where the child cannot on his own access social media and when no information has been produced showing a current link between Facebook postings and proof of an emotional harm to the child, the court noted.

Budd added: As important as it is to protect a child from the emotional and psychological harm that might follow from one parents use of vulgar or disparaging words about the other, merely reciting that interest is not enough to satisfy the heavy burden of justifying a prior restraint."

The court noted that probate judges - and litigants - may be able to curtail social media postings under other laws, by reaching a mutually agreed upon non-disparagement order, or by civil lawsuits for emotional harm. Judges can also caution the parents their social media postings will impact custody decisions, the SJC said.

But none of the laws are even necessary, the court noted, if the parents recognize whats most important during divorce litigation - their children.

"The best solution would be for parties in divorce and child custody matters to rise above any acrimonious feelings they may have, and, with the well-being of their children paramount in their minds, simply refrain from making disparaging remarks about one another,'' the SJC said.

John R. Ellement can be reached at john.ellement@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @JREbosglobe.

Go here to see the original:
Divorcing couples have First Amendment right to disparage each other on social media, SJC rules - The Boston Globe

I was rereading one of my favorite opinionsJustice Jackson's dissent in U.S. v. Ballard (1944)and I thought I'd pass it along. The defendants were convicted for using the mails to defraud people into joining (for money) the "I Am" movement. The alleged false claims were,

that Guy W. Ballard, now deceased, alias Saint Germain, Jesus, [and] George Washington, had been selected as a divine messenger; and that the words of the alleged divine entity, Saint Germain, would be transmitted to mankind through the medium of Guy W. Ballard;

that [the Ballards], by reason of their alleged high spiritual attainments and righteous conduct, had been selected as divine messengers through which the words of Saint Germain[] would be communicated to mankind under the teachings commonly known as the "I Am" movement;

that [the Ballards] had, by reason of supernatural attainments, the power to heal persons of [incurable] diseases , and had in fact cured hundreds of persons .

The court concluded that it was permissible to convict the (surviving) Ballards based on a showing that they didn't sincerely believe what they were saying, though the jury couldn't consider the truth or falsehood of what they were saying. Justice Jackson dissented:

I should say the defendants have done just that for which they are indicted. If I might agree to their conviction without creating a precedent, I cheerfully would do so. I can see in their teachings nothing but humbug, untainted by any trace of truth. But that does not dispose of the constitutional question whether misrepresentation of religious experience or belief is prosecutable; it rather emphasizes the danger of such prosecutions.

In the first place, as a matter of either practice or philosophy I do not see how we can separate an issue as to what is believed from considerations as to what is believable. The most convincing proof that one believes his statements is to show that they have been true in his experience. Likewise, that one knowingly falsified is best proved by showing that what he said happened never did happen.

How can the Government prove these persons knew something to be false which it cannot prove to be false? If we try religious sincerity severed from religious verity, we isolate the dispute from the very considerations which in common experience provide its most reliable answer.

In the second place, any inquiry into intellectual honesty in religion raises profound psychological problems. [I]t is not theology and ceremonies which keep religion going. Its vitality is in the religious experiences of many people [:] " conversations with the unseen, voices and visions, responses to prayer, changes of heart, deliverances from fear, inflowings of help, assurances of support, whenever certain persons set their own internal attitude in certain appropriate ways."

If religious liberty includes, as it must, the right to communicate such experiences to others, it seems to me an impossible task for juries to separate fancied ones from real ones, dreams from happenings, and hallucinations from true clairvoyance. Such experiences, like some tones and colors, have existence for one, but none at all for another. They cannot be verified to the minds of those whose field of consciousness does not include religious insight. When one comes to trial which turns on any aspect of religious belief or representation, unbelievers among his judges are likely not to understand and are almost certain not to believe him.

And then I do not know what degree of skepticism or disbelief in a religious representation amounts to actionable fraud. Belief in what one may demonstrate to the senses is not faith. All schools of religious thought make enormous assumptions, generally on the basis of revelations authenticated by some sign or miracle. The appeal in such matters is to a very different plane of credulity than is invoked by representations of secular fact in commerce.

Some who profess belief in the Bible read literally what others read as allegory or metaphor, as they read Aesop's fables. Religious symbolism is even used by some with the same mental reservations one has in teaching of Santa Claus or Uncle Sam or Easter bunnies or dispassionate judges. It is hard in matters so mystical to say how literally one is bound to believe the doctrine he teaches and even more difficult to say how far it is reliance upon a teacher's literal belief which induces followers to give him money.

If the members of the ["I Am"] sect get comfort from the celestial guidance of their "Saint Germain," however doubtful it seems to me, it is hard to say that they do not get what they pay for. Scores of sects flourish in this country by teaching what to me are queer notions. It is plain that there is wide variety in American religious taste. The Ballards are not alone in catering to it with a pretty dubious product.

The chief wrong which false prophets do to their following is not financial. The collections aggregate a tempting total, but individual payments are not ruinous. I doubt if the vigilance of the law is equal to making money stick by over-credulous people.

But the real harm is on the mental and spiritual plane. There are those who hunger and thirst after higher values which they feel wanting in their humdrum lives. They live in mental confusion or moral anarchy and seek vaguely for truth and beauty and moral support. When they are deluded and then disillusioned, cynicism and confusion follow.

The wrong of these things, as I see it, is not in the money the victims part with half so much as in the mental and spiritual poison they get. But that is precisely the thing the Constitution put beyond the reach of the prosecutor, for the price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.

I do not doubt that religious leaders may be convicted of fraud for making false representations on matters other than faith or experience, as for example if one represents that funds are being used to construct a church when in fact they are being used for personal purposes. But that is not this case, which reaches into wholly dangerous ground.

When does less than full belief in a professed credo become actionable fraud if one is soliciting gifts or legacies? Such inquiries may discomfort orthodox as well as unconventional religious teachers, for even the most regular of them are sometimes accused of taking their orthodoxy with a grain of salt. I would dismiss the indictment and have done with this business of judicially examining other people's faiths.

Originally posted here:
The Price of the First Amendment "Is That We Must Put Up With a Good Deal of Rubbish" - Reason

PRESS RELEASEREGULATED INFORMATION

Paris, 7th May 2020

Availability of the first amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document

Societe Generale informs the public that the first amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document filed on 12th March 2020 under number D-20-0122, has been filed with the French Financial Markets Authority (AMF) on 7th May 2020 under number D-20-0122-A01.

This document is made available to the public, free of charge, in accordance with the conditions provided for by the regulations in force and may be consulted in the Regulated information section of the Companys website (http://www.societegenerale.com/en/measuring-our-performance/information-and-publications/regulated_information) and on the AMFs website.

Press contact:

Corentin Henry _ +33(0)1 58 98 01 75_ corentin.henry@socgen.com

Societe Generale

Societe Generale is one of the leading European financial services groups. Based on a diversified and integrated banking model, the Group combines financial strength and proven expertise in innovation with a strategy of sustainable growth. Committed to the positive transformations of the worlds societies and economies, Societe Generale and its teams seek to build, day after day, together with its clients, a better and sustainable future through responsible and innovative financial solutions.

Active in the real economy for over 150 years, with a solid position in Europe and connected to the rest of the world, Societe Generale has over 138,000 members of staff in 62 countries and supports on a daily basis 29 million individual clients, businesses and institutional investors around the world by offering a wide range of advisory services and tailored financial solutions. The Group is built on three complementary core businesses:

Societe Generale is included in the principal socially responsible investment indices: DJSI (World and Europe), FTSE4Good (Global and Europe), Euronext Vigeo (World, Europe and Eurozone), four of the STOXX ESG Leaders indices, and the MSCI Low Carbon Leaders Index. For more information, you can follow us on Twitter @societegenerale or visit our website http://www.societegenerale.com

See the rest here:
Societe Generale: Availability of the first amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document - GlobeNewswire

A federal district court judge hastaughtKansas Gov. Laura Kelly (a Democrat) a valuable lesson:The COVID-19 pandemicdoes not give her the right to suspend the First Amendment right of Kansans to practice their religious beliefs. Several other state and local officials should take heed, too.

Kelly signed a series of executive orders restricting public and private activities due to the COVID-19 crisis. On April 7, she issued Executive Order 20-18, prohibiting mass gatherings of more than 10 people in a confined or enclosed space. Violators were subject to up to a year in prison, a $2,500 fine, or both.

The executive orders exempted 26 types of secular activities and facilities, including bars and restaurants; libraries; shopping malls; retail stores; airports; hotels; child care facilities; manufacturing, processing, and distribution facilities; and office buildings. People could gather there in unlimited numbers as long as they practiced social distancing.

Yet Kelly expressly excluded religious institutions from any such accommodation. Churches, synagogues, and mosques were categorically barred from meeting inside their dwellings.

If 50 people sit in a room to talk about real estate deals, no problem. But if someone brings up John the Baptist, call the cops!

On behalf of two churches and their pastors, the Alliance Defending Freedom promptly sued the governor over this blatantly discriminatory policy.

Its court filing noted that an earlier executive orderdidhave an exemption for religious gatherings, as long as attendees followed the appropriate social distancing rules, because religious or faith-based services or activities were considered an essential function.

On April 18, federal Judge John Broomes issued a temporary restraining order against Kelly, finding that the churches were likely to prevail on their claim that her order violated the First Amendment rights of their parishioners to freely exercise their religion, including their right to attend worship services in their respective church facilities.

He brushed aside Kellys claim that her executive order treated religious institutions no differently than a large swath of both secular and non-secular behavior, noting that the order expressly targeted churches to restrict religious activity. Further, the judge observed, religious gatherings present no unique health risks that could justify such discriminatory treatment.

Kelly also tried to justify her actions by citing a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision,Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which involved a state law mandating smallpox vaccinations in the midst of a smallpox epidemic. But Broomes explained that even in such extreme cases as a public health crisis, the police power of the state is not without limits.

Broomes order allowed the churches to meet as long as they followed safety protocols they had voluntarily agreed to. These included making sure their facilities were deep-cleaned before and after any in-person services, social distancing, and having hand sanitizer available for use on-site.

While the two churches were out from under the governors order, Kelly initially vowed to continue to apply her restrictions to all other religious gatherings. However, she may have since gotten a little religion herself. There are nowreportsthat she will issue another executive order that will eliminate her discriminatory restrictions on religious institutions.

On April 27, U.S. Attorney General William Barr sent all U.S. attorneys amemorandumentitled Balancing Public Safety with the Preservation of Civil Rights.

It acknowledged that, in order to stop the spread of a deadly disease, it had been necessary to impose extraordinary restrictions on all of our daily lives. But, Barr added, that does not mean that states can impose unreasonable restrictions violating the constitutional rights and civil liberties of individual citizens.

He specifically noted that the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers, and warned that the Justice Department would go after state and local governments that cross the line and go from an appropriate exercise of authority to stop the spread of COVID 19 into an overbearing infringement of constitutional and statutory protections.

Officials such as Kelly are on notice that the Justice Department is now paying attention to what they are doing and may take action. The same goes for other public officials, such as Louisville, Kentucky, Mayor Greg Fischer (another Democrat), whotriedto prohibit drive-in services on Easter Sunday.

Fischer was stopped by federal Judge Justin R. Walker, who said, On Holy Thursday, an American mayor criminalized the communal celebration of Easter. That sentence is one that this Court never expected to see outside the pages of a dystopian novel, or perhaps the pages of The Onion.

Some state and local officials are keen to impose unnecessary and unconstitutional restrictions on congregations who wish to gather together in a safe and responsible manner. Thats as dystopian as it gets. The U.S. Justice Department should do everything it can to preserve our First Amendment rights.

Originally published by the Washington Examiner

Excerpt from:
Governors Can't Suspend the First Amendment - Daily Signal

ONYX is allowed to be open, but cannot have entertainers performing, "even if the entertainers are fully clothed."

HOUSTON Editor's note: The videos in this article are from May 1, 2020.

A Houston strip club lost a legal battle with the city in an attempt to reopen under the guise of being a restaurant only, and not a sexually-oriented business.

Club ONYX's preliminary injunction motion against the city of Houston was denied by a federal judge on Friday, May 8.

Since Club ONYX generates less than 50% of its income from alcohol, it will be allowed to open, but "solely as a restaurant without additional entertainment," according to the court's ruling.

According to court documents, since GA 21 was issued on May 5, ONYX said it "ceased featuring 'nude' entertainment; the dancers are required to wear full tops and full bathing suit bottoms."

Dancers at Onyx Houston were not offering lap dances but were merely providing entertainment from a safe distance, court documents said.

Now, ONYX is allowed to be open, but cannot have entertainers performing, "even if the entertainers are fully clothed," the court order said.

On May 1, Club ONYX was granted a temporary restraining order against the city of Houston by a federal judge, allowing the gentlemen's club to resume operations.

The court said that ONYX "failed to add the State as a party to this action to address the First Amendment and equal protection issues raised by the Governors orders."

In the injunction, ONYX claimed that the city was responsible for violating its right to expression under the First Amendment. The court ruled that the claim was misplaced.

The court said the claim "relates to the orders of the Governor and not the actions the City of Houston. The City of Houston is only responsible for lawfully enforcing the Governors order."

Great news if you watch TV with an antenna

KHOU has just upgraded its technology. If you were unable to receive KHOU with your antenna in the past, try again on channel 11.11. You may have to rescan your channels for it to work if thats the case, weve got some instructions at KHOU.com/antenna. If you already see KHOU on 11.1, you may now ALSO see it on 11.11 its the exact same programming. Were really excited to be able to bring our KHOU 11 News, CBS shows and sports, Wheel of Fortune, Ellenand Great Day Houston to more homes around the area. If youre still having trouble, please contact us here and well try to get you set up.

Link:
Houston strip club allowed to open, but without dancers - KHOU.com