Monthly Archives: April 2021

In public, pillow magnate and staunch Donald Trump ally Mike Lindell has continuedlong after President Joe Bidens inaugurationto hurl wild, unfounded allegations about the 2020 election and has even gone as far as to say that Trump could be reinstalled in the White House later this year.

But behind the scenes, Lindell has assembled a legal team front-loaded with First Amendment heavyweights who arent so much looking to defend the merits of their clients bizarre claims as his constitutional right to say them free from the consequence of devastating financial ruin.

The Lindell legal team is also preparing to argue that the false claims against the voting-tech company Dominion are akin to pillorying the U.S. government, and therefore come with the same speech protections.

According to court documents filed late last week, Lindells company, MyPillow, has hired veteran First Amendment attorney Nathan Lewin to represent the company as its Trump-aligned founder faces a billion-dollar defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems over a series of baseless allegations about the company and the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

Lewin joins his friend and fellow legal heavyweight, celebrity lawyer and Trump impeachment-defense veteran Alan Dershowitz, who, while not an attorney of record in the case, recently announced that he is informally advising Lindell and his legal team on the defense. Taken together, the moves show how Lindell, whose pro-Trump claims have pushed him to the political fringes and made him a lightning rod, has nonetheless attracted the support of a high-powered legal team of mainstream attorneys willing to fight his case on constitutional grounds.

Ive been on conference calls repeatedly with [Lindells] legal team, sometimes Lindell is on, sometimes hes not, Dershowitz said in a phone interview last week. My role is to come up with ideas as they pertain to the First Amendment. I give them cases, and I suggest First Amendment theoriesmy role is limited to advising on the First Amendment issues at hand.

Our position is that Dominion is the government, for purposes of the First Amendment.

Alan Dershowitz

He added that he has been advising Team Lindell not only on a motion to dismiss the Dominion lawsuit but also on the potential litigation that Lindell has for weeks said that he and his attorneys are working on filing soon against Dominion and voting tech company Smartmatic.

Dershowitz said he personally recommended Lewin to Team Lindell, and gave a brief preview of what could likely come from the Lindell side as litigation progresses.

Our position is that Dominion is the government, for purposes of the First Amendment, he said. The government delegated to them the most important governmental function, mainly counting votes in a presidential election. And they are therefore subject to criticism in the exact same ways that the government would be subject to criticism in that situation. And criticism of how the government conducted a presidential election is the highest bar protecting the First Amendment right to criticize such action.

For years, Dershowitz and Lewin have both been registered as Democrats.

Lewin, 85, has a storied legal career that spans decades and included a dozen appearances arguing cases before the Supreme Court and in Bobby Kennedys Justice Department prosecuting Jimmy Hoffa. After leaving government work, Lewin went on to represent a host of notable clients, including Jodie Foster after John Hinckleys attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, former Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Iran-Contra scandal, President Richard Nixon, and John Lennon in an appeal of his immigration status after the Nixon administration tried to have him deported from the U.S.

In an email to The Daily Beast on Sunday afternoon, Lewin declined to comment, writing that he would have nothing to say beyond what I may file in court.

In the years since, Lewin established a reputation as a go-to attorney on First Amendment cases involving the free exercise of religion and the Establishment Clause. Lewin has represented Orthodox Jewish organizations in cases involving labeling requirements on kosher food, co-educational housing requirements for Orthodox students at Yale, the public display of a Menorah, and Jews in the armed forces seeking religious accommodation to wear beards.

Lewin also represented the America Israel Public Affairs Committee in the fallout from the 2005 espionage cases against former lobbyists Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman after Pentagon official Lawrence Franklin was caught passing classified information about Iran to the two men. Franklin pleaded guilty to leaking classified information. Prosecutors tried to charge Rosen and Weissman under the Espionage Act for passing the information along to the Israeli government but ultimately dropped the charges.

Lindells legal strategy also marks a contrast with his fellow Dominion critic Sidney Powell, who also is facing a $1.3 billion suit from the voting technology company. Powells legal team has largely drawn attorneys from within the ranks of those who sought to overturn the election in court.

Powell is represented by Howard Kleinhendler, a Republican attorney who, alongside Lin Wood, filed some of the so-called Kraken cases bearing many of the same allegations that landed Powell in Dominions crosshairs. Shes also represented by Lawrence Joseph, a Trump campaign attorney who helped draft the Supreme Court brief that Texas filed in a failed bid to overturn Joe Bidens electoral victory in a handful of battleground states.

I want to take this all the way to the Supreme Court. Im not stopping.

Mike Lindell

And during that months-long anti-democratic blitz spearheaded by then-President Donald Trump and other prominent Republicansculminating in the bloody Jan. 6. MAGA riot in Washington, D.C.Lindell emerged as a key player both in public and behind the scenes. The pillow magnate and Trump friend was a big financial backer of several legal efforts and rallies that attempted to subvert the certified outcome of a Biden win and a decisive Trump loss. During the final days of Trumps term in office, Lindell visited the then-president in the Oval Office to brief him on documents filled with groundless conspiracy theories about how China and other foreign nations were at the center of a convoluted plot to swing the 2020 election to the Democratic presidential nominee.

And unlike other major players in that broad effort to keep Trump in power, Lindell has kept going, even as he faces expensive legal jeopardy and lost business.

I want to take this all the way to the Supreme Court, Lindell has repeatedly insisted since Trump left office. Im not stopping.

Continue reading here:
MyPillow CEO Recruits First Amendment Heavy Hitters to Fight Dominion - The Daily Beast

A case to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court next week presents one of those rare instances in which different LGBTQ groups are on opposite sides. The case is Mahanoy v. BL, an appeal which asks the Supreme Court to take a new look at a long-standing First Amendment decision from 1969 and say whether it needs to be re-thought, given todays new social media and cyber-bullying realities.

In friend-of-the-court briefs submitted in the case, different LGBTQ groups and leaders are taking different sides. Some argue that schools need the authority to discipline students for inappropriate messages even when those messages are delivered off-campus and after-school. Others say students need protection from school authorities over-reaching into the personal views and expressions of students.

Both sides say the case, which has no LGBT-specific elements, could have important implications for LGBTQ students.

The case before the court started in 2017, when a student at a small public high school in central Pennsylvania posted an angry message on Snapchat, expressing her anguish at having been rejected for the varsity cheerleading squad. The student, identified in numerous news reports as Brandi Levy, is identified in court documents as B.L., and she attended Mahanoy Area High School. (She has since graduated and is attending college.)

On the weekend after learning she would have to stay on the junior varsity squad, Levy was out shopping with a friend when she decided to post a photo of herself on Snapchat, gesturing with her middle finger and adding a caption that read, Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.

Levy was suspended from the JV squad for the year

The post reached about 250 people, including other students at her high school (which had an enrollment of only about 280 students). One of the students who saw the post captured the Snapchat image and forwarded it to Levys JV cheerleading coaches.

Mahanoy school officials brief to the Supreme Court said that Students were visibly upset over Levys Snapchat post, that the post violated school rules against foul language and inappropriate gestures, and that they felt they had to take disciplinary action to avoid chaos and maintain a team-like environment. So, they suspended Levy from the JV squad for the year.

Levys parents attempted to reverse that decision by talking with school officials. When they got nowhere, they sued in federal court, charging that the school had violated their daughters First Amendment right to free speech.

A federal district court agreed, noting Levys Snapchat post was done off-campus and had not caused any substantial disruption of school activities. The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed. It cited a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisionTinker v. Des Moineswhich held that students have a right to freedom of speech unless a school can prove that the students actions or speech would substantially interfere with school operations. The Tinker case involved students wearing black armbands at school during school hours, in protest of the Vietnam War. The Mahanoy case involved something done off-campus after-school.

While acknowledging that social media have blurred the lines between what constitutes on and off-campus, the Third Circuit said Levys Snapchat post was clearly off-campus and that the online nature of that off-campus speech makes no constitutional difference.

schools face hard calls about how to address off-campus speech

Attorneys for the school appealed the Third Circuit decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that other federal appeals panels have ruled that Tinker can apply to off-campus speech that has a close nexus to the school environment. The Third Circuit decision, they said, broke ranks with all other circuits on the matter.

The Mahanoy school attorneys noted that schools face hard calls about how to address such off-campus speech, including instances of where students use social media to harass other students and teachers. But schools have exercised authority to discipline speech that disrupts the campus or harms other students, whether that speech originates on campus or off.

Garden State Equality and other LGBTQ groups submitted a brief siding with the school district

Joining several other anti-bullying organizations, the Garden State Equality group, the Tyler Clementi Foundation, and Stomp Out Bullyingwhich focus on LGBTQ issuesall submitted a brief on the side of the Mahanoy school district. They noted that a study found that more than 80 percent of LGBTQ youth reported being bullied or harassed at school. They said, there must be a clear and unmistakable pronouncement that school officials may take reasonable measures to curtail peer bullying that negatively impacts students ability to access their education, wherever and in whatever form it takes place.

A large number of other LGBTQ groups submitted a brief in support of the student.

Bestowing schools with overly broad authority to regulate off-campus speech risks school overreach, said the LGBTQ groups. They said studies show that historically marginalized groupslike LGBTQ studentsare more likely to receive unwarranted school discipline for their off-campus speech. At the very least, they argue, the Supreme Court should make clear that any restrictions to off-campus student speech only apply to prevent invasions of students rights to safety and access to equal educational opportunities, and not to regulate all potential substantial disruptions of school activities.

The brief was submitted by Lambda Legal, Equality California, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the Human Rights Campaign, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and more than two dozen other groups committed to gender, LGBTQ, racial, and disability justice for students.

We support B.L. in this case because we believe the school was not within its authority to discipline her and violated her First Amendment rights to speech and expression, said Camilla Taylor, director of constitutional litigation for Lambda Legal and one of the authors of the brief supporting the student. When student speech occurs off-campus and does not threaten harm to anyone, said Taylor, students enjoy an unfettered right to express themselves without school interference.

The groups brief urged the Supreme Court make a very careful rulingone that enables schools to respond to off-campus speech that invades a students rights to be safe and to access equal educational opportunities but one that does not impair a students off-campus speech that is otherwise protected under the First Amendment.

Acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar submitted the Biden administrations brief in March and will be speaking before the court on April 28. Her brief supports the school district, saying that schools must be able to address any speech, including off-campus speech, that threatens or targets specific individuals or groups in the school community.

California, Illinois, New Jersey, and North Carolina, say the Supreme Court should vacate the decision

Interestingly, the openly lesbian Attorneys General of Massachusetts and Michigan submitted a brief, along with the attorneys general of 21 other states, including California, Illinois, New Jersey, and North Carolina, saying the Supreme Court should vacate the Third Circuit decision. The attorneys general explicitly declined to take sides with either the student or the school district, but its argument clearly landed to benefit the schools.

Bullying occurs both during and outside of school hours, particularly now that students communicate so frequently via social media, said the attorneys general brief. And regardless of when and where it occurs, bullying can create a school climate in which student victims feel unsafe and unable to engage in learning.

The Court should reject the Third Circuits approach and reaffirm the ability of schools to address off-campus bullying under the well-established student-speech framework.

Gary Buseck, senior adviser with GLAD and a 35-year veteran of LGBTQ litigation, acknowledged that it seems odd that the pro-LGBTQ briefs stand in support of different sides of the appeal.

However, my sense is that all of the parties on these three specific amicus briefs are actually in agreement on one issue, i.e., that school boards have to be allowed to deal with bullying and harassment that occurs off-campus but that impacts a students life in school and educational opportunities and experience, said Buseck. All three briefs, he said, are concerned less about the facts of this case and its bottom-line result than about possible dangers in the Third Circuit opinion bearing on how school must be allowed to address bullying/harassment.

The Mahanoy argument comes at a time when LGBTQ groups are anxiously awaiting how the Supreme Court will rule on a major case that does involve LGBTQ issues specifically: Fulton v. Philadelphia. That case, argued in November, is the latest in a long line of lawsuits that have attempted to secure for some people and businesses an exemption to laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Those arguing for the exemptions claim that requiring them to obey the non-discrimination laws violates their First Amendment freedom to exercise of their religious beliefs against LGBTQ people.

2021 Keen News Service. All rights reserved.

Originally posted here:
Some LGBTQ groups and leaders are taking different sides in First Amendment case - Out In Jersey

Tenth Circuit Grants Qualified Immunity to Police Who Knowingly Violated the First Amendment | Cato at Liberty Blog Skip to main content `; } const addClickListeners = (alertBoxWrapper) => { alertBoxWrapper.addEventListener('click', ({ target }) => { if (target.classList.contains('js-cato-live-alert-link')) { var ga = window.ga=window.ga||function(){(ga.q=ga.q||[]).push(arguments)}; var _hsq = window._hsq = window._hsq || []; ga( 'send', 'event', 'Live Alert Link', 'click', target.getAttribute('href') ); const { dataset: { researchAreas, } } = target; Object.values(JSON.parse(researchAreas)).forEach(({ title }) => { _hsq.push(["trackEvent", { id: `Live Alert Link - ${title}` }]); }); } }); }; const buildAlert = (events) => { const { pathname: currentPath } = new URL(window.location.href); if (currentPath === '/') { return; } const alertWrapper = document.querySelector('.js-live-alert-wrapper'); const alert = document.querySelector('.js-live-alert'); const eventsWrapper = alertWrapper.querySelector('.js-live-alert-inner'); let eventsCode = ''; events.forEach(({ title, link, research_areas: researchAreas }) => { if (link !== currentPath) { eventsCode += buildEventCode( title, link, JSON.stringify(researchAreas) ); } }); if (!eventsCode) { return; } eventsWrapper.innerHTML = eventsCode; alert.classList.add( `cato-live-alert--${events.length > 1 ? 'multiple' : 'single'}` ); addClickListeners(alertWrapper); alertWrapper.classList.remove('d-none'); }; getCatoStreamingEvents .then(( { events }) => { if (events === undefined) { window.liveAlertProcessed = true; window.dispatchEvent(new Event('liveAlertPlaced')); return; } buildAlert(Object.values(events).slice(0, 2)); window.liveAlertProcessed = true; window.dispatchEvent(new Event('liveAlertPlaced')); }) .catch((error) => { console.log(error); window.liveAlertProcessed = true; window.dispatchEvent(new Event('liveAlertPlaced')); }); })(getCatoStreamingEvents);

Read more:
Tenth Circuit Grants Qualified Immunity to Police Who Knowingly Violated the First Amendment - Cato Institute

UMass Laws Shaun Spencer and UCLA Laws Eugene Volokh discussed First Amendment issues raised by potential legislation limiting social media deplatforming.

UMass Law Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Shaun Spencer joined UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh for a panel discussion titled, The First Amendment and Big Tech Censorship, presented by the UMass Law chapter of the Federalist Society.

Spencer and Volokh discussed First Amendment issues raised by calls for legislation limiting social media platforms ability to deplatform their users. They surveyed prior Supreme Court cases addressing laws compelling newspapers, parade organizers, cable television operators, shopping malls, and universities to host the speech of others, and debated how those cases might apply to legislation that restricts deplatforming. They also discussed Justice Clarence Thomas recent concurrence in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute, in which Justice Thomas floated potential theories that the Court could use to uphold legislation limiting the platforms power to remove users. And they reviewed additional First Amendment hurdles that potential legislation would have to overcome, including claims that the legislation would restrict the platforms speech based on the content of the speech or the identity of the speaker.

Video of the panel discussion is available here.

School of Law, School of Law School of Law Faculty

Go here to see the original:
Spencer and Volokh Discuss the First Amendment and Content Moderation on Social Media Platforms - UMass Dartmouth

The five freedoms of the First Amendment include speech, assembly, religion, petition and the press.

To kick off Iowa States annual First Amendment Days celebration, guest speakers Gene Policinski and Robert Bickel gave a lecture on how the First Amendment affected the civil rights movement and what it means for social activism today.

The two are co-authors of The First Amendment and the Civil Rights Movement, a free online course that addresses the topics they discussed in their lecture. Their thesis was that the First Amendment and the exercise of its five rights by activists and journalists played a crucial role in the success of the civil rights movement.

Throughout the lecture, Policinski and Bickel both referenced two key ideas: without the First Amendment, the civil rights movement would be like a bird without wings, and that without lawyers, a bird without a voice.

The first portion of the lecture consisted of Policinski and Bickel going over pivotal moments in the civil rights movement and explaining how each part of the First Amendment assisted the cause. Bickel said the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1956 was when the civil rights movement truly began and it revitalized the freedoms of assembly and religion.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott reawakened both assembly and religion, the mass meetings were all in Black churches so we can add the religion clause. Dont forget, its all five freedoms of the First Amendment that make the movement successful, Bickel said.

Bickel also discussed at length the events of Bloody Sunday and the Williams v. Wallace case. Bloody Sunday describes the events of the mass protest march on March 7, 1965, led by John Lewis that was met with violent opposition from police. Williams v. Wallace was one of the many cases surrounding the events.

Williams versus Wallace becomes the greatest First Amendment case ever written because it speaks to assembly in the context of Frank Johnson (the judge) having to prove a multi-thousand person, 52-mile march from Selma to Montgomery. Mass assembly and protest doesn't get any bigger than that, Bickel said.

Bickel also said the emergence of television and journalism was crucial to winning that case because Johnson was able to rule on direct evidence of the events of the march. He said the ability for people to see the violence on film electrified Americans and helped grow the movement.

Policinski discussed the First Amendments role in social change applied to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and other present-day causes.

Policinski also mentioned several challenges movements like BLM face such as protest laws in many states that limit the rights of the First Amendment. His advice to current activists would be to start utilizing their voices in the legal systems to take the progress made and turn it into real legislation that can create lasting change.

I think its very important that journalists go into these future events with the idea that journalists should not be portrayed as representing some elite. Journalists are there on behalf of the public. The movement recognized that and encouraged journalists to be that. We would like to encourage you to be that, Policinski said.

Link:
Lecturers speak on the importance of the First Amendment in the civil rights movement - Iowa State Daily

Smartmatic, the election technology company suing Fox News for defamation, responded on Monday to the media empires recent motion to dismiss its $2.7 billion lawsuit, denouncing Foxs free speech argument as flagrant self-deception. The First Amendment does not provide the Fox defendants a get-out-of-jail-free card, Smartmatic lawyer Erik Connolly wrote in the 120-page brief reported by the New York Times. This is not a game.

In February, Smartmatic filed a lawsuit accusing Rupert Murdochs Fox Corporation of damaging the companys reputation and business with false claims broadcast in the aftermath of the 2020 election, naming current and former network stars Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro, and Lou Dobbs as defendantsall of whom stood by then-President Donald Trump throughout his democracy-defying crusade to reverse his loss to Joe Biden and, to that end, helped advance conspiracy theories peddled by Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell about Smartmatics voting machines. The Fox defendants wedded themselves to Giuliani and Powell during their programs and cannot distance themselves now, Smartmatic said in Mondays brief, contending that the outlets election-related disinformation was no accident, according to the Times. The Fox defendants do not get a do-over with their reporting now that they have been sued.

Fox responded more or less predictably. In a statement, a Fox News spokesperson said, The filing only confirms our view that the suit is meritless and FOX News covered the election in the highest tradition of the First Amendment. Motions to dismiss Smartmatics case filed by Fox and its anchors have cited free speech protections and journalistic responsibility, claiming that covering Smartmatic was a necessary part of its reporting on Trumps newsworthy post-election efforts to overturn the results. Such claims are Foxs attempt to cloak themselves in the First Amendment in a situation where the cloak does not fit, Smartmatic argued in this weeks filing.

Connolly told CNNs Oliver Darcy that the company has a straightforward case of defamation against Fox and on Monday attempted to hold Fox and the anchors responsible for their coverage, which Connolly called the theme of their opposition. Fox reportedly has weeks to respond to Smartmatics brief before a judge ultimately decides if the case will proceed. The Smartmatic case is just one of two massive defamation suits Murdochs outlet is facing as a result of its conspiracy-addled election coverage: earlier this month, Dominion Voting Systems, another election technology company targeted by Trump and his allies baseless claims that there was widespread fraud and manipulation of voting machines, sued Fox for $1.6 billion.

More Great Stories From Vanity Fair

Inside the Messy Breakup of an OnlyFans Model and Her ber-Wealthy Boyfriend Wyoming Tells Donald Trump Jr. to Sit Down and STFU A Wave of Displaced New Yorkers Is Upending the Hamptons Social Order How a Group of Rich Memphians Acted on Trumps Big Lie During Capitol Attack Prosecutors Are Lining Up Witnesses in Trump Investigations Republicans Brave Plan to Stop Mass Shootings: Do Nothing Next-Level Harassment of Female Journalists Puts News Outlets to the Test Six Photographers Share Images From Their COVID Year From the Archive: American Nightmare, the Ballad of Richard Jewell Serena Williams, Michael B. Jordan, Gal Gadot, and more are coming to your favorite screen April 1315. Get your tickets to Vanity Fairs Cocktail Hour, Live! here.

Follow this link:
Smartmatic Calls Bulls--t on Foxs First Amendment Argument - Vanity Fair