Monthly Archives: January 2022

The Dr. Martin Luther KingCommission of Mid-Michigan held it's annual essay contest for Greater Lansing junior and high school students, including theMark S. McDaniel Legacy Scholarship component for graduating seniors.

Scholarship winners (two) will receive$5,000 prizes; three otherfinalists will receive $2,500 prizes.Essay contest winners receive$500 forfirst place,$350 for second place and$150 forthird place.

This year's theme is the Martin Luther King Jr. quote,"In the long run, justice finally must spring from a new moral climate. Below arescholarship and essay contest winners.

Join in the day of celebration fromthe Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Commission of Mid-Michigan LIVE at 7 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 17 airing locally onWILX TV-10 and WLNS TV-6. To learn more about the event, visitmlkmidmichigan.com/day-of-celebration.

"In the long run, justice finally must spring from a new moral climate" means various things to many different people. Everyone is unique, one-of-a-kind, and individual. But it is through community that our society can thrive as a whole.

In 2020, I participated in the NAACP Youth Rally Protest. What led me to this was the disappointment and sadness of injustice in America. What happened to George Floyd was unacceptable and I feltthat marching would show that the malpractice of justice was not admissible. My family and I agreed to exercise our First Amendment right to fight injustice. I did hadsome fear for my safety and as well as for my family. Lansing was a victim of rioters while protesters were exercising their First Amendmentrights.

I felt like I was a young John Lewis trying to turn injustice into a peaceful moral climate. My Edmund Pettus Bridge was Michigan Avenue. I learned that protest and outcry could cause a massive influence on the trajectory of a new moral environment. At the rally, everyone agreed on one thing. Regardless of race, gender, or economic status, we all decided that what happened to George Floyd was not just. My experience at the rally is an example of the push needed to spring towards justice.

I believe absolute justice is obtainable, and the first steps start with everyone. With any goal, there has to be a definite drive to achieve. Dr. King once said. "Faith is the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase." Martin Luther King Jr. knew that faith in his efforts would produce fruits of success.

I find it quite ludicrous that we are still dealing with problems that have grown roots since 1619. A significant part of the problemis laziness in society. The lack of empowerment and honest assessment of situations that developed into a basketof secondary dilemmas. This includes gang violence, immaturity, politics, generational divides, economic status, and the lack of diversity and inclusion.

With Dr. King's philosophy, I am confident that I can achieve my goalsof educating others on financial literacy. My dream is to build an educational institution teaching kids about financial literacy and coding. This is how I will make my difference towards a new moral climate. As we come together and put our differences to rest, we shall overcome the problems of our day.

David Ferguson (East Lansing High School)

The crowd outside on this warm June day was bustling, but there was an absence of life. I could tell from the podium at the former Black Child and Family Institute that they were anxious. The tensions were high because the recent deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd had shaken everyone. They stared intently at me, waiting for me to begin. I knew they saw me standing there, but I hoped they wouldn't see me; a nervous Black 15-year-old at the Lansing Coalition Juneteenth Public Forum last year. I was tasked with delivering a three-minute speech to hundreds of people including newscasters and politicians about social injustice and police brutality. But Dr. King said "in the long run, justice finally must spring from a new moral climate," and this was my chance tobring forth such change.

I scanned the audience and began talking about the importance of voting. Throughout my entire life, I heard people complain about how a certain president was elected or why a bad policy was implemented. Ironically, they were the same people who never went to the polls to voice their opinion through the ballot. The ballot is our strongest weapon, and we need to use it because we we could be the loudest in the room. If we don't vote, our opinion won't matter. Wemust vote nationally and locally to elect ourmayors, judges and prosecutors in the hopes of unleashing a new moral climate that birthed the justice that found a police officer guilty of murdering Mr. Floyd and three men guilty of killing Mr. Arbery. Voting isn't the only way to make an impact.

We can serve our community and work with our political leaders to effect change. I talked about the need for young people to educate ourselves on our rights so we wouldn't be taken advantage of. We must work with our politicians to implement a policy that would make it a right for 16-to 18-year-olds to call their parents when pulled over by the police tohelp provide safety and comfort. Subsequently, I served on Rep. Sarah Anthony's Youth Advisory Council and she would later introduce my idea as a bill in the state Legislature.

Once I finished my speech, a massive weight had been lifted off my chest. I felt alleviated being able to speak what had been on my mind for the lastfew months, and to my surprise, I could tell the crowd felt the same way as well. A semblance of that life had returned. The nervous kid inspired by Dr. King's teachings, was met with an overwhelming applause. I couldn't contain my smile.

James McCurtis (Okemos High School)

"Standing in Solidarity"

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, In the long run, justice finally must springfrom a new moral climate. This statement was in response to the 1957 desegregationof Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. However, his words remain importantand relevant today, especially with the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor andmany others who have been victims of police violence. As a young Black man, myfamily and I have been affected by these tragedies. Understanding that I may beperceived as a threat because of my skin color means I cannot run in certainneighborhoods when it gets dark. It means I need to be extra cautious when I amdriving or have my music too loud. It means I need to understand that violence can findme when I least expect it. This is why we protest.

It is amazing to see the support from communities that came together to protestthese injustices. I was proud to attend a protest at the Michigan state Capitol indowntown Lansing. Unfortunately, I notice how quickly people forget about thesetragedies and move on. After a couple of weeks, once people felt that they did their part,they stopped protesting and stopped supporting our cause.

I am also a young Asian man. I have seen the attitudes towards Asians and thehate that we have received due to the coronavirus. We have been victims of racism,hate, and violence due to the pandemic. Again, there was a flood of support fromcommunities until people lost interest and moved on.

The current moral climate involvesa lot of performative activisms, and it is disingenuous to fight injustice only when it istrending. Our temporary moral compass needs to be fixed and become a constant partof our life. My biracial identity has given me a different view on issues knowing that it iscrucial that people support all injustices. It is not Black vs Asian vs white vs Latino. It isnot us vs them. We need to work together and stand in solidarity with each otherconsistently to correct injustices in the world. We need to always continue in our fight forequality, not just when it is convenient.

Jerry Jai Kozar-Lewis (East Lansing High School)

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a very influential person during his time on earth andeven now, he still isin this day and age, which to most people speaks volumes because he's beendeceased for 53 years now. The words he spoke are still being spoken by everyone regardless ofbeliefs because that's the type of influence he had.

A quote from him says that, In the long run,justice finally must spring from a new moral climate." Yet spiritual forces cannot emerge in asituation of mob violence." Martin was speaking about then PresidentEisenhower calling"wishy-washy for not being on one side or the other. Moreover, in Martin saying these words,he's saying that to get that justice or that end goal you have to change for the better, change yourway of thinking and think about what may ensue after. Turn that leaf that you've thought mightnever get flipped.

Justice for the future is essential because for a nation that has a pledgecalling for allegiance which also at the end states, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.But in an environment where it has no justice it always results in no peace until that justice isserved righteously. Though in this world people around can be seen transitioning into that newmoral climate that King brought when he addressed Eisenhower's action ways of trying to serveequality in the place in of where justice should be upheld equally the most; schools. Furthermorewith his statement you can't present violence to achieve your self image of justice and try tojustify your actions with the words of your god equally looking as someone that lacks internalmoral justification.

Kalib Jackson (Eastern High School)

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said In the long run, justice finally must spring from anew moral climate,"I believe this means that in order for justice to be achieved, you must firstconvince the majority of the public to adopt a new mindset. This could mean a new generationsmindset perhaps.

To understand Martin Luther King Jr.'s statement, you must first understand thedefinition of the word moral,which is defined as "concerning or relating to what is right andwrong in human behavior,"and the word "climate, which is defined as "the usual or mostwidespread mood or conditions in a place.When combining the two, to me, the phrase "moralclimate" means: The most widespread belief of what is right or wrong.

It almost irks me to know that this quote was written in 1957 in reference to the treatmenttowards people of color during the civil rights movement, yet it is still relevant today. Things likethe Black Lives Matter movement, the push for something to be done about climate change, theabortion rights movement, and the need for LGBTQ rights. There are likely more issues that Dr.King Jr.'s quote applies to, but these are just the few that come to mind.

I also believe the kind of people that are concerned with these issues prove his point aswell. A series of telephone interviews from 2015-2018 from people ages 18 and up gathered datathat 70% of people ages 18-34 are worried about global warming while only 56% of people ages55 and older are worried about it. We needed a generation that would provide a new "moralclimate" to see some activism regarding the issue of climate change. The same applies with theBlack Lives Matter movement, which more directly applies to the theme of justice; Two-thirdsof adults younger than 30 express at least some support, as does a narrower majority of thoseages 30 to 49 (58%). About half of adults ages 50 to 64 (49%) and 46% of those 65 and older saythey support the movement.

This research just goes to show that the very thing that Martin Luther King Jr. wasfighting for almost 70 years ago is still relevant today. We still need strong people to influencethe moral climate to allow justice and from the looks of it, the people that will influence themorals will be this new generation.

Eliana McDonald (Eastern High School)

"In the long run, justice finally must spring from a new moral climate. Martin Luther King Jr.

Blackchildrenaremisledandmisunderstoodbyoutsideforceseveryday.With generationalcurses and childhood trauma dating back to their first breath, they have little to noeducation on how to process strong feelings causing minor inconveniences to pile up on eachother. Meaning that when problems occur, they have no way to express their feelings other thananger. Trauma, mixed with firearms makes Black children seem violent as opposed tomisunderstood. Lack of resources results in the consistency of Black poverty ensuing in theabundance of gun violence in our society.

The education system is built to break upon the same people it claims to attend to. ForBlack people, there are very few chances to break out of the generational cycle of poverty. Inpredominantly urban areas, there are very few opportunities for success. People that make it outof the cycle are considered extremely lucky, which says something about this environment as awhole. There are issues greater than the ones I've stated, but they also have solutions larger thanI can comprehend. How do you change the mind of someone so fixated on hatred? How do youconvince someone to change their beliefs of hostility towards a group of people? The answer liesin the future.

Once the human mind decides on a set of beliefs, it's nearly impossible to change them,meaning the solution lies in the generation ahead of ourselves. A better environment for the nextgeneration would consist of counseling, emotional advocacy, and justice for the countless livesand futures lost to gun violence. My hope is that the new moral climate of justice for my people,lies in my generation and the ones to come.

Xavier McKissic, 7th grade (Everett High School)

"A Struggle for Justice"

For my 9th birthday present, my sister gifted me a book. I devoured it. The book was called "Separate Is Never Equal," a biography both authored and illustrated by Duncan Tonatiuh, detailingSylvia Mendez and her family's fight for desegregation in California schools. And oh, my word, thewriting! The art! It was so gripping and powerful helplessly enthralling in fractured beauty.

The booktells the story of Sylvia Mendez's parents demanding the authorities give an explanation after theirchildren of Mexican descent were denied the same education and opportunities as children of white backgrounds. They received none satisfactory, however, and soon brought their plight to court.Though the journey was difficult, the Mendez family emerged victorious: garnering support fromstudents and parents who had suffered similar injustices, receiving help from associations ofdifferent backgrounds all to eventually secure the rights for children of every ethnicity, language, andbackground to learn together in California schools.

I was reminded of "Separate Is Never Equal" when I was considering how to weave the themefor the contest into my writing. For Sylvia Mendez and so many others at the time, justice came in theform of living on equal footing with their white neighbors. However, if this was justice, why was itnot established early on? Why only now? Of course, as Martin Luther King Jr. stated, perhaps themoral climate was simply not right.

Like a desert flower sunk under scintillating snow, justice can'testablish itself when society's worldviews don't accept it. Nonetheless, there is hope. The snow willthaw, the desert flower blossom, and people living under injustice like Sylvia Mendez and millions ofothers at the time and at the present will eventually triumph in their battles for liberation, per Mr.King's famous words.

Sophia Liu,8th grade (Chippewa Middle School)

Throughout history, justice has always been difficult to obtain. In some cases people have losthope that one day there will be equality for everyone. Justice is a principle that every person, community,and culture deserves. Dr. Martin Luther King was a beacon of light showing us how to change the moralclimate by increasing awareness and protesting against injustice.

MLK was conveying a deeply resounding message when stating these words: In the long run, justice finally must spring from a new moral climate. He believed that later on in time, therewould be a generation that would emphasize the importance of justice and what it truly means.During the time Martin said these words, there was a lot of injustice specifically to those withanother skin color and diverse ethnicities. Despite the lack of equity, MLK always saw the lightat the end of the tunnel. He never gave up on his hope that one day people of color would gainjustice.

In our present time, the world still isn't perfect, and it may never be. We still see peoplefighting for all sorts of justice, but the question that persist is: What can I/we do to contribute tothe goodness of our society? We can start by always treating people nicely, gently, andrespectfully. Each person has a challenge, an obstacle to face, and a hindrance that limitspossibilities but we can all make attempts at understanding because we never know whatsomeone is going through. We can initiate and support a moral climate change by not lookingdown on a certain community of people and by speaking up for the weak and the vulnerable.Giving equal and equitable opportunities no matter of background, religion, ethnicity, andculture is what will help us heal and advance the call for justice and pursuit of happiness.

Every little simple gesture of kindness, acceptance, tolerance, and perseverance paves theway for a better future. One that we aspire for ourselves, our families, and our communities.Everyone has their own opinions and beliefs, but one thing we should all do is strive tocontribute to the equity and the freedom of living in a moral climate that celebrates ourdifferences and enriches our unity bringing to fruition the dream that Martin Luther King Jr.Though it takes time, the arch of justice get served and in that is my hope for a prosperousfuture.

Diana Carrosco-Guerrero, 11th grade (Sexton High School)

Like how when you played the violin

a little too aggressively,

and the string snapped back hitting you in the face,

the same violin hidden forever in the corner of your basement.

The mortal race forever lost,

seeking out something that is never meant to be found.

For why would justice be found

in a garbage dump?

The quote said must,"

Not might," or perhaps, or definitely not,

It must spring out of the ashes, and shadows,

in order for justice to be found.

Like when you're looking for something,

but it's right there hidden in plain sight.

We must allow the pogo stick to be fixed,

start training to swim and run,

computer to be reprogrammed,

violin strings repaired,

Emma Heinzelmann,8th grade (Chippewa Middle School)

Essay winners will be recognized LIVEat 7 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 17 airing locally onWILX TV-10 and WLNS TV-6,part of the day of celebration fromthe Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Commission of Mid-Michigan.

More:
Greater Lansing students find personal meaning in the words of Martin Luther King Jr. - Lansing State Journal

HAMPTON It's perfectly legal to erect a giant "F--- OFF" banner on the front of your house and currently there is nothing the town government can legally do about it.

"I think it's ridiculous," said Selectman James Waddell, who found out the town's hands were tied in regulating offensive language on signs after receiving complaints about one on Mill Road.

"When I was a kid and you (used that language) someone would smack you. It wouldn't be out there long. But times have changed."

The town's Planning Board is putting forth a zoning amendment to voters March 8 to strike what has been deemed non-enforceable language in the town's sign ordinance prohibiting profanity and explicit content.

However, they are seeking to add wording that limits the owners of residential properties especially the few who display offensive content from displaying banners to two occasions per year, and for no more than 14 consecutivedays per occasion.

A banner, according to the town's zoning ordinance, is defined as a sign of lightweight fabric or similar material that is mounted to a pole or a building. National flags, state or municipal flags, according to the ordinance, are not considered banners.

Planning Board Chairman Tracy Emerick said the impetus behind the amendment was a "F--- OFF" banner put up on a home on Mill Road in 2020 in protest of a new development in the neighborhood. The sign was placed under another banner that read, "Thank God for the First Amendment.

Previous story: Hampton mans F--- OFF yard sign riles neighbors

"There was a lot of heat taken at the town hall about this particular banner," Emerick said.

Selectmen received a number of complaints from neighbors upset children had to walk by it, as well as from motorists who traveleddown the road and saw it.

And they were upset the town leaders were not doing anything about it.

While the town's current sign ordinance prohibits words or pictures that are "obscene, pornographic or immoral character," Emerick said it's considered unenforceable.

"The truth of the matter is that it's a First Amendment right," he said. "The right to free speech is the right to free speech."

Emerick said Town PlannerJasonBachand requested the board remove the language regarding content from the sign ordinance on the advice of the town counsel.

He cited two U.S. Supreme court actions: Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015), which involved a municipality restricting content-based messaging in signage, and Iancu v. Brunetti (2019), which involved prohibiting the use of a trademark for FUCT clothing line"that was considered immoral and obscene.

Both were deemed unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment by the court.

Bachand told the Planning Board at a recent meeting the wording could leave the town open to lawsuits, including from a resident challenging why they are not enforcing it.

"We can't do anything on what people put on a banner," Emerick said. "All we can do is try and control the use of banners."

Initially, the first draft of the zoning amendment banned all banners in residential zones.

Emerick said the problem was what if someone wanted to put up a "Welcome Home" sign for a soldier returning from overseas or a "Congratulations" one for a birthday or graduation.

"That's where the two and for only 14 days come from," Emerick said. "We didn't want to restrict positive banners and most positive banners have an event and a timeframe."

Emerick said enforcement, if the amendment is approved, would be done by the town's building department.

The "F--- Off" banner on Mill Road that spurred the zoning amendment is no longer on display.

While selectmen sent a letter to the homeowner requestinghe take down the sign, Waddell said he doesn't believe that did the trick as it was up for months after the request was made.

"I'm not sure why the sign went down," he said. "I don't know if he felt his purpose was served or not."

The sign regarding the First Amendment remains proudly displayed on the home as well as a new small banner of a gnome giving what appears to be the middle finger.

Waddell said he supports the proposed zoning amendment because it gives the town an enforcement tool if future cases arise.

"It's a way to control signs because signs can get totally out of control," he said.

The zoning amendment only pertains to banners and not other signs defined in the ordinance like political signs.

Waddell said he was recently asked what the board could do about people holding up offensive political signs in downtown Hampton.Signs that have led to complaints include "Let's go Brandon" signs (an anti-President Joe Biden slogan) as well as a flag that directly states "(Expletive) Biden," with the swear word made out of guns.

Waddell said again, it's protected by free speech. According to the ACLU, "generally, all types of expression are constitutionally protected in traditional public forums such as streets, sidewalks and parks" and a permit is not required to picket or hold up signs.

Waddell said he's had people ask him if selectmen could restrict the hourspeople can hold signs downtown, "or type of signs they can hold."

"It's a slippery slope," Waddell said. "It's a shame that we even have to think about that."

Continue reading here:
Perfectly legal: 'F--- OFF' sign in Hampton irks neighbors, could lead to zoning change - Seacoastonline.com

Hours into a marathon oral argument on Jan. 10, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia observed that if there is one thing this hearing has shown it's that this is not an easy case. For nearly five hours Judge Mehta heard arguments about whether former President Donald Trump, Rep. Mo Brooks, Rudy Giuliani and others could be held civilly liable for their role in the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. The main lawsuits, brought by Reps. Bennie Thompson and Eric Swalwell, allege violations of 42 U.S.C. 1985(1), a Reconstruction-era statute that created civil liability for conspiracies to prevent public officials from holding any office or discharging any duties.

Addressing issues common to the three lawsuits, Judge Mehta wrestled with formidable defenses raised by Trump and his co-defendants: chiefly that Trump and Books are immune from civil liability for actions taken as part of their official duties, and that the defendants statements leading up to the siege of the Capitol could not satisfy the elements of conspiracy, especially to the extent that the statements were protected speech under the First Amendment.

Immunity

Trump lawyer Jesse Binnall argued for an expansive, highly formalistic vision of presidential immunity, relying on the Supreme Courts ruling in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability for actions while in office that fall within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility. The crux of Binnalls argument was that the court must entirely ignore the content of Trumps speech on Jan. 6his remarks at the Ellipse and on Twitter over the course of the dayand look only at the presidents conduct to analyze whether he was acting in his official capacity. Because Trump was addressing the American people, Binnall argued, he was acting within his official duties as president and must enjoy immunity, especially since the subject of his speech, electoral integrity, is a matter of immense public concern.

Judge Mehta was skeptical of this all-encompassing vision of the presidents official duties, which potentially would make the president immune from civil liability anytime he opens his mouth. Judge Mehta pushed Binnall on whether there is anything that a president could do or say while in officefor example, as part of a campaignthat would not be immune from liability under his expansive theory of presidential immunity. Binnall said that he could not name an example of anything the president could say that would not fall within his official duties under this theory, but that perhaps signing a lease on a campaign office would not fall within his responsibilities as president.

But if Binnall failed to give Judge Mehta a reasonable standard for the scope of presidential immunity, the plaintiffs struggled to offer one that would withhold immunity in this case while nevertheless being consistent with precedent. The plaintiffs argued that Trump should not enjoy immunity because fomenting an insurrection against Congress was clearly unconstitutional and thus outside his official duties. But as Judge Mehta noted, Fitzgerald held that presidential immunity did not depend on the legality of the presidents action. The plaintiffs were left to argue that Trumps conduct surrounding Jan. 6 was so outrageous that it was clearly beyond the scope of his presidential responsibilities. But where exactly to draw that line remained unclear.

The question of the scope of official duties was also at the center of Brooks claim that he should be immune from liability under the Westfall Act, which requires the government to act as the defendant when federal employees are sued for tort liability for official actions. The Department of Justice joined the plaintiffs in arguing that Brookswho spoke before Trump on Jan. 6 and declared that Todays the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking asswas campaigning and therefore acting outside the scope of his official duties; as a result, Brooks should not be immune from civil liability. But Brooks, who argued on his own behalf, emphasized that his motivation in speaking at the Jan. 6 rally was not simply to support Republican candidates in future elections, but also to convince his fellow congresspeople to vote against the certification of the electoral college votes.

First Amendment

The other major hurdle for the plaintiffs is the First Amendment, which generally protects the sort of political speech that Trump, Brooks and the other rally speakers engaged in (and to that extent cannot serve as the predicate for the plaintiffs conspiracy charges). The plaintiffs emphasized that the defendants could be held liable under even the highly speech-protective standard of Brandenburg v. Ohio, which permits liability for advocacy of the use of force or of law except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

In a heated exchange, Binnall, Trumps lawyer, repeatedly pointed to several inflammatory statements that the Democratic plaintiffs had themselves previously made, arguing that if Trumps language was found to be incitement to violence here, but similar language used by others elsewhere was not, the court would be failing to apply the First Amendment equally to Democrats and Republicans. Judge Mehta sharply rebuked Binnall for engaging in whataboutism and for suggesting that he was judging Trump and his co-defendants speech more harshly because of their party.

Like the discussion of presidential immunity, the First Amendment portion of the argument was inconclusive. On the one hand, Trumps words did not explicitly call for violence and were on their face far less inflammatory than what the Supreme Court upheld in Brandenburg and in many cases since. On the other hand, the broader context of Trumps speech, from his months-long campaign to discredit the election to his failure to act after the attack on the Capitol began, suggests, as Mehta noted, that Trumps speech went beyond ordinary political rhetoric, even if it was not the sort of speech that typically qualifies as conspiracy to commit violence.

Ultimately, and despite hours of questioning, Judge Mehta did not tip his hand as to how he will rule on the many complex legal issues that the lawsuits raise. But given the high political and legal stakes, its unlikely that Judge Mehtas decision will be the last word. The parties will almost certainly appeal any outcome to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and this case may well end up before the Supreme Court, especially on the central issue of presidential immunity.

See more here:
After Oral Argument, the Future of Thompson v. Trump Remains Unclear - Lawfare

Marilou Rickert did not set Washington politics on fire when she ran for the Legislature in 2003.

Rickert, an attorney and Green Party candidate who tried to unseat long-term incumbent Tim Sheldon in the West Sides 35th district, lost by a huge margin, with Sheldon gathering about 80% of the vote.

Rickert nevertheless holds an important legacy in Washington politics as a free-speech figure. It was Rickert who was charged with violating state law for telling a falsehood about Sheldon in her campaign she incorrectly characterized a vote he took on a flyer and it was her case that the state Supreme Court used to throw out that law.

A political candidate making knowingly false and reckless statements, the court ruled, is constitutionally protected speech.

The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment, the courts 5-4 majority opinion read.

Now the governor is looking to take on the tsunami of election lies that is animating a large part of the conversation on the political right and taking a run directly at the boundaries established in Rickert v. Washington.

Gov. Jay Inslee is supporting legislation that would make it a crime to tell lies about election results. The legislation is still being drafted, but his notion is to make it a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and $5,000 in fines, for candidates to tell lies about elections with the knowledge that such lies can incite violence.

It should not be legal in the state of Washington for elected officials or candidates for office to willfully lie about these election results, Inslee said

In laying out his reasoning, Inslee is right about a whole lot. He is 100% correct that too many elected officials have been lying about elections just pulling blatantly idiotic nonsense out of thin air. Hes correct that these lies have fueled dangerous, destructive violence, and hes accurate in identifying the rotting head of that stinky fish as the former president, who seems unable to speak without lying.

Hes right that the election lies are a threat to our democracy, and that the lying is not limited to national elections. If you think the Trump won lies are a steaming pile of horse flop, try Culp won. This is an actual thing, too dumb to be believed, and yet it is being advanced by some Republicans right now, including Joe Kent, a Trumpworld favorite trying to unseat Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler. Kent calls Loren Culp the real governor of Washington.

All of these lies, and the large numbers of people who swallow them, are a huge problem for our country. But this proposal is no answer. For constitutional, legal, practical and political reasons, its a bad idea.

Free speech is such a fundamental right that there is a significant degree of protection for some false speech as in the Rickerts case as well as important barriers to the state acting as the arbiter for what speech is accurate or acceptable.

Its not as if lying is completely protected. Perjury, fraud and libel are instances in which false speech is not protected by the First Amendment. But the Supreme Court has often elevated freedom over accuracy or honesty, especially in political speech. It has struck down laws attempting to prohibit people from lying about their military service (the so-called Stolen Valor Act) and protected the press from libel claims when it publishes incorrect information about public figures, unless such publication is done with actual malice (the landmark Times v. Sullivan case).

Thats to name just two cases. The constitution and a long history of case law establishes the freedom to say certain false things as an important indicator of true freedom. It is no kind of freedom at all, in other words, to say only that which is governmentally vetted.

At a time of rampant, destructive dishonesty in politics, its not hard to see the appeal of Inslees proposal. Journalists and online platforms have been challenged with an ever-greater need to act as editors and gatekeepers against the dissemination of lies; this is not, as people often claim, a violation of the First Amendment. Journalists and online platforms, as opposed to the government, have a responsibility to edit, vet, fact-check, challenge and be discerning about who they amplify.

That is the marketplace of ideas, and it is theoretically the way that bad speech is combatted. Ideally, the existence of ample, robust volumes of accurate, factual information will overwhelm false ones. Im not sure this is true anymore, if it ever was. The edifice of media organizations and online platforms that sustain lies has grown so large that people can simply climb inside it and never learn an accurate fact.

Still, that doesnt mean its time to begin empowering government to prosecute political speech. There are legal obstacles, including the difficulty of proving a statement is a lie rather than simply incorrect, as well as the challenge of establishing, beyond reasonable doubt, an intention to incite violence.

And there is an absolute certainty of a spectacular backfire. Think of the Culp won crowd. Imagine their delight at being prosecuted for telling this lie one based on the premise that the government is conspiring to hide the truth from people. Imagine their delight at being handed this badge of honor, and how good it will be for their ability to raise money from the millionaires who support the election lies.

Inslees right about the sickness, wrong about the cure. The Rickert case differs from Inslees proposal in key respects. As the governor noted, Rickert dealt with falsehoods told by one candidate against another; his proposal would go after lies about the electoral system generally, and those intended to incite violence.

Its hard to imagine, though, that the state Supreme Court would not come to the same conclusion with this proposal as it did in Rickert: government censorship is not a constitutionally permitted remedy.

Link:
Shawn Vestal: Inslee's right about the disease, but wrong about the cure - The Spokesman Review

A bill proposed in the New Hampshire House this week seeks to expand the statesfreedom from discrimination in education law restricting how public school teachers can discuss racism and discrimination in the classroom, and apply it to professors at the college and university level.

The bill, HB 1313, is titled relative to rights to freedom from discrimination in higher education, and would addpublic higher education institutions like the University System and Community College System of New Hampshire to the listof public employers that are currently restricted under law from teaching that any one group of people is inherently superior, racist, sexist or oppressive,whether consciously or unconsciously.

The bills primary sponsor, Rep. RickLadd (RHaverhill), said in a House Education Committee hearing Tuesday that professors should keeptheir personal beliefs out of the college classroom.

The false national narrative that professes that all states suffer from centuries of white privilege, white supremacy and systematic racism does not reflect New Hampshire,said Ladd. Any instruction promoting that racism is alive and well in New Hampshire does not reflect post-secondary education in our state, nor does it accurately portray our residents, particularly those who have been here for generations. Nor does it address the fact that we have invested efforts to attract more individuals and families to New Hampshire, increasing diversity by nearly 75% in the decade.

The current state law, RSA 193:40Freedom from Discrimination in Education and the Workplace, was proposed in January 2021 as one of severalbills nationwide banning restricting theteaching of divisive concepts, an echo of a Trump-era federalexecutive order.The billwas modified and ultimately passed through a rider bill to the state budget, signed by Gov. Chris Sununu in June. The law bans public employers including K-12 public school teachers in New Hampshire classrooms from teaching that any group is inherently superior or inferior, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously,should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment or should not treat members of other identified groups equally.Empowered by the new law, the state Department of Educationcreated a webpagein November that links to a form where parents can report any teacher for an alleged violation. Teachers found to have been in violation may be stripped of their teaching credentials.

Critics of the current law say it restricts K-12 public school teachers ability to discuss with students the historical impacts of racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination, including against LGBTQ people and people with disabilities.

Although the textof the bill uses broadlanguage about banning teaching that any groupissuperior or inferior,Rep.Ladd expressed specific concern at the hearing about white people being called racist in discussions about systemic racism or implicit bias.

I dont believe I should be tagged, or you should be tagged, or anyone in this room should be tagged with the idea that you areracist because of our past, Ladd said.Our past is our past. We can learn from it.

Ladd also expressed concern that educators might discuss critical race theory, an academic framework of analysis that examinesthe impact of racism on U.S. society.

As a parent and grandparent, I ask that schools and post-secondary institutions teach our young people to think, but not tell them what to think, Ladd said.Advocating CRT is discriminatory and does not reflect New Hampshires way of life, and certainly doesn't align with Dr. [Martin Luther] Kings vision. In fact, it does the opposite, pitting people against each other.

ACLUNew Hampshire Executive Director Devon Chaffee spoke against Ladds bill at Tuesdays hearing, saying it violates freedom of speech under theFirst Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Supreme Court precedents that have long protected academic freedom for colleges and universities.

Silencing a particular viewpoint here were talking about concepts related to racism and sexism violates the First Amendment, period. Chaffee said. Moreover, as it stands, the banned concepts act, is so unclear and vague, that it fails to provide the necessary guidance to educators about what they can and cannot include in their courses. HB1313 would only compound this defect by applying the concept to colleges and universities, where academic freedom is particularly protected under the First Amendment.

The current RSA 193:40 is already the subject of two pending federal lawsuits, claiming the law violates freedom of speech under the First Amendment and also that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment for being too vague. The lawsuits, brought by local teachers unions and other activist organizations,say the lack of clarity in the law has a chilling effect on teachers, who are avoiding discussing racism and discriminationentirely, for fear of being reported.

The banned concepts language that is being proposed has already created a chill that effectively prevents teachers from doing what society needs them to do, which is teach our students, said Brian Hawkins, director of government relations for the National Education Association New Hampshire, the states largest teachers union. The law has resulted in the curbing of essential teaching practices, such as competency-based learning andcritical thinking, so why would we want to expand this law into higher education?

Both TomCronin, director of government relations for the University System of New Hampshire and Shannon Reid,director of government affairs for the Community College System of New Hampshire,spoke against the bill at a hearing Friday.

The general intent to include public post-secondary education under 193:40 would seem to raise contradictions with widely-accepted tenets of academic freedom of college and university faculty, Reid said.We are very interested in not curbing the free flow of ideas that should characterize post-secondary education.

The bill has been assigned to the House Education Committee. If it passes in committee, it will move to the House floorfor a vote.

Continue reading here:
Bill would expand K-12 'divisive concepts' law to public higher education - Concord Monitor

A New Hanover County Board of Education member said a resolution to censure her wont deter her from her mission to hold those on the board, and in the school district, accountable.

The board passed a resolution to censure member Judy Justice in a 5-2 vote Friday afternoonafter Justice was accused of revealing confidential personnel information to someone who was not permitted to have it. Justice said after the meeting she felt the move was personal, and she plans to continue pushing for more transparency from the district going forward.

Im fighting the battles trying to help the district, and when they fight me, theyre in essence fighting against doing good things for the district, Justice said.

Justice and board Vice Chairwoman Stephanie Walker were the only two members to vote against the censure. A censure does not result in any action it's simply a tool to let Justice know the board does not support or agree with her actions.

Related coverage: New Hanover school board member under scrutiny says censure is 'deflecting from the real issues'

Equity audit: Why is New Hanover Schools looking at canceling contract with Sophic Solutions?

Masks in schools: Some Cape Fear school districts return to masks as COVID-19 cases surge

Kraybill said after the meeting she was made aware of allegations Justice had violated the code of ethics by disclosing personnel information in the fall. The board previously passed a vote of no confidencein June after then-Chairwoman Stefanie Adams accused Justice of lying during a board meeting.

DuringFriday'smeeting, the board went into a closed session to discuss personnel matters that could not be disclosed to the public. After, Justice was given a chance to address the board and thepublic andbrought forth a list of 10 ways other board members had violated the boards code of ethics that had gone unaddressed.

This witch hunt is personal and everyone on this(board)knows it, Justice said during her statement. It is time we did our job for the people and serve the people, not some peoples individual agendas.

Justice also alleged Superintendent Charles Foust had accused her of harassing him. Attorney Colin Shive interrupted Justice, saying he would advise her to move on from that subject to avoid revealing further personnel information. Kraybillsaid the subject was not germane to the topic at hand.

Justice went on to say it was her first amendment right to bring up the accusation and said she had no intention of bringing up confidential personnel information.

As Justice continued her statement about the alleged harassment, Foust interrupted her, saying he had 275 emails to prove she had harassed him.

I will provide emails if thats what you want, Foust said. You cannot and you will not do that.

Call to audience: Is New Hanover school board trying to censor public comments? Chairwoman proposes change.

Cape Fear Academy lawsuit: Here's what you need to know

School sexual abuse case: Sexual assault lawsuit against New Hanover schools end is near: 'It's been a long road'

Justice said the emails she sent him had to do with her asking him to do his job. She said after the meetingFoust has not communicated with her in months, though its district policy that the superintendent communicates regularly with members of the board. She alleged he does not respond to her emails or phonecalls, andsaid thats concerning as shewas elected to represent the public before the school district.

Kraybill quickly called the meeting to recess, and she and Foust went to a separate room to speak with Shive. When they returned, Shive called Justice back and spoke with her for several minutes behind closed doors. Walker also went with Justice to speak with Shive.

When Justice returned, she said she felt the censure vote was taking away from important issues going on in the district, like the continued strain on staff and students from the COVID-19 pandemic and decades of sexual abuse allegations against former teachers and administrators.

Several community members attended the meeting as well, holding signs reading I support Judy and attempting to speak with board members while they recessed.

How is this whats best for the kids? one audience member asked theboard, butdid not receive a response.

Kraybill said after the meeting the vote was not personal, and she hopes the board can be unified moving forward to get to those important topics impacting the district.

The community has been very critical of this board, and boards before us about not being transparent, not handling issues in a timely manner," Kraybill said. When I found out that this had occurred, I just said we need to jump on it and get it resolved.

We've got that behind us, and we should be ready to go,shesaid.

Reporter Sydney Hoover can be reached at 910-343-2339 or shoover@gannett.com.

More:
'This witch hunt is personal': School board votes to censure member in tense New Hanover meeting - StarNewsOnline.com