Category Archives: First Amendment

Supreme Court digs into Big Tech censorship and First Amendment – Washington Times

Posted: March 2, 2024 at 2:27 pm

The Supreme Court on Monday waded into the thorny intersection of social media companies and free speech, struggling to figure out whether state laws seeking to stop the tech giants censorship is worse than the censorship itself.

Justices seemed skeptical of the states cases that they can control how Facebook and YouTube police their pages, but they were troubled by the tech companies claims that they should be able to censor emails sent through Gmail or direct messages and WhatsApp based on the political beliefs of users.

The companies said they would have to rethink their operations, depending on how the justices rule.

Paul Clement, arguing on behalf of NetChoice, a group of internet firms challenging the state laws, said companies might have to err on the side of more suppression.

That could mean companies would take down pro-Israel speech because they dont want to allow antisemitic speech and would have to take down suicide prevention messages because they dont want to carry self-harm messages.

Wed basically have to eliminate certain areas of speech entirely, he said.

Many of the justices were sympathetic to those arguments, particularly to the point that its better to have the companies policing their forums with their own rules than to have government agencies step in.

Do you want to leave it with the government, with the state, or do you want to leave it with the platforms? said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. The First Amendment has a thumb on the scale when that questions asked.

The battle involves laws Florida and Texas enacted in 2021 in the wake of the 2020 election and amid the censorship battles of the pandemics early years when Twitter, Facebook and YouTube were scouring their sites for content they deemed inappropriate, inaccurate or harmful.

Egged on by the federal government, the social media giants limited the reach of posts questioning the push for COVID-19 vaccination and wondered whether the coronavirus had escaped from a Chinese lab. Twitter blocked access to a New York Post article revealing the Hunter Biden laptop, wrongly claiming it was Russian disinformation.

Texas law prohibits social media companies from removing and moderating content some might find offensive or hateful. It also requires disclosure of some business practices, such as algorithms used to promote content.

Floridas law calls for fines of up to $250,000 per day for large social media companies that deplatform political candidates.

One federal appeals court upheld Texas law, and another ruled against Floridas legislation. Both laws are on hold pending Supreme Court action.

The case underscored the central role of the internet in the 21st century and poked at several areas where the law is struggling for answers.

What do you do with the fact that now, today, the internet is the public square? said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The Biden administrations attorney and the attorney for the internet companies told the justices during lengthy arguments that if the government did what the companies are doing, it would be censorship.

When its done by private actors, its not censorship because the companies have their own First Amendment speech rights that the state laws trample.

When I think of Orwellian, I think of the state. Not private sector, not private individuals, said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

The problem, said Justice Clarence Thomas, is that Congress in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gave the tech companies special liability protections over what people post on their sites, but with the understanding that the companies werent policing those posts over viewpoints.

Now you are saying that you are engaged in editorial discretion and expressive conduct. Doesnt that seem to undermine your Section 230 argument? Justice Thomas prodded.

Mr. Clement said Congress wanted freedom from liability but also robust experimentation, which includes setting rules for companies forums.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that sounded like a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose proposition.

Its your message when you want to escape state regulation, but its not your message when you want to escape liability under tort law, Justice Alito said.

The states attorneys pushed the justices to recognize the tech platforms as common carriers, akin to delivery or telephone companies, which are not allowed to alter service based on a customers viewpoint.

Henry Whitaker, solicitor general of Florida, said the companies dont have a message, so theres no First Amendment violation for the platforms.

Internet platforms today control the way millions of Americans today communicate with each other and the world, he said.

Chief Justice Roberts was skeptical, saying the other businesses operated as monopolies and users didnt have alternatives.

I am not sure the same thing applies with respect to social platforms, he said.

Justice Elena Kagan noted that the companies have their own rules for monitoring speech.

They do seem to take them seriously, she said. They are making content judgments about the kind of speech they think they want on the site.

Part of the problem was the way the cases came to the high court.

Both state laws were challenged on their face, which means the internet companies were saying they were unconstitutional in nearly every application. That also meant many key questions werent answered, including which companies and platforms are covered.

I think thats a problem in this case, Justice Jackson said. Were not all aware of the facts of whats happening.

The cases are Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton. Ashley Moody is Floridas attorney general, and Ken Paxton is Texas attorney general.

Decisions are expected by the end of June.

Link:
Supreme Court digs into Big Tech censorship and First Amendment - Washington Times

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

The Supreme Court’s sticky web: The First Amendment protects social media – Shelbynews

Posted: at 2:27 pm

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Read this article:
The Supreme Court's sticky web: The First Amendment protects social media - Shelbynews

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

Supreme Court to decide how the First Amendment applies to social media – redlakenationnews.com

Posted: at 2:27 pm

WASHINGTON - The most important First Amendment cases of the internet era, to be heard by the Supreme Court on Monday, may turn on a single question: Do platforms like Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and X, formerly Twitter, most closely resemble newspapers or shopping centers or phone companies?

The two cases arrive at the court garbed in politics, as they concern laws in Florida and Texas aimed at protecting conservative speech by forbidding leading social media sites from removing posts based on the views they express.

But the outsize question the cases present transcends ideology. It is whether tech platforms have free speech rights to make editorial judgments. Picking the apt analogy from the court's precedents could decide the matter, but none of the available ones is a perfect fit.

https://www.startribune.com/supreme-court-to-decide-how-the-first-amendment-applies-to-social-media/600346014/?refresh=true

See the rest here:
Supreme Court to decide how the First Amendment applies to social media - redlakenationnews.com

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

United States Mint Announces Release of Fourth Coin in Platinum Proof Series Celebrating Five Freedoms of the First … – GlobeNewswire

Posted: February 9, 2024 at 10:39 am

Washington, DC, Feb. 08, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The United States Mint (Mint) announced today that it is releasing the fourth coin in the five-year First Amendment to the United States Constitution Platinum Proof Coin Series on February 15, 2024, at noon (EST). Mintage is limited to 12,000 coins. Orders are limited to three units per household for the first 24 hours.

Launched in 2021 and continuing through 2025, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution Platinum Proof Coin Series reflects the five freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This series uses the lifecycle of the oak tree from seedling to a mighty oak as a metaphor for our countrys growth as a Nation that values freedom. Liberty grows to a thing of strength and beauty from a seedour Bill of Rights. Each of the freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment contributes to the growth and development of the Nation.

Artistic Infusion Program (AIP) Designer Donna Weaver created all obverse (heads) designs in this series, and United States Mint Chief Engraver Joseph Menna sculpted them.

The 2024 obverse design showcases several types of oak leaves assembled between the inscription WITH THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE LIBERTY SPREADS. Additional inscriptions are IN GOD WE TRUST, E PLURIBUS UNUM, and 2024.

The common reverse design for this series, by AIP Designer Patricia Lucas-Morris, depicts an eagle in flight, an olive branch in its talons. Inscriptions are UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, $100, 1 OZ., and .9995 PLATINUM. United States Mint Medallic Artist Don Everhart sculpted the reverse.

Each coin is encapsulated then placed in a stylish clamshell and presentation box. An image of the obverse design is incorporated on the outer packaging sleeve and on the Certificate of Authenticity.

As with all Mint products containing a precious metal, this coin will be priced according to the range in which it appears on the Pricing of Numismatic Gold, Commemorative Gold, and Platinum and Palladium Products table. Current pricing information is available online at https://catalog.usmint.gov/on/demandware.static/-/Sites-USM-Library/default/dw2021515f/images/PDFs/2023-Pricing-Grid.pdf

To sign up for Remind Me alerts for the 2024 First Amendment to the United States Constitution Platinum Proof Coin Right to Assemble, visithttps://catalog.usmint.gov/first-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution-2024-platinum-proof-coin-right-to-assemble-24EJ.html/

Previous releases in this series include coins with designs recognizing Freedom of Religion (2021), Freedom of Speech (2022), and Freedom of the Press (2023). The final coin in the seriesRight to Petitionwill be released in 2025.

Additional products in the Mints collection of American Eagle Platinum Proof Coins are available athttps://catalog.usmint.gov/coins/precious-metal-coins/platinum/

Note: To ensure that all members of the public have fair and equal access to United States Mint products, the United States Mint will not accept and will not honor orders placed prior to the official on-sale date of February 15, 2024, at noon EST.

About the United States Mint

Congress created the United States Mint in 1792, and the Mint became part of the Department of the Treasury in 1873. As the Nations sole manufacturer of legal tender coinage, the Mint is responsible for producing circulating coinage for the Nation to conduct its trade and commerce. The Mint also produces numismatic products, including proof, uncirculated, and commemorative coins; Congressional Gold Medals; silver and bronze medals; and silver and gold bullion coins. Its numismatic programs are self-sustaining and operate at no cost to taxpayers.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

# # #

United States Mint Connecting America through Coins

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

UNM Law professor joins amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson Supreme Court Case – UNM Newsroom

Posted: at 10:39 am

The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments this week on whether to uphold the Colorado Supreme Court decision barring Trump from the 2024 Colorado primary ballot. A UNM Law professor is among a group of First Amendment scholars arguing the decision should be upheld.

Maryam Ahranjani

Maryam Ahranjani, the Ron and Susan Friedman Professor of Law and an expert in constitutional rights, criminal law and procedure, and education law, joined First Amendment scholars and attorneys from around the country in filing an amicus brief last week.

The brief asserts two main points: that the Supreme Court should reject Trumps argument that excluding him from the Colorado primary ballot violates his free speech rights, and it should also reject the political-party-related amici James Madison Centers argument that Trumps disqualification violates its right of association.

The scholars argued that the First Amendments speech protections do not supersede the narrow scope of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that people who have taken a Constitutional oath and then participated in an insurrection cannot hold office again, and that arguing that it does will strip courts of their ability to view speech in context when determining whether that speech amounts to engagement in insurrection.

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

When provisions of the Constitution potentially conflict with one another, traditional constitutional analysis involves harmonization; in other words, no one provision automatically supersedes another.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified after the Civil War to prevent similar conflicts in the future from reaching the political arena, according to the brief. The amici encourage the Court to harmonize Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment with the First Amendment and give effect to each whenever possible, rather than allow the First Amendment to supersede or obliterate Section 3, and that a newer, more specific amendment should be given precedence when harmony is not possible.

The amici cited the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio decision, which states that speech directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action is not protected by the First Amendment, and argued that speech should be reviewed in the context of how it was delivered, surrounding events and the intended audience.

Led by Counsel for Amici Steven A. Hirsch, in addition to Ahranjani, the team of luminary scholars includes Floyd Abrams, Bruce Ackerman, Erwin Chemerinsky, Alan Chen, Kent Greenfield, Martha Minow and Geoffrey R. Stone. The same team filed an amicus brief in the related Colorado Supreme Court case, Anderson v. Griswold, in November.

Ahranjanis involvement in these constitutional law cases began when she was approached by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) to participate in an amicus brief in the Couy Griffin case last summer. In that case, a New Mexico judge ruled the then-Otero County Commissioner must be removed from office for his involvement in the insurrection. She has co-authored two Op-eds about the Disqualification Clause with Donald K. Sherman, CREWs Executive Vice President and Chief Counsel.

The brief cited 32 court cases along with several Constitutional amendments and articles, U.S. statutes, Supreme Court rulings and other authorities.

Read the amicus brief here. Oral arguments in the Supreme Court case are scheduled for Feb. 8.

Original post:
UNM Law professor joins amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson Supreme Court Case - UNM Newsroom

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

CNN’s Clarissa Ward Named a Recipient of the RTDNA’s 2024 First Amendment Award – Adweek

Posted: at 10:39 am

CNN's Clarissa Ward Named a Recipient of the RTDNA's 2024 First Amendment Award Adweek

Read the original:
CNN's Clarissa Ward Named a Recipient of the RTDNA's 2024 First Amendment Award - Adweek

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

A new Supreme Court case threatens to take away your right to protest – Vox.com

Posted: January 27, 2024 at 3:53 am

A renegade federal appeals court one dominated by MAGA-aligned judges who routinely read the law in ways that even the current, very conservative Supreme Court finds untenable has spent the last half-decade harassing DeRay Mckesson, a prominent civil rights activist and an organizer within the Black Lives Matter movement

As part of this crusade, two of the Fifth Circuits judges effectively eliminated the First Amendment right to organize a protest in a case known as Doe v. Mckesson.

Mckessons case has already been up to the Supreme Court once, and the justices strongly hinted in a 2020 opinion that the Fifth Circuits attacks on Mckessons First Amendment rights should end labeling this case fraught with implications for First Amendment rights. But the Fifth Circuit did not take the hint, issuing a new opinion last July reaffirming its attack on First Amendment-protected political protests.

Now the case is before the Supreme Court again, and Mckessons lawyers want the justices to restore the First Amendment as fast as they possibly can.

In 2016, Mckesson helped organize a protest near Baton Rouges police department building, following the fatal police shooting of Alton Sterling in that same Louisiana city. At some point during that protest, an unknown individual threw a rock or some other hard object at a police officer, identified in court documents by the pseudonym Officer John Doe.

Sadly, the object hit Doe and allegedly caused injuries to his teeth, jaw, brain, and head, along with other compensable losses.

There is no excuse for throwing a rock at another human being, and whoever did so should be held responsible for their illegal act, including serious criminal charges. But even Judge Jennifer Elrod, the author of the Fifth Circuits most recent opinion targeting Mckesson, admits that it is clear that Mckesson did not throw the heavy object that injured Doe.

Nevertheless, Doe sued Mckesson, claiming that, as the organizer of the protest where this injury occurred, Mckesson should be liable for the illegal action of an unidentified protest attendee. But that is simply not how the First Amendment works. The Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982) that civil liability may not be imposed merely because an individual belonged to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence.

It should be obvious why protest leaders must not be held legally responsible for the actions of random protest attendees. No one will ever organize a political protest if they know that they could face financially devastating liability if a reckless or violent individual happens to show up.

Indeed, as Judge Don Willett, a Fifth Circuit judge who dissented from Elrods opinion, pointed out, Elrods approach could potentially force protest organizers to pay for the unlawful acts of counter-protesters and agitators who show up for the very purpose of undermining the protest organizers political goals. Under Elrods opinion, Mckesson could be held liable if the unknown rock-thrower turns out to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan who showed up for the very purpose of undermining the Black Lives Matter movement by associating them with violence.

In their petition to the Supreme Court, Mckessons attorneys make an audacious ask claiming that Elrods decision is so flatly contrary to this Courts controlling precedent to be appropriate for summary reversal.

A summary reversal is the judicial equivalent of a spanking. It means that the lower courts decision was so erroneous that the justices decided to skip a full briefing or an oral argument in a case, and issue a permanent order overturning that lower courts decision.

This process is rarely used, and it is distinct from the temporary orders the Court frequently hands down on its so-called shadow docket. The Supreme Court typically requires six justices to agree before summarily reversing another courts decision.

Nevertheless, such a spanking is warranted in this case. Elrods opinion flouts exceedingly well-established First Amendment law. And it does so in a way that would make organized mass protests impossible, because anyone who tried to organize one would risk bankruptcy.

To understand just how ridiculous Elrods decision is, and how egregiously she defies the Supreme Courts caselaw, its helpful to start with the facts of the Claiborne case.

Like Mckesson, Claiborne involved a civil rights activist who organized a protest that allegedly included some violent individuals. In 1966, Charles Evers was the field secretary of the Mississippi chapter of the NAACP. In that role, he was the principal organizer of a boycott against white merchants in Claiborne County.

The Mississippi Supreme Court claimed that some of the individuals who joined this boycott also engaged in acts of physical force and violence against the persons and property of certain customers and prospective customers of these white businesses. Evers, meanwhile, allegedly did far more to encourage violence than DeRay Mckesson is accused of in his case. He allegedly gave a speech to potential customers at these stores, where he said that if we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, were gonna break your damn neck.

The Supreme Court nonetheless held that this emotionally charged rhetoric ... did not transcend the bounds of protected speech. Claiborne also warned that courts must show extreme care before imposing liability on a political figure of any kind.

That said, the Courts decision also listed three limited circumstances when a protest leader may be held liable for the violent actions of a protest participant:

There are three separate theories that might justify holding Evers liable for the unlawful conduct of others. First, a finding that he authorized, directed, or ratified specific tortious activity would justify holding him responsible for the consequences of that activity. Second, a finding that his public speeches were likely to incite lawless action could justify holding him liable for unlawful conduct that in fact followed within a reasonable period. Third, the speeches might be taken as evidence that Evers gave other specific instructions to carry out violent acts or threats.

None of these circumstances are present Mckesson. To the contrary, the Fifth Circuit admitted in an earlier decision in this very case that Officer Doe has not pled facts that would allow a jury to conclude that Mckesson colluded with the unknown assailant to attack Officer Doe, knew of the attack and ratified it, or agreed with other named persons that attacking the police was one of the goals of the demonstration.

So how on earth did Elrod arrive at the conclusion that Mckesson could be held liable for the actions of an unknown protest attendee? For starters, she claimed that her court could just add new items to the list of three circumstances that could justify such liability in her Mckesson opinion. According to Elrod, nothing in Claiborne suggests that the three theories identified above are the only proper bases for imposing tort liability on a protest leader.

This is, to put it mildly, a very unusual way to read a Supreme Court opinion that held that threats to break someones neck can be First Amendment-protected speech, which calls for extreme care before targeting protest organizers, and which laid out only three very specific circumstances that might justify an exception. Elrod cites no other court decision that has ever read Claiborne in such a counterintuitive way.

Then, after giving herself the power to invent new exceptions to the First Amendment, Elrod writes that this amendment does not apply where a defendant creates unreasonably dangerous conditions, and where his creation of those conditions causes a plaintiff to sustain injuries.

And what are the dangerous conditions created by Mckesson? Mckesson organized the protest to begin in front of the police station, obstructing access to the building. He did not dissuade protesters who allegedly stole water bottles from a grocery store. And he led the assembled protest onto a public highway, in violation of Louisiana criminal law.

Seriously, she said that the First Amendment begins to fade the minute a protest occupies a street.

Its hard to imagine a more lawless, unpersuasive, and historically ignorant decision than the one Elrod put her name on in the Mckesson case. And if the Supreme Court cant find the votes to reverse that decision, the right to engage in mass protest will become meaningless.

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Here is the original post:
A new Supreme Court case threatens to take away your right to protest - Vox.com

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

No, Blocking Traffic Is Not Protected by the First Amendment – Reason

Posted: at 3:53 am

On Saturday, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) posted a warning on X, formerly known as Twitter. "TRAFFIC ALERT," it read. "Expect delays around the airport due to a group in vehicles exercising first amendment rights in roadway. Use caution and expect slow moving vehicles."

The post was a reference to a caravan, with several vehicles flying Palestinian flags, that claimed every lane as they inched along the roadway to the airport, reportedly causing hefty traffic delays.

It is certainly a driver's free speech prerogative to fly their flag of choice. That has nothing to do, however, with obstructing traffic, which is entirely irrelevant to the First Amendment.

One legally confused post from an airport in Virginia doesn't necessarily say much when viewed in a vacuum. But the assertion is indicative of a larger trend, as highway blockades continue to pick up steam across the country. In January, pro-Palestine activists cut off access to the Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Williamsburg Bridges, along with the Holland Tunnel, during rush hour. We've seen similar demonstrations in Seattle, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Philadelphia. That list is not exhaustive. And DCA is not the first airport targeted by protesters: In late December, for example, demonstrators obstructed traffic outside Kennedy International Airport and Los Angeles International Airport during one of the busiest travel weeks of the year.

A settlement in New York essentially seeks to sanction the practice. "Where an FAA [First Amendment Activity] temporarily blocks vehicular or pedestrian traffic or otherwise obstructs public streets or sidewalks, the NYPD [New York Police Department] shall whenever possible accommodate the demonstration," reads a proposed agreement between the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New York, the Legal Aid Society, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and the NYPD in response to lawsuits pertaining to the police's handling of various protests in 2020.

The settlement is still up in the air; the police union is trying to fight it. But there is something richly ironic about the state's top law enforcement officer attempting to give the public a green light to break the law. And the ACLU, also involved in the settlement, acknowledges in its own guidance that detaining people by blocking a roadway is not a legal, First Amendmentprotected activity.

"The right to peacefully assemble and protest is sacrosanct and foundational to our democracy," said New York Attorney General James in September after the settlement was unveiled. "Too often peaceful protesters have been met with force that has harmed innocent New Yorkers simply trying to exercise their rights."

James is correct that freedom of expression is crucial and central to the American project. It's also not a force field by which people are shielded from other rules. If I want to get people's attention by, say, driving 120 miles an hour while sporting a Palestinian flag, I cannot tell the officer who pulls me over for reckless driving that I'm simply exercising my free speech rights. The First Amendment does not give carte blanche to violate the law.

Activists may invoke the father of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr., when defending blockades. That's understandable. It's also misguided. As I wrote in 2022:

Though King did lead a protest from Selma to Montgomery, famously filling the Edmund Pettus Bridge, it was a march. It did not block interstate and highway traffic indefinitely for the sake of ita tactic King was not comfortable with, despite pressure in the 1960s to get on board. "Even though King didn't come out and criticize it in public, in private he thought it was a misguided tactic," said Brandon Terry, assistant professor of African and African American Studies and Social Studies at Harvard University. "The NAACP thought it was ridiculous." King reportedly posited that such a move pushed the boundaries of acceptable demonstrations and would come back to bite the movement politically.

Protesting isn't meant to be convenient. But you might find it difficult to convince people you're the good guy when your blockades are hurting the vulnerable people you often claim to stand for, like this man who may have lost his parole, or this woman who went into labor.

Some folks may disagree. That is indisputably their right, and I'm thankful for that. Also not in dispute: It is not their right to detain people, no matter how righteous they believe their cause to be.

Link:
No, Blocking Traffic Is Not Protected by the First Amendment - Reason

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

Cable Giants Insist That Forcing Them To Make Cancellations Easier Violates Their First Amendment Rights – Above the Law

Posted: at 3:53 am

Neither the FCC nor FTC has a particularly good track record of standing up to broadband and cable giants when it comes to their longstanding track record ofanticompetitive behavior, price gouging, or nickel-and-diming their often captive customers with bogus,hidden fees.

Though occasionally one of the two agencies does step in to try make a bare minimum effort to rein in the industrys worst impulses, such as the FTCs attempt,unveiled last March, to force companies to stop making cancelling service a pain in the ass. As you probably already know, many companies require you jump through elaborate hoops if you want to cancel, upselling you the entire time.

The FTCsproposed provisionwould make it just as easy to cancel a service as it is to sign up, requiring companies provide easy, one click access to cancelling service online. Said FTC boss Lina Khan at the time:

The proposal would save consumers time and money, and businesses that continued to use subscription tricks and traps would be subject to stiff penalties.

But the cable and broadband industry, which has a long and proud tradition of whining about every last consumer protection requirement (no matter how basic), is kicking back at the requirement. At ahearinglast week, former FCC boss-turned-top-cable-lobbying Mike Powell suggested such a rule wouldnt be fair, because it might somehow (?)prevent cable companies from informing customers about better deals:

The proposed simple click-to-cancel mechanism may not be so simple when such practices are involved. A consumer may easily misunderstand the consequences of canceling and it may be imperative that they learn about better options, NCTA CEO Michael Powell said at the hearing. For example, a customer may face difficulty and unintended consequences if they want to cancel only one service in the package, as canceling part of a discounted bundle may increase the price for remaining services.

Not to be outdone, Powell took things one step further and attempted ye olde throw every argument possible at a wall and see what sticks legal approach, at one point even trying to claim the FTCs requirements would harm the cable industrys first amendment rights (which makes no coherent sense):

the FTC proposal prevents almost any communication without first obtaining a consumers unambiguous, affirmative consent. That could disrupt the continuity of important services, choke off helpful information and forgo potential savings. It certainly raises First Amendment issues.

The cable and broadband industry makes its bundle pricing as complicated and punitive as possible, not only making it hard to simply outright cancel service, but often making it impossible to actually know how much youll pay for service in the first place. The goal isnt just to rip you off; its to making pricing so convoluted that its hard to do price comparisons or understand how much youre even paying.

Comcast and friends are alreadyfighting a separate initiative by the FCCrequiring they be up front and transparent about the specifics of your broadband line and how much it costs.

Again, this isnt even regulators trying advanced policies like trying to regulate rates or encourage competition. These are just very basic initiatives trying to force lumbering telecom and cable giants to make pricing transparent and transactions easy. And even these efforts result in years of legal wrangling, assuming they can survive a rightward lurching, corporate-friendly court system in the first place.

And this all comes before the looming Supreme Court rulings designed to make U.S. regulatorsmore impotent than ever. Defanging and defunding U.S. regulators always comes under the pretense that this will somehow result in unbridled innovation, when, as the cable and broadband industry routinely demonstrates, that simply couldnt be any further from the truth.

Cable Giants Insist That Forcing Them To Make Cancellations Easier Violates Their First Amendment Rights

Star-Spangled Fascism: Extremists and the First Amendment – GBH News

Posted: at 3:52 am

Star-Spangled Fascism: Extremists and the First Amendment GBH News

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off

Page 12«..111213 14..20 30..»

Category Archives: First Amendment

The Supreme Court’s sticky web: The First Amendment protects social media – Shelbynews

Supreme Court to decide how the First Amendment applies to social media – redlakenationnews.com

United States Mint Announces Release of Fourth Coin in Platinum Proof Series Celebrating Five Freedoms of the First … – GlobeNewswire

CNN’s Clarissa Ward Named a Recipient of the RTDNA’s 2024 First Amendment Award – Adweek

A new Supreme Court case threatens to take away your right to protest – Vox.com

Star-Spangled Fascism: Extremists and the First Amendment – GBH News

The Prometheus League

Breaking News and Updates

Prometheism

Forbidden Fruit

The Evolutionary Perspective

Transtopia Menu

Library Updates

Library Books

Future Euvolution

Lucid Dreams from Childhood

Genetic Revolution

Speciation + Self-Directed Evolution