Category Archives: First Amendment

WEST PALM BEACH Soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Florida Legislature debated a bill that would exempt from public access all information about crop-dusting operations.

But most operators are actively broadcasting that information in search of clients. And their registration numbers are painted right on their planes' tails.

"How do you exempt something that is clearly visible?" Barbara Petersen asks. The bill never became law.

Because of Florida's Government in the Sunshine Law, the state's records and meetings are more accessible than in most states. But the Legislature has, year in and year out, instituted, or considered instituting, numerous exemptions. The body, on average, imposes up to a dozen a year; the grand total, as of early February, was 1,119.

Keeping an eye on those efforts is Petersen, president of Florida's First Amendment Foundation, a Tallahassee nonprofit open-government advocacy group. It's supported by newspapers and broadcasters as well as numerous lawyers and just plain citizens. Its mission is to help all of the above. Whether it's a powerful news outlet or a property owner wanting to see the paperwork for the road that was rerouted in front of his house.

Bills already proposed for this session would let elected officials talk in private and block information about college executive candidates.

Where does your legislator stand?

Starting with the 2017 legislative session, which begins Tuesday, the Florida Society of News Editors plans to make it easier to find out.

Each year FSNE completes a project devoted to Sunshine Week, a nationwide initiative to educate the public about the importance of transparent government. This year's project will focus on a "scorecard" to track the foundation's priority list of public records exemptions. FSNE members will create a permanent scoring system to grade legislators on their introduction of bills and their final votes.

The Palm Beach Post, as part of an annual project by the Florida Society of News Editors, will report on a legislative "scorecard." Legislators will be graded by the Foundation for how they voted for and, in some cases, introduced exemptions.

Reporters from Florida newspapers will establish a final scorecard when the session ends and interview lawmakers about their decisions related to public record exemptions.

Florida's Legislature established public records laws as early as the early 20th century, created the Government in the Sunshine Law in the late 1960s, and in 1992 established a "constitutional right of access."

In each legislative session, hundreds of bills are submitted to create exemptions. Some years, a lot pass. Some years a few pass. Petersen recalled a year where about 20 were voted in.

"The vast majority of the bills we track are justified, and we take a neutral position on them, or we work to make them such that we're neutral," Petersen said.

And, she told one politician in a letter, "We agree that the requirements of our famed Sunshine Law can be an inconvenience for government officials at times. But the right of Floridians to oversee their government and hold it accountable for its actions a right imbedded in our constitution far outweighs such minor annoyances."

She also said that the Sunshine Law "is not a partisan issue. That's a misperception. Everyone thinks Republicans hate the law and Democrats love the law. That's not true. We have friends and detractors on both sides of the aisle."

Petersen keeps busy writing sponsors of bills the foundation opposes.

She wrote state Rep. Bob Rommel, R-Naples, to oppose HB 351, which would exempt personal identifying information of applicants for president, provost, or dean of a state college and would close meetings related to executive searches.

And she wrote state Rep. Byron Donalds, also R-Naples, about HB 843, which, in an elected body of at least five members, would allow two of them to discuss public business in private "without procedural safeguards such as notice or a requirement that minutes of such discussions be taken." She said the bill "invites pernicious mischief by our elected officials."

Sometimes Petersen and other public records advocates win. Sometimes they don't.

In 1981, 6-year-old Adam Walsh was abducted from a Broward County mall and killed. The slaying was a watershed for how authorities respond to child abductions and made the boy's father, John, a crime fighting advocate and longtime television host.

In 1996, four newspapers sued under the state's open records laws. Their argument: Police in Hollywood couldn't reasonably claim the exemption that the case still was active after 15 years. Even as the Walshes and the Broward County State Attorney filed emergency motions to block the release, saying it would jeopardize the case, a judge agreed with the newspapers and the police released more than 10,000 pages of documents. They suggested drifter Ottis Toole killed the boy, but Hollywood police were unable to build a strong enough case to charge him.

Even today, the case remains officially unsolved, although an investigator working with the boy's parents made a powerful case in 2011 of what the newspapers said in 1996: Toole was the killer.

And in February 2001, auto racing legend Dale Earnhardt Sr. died when his car slammed into a wall on the last lap of the Daytona 500. Authorities later blocked news outlets' access to autopsy photos, which were public record, and the outlets were permitted only to have an expert review the photos. They used that analysis to raise questions about how racing's governing body, NASCAR, handled Earnhardt's death.

During the legal battle, the Legislature passed a law exempting autopsy photos, saying they feared ghoulish images would make their way to the Internet. Newspapers argued they never do that and not giving them the photos removed their ability to question autopsy results. The ban has survived legal challenges.

Not everyone sees the Sunshine Law as untouchable or as always a good thing.

In 2015, Gulf Stream, east of Boynton Beach, was swamped by hundreds of public records requested from a resident who then sued when the town of about 900, with a paid office staff of six, was unable to keep up. In 2016, legislation fizzled that would have removed the requirement that government agencies pay attorney fees if they lose a public records suit. Opponents said while the intent to save small entities such as Gulf Stream was admirable, such bills would have a chilling effect on people afraid that if they sought public records and lost in court, they'd be stuck with a huge legal bill.

Similar legislation is up again this year, and again the foundation opposes it. But not Keith Rizzardi.

"In normal circumstances, the Sunshine State's public records law is a model for ensuring the disclosure of information to the benefit of an informed citizenry," Rizzardi, a law professor at St. Thomas University School of Law in Miami, wrote for the law review of the Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport.

"Experience shows that the abnormal is occurring. Lacking sufficient boundaries to prevent misuses of the law, the efficiency of our bureaucracy is compromised, and taxpayers are the victims," said Rizzardi, who worked with Gulf Stream on its case.

The professor also cited a case in Polk County in which a requester "sought to obtain the health insurance information for Polk County school employees, spouses, and children. To many, the request appeared to be a shocking invasion of privacy, but under the Florida Constitution, the right to privacy is subordinate to the right of access to public records. Indeed, the broad request, and the resulting litigation, eventually expanded to include 11 Florida school boards, and the government was compelled to respond."

First Amendment Foundation will grade legislators on Florida's open government laws 03/06/17 [Last modified: Monday, March 6, 2017 11:13am] Photo reprints | Article reprints

Link:
First Amendment Foundation will grade legislators on Florida's open government laws - Tampabay.com (blog)

Bradenton Herald

First Amendment applies to Trump, too Bradenton Herald After reading Mr. James Frazier's Feb. 28 letter to the editor Trump's scorn of media disturbing, I have a question: Is the letter rhetoric or is he saying everyone is protected by the First Amendment except the president of the United States ...

Read the rest here:
First Amendment applies to Trump, too - Bradenton Herald

Saddleback College President, Tod Burnett, introducing the Associated Student Government and other affiliates to the stage for the #UseYourOwnVoice event in the quad. (Colin Reef/Lariat)

Saddleback College presents part one of a four part series called Understanding the First Amendment in the 21st Century or #UseYourOwnVoice yesterday Feb. 28, 2017 in the quad.

The main purpose of this event was to inform and educate students and faculty on how the application of the first amendment has changed since the onset of technology and social media. With the help of Associated Student Government, the Pre-Law Society, Academic Senate, Classified Senate, and Dr. Tod Burnett, Saddleback College president, a panel of students were given the chance to express any concerns, feelings, and questions they had to a panel of Saddleback College professors.

The panel of Saddleback College professors included political science professors Kendralyn Webber and Christina Hinkle, mathematics professor Frank Gonzalez, and Journalism professor Mike Reed.

A Panel of Saddleback College students and professors take the stage to discuss applications of the first amendment in the digital age of technology. (Colin Reef/Lariat)

In order to understand the first amendment, said Mike Reed, we must first analyze the nine areas of unprotected speech that most people either forget or fail to realize exist.

The student panel prepare to ask questions in regards to first amendment application in the digital age. (Colin Reef/Lariat)

The digital age has given rise to many pressing questions when correlating them to first amendment freedoms. One main reason for this is the Supreme Court and its establishment in relation to freedoms of press and speech were created nearly 50 years ago.

They were created way before the implementation or creation for that matter, of the Internet, World Wide Web, and smartphones. The emergence of Google and other tech giants like Apple as well as social media platforms has propelled us into a new age of communication. This makes it hard for the present generation to establish grounds for proper first amendment rights seeing as many need revaluation or a complete overhaul.

The role of the Supreme Court (which some regard as too slow) still works because it gives authority, the right to fundamentally break down protected speech and reflect on all of the consequences, said Christina Hinkle, Its important for us to utilize the tools we have been given (Internet) to further educate people on these proceedings and make proper provisions.

For many people the Internet has made it harder for interpersonal communication to take place. This is due in part because of the lack of education on the first amendment. Nowadays, many people assume news is genuine just from a glance or a gloss-over. These immediate reactions have made it possible for people to actually widen the gap and increase a polarization of opinions.

Interpersonal relationships have become media popcorn for some people, said Kendralyn Webber, Its almost as if its not about you know but what you google.

In too many ways this has become the normal way of projecting facts, opinions, and information. Although we may be in a confusing place as far as communication goes, having events in the community like #UseYourOwnVoice on college campuses helps to bridge the unknown and further educate people on our unalienable rights.

For more information, visit Saddleback Colleges upcoming events and learn more about the #UseYourOwnVoice series.

Link:
The first amendment in a digital age #UseYourOwnVoice - Lariat Saddleback College

SAM LUKES 12:01 a.m. PT March 5, 2017

The First Amendment, contained within the Bill of Rights, was initiated on Dec. 15, 1791 and states: 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.

For far too long now, these noble tenets have steadily undergone a massive, full scale assault by insolent judges/lawmakers who insist upon delegating their own preconceived, egregious opinions and indecorous ideologies which they unashamedly dictate from the bench.

Contrary to popular opinion, the Founding Fathers of our Judeo-Christian influenced republic, never intended a separation of church and state. They simply wanted to make sure that government would not compel or infringe upon its citizenry to adhere to a federally imposed, national religion. Hence, believers in God could choose to follow their religious beliefs without being forced to submit to biased governmental regulations. Atheists, agnostics, etc., are granted freedom to decide otherwise.

George Washington transcribed in his Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation: Use no Reproachful Language against any one neither Curse nor Revile. Remarkably, at the time, he was not yet 16 years old! Years later, as acting general of the Continental Army, on Aug. 3, 1776, he imposed a written order to his troops for them to refrain from using profanity.

Today, misguided attorneys and judges have soundly disregarded and rejected President Washingtons advice, deceitfully interpreting that the First Amendment protects all manner of profanity, including any number of vile idiosyncrasies, perverted sexual innuendos, and so forth.

The filthiest, most prurient books, songs, movies, plays, documentaries, television shows, internet sites, i.e., are all protected under the deceptive guise of freedom of speech. Jesus Christ condemns all such provocative behavior, labeling those misdirected individuals as poisonous snakes who bringeth forth evil things (Matthew 12:34-36). He warns that every idle word (which anyone speaks), if not repented of, will be brought into full judgmental account in HIS future courtroom. He further admonishes: For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned (Matthew 12:37).

Those rappers whose songs contain unbridled profanity and certain sexually charged wording in the lyrics, beware. Miscreants who advocate filthy, degenerative speech, whose conversations are laced with flippant cursing, have been deceived into believing that they have a right to disregard common decency and to irresponsibly throw all caution to the winds. To reiterate ... beware.

Society has regressed to such a mindless low that naked entertainers(?), who shamelessly perform in nightclubs/strip clubs, bars and like venues, are given a free pass for displaying their blatant nudity (shades of artful freedom of expression?). Whereas, astonishingly, a construction worker on a hot summer day, who can no longer wait in a long line to access a lone Porta Potty, can be arrested for indecent exposure when seen urinating behind a shed, tree or lumber pile!

In certain states, such offenders can be charged with lewd and lascivious behavior, and their names even added to a sex offender registry for relieving themselves. Give me a break! These judges would do well to realize that God Himself, became humanities permanent clothier, regardless of mans inane societal laws that grant immunity to wanton nude exposure (Genesis 3:21).

It is becoming alarmingly clear that we are witnessing a seemingly dishonest press/media, who, all too often, deliberately lie or decide to omit or misconstrue ones words or actions out of context. Such shameful conduct is hardly what freedom of the press was meant to represent. Likewise, those clueless mobs who destructively demonstrate, loot or engage in violent, angry protests and assaults, are not assembling peaceably under the true intent and meaning of the First Amendment.

One of the reasons America has gotten itself into such a spiteful, demeaning state of circumstances, is that it has foolishly allowed the American Civil Liberties Union to dictate to the courts, their atheistic, humanist agenda, directed against decent values which were once nobly instilled in traditional families, and likewise included in churches, schools, government, and even in the military. The ACLU (Arrogantly Championing Lucifer's Underground) MY personal acronym has haughtily, godlessly, erroneously determined: The First Amendment is based upon the belief that in a free and democratic society, individual adults must be free to decide for themselves what to read, write, paint, draw, see and hear.

Compare this insipid, flawed ideology with Proverbs 14:12: There is a way which seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death (eternally). That is precisely why Jesus instructed his true followers to live their lives in accordance to Gods Living Word (Matthew 4:4), and the reason why the Apostle Paul refers to the worldly proud who profess to be wise, as becoming mere fools (Romans 1:22).

Seemingly, worldwide events are rapidly beginning to occur which reveal our present generation might very well be the one wherein the minute hand of the noted doomsday clock, is inching closer and closer to the midnight hour with each notorious, infamous tick. Unfortunately, prophetic perilous times await (2 Timothy 3:1-5) as the entire globe may be witnessing, with careless disregard and abandon, the infant stages of reaping what they have brazenly sown towards their Creator.

Sam Lukes is a resident of Visalia

Read or Share this story: http://vtd-tar.co/2ls2Npf

Original post:
ACLU, courts' ungodly interpretation of First Amendment - Visalia Times-Delta

There is the smell of freshly brewing coffee in the air. The sun is just starting to come up. It is Sunday morning! Thump! Yes, Yes!

That is the sound I was waiting to hear! The Union-Bulletin newspaper being delivered to my front door.

Coffee cup in hand I go retrieve the paper from my front porch. I flip through the sections to my favorite part of the paper, the Perspective section.

First I read the editorial, then I look at the political cartoons, followed by Our Readers Opinions and individual columnists. During the reading and digesting of the material I go from agreeing to disagreeing, happy to sad, to disbelief and mad.

In my Sunday morning pursuit of knowledge I have sharpened my skills as a citizen of our wonderful country.

I would like to praise the Union-Bulletin for upholding the United States Constitutions First Amendment! You folks in the press are the light that burns away the darkness so the truth is illuminated by your piercing rays!

Please keep asking the tough questions and follow them up! Just a note to say I appreciate you and our country needs you now more than ever!

Read the original post:
U-B upholding the First Amendment | Letters To Editor | union ... - Walla Walla Union-Bulletin

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, and ensures that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, no abridging the freedom of speech, no infringing on the freedom of the press, no interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, and no prohibition against the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

I am becoming more and more alarmed at the present administrations attack on our sacred First Amendment rights. I preface this letter with this amendment because I feel few Americans know or even care about the words contained within it.

During the most recent presidential campaign, and most glaringly in the first month of this administration, a constant demonizing of the press and the inference that the press cannot be trusted are becoming more unnerving every day. Recently, White House press secretary Sean Spicer spun his press conference restriction of not inviting four high-profile news outlets, stating that the room was "just too small." President Trump revealed in a tweet not one hour later that the press restriction was due to Trumps personal belief that these outlets reports fake news or are failing.

Clearly, Trump is seeking to control the press corps, limiting it to those he believes will write the news he wants written. No other president in modern history has attempted to squash the press like this.

Republican Sen. John McCain said in a recent interview with Chuck Todd of Meet the Press, "I hate the press. I hate you especially. But the fact is we need you. We need a free press. We must have it. It's vital." The Arizona senator, who was just re-elected to another six-year term, added that in order to preserve democracy, a free and many times adversarial press is essential. Thats how dictators get started, he continued. They get started by suppressing a free press; in other words, a consolidation of power. When you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press.

This constant attack on the press is the first step at the chipping away of our First Amendment and our democracy. We live in a 24/7 social media culture. It is our responsibility to weigh carefully what is said and videotaped and then held up against the untruths that seem to follow. We cannot become indifferent or complacent when a threat such as this occurs.

Kathleen Afflerbach

Quakertown

Read the rest here:
Constant attacks on press chip away at 1st Amendment - The Intelligencer

The Constitution prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. It is also forbidden to enact laws that would impede the free exercise of ones faith tradition. As with most things in the nations guiding decree, the simplicity of the words can belie the complexity of the meaning, especially when citizens periodically ask: What does that mean?

How far should religious freedom go? Can it be allowed to encroach into the murky waters ofdiscrimination, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia or any other form of intolerance?

What about claims of conscience? Should a religiously affiliated institution be mandated to provide coverage for contraception in their health insurance plans if it violates their conscience?

Here I would be inclined to side with the religious liberty argument, assuming the institution is indeed religiously affiliated. But just saying one is religiously affiliated does not suffice.

Acme House of Doughnuts is not a religiously affiliated institution because its proprietor, Wile E. Coyote, self-identifies as Christian. Such institutions are not the equivalent of, say, Catholic Charities.

It has been reported that President Donald Trump is considering an executive order to bar the federal government from punishing people or institutions that support marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman.

On the surface, it appears the presidents actions would potentially place the First Amendments religious freedom clause in tension with the 14thAmendments equal protection clause a constitutional conundrum. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has similar legislation in Congress called the First Amendment Defense Act.

Regardless of how ones feels about Lees bill, its hard not to love the name. Who would be against protecting the First Amendment? But that is not what the legislation, or the presidents executive order, would accomplish. It would instead extend powers to the First Amendment at the expense of the 14thAmendment.

From Sept. 17, 1787, when the Constitution was created, to August 1920, when the 19thAmendment guaranteeing women the right to vote was ratified, the ethos of America stood in tension with itself.

A nation conceived on the propositions of liberty and equality for all in theory had truncated that definition to white male landowners in practice. It used the initial draft of the Constitution to legitimize the institution of slavery and deprived the franchise to vote for roughly half the population.

The First Amendment Defense Act, along with the presidents executive order, seeks to resurrect dark chapters from the nations past.

When has it worked out for America when it passed legislation based on othering a group of people? When has the freedom of some been dependent on the subjugation of others?

Since constitutionally protected same-gender marriage hurts no one, the only way to make a plausible argument for the First Amendment Defense Act is to transform the victimizer into the victim.

The freedom of religion within the confines of ones chosen community does not grant immunity when one engages in the public square. Freedom to worship does not mean that my constitutional rights are violated if Im not allowed to exercise those beliefs wherever I go, especially if those doctrines infringe on the liberty of others.

That seems to be the nebulous line that should never be crossed. The First Amendment protects believers and nonbelievers alike. It acts as a safeguard so that no group possesses supremacy. Once the line of supremacy has been crossed so that one group enjoys additional space, the premise of the Constitution has been violated.

The tragic irony is that the misuse of the freedom of religion clause, in this case, is used to justify discrimination. On this basis alone, it is a profoundly un-American exercise.

But those in support of the First Amendment Defense Act have most likely placed more emphasis on individualistic biblical interpretation than constitutional understanding, which renders them unable or unwilling to see the humanity of those who are the objects of discrimination.

This so-called religious freedom is nothing more than an escape hatch to circumvent the Constitution, to act unencumbered on ones opposition to same-gender marriage.

This First Amendment Defense Act is not designed to address religious freedom but to justify the prejudices of Wile E. Coyote. It would allow him to mask his bigotry under the thin veneer of religious freedom with the assistance of the Congress and the president.

Byron Williams is a contributing columnist. Contact him at 510-208-6417 or byron@byronspeaks.com.

Read the original post:
Williams: Defense of First Amendment Act is discriminatory - East Bay Times

Speaking at the NAB's State Leadership Conference Tuesday, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) went after President Trump and his administration for their "unprecedented series" of attacks on the news media attacks thatculminated Feb. 17 with a tweetfrom the commander in chief calling "FAKE NEWS media" namely theNew York Times, NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN the "enemy of the American people."

"Turning reporters into enemies not just adversaries, but enemies is a strategy that strongmen use to silence critics and maintain power," Durbin said after cataloging the Trump assaults. "Their goal is to discredit the messenger. That way, when there is bad news, or news that contradicts the official line, people wont believe it.

Story continues after the ad

"Soon enough, people start to lose faith ... not just in the media, but in all of the institutions that hold a society together. They lose faith in the power of debate and elections to change anything. They become cynical and apathetic."

Well said.

The attacks have provoked a predictable public response from the targeted news media. Bring it on, they say. We are simply going to continue to do what we have always done, provide a check on the government by throwing as much light on its doings as we possibly can.

Rather than intimidate the media, the attacks have energized them and engendered waves of public support that can be clearly measured in "Trump bumps"to Nielsen ratings and paid subscriptions.

At the same time, the Trump thumps have provided an impetus for the news media to rally and redouble their collective efforts to preserve and perhaps expand their First Amendment rights. There is nothing like a hostile outside force in forging solidarity among the beleaguered.

On Jan. 17, representatives of more than 50 news organizations met at the Newseum in Washington to plota common strategy for strengthening news media. It was organized by the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and the American Society of News Editors and hosted by the Democracy Fund.

The journalists, lawyers and other media advocates discussed legal and legislative ways to insure access to government offices and information, protect whistle blowers from government retribution, protect themselves from frivolous libel suits and protect reporters from government harassment.

They also talked about the need to restore trust in the news media and floated ideas about how to do it.

I am happy to report that broadcasters were well represented at the "summit" by the Radio Television Digital News Association in the persons of Executive Director Mike Cavender and General Counsel Kathleen Kirby of the Wiley Rein law firm.

Cavender tells me to expect a full report from the organizers in the next week or two.

Whatever strategy emerges from the summit is just so much talk unless it wins the financial backing of newspapers, the national news networks and, yes, TV station groups. Legal defense funds, legislative initiatives and appeals to the public cost money.

It should go without saying that broadcasters need to support fully the RTDNA. In addition andCavender may hate me for saying this but broadcasters should also consider supporting other worthy organizations like Investigative Reporters and Editors.

I've been arguing that stations should eschew on-air commentary, especially on hot partisan issues, figuring that there is enough opinion out there and that it will only serve to undermine trust in stations' reporting. If a station's commentary is perceived as consistently liberal or conservative, its reporting may be dismissed as such.

However, I'm making an exception to that rule: the First Amendment. Stations should take to the air to defend freedom of speech and the press and argue for expansion of its rights and protections be that access to the dashcam video at the local police station or a federal shield law for whistle blowers.

A CBS affiliate should not allow the president to get away with saying that CBS News is "an enemy of the people." Ditto for NBC and ABC affiliates.

Stations must be careful not to preach or talk down to their viewers. That's how the national media alienated Trump voters. Stations need to listen to their viewers and win them over by convincing them that their interests are aligned, that press freedoms are ultimately their freedoms.

And it would be good to hear from the heads of the station groups, the ones who are always saying what swell jobs they do producing news and serving the public interest.

They can speak out in op-eds and in speeches before civic groups and at universities. They can direct the executives of the NAB and state broadcast associations to do the same.

I fully understand that the No. 1 job and responsibility of the station group executives is to make money, and so they have to be mindful of what they say. They have big issues pending before Congress and the FCC, notably ownership deregulation, the repack and ATSC 3.0. Criticizing the administration is not the way to get your way in Washington.

More here:
Rally Round The First Amendment - TV News Check

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Read more here:
In appeal, Lamar calls banner First Amendment right; Pittsburgh ... - Tribune-Review

I know the paper supplies the headline, but the headline of a Feb. 16 letter, First Amendment only applies to Americans, seems to be an adequate re-statement of the letters point. That point is wrong.

The First Amendment doesnt give anyone rights except as the result of the fact that it forbids the U.S. government from doing certain things; specifically, it provides in part that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Congress cant make such law whether it affects Americans or anyone else. It is a limitation on what we want our government to be able to do.

The Constitution was written at a time when European events had demonstrated clearly that getting governments involved in religion had horrible consequences the Thirty Years War, the Inquisition, the English Civil War, etc. Our Forefathers believed in freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and freedom of speech from government interference. So do I.

Of course the U.S. Constitution cant guarantee the right of a person in another country to believe as he or she chooses, but neither can our government establish one religion or another as the basis for granting or denying immigration or visits. We told it "No!" in the First Amendment.

Read this article:
Letter to the editor: 1st Amendment applies to govt - The Bakersfield Californian