Monthly Archives: March 2021

Despite the lack of any actual confusion, other states have waged their own wars on plant-based food. Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota and Wyoming all impose rules governing the use of specific meaty words.

Not to be outdone, federal lawmakers tried to force companies to put the word imitation on plant-based meat products in 2019. And the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has threatened to crack down on companies that describe almond milk as milk.

Some of these efforts twist the common meaning of words, essentially changing the dictionary. Prior to a 2019 lawsuit from the Institute for Justice in Mississippi, lawmakers even attempted to ban phrases like veggie burger.

Besides being unconstitutional, such oversight is expensive for companies that have to design different packages for different states. On a more basic level, the rules insult the intelligence of grocery shoppers.

Companies worried about consumer complaints sometimes create over-the-top disclaimers voluntarily. They warn that gasoline is flammable, blades are sharp and ice is slippery. Comedian Chris Porter makes fun of the absurdity, but overeager lawmakers miss the joke.

See the original post here:
How the meat lobby is waging war on the First Amendment - Crain's Chicago Business

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra says he wants to prevent charitable fraud, while the House Democrats who approved the For the People Act last week say they want to fortify democracy, fight corruption and block foreign interference in U.S. elections. But the methods they have chosen pose a serious threat to freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Under a policy at the center of a First Amendment case the Supreme Court will hear this term, Becerra requires that all 115,000 nonprofit organizations operating in California report information about their major donors. That information is supposed to be confidential, but in practice it is not, because California has a history of accidentally posting it online and making it easily available to anyone with rudimentary hacking skills.

In a 1958 case involving Alabamas demand that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People disclose its membership lists, the Supreme Court recognized that such requirements can have a chilling effect on freedom of association, because they expose supporters of controversial groups to harassment and threats of violence.

When the government compels disclosure of organizational information that may result in reprisals against and hostility to the members, the Court has said, it must show that the policy is substantially related to a compelling government interest and narrowly tailored for that purpose.

Becerras blanket demand for the names and addresses of nonprofit donors plainly fails that test, since he can always seek such information from an organization that is actually suspected of fraud.

The challenge to his overreaching nosiness has attracted support from a broad coalition of civil liberties groups and nonprofits representing all sorts of causes and political preferences.

Unlike Becerra, the legislators who supported the For the People Act are not even pretending to keep the information required by the bill confidential. To the contrary, they aim to force public disclosure of donor information through a sweeping definition of election-related speech.

The 791-page bill, which passed the House by a party-line vote of 220 to 210, expands the definition of electioneering communications to include any communication which is placed or promoted for a fee on an online platform and mentions a federal officeholder or candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

It also expands the category of federally regulated public communications to cover any paid internet or paid digital communication, which apparently would include organizational websites and staff-written social media posts.

So-called electioneering communications need not target a politicians constituents or advocate his election or defeat. They would nevertheless have to reveal the organizations top donors, whether or not they sponsored the message or approved of its content.

The bill also would require that nonprofits file publicly accessible reports of vaguely defined campaign-related disbursements, including donor information, with the Federal Election Commission. The reports would declare support of or opposition to particular candidates, even when the organizations have taken no such stand.

For example, says Institute for Free Speech Senior Fellow Eric Wang, left-leaning organizations calling on President Biden to adopt a more left-leaning agenda could be required to affirmatively and publicly declare to the FEC that their ads oppose Biden, even when that is not actually true.

The bill also requires a public file of expenditures for online ads related to any national legislative issue of public importance, which Wang warns may expose organizers of contentious but important political causes like Black Lives Matter to harassment by opponents or hostile government officials.

Such requirements are bound to make advocacy groups, especially small ones, think twice before speaking out on the issues that motivate them and discourage donors from supporting them. But that seems to be the point.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., thinks its good to have a deterrent effect when somebody is trying to influence government for their purposes. Call that policy what you like, but it assuredly is not for the people.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

Link:
Requirements are an assault on the First Amendment - Antelope Valley Press

With Judge Merrick Garlands confirmation as attorney general this past Wednesday, incoming leadership at the Justice Department will confront a number of tricky cases and issues inherited from the Trump administration implicating technology and media law. Reporters Committee Executive Director Bruce Brown and TPFP Director Gabe Rottman published a comprehensive survey of these matters inLawfarelast week.

The first set of cases deals with the Trump administrations bans of Chinese-owned social media apps WeChat and TikTok. The Biden Justice Department has sought to stay proceedings in these cases, potentially indicating a rethinking of the underlying executive orders. The cases challenge the Trump administrations attempts to shutter the apps through emergency international economic powers on the governments theory that business-to-business transactions can be prohibited without First Amendment scrutiny. The Justice Departments position would logically extend to use of emergency economic powers to prevent a newspaper from purchasing basic business supplies, and, in so doing, interfere with its publication so a possible rethinking of this litigation position would be a welcome development for the press.

The First Amendment challenge to then-President Trumps blocking of Twitter followers is also in a state of limbo, thanks to a debate about what renders a case moot, or unhearable, by a court. This challenge is based on the theory that the former president used his Twitter account for official business, thus creating a public forum from which he, as a government official, cant exclude anyone because of their viewpoints. The outgoing Trump administrationaskedthe Supreme Court to moot the case and void the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which validated this First Amendment theory. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which brought the suit, agreed that the case is moot but asked that the Second Circuits decision stand.

The Biden administration also may push for changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In January 2020, then-presidential-candidate Bidenstatedthat Section 230 should be revoked, immediately. Section 230 shields online platforms from liability for content posted or hosted by third parties. The law has consequences for news outlets, which may host comment sections or citizen-journalism sections. Regardless of whether the Biden administration actually takes up this revoke position, momentum for Section 230 reform continues to grow and the Justice Department is likely to continue some work on the topic.

The Justice Department will also inherit long-standing policy debates about Fourth Amendment rights, including a push for law enforcement access to encrypted data pursuant to a warrant or other legal process. Both the Obama and Trump administrations supported these backdoors, and the Biden Justice Department will likely take a similar stance. Indeed, intestimonybefore the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month, FBI Director Christopher Wray explicitly called for lawful access to encrypted communications.

Like what youve read?Sign up to get the full This Week in Technology + Press Freedom newsletter delivered straight to your inbox!

The Technology and Press Freedom Project at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press uses integrated advocacy combining the law, policy analysis, and public education to defend and promote press rights on issues at the intersection of technology and press freedom, such as reporter-source confidentiality protections, electronic surveillance law and policy, and content regulation online and in other media. TPFP is directed by Reporters Committee attorney Gabe Rottman. He works with Stanton Foundation National Security/Free Press Legal Fellow Grayson Clary and Technology and Press Freedom Project Legal Fellow Mailyn Fidler.

View post:
Biden Justice Department inherits tricky tech, media law issues - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

To the editor:

Why does the left want the First Amendment modified?

With the passing of Rush Limbaugh we may have ended a period that brought comfort to a generation that refused to be canceled or keep their mouths shut. Liberals despise freedom of speech when it isnt them speaking. Liberals dont just want to oppose conservative speech, they want it canceled.

I was CEO and owner of a company with locations in Indiana and Kentucky. I traveled by car and later on my companies twin engine Cessna. On one trip, to accompany one of my Louisville salesman to visit a large international account at their general headquarters, something strange happened.

Riding up the elevator there were a couple salesmen from a soda pop company going to see my friend, a VP and fellow fan of Limbaugh. They expressed their hate for Limbaugh and believed he should have his heart ripped out. It was a long ride to the top floor and they spent the whole time talking about their hate for Limbaugh.

My friend was ready for his appointment with the soda pop fellows but I walked into his office and told him what they had said about Limbaugh. He suggested they be taken to task. Before they started their doomed sales pitch and were asked to leave and not return, he asked them their thoughts about advertising on The Rush Limbaugh show? As far as I know, through the ownership changes through the years, that soda pop has never been available in their stores.

Floyd Shirrell

Indianapolis

Excerpt from:
Letter: Why the left wants the First Amendment modified - Daily Journal

SF 534 increases penalties for protest related charges. Though proponents claim it will protect law enforcement and prevent destruction of property, its real blow is to the First Amendment.

A bill that would increase penalties for protest-related charges passed the Iowa Senate on March 10 along party lines. Reacting to this summers protests, the bill does not explicitly infringe on First Amendment rights, but it makes it much more difficult for Iowans to safely exercise their right to protest.

Now in the House Public Safety committee, SF 534 (formerly SF 497) covers everything from vehicle-related accidents to aiming laser pointers in peoples faces all in an attempt to crack down on protesters following this summers demonstrations.

The bill is largely based on Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds Back the Blue proposal, which faced opposition from the ACLU of Iowa, among other groups.

In short, the bill draws wider bounds for what is considered an unlawful assembly or riot, lowers the requirements for involvement in these assemblies, increases sanctions for protesters, and defines additional criminal acts.

Any gathering of three or more people can be deemed unlawful even if just one person acts in a violent manner and intends to commit a public offense. Similarly, a gathering can be deemed a riot if the group disturbs others and just one of them intends to use force against another person or cause property damage.

That means that an entire protest could be condemned because of one bad actor, or because of police-instigated violence.

The government, though bound by citizens First Amendment rights to speech and assembly, has a vested interest in declaring protests against the state unlawful assemblies. With this bill, peaceful protesters with legitimate concerns could be more easily arrested and charged, and their voices stifled.

Under some of the bills most expansive provisions, a person could be charged with an aggravated misdemeanor if they engage in disorderly conduct by making loud noise near a public or residential building, for example while merely present during a gathering deemed unlawful. If the gathering is deemed a riot, the charge could increase to a class D felony.

This, among the bills other stringent sanctions, could put peaceful protesters in jeopardy should a gathering they attend, through no action of their own, later be deemed unlawful. Similarly, the term present could be broadly construed to mean in the vicinity of, and could implicate onlookers nearby.

The bill also increases sanctions for property damage and stipulates that any acts that damage, deface, alter, or destroy any publicly owned property constitute a class D felony.

Though we would hope that police and prosecutors would exercise discretion in arrests and charges, this summers protests have shown differently. Given their track record, I dont have much faith in their judgement.

Iowa recently made national headlines for the arrest and subsequent prosecution of Andrea Sahouri, a Des Moines Registerreporter who was covering a racial justice protest on May 31. Though she was acquitted of two misdemeanor charges, the fact she was arrested and prosecuted at all casts doubt on Iowa officials capacity for rational discretion.

This bill, combined with high-profile cases like Sahouris, serves to discourage people from using their First Amendment rights. It creates unreasonably harsh penalties designed to intimidate Iowa residents and prevent them from taking part in protests.

The provisions of the bill are much too broad and the penalties much too harsh. If this was really about protecting the safety of law enforcement officers or preventing destruction of property, as the bills proponents claim, it would be more focused.

Instead, SF 534 makes it far too easy to arrest and charge protesters for crimes with unduly harsh penalties and limits Iowans First Amendment rights.

Columns reflect the opinions of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board, The Daily Iowan, or other organizations in which the author may be involved.

Visit link:
Opinion | Iowa protest bill stifles free speech and assembly through harsh penalties - UI The Daily Iowan

March 14-20 is known in the news media profession as Sunshine Week, or as I like to call it, the annual effort in futility that always gets lost in the midst of St. Patricks Day and the NCAA basketball tournament.

Sunshine Week serves only one real purpose, anyway. And thats to send a friendly reminder to private-sector workers and taxpayers, the majority of whom dont care that many of their public officials do their best to keep the Mushroom Principle one step ahead of the Sunshine laws.

Each year, the American Society of News Editors and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press provides new information and best practices for public officials at http://sunshineweek.rcfp.org/.

In a previous Sunshine Week column, Jim Zachary of the Valdosta (Ga.) Daily Times and president emeritus of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, wrote: Newspapers have a long legacy of holding government accountable, and operating as the Fourth Estate. Sadly, many newspapers have abandoned that role, leaving it up to the general public to police local governments. Any newspaper that does not defend the First Amendment and champion open government is not worth the paper it is printed on or the ink that fills its pages.

I agree.

As an editor whos written about Sunshine laws, public records and open meetings protocol for more than 25 consecutive years, I greatly appreciate Mr. Zacharys comments.

Too often these days, some media spend more time on political propaganda than defending the First Amendment. (Did you happen to notice the too-little, too-late corrections today by the WAPO and CNN for their inaccurate Georgia reporting on President Donald J. Trump? Of course not.)

I've shared this before, but on the local level, one public official whos always encouraged the press in its role as government watchdog is the Hon. Judge Kevin L. Greer. Many times when Judge Greer has administered the oath of office for a local official, he has purposely mentioned the press and its oversight role. The judge has told more than one new office-holder that this oversight is an important function and can make him or her a better public servant.

Granted, I did write a column in 2015 under the headline: "It's time to abolish Ohio's public records laws; turn out the lights on the Sunshine Laws, too."

In my occasionally cynical vein, I surmised that its time that the state of Ohio does away with its archaic public records laws and its so-called Sunshine Laws. In fact, it is past time.

Lets face it: You as voters and taxpayers do not need to know what your elected office-holders are up to. Its none of your business. Really. Just trust them. They know best. (What scandals?! Certainly not in Ohio. Ahem.)

For more than 25 years, I have written those obligatory newspaper editorials and columns in support of the publics right to their own information. Ive written the Sunshine Week columns every March, even though in Ohio the sun doesnt shine until May or June unless you are selling or leasing your land to become a "solar farm," in which case southern Ohio supposedly is sunnier than south Florida. By the way, how many former or current public officials have owned property that has been sold or leased to these new "solar farm" operations? I can name at least two.

For the record, I have championed the publics right to their public records for a long, long time. But I was wrong. Public records are none of your business. Period. Yes, you paid for them. And you paid people to make them available under Ohio law. But really, who are we, as members of the taxpaying public, to seek our own records? The nerve.

The availability of public records is, of course, a relatively simple concept. Records are kept and maintained by public officials in order that members of the public may have access to said records. The concept is simple; until someone complicates it for no good reason.

The Ohio Revised Code addresses denial of public record requests: (3) If a request is ultimately denied, in part or in whole, the public office or the person responsible for the requested public record shall provide the requester with an explanation, including legal authority, setting forth why the request was denied. If the initial request was provided in writing, the explanation also shall be provided to the requester in writing. The explanation shall not preclude the public office or the person responsible for the requested public record from relying upon additional reasons or legal authority in defending an action commenced under division (C) of this section. (See http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/149.43)

Herein lies the rub: The state really doesn't provide any serious penalty or deterrent for malicious and/or ignorant public officials who deny access to the public's business and records.

So let's stop all the grandstanding on Sunshine Week until local, state and federal governments take it as seriously as we all should. Until then, Sunshine Week carries about as much weight as the cries to end gerrymandering and establish reasonable political districts across the state and nation. (Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...)

In some places in government, the sun never shines. Record-setting executive orders in 2021 by a confused commander in chief come to mind.

* * *

A statesman in the 'Show Me State'

Missouri Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer is becoming one of the more admirable members of the People's House. His column this week (online athttps://highlandcountypress.com/Content/Opinions/Opinion/Article/The-far-left-to-do-list/4/22/66205) begins: "Defunding the police, taxpayer-funded elections, restricting Second Amendment rights, and a massive partisan spending package disguised as coronavirus relief. These are the bills the House of Representatives have prioritized this year."

Someone asked me why The Highland County Press publishes Rep. Luetkemeyer's columns. Fair enough. Rep. Luetkemeyer has been more consistent in providing significant information vital to taxpayers and freedom-loving Americans than any Ohio member of Congress in recent months.

In fact, Luetkemeyer's House website has been one of my "go-to" sources for information. For gun owners and champions of the Second Amendment without which, the First Amendment and most others are pointless Luetkemeyer deserves support.

He points out in his most-recent column: "(Last) week the House passed two bills that would limit a law-abiding citizens ability to buy a gun. If these bills became law, they would criminalize activities that are common practices among law-abiding gun owners and create arbitrary delays on background checks, hindering millions of Americans Second Amendment right to defend themselves and their families. Taking law enforcement officers off our streets and making it difficult to exercise Second Amendment rights is not only irresponsible, its downright dangerous."

Indeed. For hunters, shooters and gun enthusiasts among us, you might want to wake up and contact your representatives in Congress. More importantly, you might want to contact any moderate Democrat you can find. I'd start with the Marine from Maine, Rep. Jared Golden and perhaps Sen. Joe (keep the filibuster until there's too much pressure on me) Manchin in West Virginia. Democrats need to wake up against woke-ness. Soon.

The only thing at stake is the Bill of Rights.

* * *

Another job-killer in Congress

Another clue that most House Democrats have never owned a private business: The PRO Act, which passed the U.S. House on a mostly partisan vote, could eliminate most forms of independent contracting and freelancing potentially impacting as many as 59 million freelance workers who represent 36 percent of the total U.S. workforce. The majority of independent contractors said the union-backed bill could negatively impact their livelihood." No kidding.

* * *

Good work, Counselor Collins

A tip of the ball cap this week to local jurors and Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins, all of whom no doubt struggled to do what was right during a recent three-day trial in Highland County Common Pleas Court involving the endangerment of two young children.

Highland County Press managing editor Caitlin Forsha has already reported most of the sad and sordid details of the case. There's no need to rehash it here.

But I will say this to anyone who fails to appreciate the wonders of a newborn child and who fails to love that child: Well, there's a special place for you. Don't look upward, though. The skies are raining tears.

Rory Ryan is publisher and owner of The Highland County Press, Highland County's only locally owned and operated newspaper.

Read the original here:
Sunshine Week and a Show Me State statesman - The Highland County Press

^

Keep Dallas Observer Free

Support the independent voice of Dallas and help keep the future of Dallas Observer free.

Following the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced hed take on Twitter for its decision to ban former President Donald Trump from its service. Now, the Big Tech titan is biting back.

On Monday, Twitter filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent Paxton and his office from investigating the companys content moderation policies. An unshakeable Trump supporter, Paxton announced an investigation into the platform after it booted the outgoing president on Jan. 8 over fears hed incite more political violence.

In the lawsuit, Twitter argues that Paxtons push to obtain confidential documents through a civil investigative demand (CID) is unlawful.

The investigation and CID unlawfully intrude on Twitters internal editorial processes and burden its protected activity, and do so solely because Twitter exercised its First Amendment rights in a way disagreeable to AG Paxton, the lawsuit reads. This retaliatory conduct violates the Constitution.

Twitter further alleges the attorney general is using the full weight of his office to retaliate against the platform, which ultimately violates its free speech and freedom of the press rights.

Paxtons office did not return the Observers requests for comment.

Twitters lawsuit is the latest in a string of bad press for the attorney general, who is facing multiple legal challenges himself. Last month, a court filing alleged that Paxton had helped an Austin real estate developers business affairs in exchange for a home remodel and a job for Paxton's mistress.

Paxton is also the subject of an FBI investigation, according to The Associated Press,and faces felony securities fraud charges from 2015.

Its only government actors who are prohibited from abridging the freedom of speech under the First Amendment." Attorney Michael Shapiro

Following the news of Twitter's lawsuit, liberals were quick to pounce on Texas embattled top lawyer. Joe Jaworski, a 2022 Democratic candidate for Texas attorney general, seized the opportunity to question Paxton's priorities.

Another legal distraction for Paxton who continues to prioritize fighting for Trump over fighting for Texans recovering from the winter storm, Jaworski said in a tweet. We need an AG who does their job without starting petty partisan fights.

Republicans have long claimed that social networking sites are biased against conservatives, which Big Tech companies largely refute. Democrats, meanwhile, readily point out that tech giants are private companies that can moderate content as they see fit.

Traditionally, the First Amendment doesnt apply to private actors, said Michael Shapiro, an attorney at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Laws First Amendment Clinic.

As much as certain people vehemently object to Donald Trump not having his platform on Twitter, we understand Twitter to be a private company, Shapiro said. Its only government actors who are prohibited from abridging the freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

Social media networks play a big role in providing a soapbox for political discourse, he added. It makes sense that people get sensitive about decisions that could alter the speech they see on those networks and who is allowed to participate.

But Shapiro said Twitter is arguing that their editorial decisions regarding content moderation are also protected by the First Amendment.

That might not stop other conservative lawmakers from attacking Big Tech. Tuesday, Plano state Rep. Matt Shaheen announced hed filed a bill that would hold social media companies liable for censorship by allowing Texans to sue them.

Social media companies are no longer neutral, Shaheen said in a news release.

These companies are now more powerful than ever in controlling the narrative, labeling conservative content as untrue and censoring us every single day, he said. No other publishing medium is legally allowed to do this because it is dangerous and destructive, and citizens should have the right to fight back against this outrageous censorship.

Earlier this month, East Texas state Sen. Bryan Hughes filed a similar bill in the Senate. On Friday, he tweeted that the bill would allow Texans to participate on the virtual public square free from Silicon Valley censorship; Gov. Greg Abbott also announced his support for the move.

Meanwhile, a new study by New York University researchers contests that conservative talking point. They found the idea of an anti-conservative animus from social media companies is a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it.

"No trustworthy large-scale studies have determined that conservative content is being removed for ideological reasons or that searches are being manipulated to favor liberal interests," the researchers wrote.

Keep the Dallas Observer Free... Since we started the Dallas Observer, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Dallas, and we would like to keep it that way. Offering our readers free access to incisive coverage of local news, food and culture. Producing stories on everything from political scandals to the hottest new bands, with gutsy reporting, stylish writing, and staffers who've won everything from the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi feature-writing award to the Casey Medal for Meritorious Journalism. But with local journalism's existence under siege and advertising revenue setbacks having a larger impact, it is important now more than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" membership program, allowing us to keep covering Dallas with no paywalls.

Simone Carter, a staff news reporter at the Dallas Observer, graduated from the University of North Texas' Mayborn School of Journalism. Her favorite color is red, but she digs Miles Davis' Kind of Blue.

Read more:
Twitter Sued Texas AG Ken Paxton over First Amendment Concerns - Dallas Observer

BOISE, Idaho -- Anti-government activist Ammon Bundy was arrested Monday after failing to attend his trial on charges that he trespassed during an Idaho legislative session last fall. Bundy didn't appear in the courtroom because he was protesting outside the building instead, apparently angry in part over mask requirements put in place during the coronavirus pandemic.

Bundy was joined by about two dozen other protesters on Monday morning, some holding signs with slogans like Ammon stands for truth and others yelling misinformation and conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic popularized by groups like QAnon.

The Idaho Supreme Court has ordered that everyone wear masks while inside state courtrooms in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19. The Ada County Sheriff's office said both Bundy and another man expected to appear for a jury trial on trespassing charges, Aaron von Schmidt, refused to wear masks so they could enter the courthouse for their trials.

After the judge issued arrest warrants because the men failed to appear in court, a deputy asked both men if they would voluntarily turn themselves in. Both men refused, the Ada County sheriff's office wrote in a prepared statement released later that day.

When a team of deputies tried to make the arrests, the protesters resisted, the Ada County Sheriff's Office said. Deputies said Bundy laid down on the ground and refused to move, while other protesters reportedly locked arms to try to impede the deputies' approach. A third man, 69-year-old Casey J. Baker of Nampa, was ultimately arrested on suspicion of battering a law enforcement officer and a fourth man was issued a citation after deputies said he resisted and obstructed officers.

The sheriff's office said a fifth person who wasn't involved in the confrontation with deputies got caught up in the crowd and fell down, hitting his head on the ground. That person was taken to a hospital for treatment.

Bundy and followers of his People's Rights organization have frequently protested coronavirus-related measures in southwestern Idaho since the pandemic began, including the protests at the Statehouse last August that originally led to Bundy's arrest on trespassing charges.

In one of the August protests, angry unmasked protesters forced their way into a House gallery with limited seating, shattering a glass door in the process. The next day, more than 100 protesters shouted down and forced from the room lawmakers on a committee considering a bill to shield businesses and government agencies from coronavirus-related liability. Bundy was arrested for trespassing when he wouldnt leave the room, and again the next day when he returned to the Statehouse despite a one-year ban.

Bundy is representing himself in his criminal case. Shortly after his August arrests, he told Judge David Manweiler that he doesn't believe his actions at the Idaho Statehouse were illegal, and he claims the state doesn't have legal standing to charge him with a crime.

He also filed subpoenas legal orders to testify or turn over documents to several bystanders and officials who were at the Idaho Statehouse during his arrests, including Associated Press reporter Keith Ridler, who photographed and reported on the incidents.

The AP asked Manweiler to reject the subpoena for Ridler's testimony and his reporting materials in part because the news agency said the subpoena would violate the Idaho's Reporter's Privilege, a legal balancing act that courts take to determine if a subpoena given to a member of the news media would chill their First Amendment rights.

Bundy didn't respond at all to the AP's motion.

On Monday, Manweiler said Bundy failed to show that the subpoena would have met the three prongs of the reporter's privilege test: that there is probable cause to believe the reporter had some information that was clearly relevant to a specific violation of the law, that the information can't be found in another way, and that there was a compelling and overriding interest in the information that would have justified potentially limiting Ridler's First Amendment rights.

Subpoenas to members of the media are particularly onerous because they threaten to intrude into the newsgathering process," the AP's attorneys wrote in their motion to the court. Being forced to testify or produce evidence in a court case also threatens the independence of a free press and potentially puts journalists at personal risk. It risks causing Ridler to be viewed as aligned with one party or the other, potentially impacting how the public will perceive the independence of his reporting, and could even make him a target the next time he covers a public event.

As of Monday evening, Bundy and Schmidt remained in jail, both being held in lieu of $10,000 bonds. Baker, who was arrested on suspicion of battering a law enforcement officer, was being held without bail according to jail records.

Bundy garnered international attention when in 2016 he led a group of armed activists in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to protest the federal control of public lands. He and others were ultimately arrested, ending the 41-day occupation. But Bundy was acquitted of all federal charges in that case by an Oregon jury.

In 2014, Bundy, several brothers and his father led an armed standoff in Nevada with Bureau of Land Management agents who attempted to confiscate his fathers cattle for grazing on public land without a permit. He spent almost two years in federal custody before the judge later declared a mistrial.

Read more here:
Ammon Bundy arrested after missing trial on trespass charge - ABC News

Contentious item pulled from agenda at last weeks Santa Monica City Council agenda

By Sam Catanzaro

A contentious law that would have placed restrictions on certain forms of protesting in Santa Monica has been withdrawn.

On December 15, 2020, Santa Monica City Councilmembers Phil Brock and Christine Parra directed staff to propose an amendment to the city code to reduce prolonged noise from protest activities in residential neighborhoods while still upholding First Amendment rights. The move was in part a response to a series of recurring protests in December targeted at the Santa Monica residence of County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl who was spotted eating at a restaurant hours after voting to ban outdoor dining.

These protests, which went on for several weeks, involved nightly, hours-long uses of amplified sound in a residential neighborhood that appeared intended to and did unreasonably harass and disturb the privacy and tranquility of residents reads a March 5 city report on the topic.

Similar protests have also been held at the Santa Monica home of Assemblymember Richard Bloom.

At the December 15 meeting, Councilmember Brock said limiting excessive noise during evening hours at targeted protests could be done while also protecting First Amendment rights.

What we are really trying to do is have an enhanced noise ordinance in the [residential] zones that allow families to have peace and quiet in their neighborhood. I want to make it very clear. I have absolutely nothing against protests and people should march, people should have placards and people who want to use their voices to express themselves on a street corner or in front of a house, they should be allowed to, Brock said. Its about first amendment rights but it is also about the rights of people who live in a neighborhood.

At the December 15 City Council meeting, all seven members voted to direct staff draft a proposal. Many Councilmembers, however, expressed concern about infringing on First Amendment rights by enacting such legislation.

I am deeply deeply concerned about infringing on first amendment rights, said Mayor Pro Tem Kristen McCowan. We have to be careful.

On March 5 Interim City Attorney George Cardona returned with a proposed ordinance that Brock said went beyond the scope of what he had intended and therefore requested the item be pulled from the agenda at the March 9 Council meeting.

Im astounded, frankly, that a small adjustment to the residential noise ordinance that I requested in December along with Councilmember Parra as a result of requests from Sunset Park residents, who could not have peace and tranquility in their purely residential neighborhood, morphed into an overarching anti-protest ordinance revision that affects the entire city, Brock said during the meeting. I resent that my specific, targeted method of helping our families in their homes at night became a ploy to change the rules of noise protests and the implements that protesters might utilize in the whole city.

Cardonas proposal would have prohibited using sound-amplifying equipment on a public sidewalk, street, alley or parkway located in a residential district after 10 p.m. and before 7 a.m. on weekdays or 8 a.m. on weekends. In addition, between the hours of 8 p.m. and 10 p.m., people could only operate sound-amplifying equipment on a public sidewalk, street, alley, or parkway in a residential district if they are stationary staying in a fixed location for 5 minutes or morewhich would enable decibel levels to be more easily monitored as part of a determination whether the persons conduct was in violation of city code. Thirdly, the changes would have imposed additional restrictions on those who use sound-amplifying equipment at night within 500 feet of the same location multiple times in a 7-day period.

The ordinance also called for a prohibition on carrying certain items at community events, public assemblies and targeted residential protests. In 2008, City Council adopted an ordinance that prohibits carrying certain wooden objects during a protest or public assembly. Cardona proposed expanding the list of items prohibited at public assemblies, community events and targeted residential protests. The expanded list included items such as poles, sticks, wood and metal pipes, projectiles like rocks and pieces of concrete, glass bottles, aerosol sprays, shields, baseball or softball bats and laser pointers.

Since the item has now been pulled from last weeks agenda (as opposed to being voted down), Cardona says Council can not give staff any specific direction about changes to the legislation.

The attention surrounding the proposal comes as police departments across the country brace for potential unrest as the trial against Derek Chauvin, the police officer charged with killing George Floyd, began in Minneapolis this week.

On May 31, 2020 in Santa Monica rioters, taking advantage of a peaceful protest against the killing of Floyd, looted hundreds of Santa Monica businesses. The Santa Monica Police Department (SMPD) was criticized for its response to the event, at one point firing tear gas and rubber bullets on a crowd of protestors while just blocks away looters tore through downtown Santa Monica.

Last week, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) West Los Angeles Area Captain Jonathan Tom notified residents and business owners the department is preparing for different reactions to the trial. According to Tom, the West Los Angeles division does not have any specific intelligence regarding potential unrest in the area, but has pre-identified locations that are likely to be targets of looting, vandalism and protests.

If it becomes necessary, we will pre-deploy officers to those locations, Tom wrote.

Tom said in a phone call that the Westside locations are Westfield Century City, Westwood Village, Palisades Village and Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard corridors.

SMPD Sgt. Rudy Flores told the Mirror in an email that the the Santa Monica police do NOT have any specific intelligence suggesting any type of unrest in SM however we will have a plan in place similar to what we did during inauguration week and after the events that occurred at our nations Capital. Community safety in SM is definitely our priority, so we definitely will have a comprehensive response plan.

More here:
Santa Monica Lawmakers Withdraw Law That Would Have Restricted Certain Forms of Protest - SM Mirror - Santa Monica Mirror