Category Archives: First Amendment

UC Berkeley's decision to reschedule conservative political commentator Ann Coulter's visit raises questions about freedom of speech

Stock image: Freedom of speach

Stock image: Freedom of speach

Reginald Webb, Times Staff May 16, 2017 Filed under Opinion

Share on Facebook

Share via Email

The Republican students at UC Berkeley are undoubtedly crafty in sparking a debate about free speech on their campus, but they are completely wrong about the First Amendment as it relates to them as students and the colleges obligation. Many, like Bernie Sanders, mistakenly believe as progressives they have to agree in their freedom to have whomever they want on campus to speak.

On the contrary, institutions should have some discretion as far as criteria for speaking at institutions of higher learning. Tim Wise, who spoke April 20, at San Jose City College, is an example of one who has certainly had his share of controversy, nevertheless was a wonderful choice to speak on a college campus.

Despite his admirers and detractors, he starts a conversation on a campus about timely issues of race and inequality that should take place in robust fashion on a college campus. While, he frames a lot of historical facts and statistics to argue his point of view, he is dealing with facts that require critical analysis of students. There is a base of facts from which the debate is being carried on.

Ann Coulter is not a reliable source of inspiration for healthy debate. She chooses to use shock and offensive rhetoric to incite anger and bigotry. Identity politics and dividing people is her priority as it sells her books and maintains her presence in the news and on television.

Entertainment is good and even on campus diverse entertainment should be allowed. However, Coulters brand of it can be so toxic. It instigates anger and potential violence deliberately. Free Speech was not meant to protect speech for the sake of insult and offense. First Amendment rights explicitly protects the American public from government censure it relates to religious freedom and worship, freedom of the press, and assembly. It does not mandate that as a result of these protections a University has to simply accept anyone to speak on a campus. Safety is a legitimate consideration as is the social value the college may gain from hosting the speaker. Also,the overall well-being of the colleges students, faculty, and employees must be considered. Civility and mutual respect for one another is essential with regard to campus life.

The students at UC Berkeley no full well the history of their institution as it relates to social justice and political activism. Using Ann Coulter to express hypocrisy with regard to the First Amendment really insults that legacy and reveals how polarized the greater society has become. Just the idea that the Republican students organizations would want to raise their profile on campus and in the news through Ann Coulter is sad and might warrant their parents getting a refund on their tuitions.

If campus life there has not inspired them to strive for vigorous critical analysis and a zest to make their beliefs and points of view more concise and clear then they are certainly not experiencing the UC Berkeley the world has come to know nor are they receiving the world class education UC Berkeley has been known to provide.

Original post:
Offending the First Amendment - City College Times

Inside Higher Ed

Critics of proposed legislation on First Amendment rights at Wisconsin public universities say it goes too far Inside Higher Ed He also praised a new free speech law in Tennessee that's been lauded by FIRE and other groups for strengthening the First Amendment on campuses without requiring punishments for disrupters. The bill abolishes designated free speech zones for ... Is free speech fading at colleges? - Chicago Law BulletinChicago Daily Law Bulletin all 5 news articles »

Here is the original post:
Critics of proposed legislation on First Amendment rights at Wisconsin public universities say it goes too far - Inside Higher Ed

Sharon Anderson

For the Chronicle

Nature Coast Chapter 65 of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) has selected the winners of this years essay contest for Citrus County public high school juniors and seniors, on the topic of why the First Amendment principle establishing the wall between church and state is so vital to our country today.

First prize, $300 in scholarship money, went to Citrus High School senior Abby Blocker, and second prize, $150, was awarded to CHS junior Grace Tyler.

The separation of church and state, established by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, delineates between the freedom to practice religion in the U.S. and where the

ever-expanding secular governments hand gets slapped.

Thomas Jefferson is credited with erecting the wall of separation when, in 1779, he penned the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which was included in the U.S. Constitution on Jan. 16, 1786, said Nature Coast Chapter 65 President Sid Rose.

Nature Coast Chapter 65 has existed for more than 20 years. Rose and his wife, Sylvia, have been involved locally for about 12 years. The essay contest is in its fourth year.

The first year we did this, in 2014, we only had one entry, said Sylvia Rose, Chapter 65s treasurer. But it was an excellent essay. Last year, she said, there were a whopping 59 entries and this year there were only 17.

Were not sure why, but we had some very good ones this year so we were not disappointed, she said.

For the past 70 years AU, a nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., has been vigorously dedicated to guarding the wall between church and state.

The Americans United for Separation of Church and State website, at http://www.AU.org, states that AU was founded nationally in 1947 by a broad coalition of religious, educational and civic leaders and works in the courts, the U.S. Congress, state legislatures and at the White House, as well as in the arena of public opinion.

We envision an America where everyone can freely choose a faith and support it voluntarily, or follow no religious or spiritual path at all, and where the government does not promote religion over nonreligion or favor one faith over another, the website reads.

Its about believers and nonbelievers being respected, said Sylvia Rose. Our country was founded on the basis of freedom, including religious freedom. It doesnt mean were against religion.

Once were aware of a violation of separation of church and state in our area, we refer the matter to the legal department of the AU headquarters in Washington, D.C., Sid Rose said.

The integrity of the separation has seen many a test over the past 230 years. The AU website states that, Since the early 1960s, Americans United has successfully opposed every proposed constitutional amendment designed to reintroduce official prayer and other forms of mandated worship in public schools.

AU has also opposed attempts to introduce intelligent design creationism into public school science classes.

Chapter 65 is always seeking new members, Sylvia Rose said, and meets at the Lakes Region Library, at 1511 Druid Road in Inverness, at

4 p.m. the third Tuesday monthy, excluding July, August and September.

Winners of this years essay contest were on hand to receive their scholarships at the May 16 AU meeting.

Here are the winning essays:

Why the First Amendment Principle of Church and State is Vital to our Country Today

First place, Abby Blocker, grade 12, Citrus High School

Since America was first discovered by Europeans in 1492, it has been considered the land of opportunity. This opportunity comes from the freedom that America has and always will offer. An important part of this freedom comes from our freedom of religion. Education and equality are two values that America sponsors deeply, and the freedom of religion keeps these two values close to home.

Education is a keystone in our land of the free. The American dream is what many come to the US for, and education is what continues to make our country so successful. Education in America should have the intent to build up and provide fair opportunity for our children, and that is why religion should be kept out of it. Religion can cloud what teachers are allowed to teach, and change what the focus of education is all about. Education is about giving people the tools and information, so that they may come to conclusions for themselves; religion draws the conclusions for them. Take science, for example. Many school districts, especially in conservative states, want creationism to be taught or at least included in science curriculum. Creationism teaches that a God created humans and other organisms, and that is how we appeared on Earth. Scientists have researched and strongly believe in another theory, called evolution, that is much more fact-based and has been studied more in-depth. In the case of Edwards v Aquillard, it was deemed unconstitutional to teach creationism in science, which helped schools, considerably conservative state schools, to make the move to more fact-based teachings instead of religious beliefs. It is not wrong to believe one theory over the other, but the fact that one theory is based on religion is unfair because public education is a government service and the government should not be biased for or against any religion. Earlier court rulings such as Epperson v Arkansas show that even in a time where this issue in school was not as pressing, the Supreme Court has always upheld the first amendment in freedom of religion when it comes to education. In a country where education is not polluted by religious agendas, students are free to learn facts and theories and make their own ideas, instead of being distracted by different political agendas.

Equality is another core value in our homeland. It was important to the founding fathers that all men are created equal, so not only did this include different races and nationalities, but to different religious followers as well. If our country were to have a national religion, it would discriminate against any other religion that tried to come here. Sound familiar? One of the main reasons the Pilgrims came to this land on the Mayflower was to be able to practice their own religion without being persecuted. The Quakers in Pennsylvania continued this tradition by accepting all types of people and religion in their colony, and Maryland followed suit with their Act of Toleration. Even in days as early as the 1700s, the basis of America knew to keep the characteristic of freedom of religion close to heart. By not choosing one religion, we do not discriminate against others. Imagine if instead of being able to pray and put nativities up in school, we had to bow to Mecca and pork was not served in school lunches? People in todays society wouldnt be too keen on this idea. The idea of the freedom of religion is not to hurt anyones religion, but instead, to make it fair to all religions. Fairness and equality are important factors in the formation of America, and have a strong purpose in the protection of our society.

Second place Grace Tyler, grade 11, Citrus High School

The First Amendment grants multiple freedoms, but the principle of separation is key to our countrys success and distinguishes us from other countries today. As an American, I understand my right to believe or not to believe in the religion of my choice. Many Americans forget how fortunate they are to have religious freedom, and that there are millions of people around the world without the right to choose what they believe in. Americans must recognize and appreciate this precious right. This crucial doctrine must be protected at all costs. If the people of the United States allow the wall between church and state to crumble, then they are forfeiting to the government their most personal freedoms.

Religion is too personal to have the government entwined with its institutions. The government cannot be allowed to dictate the very beliefs that make a person who they are. For example, if a student wishes to pray before their meal, no one can impede on their right to do so, and vice versa, if a student does not wish to do anything before their meal, they are free to proceed. If a citizen would like to donate their personal assets to a religious organization on their own account, they have the right to do that. On the other hand, the government cannot require citizens to fund religious institutions, or spend tax payer money to support them. Protecting both sides of every issue is important in separating church and state, because we cannot protect one religion or one believer and not another because that would denounce the entire principle. Church and state issues should remain non-partisan. When political parties try to push their agendas, it can cause circumvention by politicians attempting to cut corners to please their party. Resolving to keep church and state issues neutral is important to our countrys balance; however, government entanglement in religious affairs would dangerously tip the scales.

There are cases throughout Americas history in which the lines between church and state have been blurred. The Constitution, with the assistance of diligent citizens, has prevailed time and time again in protecting every religion, person, personal belief, and keeping the line separating church and state clear. People have terminated actions such as government funding to religious schools, laws mandating prayer in school, and discrimination of certain religions. Many of these breakthroughs were accomplished by the organization Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Americans United was founded in 1947 to combat pending legislation in the US Congress about giving government aid to private religious schools. This would be a form of government support to a religious institution, and violate the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. These are the very first words of the First Amendment because our Founding Fathers valued its importance as we should and do today.

The First Amendment principle of separation protects our most personal and moral human rights. It shields us from a tyrannical government by clearly outlining the partition between church and state. The government is able to function without the church interfering, and peoples spirituality is not restricted by laws. The First Amendment gives Americans a nation they can be proud of, a nation they can trust to uphold their right to have or to not have religious beliefs.

Read more from the original source:
Understanding the First Amendment - Citrus County Chronicle

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

In 2012, the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization (GLSO) filed a complaint against Blaine Adamson, the owner of Hands on Originals in Lexington, after he declined the job of printing T-shirts for a local Gay Pride festival. Though Adamson referred the activists to another printing company, and they ended up obtaining the shirts at no cost to them, GLSOs complaint with the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission landed Adamson a ruling that would have required him to take on jobs at his business that force him to abandon his faith principles.

Attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represented Adamson, appealed the order to the Fayette Circuit Court, which reversed the commissions ruling and affirmed Adamsons religious freedom. The commission, however, then appealed that decision to the Court of Appeals, which ultimately upheld the circuit courts ruling.

In the appeals courtopinion, Chief Judge Joy A. Kramer referred to the fact that Hands on Originals brands itself as a Christian outfitter with the following right to refusal on its website:

Hand On Originals both employs and conducts business with people of all genders, races, religious, sexual orientations, and national origins. However, due to the promotional nature of our products, it is the prerogative of Hands On Originals to refuse any order that would endorse positions that conflict with the convictions of the ownership.

The judge found that Adamson did not engage in unlawful discrimination against GLSO, writing:

[I]t is not the aim of public accommodation laws, nor the First Amendment, to treat speech as this type of activity or conduct. This is so for two reasons. First, speech cannot be considered an activity or conduct that is engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people. Speech is an activity anyone engages inregardless of religion, sexual orientation, race, gender, age, or even corporate status. Second, the right of free speech does not guarantee to any person the right to use someone elses property, even property owned by the government and dedicated to other purposes, as a stage to express ideas.

Nothing in the fairness ordinance prohibits HOO [Hands on Originals], a private business, from engaging in viewpoint or message censorship, the judge continued. Thus, although the menu of services HOO provides to the public is accordingly limited, and censors certain points of view, it is the same limited menu HOO offers to every customer and is not, therefore, prohibited by the fairness ordinance.

The judge found no evidence that Hands On Originals refused any individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations it offered to everyone elsebecausethe individual in question had a specific sexual orientation or gender identity.

ADF notes the concurring opinion by Judge Debra Hembree Lambert, who observed that Hands On Originals is protected by Kentuckys Religious Freedom Restoration Statute, and that Adamson is free to operate his business in accordance with his sincerely held religious beliefs.

However, in a blog post at GLSOs website, Amy Hatter writes:

This ruling sets a dangerous precedent for our community, and chips away at those ordinances that are in place to protect against such blatant discrimination. Over the next several days, the boards of the Pride Community Services Organization and the Lexington Human Rights Commission will have to make a decision about whether this ruling should be appealed to the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Americans should always have the freedom to believe, the freedom to express those beliefs, and the freedom tonotexpress ideas that would violate their conscience, said ADF senior counsel Jim Campbell, whoargued before the appeals courtin December of last year. Todays decision is a victory for printers and other creative professionals who serve all people but cannot promote all messages. It is also a victory for all Americans because it reassures us all that, no matter what you believe, the law cant force you to express a message in conflict with your deepest convictions.

Original post:
Kentucky Court Rules Christian Printer May Decline Gay Pride T-Shirt Job - Breitbart News

Blogs | May. 13, 2017

Unjust discrimination against individuals who identify as LGBT is a real problem. So is eroding religious freedom but in some cases another First Amendment right may be even more relevant.

Yesterday the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty released a statement announcingthat a Christian business owner finally won a case brought against him by gay plaintiffs alleging a civil rights violation:

A Kentucky court championed free speech today, ruling that the government cannot force t-shirt printer Blaine Adamson to create gay-pride t-shirts in violation of his religious beliefs. The court agreed with Becket, top legal scholars, and LGBT business owners, who all stood up for the rights of artists to choose what messages they would promote, without fear of government punishment. Todaysruling emphasizedthat the service [the printer] offers is the promotion of messages. The conduct [the printer] chose not to promote was pure speech.

Adamson is the owner of Hands On Originals, a small print shop in Lexington, Kentucky. Adamson regularly employs and serves LGBT individuals, and serves everyone regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. He also cares deeply about the messages he promotes. Just as pro-choice printers have declined to print pro-life messages, and LGBT printers have declined to print anti-gay messages, Adamson does not print messages that violate his beliefs. Following common printing industry practice, he only creates messages that align with his views, and has declined to create t-shirts promoting strip clubs, violence, and sexually explicit videos. Thats why LGBT business ownersstood upfor Mr. Adamsons right to choose the messages he promotes.

It doesnt matter what the speech is pro-gay, anti-gay, pro-immigration, anti-immigration the government cant force you to print it, saidLuke Goodrich, deputy general counsel at Becket, a non-profit religious liberty law firm.Thats the beauty of free speech: It protects everyone.

This seems to me an important case that may have implications for the wedding-industry wars.

So far as I know, Christian wedding industry professionals photographers, cake decorators and caterers have always lost in court for declining to provide services to same-sex weddings.

While I dont know a lot about the legal reasoning in those cases, whenever I see Christians discussing such casesthe issue seems to be framed as a question of the First Amendment right of religious freedom. I wonder this isnt a mistake.

As the Hands On Originals T-shirt print shops successful defense illustrates, religious freedom may thewrong First Amendment right at least in the case of photographers and cake decorators. (Caterers are probablyout of luck, at least as regards this line of thought.)

The strongestFirst Amendment defense for wedding photographers and cake decorators, I suspect, is not religious freedom, but freedom of speech.

Wedding photography is a service, but photography is also patently an art form, a form of communication. For the purposes of First Amendment constitutional law, it is a form of speech and speech, in First Amendment constitutional law, with very few exceptions, can be neither suppressed nor compelled.

An important caveat: Freedom of speech does not negate the principles of public accommodation and antidiscrimination law, which I support. I do not take the laissez-faire libertarian view that any business should have the right to refuse to transact with any potential customer or employee for any reason.

For instance, I dont believe that restauranteurs who are racists should have the right to refuse service to patrons of color or to relegate them to a separate counter, for instance. Nor do I support Christian business owners (or Muslims or Jews) with traditional beliefs about sexual morality refusing to serve individuals who identify as LBGT.

In saying this, Im going somewhat beyond federal antidiscrimination law, which prohibits discrimination against protected groups defined by race, color, religion, national origin, and disability, but does not protect individuals singled out for their sex or sexual orientation. (Discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation is prohibited in many areas at the state and local level.)

When it comes to discrimination and bigotry based on sexual orientation, both sides typically claim too much and concede too little. Christians should be willing to recognize and concede that while terms like hate and homophobia are overused to stigmatize all disapproval of homosexual acts, hatred and unjust hostility toward LBGT-identifying individuals is a real and important problem a problem too often found among individuals wrapping themselves in the mantle of traditional morality and traditional marriage.

To adhere to and to profess traditional Christian sexual morality, including the belief that homosexual acts are morally wrong, is not hate or bigotry,but hatred and bigotry are very much alive and well among those who profess to adhere to traditional Christian sexual morality.

The Catholic faith tells us that homosexual attraction and homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, but it also tells us that same-sex attracted persons must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358).

The Catechism wouldnt bother to say this unless such individuals had often not been accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity and had often been treated with unjust discrimination.

When Christians meet with hostility and anger from LBGT individuals and their defenders, therefore, it behooves us to understand that behind that hostility and anger may often be painful experiences of mistreatment, rejection, stigma, ostracism and more. When this occurs in the Church, and still more when it involves the clergy, it can be even more devastating.

In view of this difficult reality, I believe Christians have a particular duty to oppose homophobia and gay-bashing in their own ranks and to stand up for dignity and respect for all human beings, including and even especially individuals who identify as LBGT.

We should also recognize that it is understandable for the state to take an interest in protecting LBGT individuals from unjust discrimination for holding, for instance, that peoples sexual self-identification or lifestyle, along with their race, color, religion and so on, is not grounds for refusing to serve them a meal at a restaurant, or for denying them other services at public accommodations.

Among other things, this would mean that a store that sells T-shirts cannot (and I would add should not) refuse to sell T-shirts to anyone because of their race or ethnicity, religion, sex, gender identification or lifestyle. A racist cannot refuse to sell to people of color, an atheist or a gay activist cannot refuse to sell to conservative Christians, and a Christian cannot refuse to sell to sell to atheists or gays.

By the same token, a T-shirt printer who printed a particular design or message for one customer should be willing to print the same design or message for a customer whose lifestyle he disapproves of.

In the case reported by the Becket Fund, though, another principle comes into play: free speech.

The Hands On Originals case highlights that not every kind of service in the public square is equivalent to buying a meal at a restaurant. Some types of services involve a form of artistic expression or speech that is protected under the First Amendment and these protections protect us all.

Free speech means a pro-choice graphic designer or commercial artist cannot be forced to print pro-life materials, nor can a pro-life graphic designer or commercial artist be forced to print pro-choice materials. A gay Web developer cannot be forced to create a website for a conservative Christian group, nor can a Christian Web developer be forced to create a website for a gay group.

This is a principle well understood and appreciated by the LGBT business owners cited in the Becket Fund press release, who supported Hands On Originals right to refuse to print pro-gay materials. All sides and all parties to this discussion should recognize the wisdom of Thomas Mores line in A Man For All Seasons about giving even the Devil benefit of law for my own safetys sake. (N.b. Like More, Im merely illustrating a principle, not comparing anyone to the Devil!)

Because photography is patently a form of artistic expression, Im troubled that the courts not so far found that a wedding photographer, or any other wedding industry professional other than clergy,has the right to decline to provide services for a same-sex wedding. Could this be because such cases have generally been predicated on religious freedom rather than free speech? I dont know, but I wonder.

I believe the principle that speech should be neither repressed nor compelled is so important that I would even defend the right of a white supremacist photographer not to photograph an interracial wedding. His views are despicable so despicable that I would want nothing to do with patronizing such a photographer, whether or not he had a problem with me but photography is speech, and speech should not be compelled.

The same considerations seem to me to apply to cake decorators, at least where the cake involves any kind of messaging, even figures of two grooms or two brides on the top. Im not talking about refusing to sell a cake to an LGBT person or couple, but to decorating the cake with a specific message.

I dont believe this principle should be controversial, although it is. In 2015 no less patently liberal and pro-LGBT a celebrity than Patrick Stewart offered a thoughtful defense for a baker who was sued for declining to put pro-gay messaging on a cake. The backlash was intense, obliging Stewart to clarify his remarks though he didnt back down on his opinion.

This line of thought would not, however, exempt caterers from catering the reception for a same-sex wedding. That would fall into the same sphere as a restaurant selling someone a meal, and would be regulated by applicable antidiscrimination laws.

Its no secret that free speech itself is under attack in many quarters of American life, notably in academia. The Hands On Originals case seems to me an important affirmation of a foundational principle that protects us all and is worth defending.

Originally posted here:
Gay Rights and the OTHER First Amendment Right - National Catholic Register (blog)

May 12

The May 11 editorial How to respond to nooses on campus urged university administrators to make crystal clear that racist signs, symbols and speech are off-limits.

But banning racist speech at a public university violates the First Amendment. When George Mason University attempted to do that in 1991, a judge ruled against it, declaring,The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance. Even at a private university, banning all racist speech may violate contractual academic-freedom guarantees or free-speech provisions in college handbooks. Speech that campus progressives and college officials view as racist may be viewed as sensible and non-racist by moderates or conservatives. That is especially true on topics such as immigration and affirmative action, which are sometimes viewed as racially charged. These topics need to be discussed on campus, even if that offends some people.

Hans Bader, Arlington

Link:
The First Amendment still counts on college campuses - Washington Post

There has been plenty of recent analysis devoted to today's age of rage on campus. Much of it focuses on the left's reaction to Trump-style populism. But I have been writing about the ways, means and ends of this dangerous phenomenon for much of the past decade. Herewith are five takeaways for your consideration.

1. Progressives delegitimize rather than oppose dissenting views

Adults understand the mere rendering of political opinion (whether right or left) does not constitute a personal threat or present a dangerous environment to the listener. This is common sense stuff, but unacceptable to those who are in the business of degrading opposing views. These folks magnify the meaning of "harassment" or "threat" by claiming that even socially acceptable opposing opinions create such a hostile environment that they feel physically threatened and in need of refuge (i.e. a safe zone). Here, opinions at odds with progressive doctrine are molded into hostile acts. Accordingly, "I watch Fox" or "I oppose racial quotas" or "I believe in traditional marriage" or "I oppose women in combat" are deemed qualifying aggressive actions. The accompanying loss of intellectual curiosity and intellectual engagement is not seen as problematic for campus practitioners and their faculty enablers. This magnification process has led to many ludicrous yet widely reported cases of harassment on campus.

2. The most severe strain of this theology legitimizes violence as an acceptable response

You may have seen interviews with defenders of campus violence over the past year. Their intellectual argument (such as it is) follows a familiar path: because the words employed by the offender are deemed threatening to the recipient he/she has no choice but to lash out at the offender. The irony of college students screaming "Nazi!" or "fascist!" while demonstrating in violent (often criminal) ways seems lost on the afflicted. Note that even the Berkeley police department buys into this fiction. These supposed keepers of the peace are instructed to intervene in campus protests only when the threat of imminent physical harm is at issue; mere property damage rampages do not qualify. In other words, good luck to you and your nice new car on the Berkeley campus.

3. Few progressives see their provocative actions as antithetical to traditions of free speech

I often ask my '60s-generation friends to compare their social activism with today's campus contrarians. Most are unimpressed with the current crowd. No surprise here. The great cultural movements of that era (women's, civil rights, anti-war) were all about dissent and protest sometimes crossing the line into civil disobedience. Indeed, it was during this time that Berkeley became the "home" of the free speech movement. Fifty years later, it has become home to lawlessness and illiberal demands for the silencing of alternative opinion. What could be more damaging to speech than uninviting conservative speakers to campus or shouting them down once they get there?

4. Post-grad snowflakes are in a world of hurt

There is not much data devoted to what occurs when progressive millennials graduate from their isolation zones and are forced to deal with post-graduation reality. And I don't mean graduate school. I'm talking about the real world the one where you either sink or swim in the private marketplace where missing work, in order to demonstrate against some real or perceived social injustice, is decidedly not cool.

Some difficult questions come to mind: Do sit-ins follow the realization that there are no safe zones in the graduate's new workplace? To whom do you send the endless list of micro-aggressions perpetrated on you by your insensitive, mean boss? How to deal with one's "feelings" after suffering the slings and arrows of a poor job review? Where do underperforming employees go to feel better about themselves?

Of course, the lefty administrators and professors who have executed this P.C. hoax on impressionable young minds have no such problems. They did their job just punched the clock and turned out a whole new generation of victims and social justice warriors. But millennials should not expect them to engage in private sector protests as they tend to stay safely ensconced in their tenure-protected ivory towers. Just doesn't seem fair

5. What to do?

Numerous conservative pundits have urged the new administration to withhold federal funds from schools that serially fail to protect First Amendment rights. (The feds already have the power to withhold dollars from institutions that violate anti-discrimination laws.) We can only hope Mr. Trump will wield his big stick in support of speech.

A tough-minded response is required because our unfortunate cultural experiment in too many participation trophies (and far too little parental guidance) has backfired. The resulting generation of overprotected and self-absorbed adolescents is ill-prepared for life's myriad challenges and disappointments. Many of these same students "feel the Bern" because life is so unfair and because "Democratic socialism" sounds so cool. Lost in the process has been learning, social engagement, critical thinking, and personal growth at $50,000 a year to boot.

Ironically, the same institutions of higher learning that have presided over this silliness will soon be hitting you, parents and alumni, up for your annual giving contribution. A portion of this money will be used to pay the salaries of arrogant elitists who preach illiberal, hateful lessons aboutyou. Here's a thought: Maybe you should see that annual giving solicitation as your very own micro-aggression, and just say "no."

Gov. Robert Ehrlich is a Washington Examiner columnist, partner at King & Spalding and author of three books, including the recently released Turning Point.He was governor of Maryland from 2003 - 2007.

Read the original post:
How to restore the First Amendment on campus - Washington Examiner

Raleigh, N.C. Family, friends, colleagues and state government officials on Friday remembered Mark Binker as a man who excelled in both his personal and professional lives.

There was hardly a dry eye in the A.J. Fletcher Opera Theater as Binker's 13-year-old son, Mason, began his remarks.

"My father is not in a better place," Mason Binker said. "He would not have cared if he were going to heaven. He would have stayed here with us."

Hundreds of people gathered to hear from those who lived and worked with Mark Binker, a former WRAL multimedia investigative reporter who died suddenly last month at the age of 43. The common theme was that his work, his voice and his presence will be missed.

Slideshows during the memorial service chronicled his life of 43 years, most of them showing him in the role he treasured even above reporting, as husband to Marla and family man, father of Mason and Max.

See the rest here:
Binker's passions remembered: Family, first amendment - WRAL.com

by Maggie Dolan

Question: When is a Congressmans Town Hall not really a Town Hall?

Answer: When it is held in the auditorium of a house of worship on private property.

Freedom Caucus Member Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA-7) hosted his second Town Hall of 2017 on May 9, 2017 at the Clover Hill Assembly of God in Chesterfield County, Virginia, the home church of his co-host for the event, state Senator Amanda Chase. Well known to the national and international media for his January 2017 remarks, the WOMEN are in my grillto hold a Town Hall, Brats only previous Town Hall in 2017 was held in a tiny restaurant in Blackstone, VA, a remote rural area of his district at which signs and posters were forbidden and questions had to be submitted on note cards, provided at the event, to a moderator who then selected which ones Brat would be asked. Brat followed up with two pop up town hall meetings: one at a small tire shop and the other at another small restaurant- pop up because he only gave 24 hours notice of the events and held them on weekdays in the middle of the week at times when most of his constituents would be at work.

Following the Blackstone event, the Virginia ACLU notified Brat in writing that forbidding signs and posters at his Town Hall events was a violation of his constituents Constitutional rights to free speech.

Immediately following the House of Representatives narrow passage of the AHCA bill on May 4, 2017, Brat announced by email that a Town Hall for his district which would be held during the ten-day House recess. The email laid out the rules:

1.) admission would be by ticket only. A limited number of free tickets would be available online. No person without a ticket would be permitted inside the Town Hall. The Town Hall would start at 7 PM with ticket holders admitted beginning at 6:30 PM. A wait list was available for those unable to confirm a ticket. Wait list individuals would be admitted at 6:55 PM if space was available.

2.) In order to facilitate a meeting where everyone can have an unobstructed view, and where we do not leave litter behind in the facility; no signs, placards, banners, or flyers will be permitted in the meeting. No information was given as to the total number of tickets available, the number allocated in advance to Brat supporters, or the number allocated to Sen. Chase and her supporters.

Tickets were seized quickly once announced. Those trying to obtain one after 30 minutes, were told the event was sold out and they could sign up for the wait list. On the afternoon of the event, however, a second Brat email went out which said, All tickets available for the event are accounted for at this time. We do not anticipate granting entrance to anyone who is not holding a ticket that is in their name (we will be checking photo ID at the door). And because it is private property andon-site parking is limited, no one will be admitted to the parking lot without a ticket. The Virginia ACLU was notified and promptly sent another letter to Brat sternly reminding him that prohibiting signs, posters and banners at his public Town Hall event would be considered a First Amendment violation.

With two public schools available across the street and dozens more in his district, the decision to hold the event in a private property church was a strategic one on Brats part.

It allowed him to skirt the Virginia ACLUs earlier warnings about free speech infringement. As private property owners, the church leadership would be free to set the rules regarding admission, denying admission and presence of signs, banners, flyers and posters on their property. Additionally, the church owners could, and did, have armed Chesterfield County police posted at the driveway entrance checking for tickets, at the church doors, and inside the church turning aside anyone with a sign, poster or banner, forcing them to go to a sidewalk across the country road.

Ticket holders lined up at the church doors beginning at 5:45 PM and were individually checked to make sure their photo ID exactly matched the name on the ticket. No wait-listed individuals were admitted at 6:55PM. Instead these individuals were denied entrance and ordered to exit church grounds. The church doors were then closed and guarded by armed Chesterfield County police. Inside the church, estimates of the crowd were 400-500 people, but livestreaming video showed rows and rows of empty seats even 20 minutes after the meeting had begun.

Hearing of the empty seats from their friends inside, some people from across the road approached the church doors asking to be admitted since seating was available. Police officers politely but firmly said no and escorted them back across the road.

Reporters from most local, national and international media covered the event. These journalists, whose first mission is to investigate and inform the public, duly noted the crowd size and tone. Click bait adjectives rowdy, raucous, unruly, booing, jeering, interrupting were widely used, Although the press is currently under attack by this administration and a journalist in West Virginia was arrested that same afternoon for asking a question of HHS Tom Price, the First Amendment, did not seem to be on any of the reporters radar.

No one from the media commented on the implications of holding a meeting as a civic voice for constituents in a house of worship, Christian worship at that, given that other venues were readily available.

The crowd of people across the street, numbering over 100 individuals, staged a Die In. One outraged would-be-participant made a video of the group of people gathered there, expressing their frustrations and clearly stating the First Amendment violations that were being perpetuated by Brat and Chase and being ignored by the media.

7th District Concerned Citizens Video

Wait-Listed Constituents Stage Die In

When the Town Hall began with a Christian prayer offered by the church pastor, members of the audience held up red pieces of paper to show their disapproval of this. Throughout the 90- minute meeting, which dealt primarily with attendees objections to the recently passed healthcare bill, Sen. Chase repeatedly scolded the crowd for their boisterousness, at one point standing up and shouting, This is MY Town Hall nowso sit down. and threatened to remove noisy people from the building. She ordered the armed police officers to the center aisle to implement this. The police didnt remove anyone. Brat reminded the crowd, as he does multiple times in every meeting, that he is an economist and that he went to seminary. (Brats economic theory is based on his Calvinist beliefs.) He returned to his favorite themes of the Judeo-Christian foundations of our country and health care as a predictable free market commodity. When a questioner said that health care is a human right, Brat countered the question with, .I dont think yall want the separation of church and state () In the west rights come from God. In a press interview immediately following the event, Brat was asked how excited he was about the bill, he replied, Im a Calvinist, he said. Im the frozen chosen. Im an economist. So, its likeexcitement? Whatever. He also added, I dont think people get that excited on policy in general,

Chase added that it is the responsibility of the church, not the government to protect the poor, needy and vulnerable. If a person needs help they should join a church.

Historically, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (both of whom Brat quotes frequently when it suits his purpose) disagreed on several issues in their writings, but on one thing they were both clear: separation of church from government is essential and must be preserved. Madison wrote:

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.

They were so committed to this belief that they enshrined it as the First Amendment to the newly-written Constitution of the fledgling nation. All other rights which they listed in the following nine Amendments known as the Bill of Rights, come secondary to these First Amendment rights.

Choosing a church as venue for the Town Hall was a calculated move by Dave Brat to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of those who wished to attend.

It was the critical first decision from which all other decisions for the event could legally follow, like toppling dominos. Because of that first choice by Brat, the subsequent decisions by the church leaders could not be disputed. Hence, as private property owners, the church leaders were within their rights to restrict attendance and deny wait-listed individuals from entry to a public Town Hall event. They were also within their rights to prohibit signs, banners, flyers and posters on their property and require that the audience submit questions on note cards instead of verbally to Brat.

Why would a Congressman host a Town Hall meeting in a church when multiple other public venues were available? Was his intention really to listen to his constituents concerns as their elected representative and to respond to them? What happened that night, and in the emails from Brats office leading up to it, was a clear and intentional assault upon the principle of separation of church and state on which our country is founded and the accompanying First Amendment rights to Free Speech and Free Assembly.

Dave Brat imposed his personal Christian beliefs on his constituents and allowed that belief system to control and exclude them, hoping no one would notice or call him on it.

In the current administration, we have become increasingly dependent on a free press to provide accurate information and analysis of a rapidly changing and fearfully-confusing time for our nation. Its not uncommon for politicians to give talks to church congregations. In some Congressional districts, Town Halls are held in churches because the church is the largest space for public gathering, but thats not the case in Brats district and certainly not in Chesterfield County. The fact then that no one in the media recognized this as a violation and sounded an alarm is especially worrisome. Perhaps if the co-host had been a non-Christian and had held the event in a non-Christian house of worship and had begun it with a non-Christian prayer, the flagrant violation would have been more apparent and noted.

Brat has greased a slippery slope. His deliberate decision to use a house of worship instead of a nondenominational venue for a civic event is not an inconsequential occurrence but rather a skillful ploy to manage his constituents into a situation that is less threatening to himself, but very threatening to their constitutional rights. It is an act of insidious guerrilla warfare on our most important constitutional rights. Failure to respond to his actions with strenuous public and media objections will normalize this abnormal, unacceptable and unconstitutional action and set precedent for further encroachment. If we dont seize this opportunity to make our voices heard loudly, clearly and to multiple audiences, this experience will not be the last time Dave Brat or other elected officials employ this method to control and exclude their constituents

Read more:
Dave Brat's Horrible, Terrible, No Good Problem with the First Amendment - Blue Virginia (press release) (blog)

Today the ACLU of Idaho will be participating in a court argument that is crucial for the future of corporate whistleblowers rights and their ability to photograph wrongdoing. The argument, before the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Seattle, is to consider the constitutionality of a so-called Ag-Gag law enacted in 2014 by the state of Idaho.

The other day I spoke with ACLU of Idaho Legal Director Richard Eppink, and he explained whats at stake:

A number of states have passed these Ag Gag laws. Idahos version makes it a crime to use a misrepresentation to gain access to, or employment at, an agricultural production facilityplaces like factory farms and slaugterhouses, but also encompassing a bunch of other places by the way they define this. Its aimed primarily at journalists and undercover investigators.

Idahos Ag Gag statute also makes it a crime to take video or audio recordings in these places without the owners permission. So, workers who want to document unsafe working conditions, investigators who want to document animal cruelty, people who are just visiting a farm and want to document what they seeanything like that would be punishable in Idaho by up to a year in jail. And youd have to pay twice the "damages" that were caused to the agricultural production facility as a result of your recording. This is specifically targeted at organizations like Mercy for Animals and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, which have exposed animal cruelty and put it on the Internet.

Eppink told me that the ACLU of Idaho lobbied against this law when it was in the legislature in 2014. They were joined by a wide spectrum of allies, including animal rights and welfare organizations, labor unions, and reporters groups. Also opposing the law were immigrant rights groups; in Idaho, as in most places, a lot of the agricultural work is done by immigrants, many of them undocumented, who are exposed to some of the most dangerous working conditions. This law would prevent them from being able document those conditions.

Nevertheless, the Idaho legislature passed, and the governor signed, the law. Aftewards, Eppink told me,

the Animal Legal Defense Fund contacted us to see if wed be interested in joining them in a lawsuit, which we decided to do. Its a facial challenge to the law both on First Amendment speech grounds and equal protection grounds, and has a diverse group of plaintiffs from the same groups that lobbied against the bill.

We won the first round when the federal district court struck the law down on both speech and equal protection grounds. The state appealed to the 9th Circuit, and now were defending that victory on appeal. Justin Marceau, a Denver law professor who works with the Animal Legal Defense Fund, will be arguing in Seattle on Friday and I will be there with him.

I asked Eppink: what about the argument that. while Americans have a First Amendment right to take photographs of things in plain view in public spaces, its also true that (as we describe in our Know Your Rights guide for photographers) private property owners have the right to set rules about the taking of photos and videos on their property? His response:

Certainly all of us have a right to control what happens on our private property. But remember that were not talking about the privacy of the home herewere talking about a heavily regulated industry that affects all of us: food production. And most of us dont have the state government coming in and jailing people and making them pay twice the business loss caused by bad publicity from release of a video of behaviors the public finds abhorrent. In the past weve always left damage settlements to private disputes between individuals. Certainly I can call the police if somebody is trespassing, but its another thing entirely to add criminal penalties when property owners say Not only were they trespassing, officer, but they took a video that I dont like!

Overall this argument is significant for us all because it has implications that go far beyond agriculture. As Eppink put it:

This law strikes at the core assumption that I think many of us had up to this point, which is that undercover journalistspeople like Upton Sinclair who wrote The Junglehave been serving an important role in exposing to the public whats happening in their food production systems and other industries that we enjoy the benefits of.

And all of us working against this law understand that agriculture is being used as the test case for this type of law, and that if it succeeds in withstanding constitutional challenge, and the courts say yes you can criminally punish anyone for taking video, then well almost certainly see this law spread to other industries like mining and even banking.

In other words, the risk is that well set up a society where businesses and corporations can have cameras on us everywhere we go, but we cant document whats happening in these places. It will be the property owners who by and large have the power of the camera to present their side of the story using video without the rest of us being able to present ours.

The 9th Circuit is expected to hand down its ruling later this year.

More here:
Federal Appeals Court Hears Crucial Case on First Amendment and Photography - ACLU (blog)