Monthly Archives: June 2022

MINOT, N.D. There is much ado in North Dakota politics this year about political spending, and much of the ado is coming from people who are people complete hypocrites about it.

Last week, before the holiday, a group of Bastiat Caucus lawmakers gathered in the state capitol building in Bismarck, in the hall just outside Gov. Doug Burgum's office, and threw a hissy fit about political spending Burgum is doing on legislative races across the state.

Burgum has been pouring big money into a political action committee that, in turn, is spending that money to support Burgum's preferred candidates in legislative primaries.

For this, Rep. Rick Becker called Burgum a "mafia boss."

Rep. Jeff Magrum called him a "tyrant."

(As an aside, and as I noted last week, Burgum's messaging has been positive so far . Another group, the Brighter Future Alliance, has been running negative messaging, but that group isn't affiliated with Burgum, a point seemingly lost on Rep. Magrum, as you can see in the picture above.)

Back in 2015, when Democrats were pushing a resolution, HCR 3030 , in the state Legislature seeking an amendment to the U.S. Constitution overturning U.S. Supreme Court rulings finding that political spending is protected free speech, Becker voted against it.

As did every other Republican member of the state House .

Screenshot

Magrum and two other Republican lawmakers who were at last week's news conference, Rep. Jeff Hoverson and Rep. Sebastian Ertelt, weren't in the Legislature in 2015 when this vote happened.

But Becker was. He's the founder of the Bastiat Caucus, a dissident group of North Dakota Republicans who pride themselves on supposedly being "ultra-conservative."

Becker voted in 2015 to protect political spending as free speech, which was the correct vote from the pro-liberty point of view, which makes Becker's opposition to that sort of thing today, in 2022, all the more ironic.

His hatred for Burgum has grown so deep, his principles now take a back seat to political expediency.

The irony doesn't stop there.

Anyone who watched Becker's unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign earlier this year is familiar with his obsession with his ranking from the American Conservative Union . That organization tracks how lawmakers vote on key pieces of legislation, then ranks them from most conservative to least.

Becker routinely came out on top of that ranking, and he's very vain about it. I'm not sure he delivered a political speech during his Senate campaign without mentioning it.

Well, the ACU scored the 2015 vote on HCR 3030 .

It was a part of Becker's ranking.

But his position today seems to be the Democratic position, which is that political spending isn't protected free speech.

What Becker and his cronies sell the public is this idea of themselves as these perfect paragons of conservative principles. They're loyal to their ideology, they tell us endlessly, which makes them distinct from all the other politicians who are in the thrall of special interests, yada, yada, yada.

The truth is, they're not that different. Like so many others in the political class, they'll abandon whatever principles are in the way of pandering to the audience in front of them at the moment.

A principled person would recognize that, whatever you think of his arguments and motivations, Gov. Doug Burgum didn't lose his First Amendment rights when elected to office.

If only Becker and his crew had that kind of principle.

View original post here:
Port: Remember when North Dakota's 'ultra-conservatives' were actually in favor of protecting free speech? - INFORUM

May 31, 2022 by Oskar Rey Category: Governance , Court Decisions and AGO Opinions

The First Amendment provides broad protection of freedom of speech and places stringent limits on the ability of government to regulate private expression, especially when the regulation discriminates against speakers based on their viewpoint. On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court) uses a different analysis for government speech, which applies when government speaks instead of regulates. Government entities need to be able to communicate, so it makes sense that government speech is analyzed differently than government regulation of the speech of othersbut it is not always easy to tell which is which.

In this blog I will review recent government speech case law, including the Shurtleff v. City of Boston flag raising case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month, and then I will provide thoughts on how to determine when government is speaking versus when it is regulating speech, and what factors make a difference.

The seminal government speech case is City of Pleasant Grove v. Summum, a 2009 decision which involved sculpture and monument displays in a city park. A religious organization requested permission to erect a stone monument containing the Seven Aphorisms of Summum that would be similar in size to an existing Ten Commandments monument in the park. A lower court, noting that parks are public forums and many of the monuments in the park were donated by private entities, held that the monuments were not government speech. It ruled that under the First Amendment, the city was required to allow installation of the Summum monument.

The Supreme Court reversed. It noted that while parks themselves are public forums, the display of monuments in parks is likely to be associated with the city. Even when a monument is donated, municipalities typically exercise control over what is displayed through submission requirements, policies, and legislative approval of specific proposals. The City of Pleasant Grove applied a detailed submission policy with respect to proposals for new park monuments. The permanent nature of monuments, coupled with the citys oversight over the selection process, led the Supreme Court to conclude that the monuments were government speech, and therefore, the government could decide which monuments to display.

In 2015, the Supreme Court considered whether the State of Texas could deny a proposal by the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) for a specialty license plate that depicted the Confederate battle flag in Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.

Texas law provides that the state has sole control over the design, color, and typeface of all license plates. There is a specific process by which the state reviews submittals of proposed specialty license plates designed by private entities, and the state had actively exercised its authority by denying at least a dozen requests in the past. With respect to the SCV plate design, the state denied it because many members of the public would find it offensive.

The Supreme Court ruled that Texas role in approving specialty license plate designs was government speech and not regulation of the speech of others. In so doing, the Supreme Court noted the longstanding use of state slogans and emblems on license plates. Under the majoritys analysis, license plates are a form of government-issued identification and do not constitute a traditional public forum (like streets or parks) or a limited public forum for the purpose of expression. As a result, the Free Speech Clause did not impact Texas regulation of specialty license plates.

There are three flagpoles in a plaza in front of Boston City Hall. The first two display flags from the United States and the State of Massachusetts and the third generally displays the flag of the City of Boston. However, the City of Boston had a practice of allowing outside groups to raise their flags on the third flagpole while holding events in the plaza below.

A religious organization sought to hold a flag raising ceremony in the plaza involving what it described as a Christian flag. The city denied the request due to concerns that raising a religious flag on a city flagpole would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. (As an aside, this concern was in error making public facilities available to religious organizations on the same terms and conditions as secular organizations does not constitute government establishment of religion.)

The religious organization sued, claiming that the denial was impermissible viewpoint discrimination and a violation of its free speech rights. In response, the City of Boston argued the decision of what flags will fly over city hall is government speech.

All the justices agreed that the denial of the flag raising request was a violation of the religious organizations free speech rights and that the flag raising, under the facts of the case, was not government speech. To understand why the result of Shurtleff was different from Summum and Walker, it is important to consider the following:

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of clear and meaningful policies when it comes to government speech:

[T]he city's lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of flags or the crafting of their messages leads us to classify the flag raisings as private, not government, speech though nothing prevents Boston from changing its policies going forward.

In other words, the Supreme Court found the denial of the flag raising request was regulation of speech, and not speech by a government entity. For more on flag display in particular, including policy examples from Washington State local governments, see our Flag Display Requirements and Protocol webpage.

At MRSC, we often emphasize the importance of written policies, and the Shurtleff case is a prime example of how clear and detailed policies can make a difference. It is not just a question of having written policies, they need to be followed and adhered to. This is particularly true in government speech situations.

When a court reviews a claim of government speech, there are generally two options: either the government speech doctrine applies, which means that the issue will not be reviewed as a restriction on speech under the Free Speech Clause; or government speech does not apply, in which case the issue will be subject to Free Speech Clause scrutiny. The dramatic difference between these two options is illustrated by Shurtleff. Once the Supreme Court found that the government speech doctrine did not apply, it needed a single paragraph to conclude that Bostons denial of the flag raising request was impermissible viewpoint discrimination under the Free Speech Clause.

A fundamental characteristic of the government speech doctrine is the extent to which its application depends on the policies and actions of government. Government speech can apply in a wide variety of contexts park monuments, specialty license plates, and flag raising are just a few examples but it only applies when government takes steps to control the message. Change the level of government involvement in the speech selection process, and the results of all three cases discussed above could have been different.

MRSC is a private nonprofit organization serving local governments in Washington State. Eligible government agencies in Washington State may use our free, one-on-one Ask MRSC service to get answers to legal, policy, or financial questions.

VIEW ALL POSTS BY Oskar Rey

Continued here:
Speaking Versus Regulating The Government Speech Doctrine - MRSC

Something is terribly wrong with America when an 18-year-old can buy an assault-style rifle, then uses it in an elementary school to kill 19 children and two teachers. Salvador Ramos legally bought an AR-15 rifle a day after he turned 18. Three days later he bought another one. He bought enough ammunition to go to war.

As an 18-year-old he is not allowed to legally buy alcohol or tobacco but allowed to buy an AR-15 rifle which, like the military version, can load multiple bullets to quickly kill people. It makes no sense that a high school teenager cannot legally drink alcohol or smoke but can legally buy guns.

The May 24 school massacre in the small town of Uvalde, Texas was just the latest in a long list of tragic shootings that have taken so many innocent lives. Just ten days earlier another 18-year-old white supremacist legally bought a rifle to shoot dead 10 African Americans in a New York supermarket. I am not African American but it still frightened me because I am now living temporarily in New York.

I was living in Seattle in April 1999 when I saw the horrifying TV news of two teenagers who shot to death 12 students and one teacher at the Columbine High School in Colorado and then killed themselves. One of the worst school shootings was in 2012 at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut when a 20-year-old shot dead 20 children and six adult staff members. He then shot himself in the head and died.

There are more guns in America today than its population of 350 million. The US is the worlds only country that allows its people to freely buy guns. That freedom is enshrined in the Second Amendment of US Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. It states the people have the right to bear arms, which means to carry weapons.

The First Amendment gives people the right to free speech, peaceful protests, and to choose their religion. These freedoms are Americas core values which I agree with. Many in Hong Kong believe their rights to free speech and peaceful protests have eroded, especially after Beijings imposition of the national security law.

Whenever there is criticism that Hong Kong is losing its free speech rights, government officials deny it with the retort that free speech is not absolute. But they never clarify where the free speech red lines are.

In the US, the right to free speech, peaceful assemblies, and to bear arms is, to a very large extent, clear and absolute. It is apples and oranges to compare free speech rights in the US and HK. Free speech limits in the US apply only to areas such as libel, child pornography, fraud, criminal acts, and violation of intellectual property laws but not political opinion.

In Hong Kong even political opinion could violate free speech rights. Lighting a candle in Victoria Park on June 4 to commemorate those who died in the June 4 1989 Tiananmen crackdown on democracy could land you in jail. In the US only convicted criminals, people under 18, people with mental disorders, people convicted of domestic violence, and illegal drug users have no right to bear arms.

The free speech right in the First Amendment is so protected that even people who claim they have been defamed must prove the libel was deliberate. A US court made this clear earlier this year when the former Republican Alaska Governor Sarah Palin sued the New York Times for defaming her by falsely accusing her of supporting gun violence.

The New York Times had wrongly claimed in a 2017 editorial that a political campaign advertisement by Palins supporters in 2011 had indirectly caused a mass shooting in Arizona which killed 16 people and injured a Democrat Party congresswoman. Palin accused the New York Times of ruining her reputation but the judge ruled she had failed to prove the New York Times deliberately ruined her reputation.

That shows how far the First Amendment protects US free speech. In the US those who say free speech violated their rights must prove in court the violations were deliberate as defined by the First Amendment. The New York Times won by arguing its erroneous editorial was not deliberate.

US President Joe Biden said after the Texas school massacre the freedom to own guns as defined by the Second Amendment is not absolute. I always oppose people who say freedom is not absolute, including the US President. But there is a difference between the freedom to say what you want and the freedom to kill who you want.

The freedom to say what you want doesnt kill people. The freedom to buy guns does kill people, including children in schools as multiple school massacres have shown. As an American I am proud the US values freedom, which I believe everyone who has it wants to protect it and those who dont have it want it.

But as an American I am also ashamed that so many elected politicians, particularly from the Republican Party, refuse to pass simple laws which do not oppose the right to bear arms but just ensure background checks prevent criminals and mentally ill people from buying guns. These politicians ignore their conscience to make it harder to buy guns because they need campaign money from the gun lobby to get re-elected.

-- Contact us at [emailprotected]

A Hong Kong-born American citizen who has worked for many years as a journalist in Hong Kong, the USA and London.

Here is the original post:
Free speech and the freedom to kill EJINSIGHT - EJ Insight

CHICAGO-The Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF), a non-profit legal and educational organization affiliated with the American Library Association dedicated to protecting and defending each persons First Amendment right to read, concluded its annual election on May 1, 2022. FTRF members elected four new members to its Board of Trustees and re-elected one incumbent board member for two-year terms that begin on June 23, 2022. Since 1969 FTRF trustees, staff, and members have worked to protect First Amendment rights through education, litigation, and advocacy.

As Americans, we cannot take our First Amendment rights for granted. Our right to free speech and our right to read are being challenged daily in all parts of the United States. We welcome the strong leaders who have been elected to the FTRF Board and join with them to support, defend, and advocate for our First Amendment rights and assure intellectual freedom, equitable access, and the freedom to read for all members of our communities, said current FTRF President Barbara Stripling.

Newly elected trustees include:

Jarrett Dapier is new to the Freedom to Read Foundation Board but has volunteered as a speaker for their graduate course collaboration for a number of years. I am interested in being a part of theFTRFboard because of the vital, crucial work this body does to protect the right of all Americans to read. This right is currently under widespread assault from a variety of groups all working in concert to control schools, teachers, and librarians - all professionals who are trained to provide students with accurate information about our world, its history, and its art. I am a tireless advocate for free expression and the right to read and I don't let things go easily, especially when youth rights are violated, said Dapier. Dapier has worked at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of IL on the First Amendment Rights Project, and since 2009 in public libraries where he adapted and directed stories about censorship to the stage with teen performers. He is also the author of the picture book Mr. Watson's Chickens, which is currently being challenged for removal at a public library in Spanish Fort, Alabama.

Jennifer Griswold is the Director of the Pflugerville Public Library in Pflugerville, Texas. She ran for a seat on the Board of Trustees to challenge censorship both locally, and on the national level. She has worked at Pflugerville since 2006 as the Reference Librarian, Assistant Director, and for the past six years as Library Director. Her background is also in news research and academic librarianship. In 2018 Griswold was awarded the honor of being Texas Librarian of the Year, and she is a current member of the Texas Library Association Queers and Allies Roundtable; the Ethnic and Multicultural Exchange Roundtable, the ALA Intellectual Freedom Roundtable, and the staff liaison for the Pflugerville Equity Commission.

Libraries in Texas are on the frontlines of the censorship battle. Area directors meet to discuss the issue, those who are experiencing challenges, and those who are policing themselves out of fear. I believe I can offer a unique perspective not only from myself, but also my colleagues who are involved in active challenges, said Griswold.

Pat Scales is a retired middle and high school librarian and a returning FTRF trustee.

Book censorship is at epidemic levels, and Americas youth are the target. FTRF promotes and defends students right to read, but now, more than ever, the young need to be guided and taught to advocate for themselves. Proactively involving youth in defending their First Amendment rights assures a new generation of free speech advocates and could inoculate them against falling victim to a virus called censorship, said Scales.

She is a free-speech advocate and is the author of Teaching Banned Books: 32 Guides for Children and Teens, Protecting Intellectual Freedom in Your School Library and Books Under Fire: A Hit List of Banned and Challenged Childrens Books. She writes a bi-monthly column, Scales on Censorship, for School Library Journal, and is a regular contributor to Book Links magazine. She has also served as a member and chair of the ALAs Intellectual Freedom Committee.

Professor Sophia Sotilleo is an Associate Professor and the Interim Library Director at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania for the Langston Hughes Memorial Library. In this capacity, she has the privilege to teach Information Literacy across all subject areas and works with the Library Team to support and ensure that the Library is a part of the Lincoln University curriculum and co-curriculum strategic plans for student success. Her current area of research and interest is in Embedded Librarianship, with a focus on access, advocacy, and leadership in the field of Librarianship.

I am interested in serving on the Freedom to Read Board to support the work of an organization that defends and promotes the rights of libraries to ensure access to books and information. Working as a librarian at a Historically Black College and University (HBCU), serving first generation college students, I see daily the importance of having access to various types of books that not only educate, but also empower and encourage our next generation of leaders. The freedom to read foundation continues to do an amazing job at defending and supporting access to information and I look forward to serving with the organization in this inspiring and important work.

Re-elected for a second term:

Loida Garcia-Febo is a Past President of the American Library Association, a current member of the FTRF Executive Committee, and is looking forward to continuing the work she started by Co-Chairing the FTRF Social Justice and Intellectual Freedom Task Force which resulted in the development of various lines of action and a forthcoming two-day FTRF symposium about the topic. Garcia-Febo has served as Chair of the American Library Associations (ALA) Intellectual Freedom Round Table, long-time active REFORMA (the National Association to Promote Library and Information Services to Latinos and the Spanish Speaking) liaison to the FTRF, and an Officer of International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions Advisory Committee on Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (IFLA's FAIFE). She is committed to serve diverse communities and to Equity, Diversity and Inclusion achieving joint historical signatory commitment from US library associations to EDI on which they are building new strategies to serve libraries and library workers. I am eager to continue serving and working together with the FTRF Trustees to continue protecting and defending the First Amendment to the Constitution, said Garcia-Febo.

For photos of the newly elected members, please visithttps://bit.ly/3a7Cq23

The Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF) is led by a board of fifteen trustees. The term for an elected trustee is two years, and board members may serve two consecutive terms. Trustees meet at least twice a year in conjunction with the ALA conferences or professional development events and hold virtual committee meetings throughout the year. If you are interested in working with the Freedom to Read Foundation visit us at http://www.ftrf.org or email jmcintosh@ala.org for information on how to become involved.

Read the original post:
Freedom to Read Foundation 2022 Election Results | News and Press Center - ala.org

Editors note: Veteran Raleigh-based tech attorneyJim Verdonik,founder ofFire Pit Cell which is dedicated to exploring freedom issues, and co-founder of Innovate Capital Law, Verdonik has been actively involved over several decades in advising technology start-up businesses on capital raising and other legal issues.

+++

RALEIGH Some people view history as a straight line that goes in one direction. Personally, I think history is more like a pendulum. The farther to one side the pendulum swings the greater the force of the pushback in the opposite direction.

Freedom suppressors come from variety of backgroundsfrom mega billionaires, to Chinese dictators, to Wall Street money managers to international bureaucrats. They all march under the common banner of Environmental, Social and Governance is the banner raised by freedom suppressors.

This was a big ESG week at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Among what happened:

Wow. All is lost, right?

Love, hate & distrust: For Big Tech the stakes, risks are getting even bigger

Not so fast. Some people view history as a straight line that goes in one direction. Personally, I think history is more like a pendulum. The farther to one side the pendulum swings, the greater the force of the pushback in the opposite direction.

We are seeing the first signs of that pushback using the same weapons ESG supporters use. Alliance Defending Freedom recently launched the ViewpointDiversityScore.org website and annual Business Index. ADF describes its efforts as follows: the Business Index focuses on industries that have the greatest potential to impact free speech and religious freedom.

These include industries that provide essential banking, payment processing, and cloud services, or that serve as platforms for third-party expression in the digital space. Many of the companies are household names, like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Bank of America.

Along with scoring companies, Viewpoint Diversity Score will provide companies with workable solutions through model polices, research, toolkits, polling, and constructive dialogue.

We can expect that other countermeasures will follow, just like states are pushing back against Disney for is supporting political causes.

Like ADF, they will use the same tools ESG forces are using now.

What do you think?

Free speech is at stake: Twitter, Big Tech, big media vs. Elon Musk and you

I like a good fight as much as the next guy. Buy me a drink and Ill tell you about it. And free speech is one of my most basic values. So, one might expect me to be a big ADF supporter.

Software amplifies power. So, software that rates in favor of free speech must be good, right?

But I ask this basic question. Where is all these software ratings that will be used by both sides leading businesses?

I guess Im old fashioned. I think business should focus on creating and selling product and services that their customers want. If customers dont want it, they wont buy it. Then, businesses must change or die. Anything that diverts from that focus is bad for business.

What happens to an economy where too much attention is being paid to ideological software ratings and not enough attention to delivering what people want to buy?

Weve seen many economies that were driven by ideology:

Not very good examples of thriving economies, are they?

What is ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investing? Kenan Institute says

Software concentrates power. When it is harnessed to serve an ideology, it amplifies both the good and bad effects of that ideology.

So, although Im ready to do battle to support free speech and other values, I do wish both sides would disarm and let businesses fulfill their primary missionselling products and services customers want.

Another question: Why would you want your business caught in an ideological war?

When you see half the country fighting the other half, maybe you might not want your business to be in the middle.

Heres how you can avoid that fate:

Or jump into the middle of the war and suffer the consequences.

Tweet this: Elon Musk won Twitter battle with lightning speed

See the original post:
Seal your social rating software in vault - then drop it to the ocean floor - WRAL TechWire