Category Archives: First Amendment

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a law that prohibits the government from registering trademarks that disparage others violates the First Amendment, a decision that could impact the Washington Redskins efforts to hang on to its controversial name.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. delivered the opinion for a largely united court. He said the law could not be saved just because it evenhandedly prohibits disparagement of all groups.

That is viewpoint discrimination in the sense relevant here: Giving offense is a viewpoint, Alito wrote.

He added that the disparagement clause in the law offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.

All of the participating justices Neil M. Gorsuch was not on the court when the case was argued joined that part of Alitos opinion. Four justices peeled off from parts of the opinion where they say Alito opined on more than what was needed to decide the case.

The trademark office in 2011 said registering the trademark of the Slants, an Asian American rock group, would violate a part of the 1946 Lanham Trademark Act that prohibits registration of a trademark that may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.

The office said the name was likely to disparage a significant number of Asian Americans. But founder Simon Tam said the point of the bands name is just the opposite: an attempt to reclaim a slur and use it as a badge of pride.

In a Facebook post after the decision, Tam wrote:

After an excruciating legal battle that has spanned nearly eight years, were beyond humbled and thrilled to have won this case at the Supreme Court. This journey has always been much bigger than our band: its been about the rights of all marginalized communities to determine whats best for ourselves.

Tam lost in the first legal rounds. But then a majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the law violates the First Amendments guarantee of free speech. The government may not penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys, a majority of that court found.

The outcome is likely to affect the legal case of the Washington Redskins, whose trademark registration was revoked in 2014 under the same disparagement clause.

The Redskins filed an amicus brief supporting the Slants, which was cited in the opinion. The Washington football teams case, however, is moving on a separate track.

(Jorge Ribas/The Washington Post)

The team is thrilled with todays unanimous decision as it resolves the Redskins long-standing dispute with the government, Redskins attorney Lisa Blatt said in a statement. The Supreme Court vindicated the teams position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or cancelling a trademark registration based on the governments opinion.

Free speech advocates had supported The Slants, and the courts decision seemed likely from the oral arguments.

But some worried about what kinds of trademarks the government will now be forced to register. It seems this decision will indeed open the floodgates to applications for all sorts of potentially offensive and hateful marks, said Lisa Simpson, an intellectual property lawyer in New York. She added: While this may be the right result under the First Amendment and the principles of free speech that are foundational to our country, it seems the responsibility will now pass to the public.

The teams trademark registration was canceled in 2014 after decades of use. The team asked a district judge in Virginia to overturn the cancellation and was refused. The case is now in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, pending the Supreme Courts decision in the Slants case.

Registration of a trademark provides a nationwide defense against others who would try to use it.

The case is Matal v. Tam.

Read more:
Supreme Court: Rejecting trademarks that 'disparage' others violates the First Amendment - Washington Post

The law at issue in both cases denies federal trademark protection to messages that may disparage people, living or dead, along with institutions, beliefs or national symbols.

Four justices said the law could not withstand even the fairly relaxed judicial scrutiny that the Supreme Court applies to commercial speech. Those justices rejected the two government interests that the law was said to advance: protecting disadvantaged groups from demeaning messages and the orderly flow of commerce.

The First Amendment protects offensive speech, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for this group of four justices. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate, he wrote, quoting a classic 1929 dissent from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Justice Alito added that the laws disparagement clause was far too broad. It is not an anti-discrimination clause; it is a happy-talk clause, he wrote.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer joined that part of Justice Alitos opinion.

Four other justices would have struck down the law using the more searching First Amendment scrutiny that applies to viewpoint discrimination.

The danger of viewpoint discrimination, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote, is that the government is attempting to remove certain ideas or perspectives from a broader debate. That danger is all the greater if the ideas or perspectives are ones a particular audience might think offensive, at least at first hearing.

To permit viewpoint discrimination in this context is to permit Government censorship, Justice Kennedy wrote.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Justice Kennedys opinion.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch did not participate in the case, which was argued in January, before he joined the court.

The competing opinions from the two four-justice blocs will mute the extent to which the decision sets precedent in other contexts.

All eight participating justices did agree on some points. They were unanimous in rejecting the argument that federal trademarks are the governments own speech and thus immune from First Amendment scrutiny of any kind.

In 2015, in a 5-to-4 decision in Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could refuse to allow specialty license plates bearing the Confederate battle flag because the plates were the governments speech.

Justice Alito, writing for eight justices on Monday, said trademarks are different.

If the federal registration of a trademark makes the mark government speech, the federal government is babbling prodigiously and incoherently, he wrote. It is saying many unseemly things. It is expressing contradictory views. It is unashamedly endorsing a vast array of commercial products and services. And it is providing Delphic advice to the consuming public.

The Slants said they did not intend to disparage anyone. Instead, they said, they sought to adopt and reform a disparaging term about Asians, much as some gay people have embraced the term queer.

That was significant, Justice Kennedy wrote. The band wanted, he wrote, to supplant a racial epithet, using new insights, musical talents, and wry humor to make it a badge of pride.

The government has applied the law inconsistently when faced with trademarks based on ethnic slurs. It has, for instance, both registered and rejected trademarks for the terms Heeb, Dago, Injun and Squaw.

In the Redskins case, the trademark office registered the teams trademarks in 1967, 1974, 1978 and 1990. In 2014, though, it reversed course and canceled six registrations, saying they disparaged Native Americans.

The team lost before a trial judge in Virginia and appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, also in Virginia. The appeals court put the case aside while the Supreme Court considered the Slants case, Matal v. Tam, No. 15-1293.

In a second First Amendment case decided Monday, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a North Carolina law that made it a crime for registered sex offenders to use Facebook and many other websites.

The law was challenged by Lester Packingham, a registered sex offender who was convicted of violating it after posting an account of having a traffic ticket dismissed. God is good, he wrote on Facebook.

Mr. Packingham, who had pleaded guilty in 2002 to taking indecent liberties with a minor when he was a 21-year-old student, said the law violated the First Amendment.

Justice Kennedy, writing for a five-justice majority, said the internet is transforming American life and has turned into the modern public square. Denying access to it, he wrote, violates the First Amendment.

The statute here enacts a prohibition unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech it burdens, Justice Kennedy wrote. Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another about it on any subject that might come to mind.

By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge, he wrote.

Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined Justice Kennedys opinion. Justice Gorsuch did not participate in the case.

In a concurrence, Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, agreed with the result in the case but did not join what he called the loose rhetoric in Justice Kennedys opinion.

The North Carolina law was too broad, Justice Alito wrote, but states retain many legal tools to protect children on the internet.

Read the original:
Justices Strike Down Law Banning Disparaging Trademarks - New York Times

Sex offenders are probably the most marginalized group in society (ahead only of cannibals?) so it must be the rare case indeed where the Supreme Court rules unanimously in their favor. No, this isn't a situation where some state decreed that anyone accused of a sex crime be chemically castrated without trial or any other kind of Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) or due-process claim. Instead, a man who served his time and was released subject to the normal set of registration and living restrictions was sent back to prison because he accessed Facebook. Monday, all eight justices (Neil Gorsuch not having participated) held that this violated the First Amendment.

Let's dive into the bizarre facts of the case. Lester Packingham, who had served time for "taking liberties with a minor" when he was 21 and she was 13, beat a parking ticket and celebrated by proclaiming on his Facebook page that "God is good! . . . Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks JESUS!"

For this grave offense against humanity, he was returned to the big house under a North Carolina statute that bans such people from accessing a wide variety of websites.

The law is meant to prevent communications between sex offenders and minors, but it sweeps more broadly than any other such law in the country. It doesn't even require the state to prove that the accused had contact with (or gathered information about) a minor, or intended to do so, or accessed a website for any other illicit purpose.

Accordingly, the state court of appeals overturned Packingham's conviction, but the state supreme court, over vigorous dissent, reinstated the conviction and sentence. The U.S. Supreme Court has now had the final word, finding that the North Carolina law wasn't "narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest."

Translating from the legalese, this means that the state legislature slapped down a broad law that didn't closely track the social problem it was supposed to target. As the Supreme Court explained, citing Cato's amicus brief, the law may well bar access not only to social media but to any site where someone creates a profile and interacts with peopleincluding the likes of Amazon, YouTube, and WebMD, or even the Washington Post and New York Times.

But even restrictions on social media alone would be troubling if not further tailored, the Supreme Court announced. Indeed, Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion is an encomium to the importance of web-surfing: "By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge." (The next time my wife tells me that I'm spending too much time on Facebook and Twitter, I'll reply that I'm simply enriching myself with the wealth of human knowledge.)

There are other problems with the statute, such as its vagueness. Someone subject to this law literally can't know what he can't do or say; the police themselves aren't sure!

Finally, the statute also fails constitutional scrutiny because it criminalizes speech based on the identity of the speaker. As Kennedy put it, "[e]ven convicted criminalsand in some instances especially convicted criminalsmight receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives."

The very purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the speech of disfavored minorities. Signaling out this speech for prosecutionwithout any allegation that it relates to conduct or even motivehas earned the Tar Heel State a big "dislike" from the Supreme Court.

Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read ourguidelines on submissions here.

Here is the original post:
Even sex offenders have First Amendment rights - Washington Examiner

Im delighted to report that the Utah Supreme Court has just handed down an opinion in Butt v. State, reversing an obscenity-as-to-minors conviction that Utah lawyers Troy Booher and Beth Kennedy (many thanks to them!) and I challenged.

The Utah Supreme Court had upheld the conviction when it was first appealed, and I challenged that in a petition for review to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the state argued that the First Amendment arguments werent properly made at trial and on initial appeal; and, after calling for a copy of the record, the U.S. Supreme Court denied our petition. We then filed a state post-conviction challenge, arguing that, if the First Amendment argument was indeed not properly made, that was ineffective assistance of counsel.

And today, the Utah Supreme Court agreed, holding that the material in the case was actually protected by the First Amendment. (In this case, the ineffective assistance of counsel issue ended up turning on this substantive First Amendment question.) First, the facts (you can see more details in our cert. petition):

Petitioner was convicted of two counts of dealing harmful materials to a minor. The counts relate to two letters Petitioner sent to his family from jail while awaiting sentencing for theft. While processing Petitioners first letter for mailing, a jail guard noticed a drawing that concerned him. And he held the letter for review by his jail commander.

The letter included handwritten notes to Petitioners wife and five-year-old daughter. Petitioner wrote to his daughter: Well I know you want me to draw my whole body, but I cant draw very good, so this will have to work. The drawing was an unskilled, hand drawn picture portraying Petitioner naked. While the drawing was rough, it depicted Petitioners nipples, chest hair, pubic hair, penis, and testicles.

Three days later, without knowledge that his first letter had been intercepted, Petitioner wrote a second letter. This letter was also intercepted. In this letter, Petitioner again wrote a short note to his daughter: Hi beautiful girl. I miss you so much. I cant wait to bite your butt cheek. This is what it will look like. I love you.

Below this note, Petitioner had again roughly sketched a picture of himself naked. This picture was even more rudimentary than the initial drawing. But it portrayed Petitioners nipples, penis, and testicles. This time, however, he was holding his daughter up with her bottom next to his mouth. A speech bubble from his mouth read: Oh your butt taste [sic] so good. And a second speech bubble from his daughters mouth read: Oouch! Daddy dont Bite so hard Giggle giggle.

At trial, Petitioner attempted to justify the contents of the first drawing. He testified that prior to his incarceration he had watched a documentary about cave dwellings with his daughter, with cave drawings depicting naked people. Petitioner testified that his daughter had laughed and asked him to draw a picture of himself naked like the cave drawings.

With respect to the second drawing, Petitioner testified that his daughter likes being tickled. So as part of her bedtime routine he holds his daughters hands up in the air and nibbles all over her stomach, while she laughs. To escape the tickling, his daughter rolls over from her back to her stomach. At this point, Petitioner teases her, saying roll back over or Im going to bite your butt cheek, to which his daughter responds by rolling back over. Petitioner testified that he does not remember ever actually biting his daughter during the routine. Rather, he makes an empty threat so that his daughter will roll back over. Despite Petitioners explanation, the jury returned a guilty verdict on both counts.

When we challenged the convictions in state court, the state agreed that the conviction related to the first drawing should be vacated; and it conceded that trial counsels performance was deficient in failing to raise an independent First Amendment defense, but argued that the defendant hadnt been harmed by this error as to the second drawing because the First Amendment defense would have in any event failed. Today, the court held that the First Amendment did protect the second drawing, because it did not appeal to a prurient interest in sex, and thus did not fall within the First Amendment exception for speech that is obscene as to minors:

[T]he drawing at issue is so rudimentary that taken as a whole including the context of Petitioners unrebutted testimony about his routine with his daughter it does not depict a sexual act. And we likewise conclude that the drawing is not sexually suggestive.

An appeal to the prurient interest in sex of a five-year-old is not a particularly high bar. A prurient interest in sex is one that is a shameful or morbid. And in the context of obscenity as to minors, this assessment is judged in light of the minors age. While a five-year-old likely does not experience sexual arousal, material can still generate a desire to engage in sexual relations. Whether that desire stems from curiosity, conditioning, or otherwise, it may cross the prurient interest line.

Perhaps it could be said that a five-year-olds present desire to engage in any form of sexual activity is prurient. At a minimum, however, it can be said that this standard is met with respect to material that is aimed at appealing to a young childs interest in engaging in sexual activity with a parent (or any adult); such activity is criminal, and thus easily deemed shameful or morbid.

If we viewed the drawing as depicting sexual conduct between Petitioner and his daughter we would have little difficulty agreeing with the State [that the drawing appealed to a prurient interest in sex]. But on balance, and in light of the context given to the drawing by the only testimony on the matter presented at trial, we view the drawing differently. We do not view the drawing as portraying a sexual act.

Although the drawing clearly depicts Petitioner naked, it is unclear whether it shows him biting his daughter or simply holding her in the air and joking about doing so. It is equally unclear whether his daughter is clothed or naked. Importantly, moreover, there is no context in the record to support the States inferences that sexual conduct is in fact being portrayed.

We likewise conclude that the intended audience, Petitioners daughter, would not have perceived the drawings as sexually suggestive. Context is particularly important in this area. And the only contextual evidence in the record is Petitioners own testimony regarding the cave drawing television program and his bedtime routine with his daughter. We have little way of knowing whether Petitioners testimony was truthful. Perhaps the State is right to be skeptical about the explanation offered by Petitioner. But the problem is that we have no contrary evidence before us no indication on the record to give a different context to the drawing, and no basis for the conclusion that Petitioners explanation was fabricated. We give little weight to Petitioners story. But we do give it some weight, which together with his daughters young age leads us to conclude that Petitioners daughter would not have seen the drawing as sexually suggestive.

We conclude that the drawing is not sexual or sexually suggestive, and accordingly does not appeal to a prurient interest in sex. [Footnote: We caution that this is a close case. We conclude that on the record before us, Petitioners drawing was so rudimentary that taken as a whole it would not have appealed to any sexual interest of Petitioners daughter. But context matters. And a contrary decision might be merited in a case involving additional facts evidencing double entendre, an older child more perceptive of sexual suggestion, a context where the intended recipient might perceive a sexual meaning, or a more explicit drawing.]

One important procedural takeaway: The same Utah Supreme Court unanimously upheld the conviction initially, and then unanimously reversed it on appeal, even though three of the five Justices on the court heard both cases.

The difference, I think, is that, in 2012, the court deferred to the jurys application of the obscenity-as-to-minors test, presumably because the court saw this as simply a state-law case rather than a First Amendment case. But now, when it applied the First Amendment analysis, it had to apply independent review of the record to judge the merits of a First Amendment defense in an obscenity action, yielding no deference to the jurys verdict or the district courts conclusions on underlying mixed questions of law and fact. (Such independent review is required by the U.S. Supreme Courts First Amendment caselaw.)

So, law students and lawyers: Remember how important such standards of review can be, and remember the procedural value of raising a substantive First Amendment defense in cases involving speech crimes or speech torts.

Thanks again to Troy Booher and Beth Kennedy for all their help with the case, and to John Hurst, Freyja Johnson, Clemens Landau and Michael Teter and my colleagues Iman Anabtawi, Jason Oh and Seana Shiffrin for sitting on my moot courts for the oral argument.

The rest is here:
Utah Supreme Court reverses obscenity-as-to-minors conviction - Washington Post

Analysis Law and Policy

Jun 19, 2017, 12:18pm Lisa Needham

One of the best ways to ensure people don't exercise their First Amendment rights is to make it far too hazardous and costly to do so. That is what is happening right now.

We live in an era of increasing crackdowns on public protests and whistleblowing: real, and increasingly effective, attacks on the First Amendment. The First Amendment, of course, promises us the right to free speech, but it also promises us the rights to assemble and to associate. In practical terms, this generally means that you can associate with whomever you choose to, assemble together in any fashion, and speak out against the government in whatever way you see fit.

One of the best ways to ensure people dont exercise their First Amendment rights is to make it far too dangerous and costly to do so. That is what is happening right now.

Attempts to brutalize protesters and criminalize protest are nothing new. The 2008 Republican National Convention (RNC), for example, saw police firing chemical agents and projectiles at peaceful crowds and mass arrests. The overcharging of arrestees that followed the convention only added to the feeling of dystopia. Prior to even engaging in any protests, eight individuals were arrested and eventually charged under an anti-terrorism statute. Why? Because they had some banal items like light bulbs, which police alleged could be filled with paint or chemicals and thrown, along with more obviously problematic things like U-locks (to chain themselves to things) and caltrops (steel points you put on the street to deflate tires). But the key point: They hadnt done a thing with those objects yet, so the anti-terrorism charge was more than a bit of a stretch. (Terrorism charges are more typically leveled when people are found with bomb-making material, or are found with innocuous material but have detailed how they plan to use that material to make an explosive.) Those charges were later dropped because the prosecutor felt that it would distract the jury.

As grim as the RNC charges were, theyve got nothing on the latest episode of overcharging protesters. More than 200 people were arrested for protesting during President Trumps inauguration in January. Most protesters were originally charged with only one count of felony rioting but, after very few of them pleaded guilty, a new grand jury indictment was returned that charges nearly all of them with eight felony counts, including inciting to riot, conspiracy to riot, and destruction of property.

Rewire is a non-profit independent media publication. Your tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

DONATE NOW

Make no mistake: Many of these individuals were first punished for exercising their right to protest, and are now being punished for exercising their right to demand a trial rather than a plea deal. The government is also attempting totry all the defendants together, which brings up serious questions of fairness.

As reported by BuzzFeed, Jason Flores-Williams, an attorney representing three of those defendants, has already asked District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Lynn Leibovitz, who is presiding over all of the Inauguration Day prosecutions, to require a separate trial for one his clients, rather than agree to the governments plan to try defendants together.

There is a spillover prejudicial effect where when evidence against one person as I said ends up in the jurys mind being evidence against everyone else who was there, regardless of whether that evidence was actually against them or proven against them in any direct or specific way, Flores-Williams toldBuzzFeed.

The Inauguration Day protesters face felony charges that carry up to ten years in prison. Thats far too high a price to pay.

Equally chilling, six journalists were also arrested during the inauguration and charged with felony rioting. (Charges have since been dropped for all but one of the journalists).

Another way to ensure that people arent able to speak truth to power is to restrict them from documenting abuses of that power. States keep trying to pass laws that criminalize the filming or photographing of police. Indeed, whether you can record police or not is still an open question for the courts. A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuitrecently ruled on the case of a Texas activist who was filming police activity outside a police station. The court held that individuals have a First Amendment right to film the police within the states of the Fifth Circuit: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The Fifth Circuit also noted that every circuit court that has ruled on the issue has found that the First Amendment does actually protect the right of people to film police officers while those officers are performing their duties. However, several circuits havent ruled on the matter, or have stated that the right isnt clearly established. Regardless of court rulings, police continue to push back: Just in the last year, the ACLU has had to go to court in Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania to defend the right of individuals to record the police. Being able to record the police and share those recordings is, of course, a key component of journalism in the modern digital and visual era.

Clamping down on whistleblowers and leakers is another way to ensure that people dont speak out. If the price of speaking out is too high, people will stop. The Obama administration aggressively prosecuted leakers at a much higher rate than during the administrations of his predecessors, even going so far as to oppose allowing leakers to mount a defense based on the First Amendment. In other words, the prosecutors filed motions to prohibit defendants from saying that they were performing a public service by leaking to the press. However, the defense should be allowed because the public has a First Amendment interest in knowing about the workings of government, and government employees are in the best position to share that information.

The Trump administration looks to be equally aggressive, if not more so, having undertaken its first leak prosecution by going after Reality Winner, who allegedly leaked information about Russian interference in the 2016 election. To be sure, what Winner allegedly leaked is information that the public absolutely does need to know about: the depth and breadth and persistence of Russian attempts to hack the 2016 U.S. election. However, she now faces a fine of up to $250,000, a prison sentence of up to 10 years, or both.

Trump has stated hed consider jailing journalists over leaks, while people like former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R), and others,have stated that federal employeeleakers who talk to the press are committing treason. They arent, of course. In the United States, treason generally refers to U.S. citizens who use force to align with enemies of the country. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, of course, wants to actively pursue and prosecute leakers rather than address his own peculiar failure to remember when he talks to Russians.

At the same time as the threat of leak prosecutions looms, congressional Republicans are looking to lock down press access to their members, in large part because they dont want to talk about the nightmare that is their health care bill. Journalists were told they couldnt film interviews with senators without getting permission from the (Republican-led) Senate Rules Committee. Tim Scott (R-SC) bizarrely claimed that if journalists could roam the halls and talk to senatorssomething they have always been able to dothe cameras might capture his ATM PIN and he needed to keep that private. This effort, mercifully, failed relatively quickly, but theres no reason to think that congressional Republicans who have been dodging things like town halls left and right wouldnt welcome greater press restrictions.

Criminalize protest, veil the work of police, prosecute those who share vital information with the American people, and limit availability and accountability of elected officials. These are pages from an authoritarian playbook, not a democratic one, but it is the world we live in now. We need to be vigilant against further depredations where the right to speech is concerned by supporting protesters and whistleblowers in any way we can.

Follow this link:
The First Amendment Is in Increasing Danger Under a Trump Administration - Rewire

Now that the courts have ruled that doctors have a First Amendment right to ask their patients if they own guns, I want to remind the patients that they also have the same First Amendment right.

To keep your gun ownership private, do not tell the doctors you own guns as it will become part of your medical records and every agency of our federal government will have a ready-made list of gun owners.

If I am asked I would say:

Doc, it is none of your business but if I owned a gun, and I am not saying that I do, I want you to know that I am aware of how to store and handle guns and I would ensure that they are kept safe from children and other unauthorized people for their safety and mine.

BRUCE MILLS, NORTH PALM BEACH

I was appalled by the letter Words mattertake care with drug use (Wednesday) by professor George Stoupas. Though I agree that addicts deserve our compassion, his comparison to people on the autism spectrum is fundamentally wrong and misleading.

People on the autism spectrum are born that way and cannot be cured. They, however, are taught to make the most of their strong points and live productive lives.

Drug abusers, as well as alcohol abusers, become users as a choice. Yes, addiction is a disease, but they can be cured if they choose to go through the extremely difficult and rigorous detox process. I personally know people who made that choice and live happy and productive lives.

JOSEPH WILLINGER, BOYNTON BEACH

Kudos to my mayor, Jeri Muoio, for joining the Compact of Mayors on Climate and Energy. Within three years, participating cities will endeavor to report their greenhouse gas emissions, set emission reduction targets and develop climate action plans.

By withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, President Donald Trump has done damage to our countrys standing with the rest of the world. The original U.S.-Paris agreement actually expires in 2020. Hopefully, by then, a wiser public will have voted him out of office. In the meantime, much can be done by local governments.

A National Geographic report asserts that Floridas coastline could be radically changed by as much as a 5-foot sea-level rise by 2100, putting Miami and other coastal cities under water. This would impact Floridas major industries as well as $390 billion worth of properties. In the wake of climate change, temperature swings are projected to be more volatile by centurys end.

It is therefore imperative that the mayors do everything within their powers to countervail this imprudent step by the president.

MARCIA DE FREN, WEST PALM BEACH

A recent letter suggested President Donald Trumps decision to leave the global warming agreement was another slap in the face of President Barack Obama and more evidence of hatred. After all, the entire agreement was voluntary.

It allows China to continue its increase of pollution at any rate until 2030. What is clearly not voluntary is the U.S. commitment to provide billions of taxpayer dollars to other countries.

So unless you believe that its all Americas fault, and we should be punished financially, you should support an agreement that commits all the largest polluters to make progress today, not 13 years from now.

Similar to NATO, everyone has to meet commitments, not just wink and expect America to do it all with our money.

JOHN GIGANTI, BOYNTON BEACH

Continue reading here:
Letters First Amendment not just for doctors; patients can opt out - Palm Beach Post

Katherine Owens

St. Augustine

There are some who are offended by the Confederate monuments in our Plaza and/or in other cities. These monuments serve only as a reminder of that which has come before. If every generation destroyed what it found offensive, there would be nothing left. It is a guarantee that something we believe in today will be looked upon with disgust and horror by future generations.

I have family who fought on both sides of the Civil War. I am proud of the service of all my ancestors because they defended their values. My family has lived in Florida for the last 190 years, so I ask: Why are we discussing the taking down of monuments to men who fought for Florida?

Why are we not, instead, raising up more monuments and memorials to Floridians around the state not just in the Oldest City? Instead of tearing down the Confederate monuments, why not build a monument to Union Soldiers from northeast Florida? The Civil War was a war that divided families including the Northeast Florida branch of my own family.

Both Confederate monuments in the Plaza were erected when Florida was either occupied territory or a state within the Union, and hence are protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment freedom of speech. They cannot, nor should they be taken down or removed. The builders of those monuments are no longer alive to defend their First Amendment rights. We, the succeeding generations, must do so. Additionally, the General William Loring Monument is under the protection of the Federal law against grave desecration, because he is buried under the memorial.

If in order to appease a few who are offended by the history of the United States, the State of Florida and the City of St. Augustine, an interpretive plaque must be erected, it will need to be worded very carefully. The wording needs to be such that we are neither putting words into the mouths of the erectors of the monuments, nor apologizing for what they believed.

For example: some people claim William Tecumseh Sherman was a hero and a liberator. However, many Southerners still think of him as a mass-murder of white and black Georgians and South Carolinians. It would be a violation of the Freedom of Speech of the erectors of those statues for me or anyone else to insist on a plaque that would cheapen his service to his country (as those who want an interpretive plaque for any Confederate monument or memorial are doing). We cannot know exactly what is in the minds of the men and women who erect and pay for monuments and memorials unless they write down their reasons.

We have been given a trust by proceeding generations to protect their memories. Are we up to that challenge? Or do we destroy the symbols of what they believed in just because we dont?

Read the original post:
GUEST COLUMN: Confederate monuments protected by First Amendment - St. Augustine Record

Jim Little , jwlittle@pnj.com 6:32 p.m. CT June 16, 2017

Escambia County Area Transit held a "Try Transit Day" event in an effort to boost ridership Thursday June 15, 2017. County Commissioner Doug Underhill has questioned whether it is fiscally responsible to continue funding ECAT because of its low utilization rate. (Photo: Tony Giberson/tgiberson@pnj.com)Buy Photo

The union representingEscambia County Area Transit workers hasfiled a lawsuit in federal court against the Escambia County Board of County Commissioners.

The Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1395 filed a lawsuit Friday in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida alleging Commission Chairman Doug Underhill violated its members' free speech rights.

The union's complaint names all five members of the commission as defendants. The lawsuit claims that on June 6, Underhill instructed a manager with First Transit, the private company that runs ECAT, to "discipline or discharge" any workers distributing flyers supporting the transportation system and urging riders to fight against Underhill's proposal to eliminate ECAT.

Commissioners instructed county staff on May 30 to begin the process of negotiating with the union so the county could end its contract with First Transit and operate ECAT directly.

Underhill has urged his fellow commissioners and the public to take a closer look at county expenses to eliminate wasteful spending, and has pointed to ECAT as one of the examples of waste.

During the May 30 meeting, Underhill said he wants to call a referendum on whetherto continue funding a 4-cent gas tax that provides some of ECAT's funding.

Off-duty members of the union responded on June 5 with by distributing flyers at the ECAT transfer station that read in large, bold letters "FDU" and "Fight Doug Underhill." On-duty drivers also distributedbuttons that read "I need the BUS" to riders, but stopped after being told it was against county policy.

The lawsuit claims Mike Crittenden, ECAT general manager, wrote a memo to ECAT workers that said passing out flyers on ECAT property whether on-duty or off-duty was a violation of company policy.

Underhill told the News Journal on Friday he had not seen the lawsuit. But he said nothing in his conversation with the management of First Transit was directive.

"I asked a series of questions to which they provided answers to, and that was all," Underhill said. "Absolutely no order or directive was given at any time."

Mike Lowery, president of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1395, said he's worried about the First Amendment rights of ECAT workers and riders.

"The employees at ECAT currently feel intimidated by the county commission, and worried that they'll be disciplined, up to termination, for conducting their First Amendment rights,whether they're on-duty or off-duty on ECAT property," Lowery said.

Read or Share this story: http://www.pnj.com/story/news/2017/06/16/ecat-union-sues-escambia-county-over-first-amendment-rights/405205001/

Original post:
ECAT union sues Escambia County over First Amendment rights - Pensacola News Journal

Donald Trump memorably threatened to open up libel laws as president, yet such an attack on the First Amendment would need to happen in the courts. And given a recent ruling in his favor in a defamation suit aimed at him, Trump knows full well that most judges maintain a very high bar for libel cases.

Even so, a libel suit can provide powerful interests with a potent weapon against intrepid reporters. Such a conflict is currently playing out in Brooklyn, and the drama features a notable cast of characters.

In October 2015, ProPublica published an investigative report on nursing home licensing in New York, which focused on the states largest for-profit network of such facilities, SentosaCare. The story questioned why, despite a record of repeat fines, violations and complaints for deficient care, SentosaCare continued to receive state approval when purchasing new nursing homes.

In March 2016, Jennifer Lehman, one of the two freelance reporters who wrote the piece, sent a letter to SentosaCares attorney, Howard Fensterman, requesting information for a follow-up story focused on the companys Medicare billing. Six days later, Fensterman filed a defamation suit in response to the October 2015 story.

Rather than target ProPublica, the complaint names Lehman and her fellow freelancer, Allegra Abramo. If the suit was intended to win damages, it would have made sense to target an established publisher with a sizable libel-insurance policy. Instead, the goal here appears to be stopping the reporters in their tracks.

Fensterman, a leading player in Nassau County Democratic politics, gained notoriety in 2014 for his aggressive defense of a nursing home on the Island after it brought in a male stripper to entertain the seniors. He is also counsel for (and a business partner of) SentosaCare, which is owned by Brooklyn resident Benjamin Landa, a central figure in Clifford Levys Pulitzer Prize-winning 2002 series in the New York Times exposing the harsh conditions faced by mentally ill residents in New York nursing homes.

Fensterman has been assisted in the case by his law partner Frank Seddio, the Brooklyn Democratic boss and president of the boroughs Bar Association. In New York City, the county machine typically hand-picks most of the State Supreme Court judges, but the one presiding in this case, Paul Wooten, was transferred from Manhattan, and is not a Seddio ally. Moreover, he has a strong track record of ruling in favor of defendants in defamation cases.

Such a cast made for lively theater at a late April appearance in Wootens courtroom, with the two sides debating the defendants motion to dismiss the case. Other than enter his name into the record, Seddio said nothing during the proceeding. According to one spectator (whos not involved in the case), the party boss appeared to be leering at Judge Wooten.

The crux of Fenstermans complaint concerns not whats in Lehman and Abramos ProPublica story, but what they left out (or whats known as libel by omission). When the story mentions investigations by New York State agencies into incidents of neglect at SentosaCare facilities, it does not include the fact that those same facilities had self-reported the incidents to the relevant agencies.

In advance of the first story, Fensterman had provided that information to the reporters, so he contends that the omission shows that the reporters intended to create reputational harm for SentosaCare. To drive home the point, he mentioned self-reporting five times in his short presentation at the dismissal hearing.

Laura Handman, retained by ProPublica to defend Lehman and Abramo, stressed to Judge Wooten that the piece is not a cover-up story. Instead, she explained, the reporters examined how nursing homes with track records of harmful incidents continue to gain new licensing, thus negating the importance of the self-reporting. According to defamation case law, Handman argued, unless omitted information changes the gist, or the meaning, or makes it false, then the decision of what to include or not to include are left to the wisdom of the journalist and publisher.

Trevor Timm of the Freedom of the Press Foundation tells the Beast that in general, The First Amendment allows for broad editorial discretion on what is and isnt reported on stories of public importance. And if public figures and institutions were allowed to sue every time they thought one ancillary alleged fact or another was left out of an article, it would grind journalism on any subject to a halt.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

In order to deter such a flood of retaliatory lawsuits, many statesincluding New Yorkhave enacted anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) legislation, which allows for judges to award damages to defendants and force plaintiffs to pay for their legal costs. As Handman stated at the April hearing, This suit is a classic example of a well-financed company using a defamation suit to basically censor their critics. In short, a classic SLAPP action.

Wootens ruling on whether the case will go to trialor if not, whether he will impose anti-SLAPP penalties on the plaintiffsis expected sometime in the next few months. Rest assured that the stakes are high for everyone involved, from the lowly freelance investigative reporters to the mighty Brooklyn Democratic Party boss.

Read more from the original source:
The Brooklyn Machine vs. the First Amendment - Daily Beast

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has sent a brief to the Supreme Court in the travel-ban casebut unlike most of the many briefs in that case, it takes no position on whether the Court should uphold or nullify the ban. Its goal, rather, is to make sure that the court refrains from distorting the meaning of the Constitutions prohibition on religious establishments in the process of deciding the case.

Beckets argument is that the Court should decide the case under the free-exercise clause rather than the no-establishment clause of the First Amendment. If the ban unconstitutionally targets Muslims, that is, it impinges on their right to practice their religion. It doesnt establish Christianity (or non-Islam) as the state religion.

It seems like a pretty obvious point, but since some courts have gotten the issue wrong Becket spells it out in some detail. The executive order doesnt create an establishment because it does not place the state in control of any churchs doctrine or personnel, doesnt compel attendance of any church, doesnt provide financial support of any kind to any church, and doesnt put any church in charge of important public functions.

The Becket lawyers are not just concerned that the Court might apply the establishment clause to the case; theyre also concerned that they will apply the clause using the Lemon test. Under that test, developed in a 1971 case striking down state aid to religious schools, judges must decide whether a governmental policy has a legitimate secular purpose and whether it involves excessive government entanglement with religionboth, conservative lawyers have usually contended, highly subjective judgments. The Court has moved away from Lemon but lower courts considering the case have applied it.

As long ago as 1993, Justice Antonin Scalia likened the Lemon test to some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad after being repeatedly killed and buried. Becket wants the ghoul killed and buried for good. But theres a chance that the passions this case has called forth will bring it back once more.

Go here to read the rest:
Travel Ban Case Could Harm First Amendment Law | National Review - National Review