Category Archives: First Amendment

Nevadas newly elected U.S. senator, Catherine Cortez Masto, has already taken up the cudgel against the First Amendment previously wielded by her predecessor, Harry Reid.

She put out a press release recently announcing that she has joined with other congressional Democrats to reintroduce a constitutional amendment that would overturn Supreme Court rulings that have held that it is a violation of the First Amendment to restrict the amount of money corporations, nonprofits, unions and other groups may spend on political campaigns and when they may spend it.

In its current incarnation it is being called the Democracy for All Amendment. In previous years it bore the unwieldy acronym DISCLOSE Act Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections. Reid frequently took to the floor of the Senate to pound the table for the amendment and disparage the Koch brothers political spending as the embodiment of evil.

The U.S. Constitution puts democratic power in the hands of the American people not corporations or private companies, the press release quotes Cortez Masto as saying. Since the Citizens United decision, big corporations have gained unprecedented influence over elections and our countrys political process. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation; its critical that we end unlimited corporate contributions if we are going to have a democratic process and government that will truly work for all Americans.

In the 2010 Citizens United decision, a 5-4 Supreme Court struck down the part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that prohibited organizations such as Citizens United, a political action committee, from expending funds for electioneering immediately prior to an election. In this case the Federal Election Commission blocked the 2008 broadcast of Hillary: The Movie, which was critical of Hillary Clintons presidential bid.

During the arguments in the case, the Justice Department attorney defending the law admitted the law also would censor books critical of candidates, though newspapers and other media, most owned by large corporations, were exempted from the law and may criticize, editorialize and endorse or oppose candidates freely. Some corporations are more equal than others.

Cortez Mastos statement concluded, The Democracy for All Amendment returns the right to regulate elections to the people by clarifying that Congress and the states can set reasonable regulations on campaign finance and distinguish between individuals and corporations in the law.

The problem is that free speech is not free if the incumbent government satrapy can curtail its dissemination.

Justice Anthony Kennedy explained this in his majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC: As a restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign, that statute necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process. (Government could repress speech by attacking all levels of the production and dissemination of ideas, for effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others).

The fact the expenditure is coming from a group instead of an individual does not negate the First Amendment guarantee of the freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely, because it also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

An assembly is not just a crowd of people on the street, it is also an organization.

Reid in one of this many diatribes on the subject said: But the flood of special interest money into our American democracy is one of the greatest threats our system of government has ever faced. Lets keep our elections from becoming speculative ventures for the wealthy and put a stop to the hostile takeover of our democratic system by a couple of billionaire oil barons. It is time that we revive our constituents faith in the electoral system, and let them know that their voices are being heard.

This implies the voters are too stupid to hear an open and free-wheeling debate and not be influenced by the volume or frequency of the message.

Lest we forget, in the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump was outspent by Hillary Clinton by two-to-one $600 million to $1.2 billion.

Censorship is unAmerican and unnecessary. Cortez Masto should abandon this assault on free speech.

Thomas Mitchell is a longtime Nevada newspaper columnist. You may email him at thomasmnv@yahoo.com. He also blogs athttp://4thst8.wordpress.com/.

See the original post here:
New senator wants to shred First Amendment protection - Mesquite Local News

News Release NEFAC Feb. 9, 2017

Contact: Justin Silverman 774.244.2365 mail@nefirstamendment.org

The New England First Amendment Coalition is pleased to announce the addition of Lia Ernst, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, to its Board of Directors.

Were very excited to have Lia join NEFAC and help our efforts defending the First Amendment in Vermont, said Justin Silverman, the coalitions executive director. Shes going to be a tremendous resource not only for our organization but for all New Englanders.

At the ACLU of Vermont, Ernst litigates civil liberties, civil rights and open government cases; advocates before state and municipal governmental bodies on ACLU legislative priorities; and educates community groups on protecting and exercising their rights.

Before coming to the Vermont affiliate, Ernst had been a legal fellow at the ACLU of Massachusetts and a legal intern at the ACLU of Michigan. She also clerked for two years with U.S. District Court Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. in Detroit and for one year with Judge Norman H. Stahl of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston. In between, she was an associate attorney at a Michigan law firm outside Detroit, focusing on criminal defense and attorney ethics.

Ernst is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School and holds a masters degree in anthropology from the University of Wisconsin. Her undergraduate degree is from Swarthmore College, where she majored in biology. She served two years in the Peace Corps in Guinea, West Africa after college.

More:
Lia Ernst of Vermont ACLU Joins NEFAC Board, Strengthens First Amendment Efforts - vtdigger.org

Nevadas newly elected U.S. senator, Catherine Cortez Masto, has already taken up the cudgel against the First Amendment previously wielded by her predecessor, Harry Reid.

She put out a press release recently announcing that she has joined with other congressional Democrats to reintroduce a constitutional amendment that would overturn Supreme Court rulings that have held that it is a violation of the First Amendment to restrict the amount of money corporations, nonprofits, unions and other groups may spend on political campaigns and when they may spend it.

In its current incarnation it is being called the Democracy for All Amendment. In previous years it bore the unwieldy acronym DISCLOSE Act Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections. Reid frequently took to the floor of the Senate to pound the table for the amendment and disparage the Koch brothers political spending as the embodiment of evil.

The U.S. Constitution puts democratic power in the hands of the American people not corporations or private companies, the press release quotes Cortez Masto as saying. Since the Citizens United decision, big corporations have gained unprecedented influence over elections and our countrys political process. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation; its critical that we end unlimited corporate contributions if we are going to have a democratic process and government that will truly work for all Americans.

In the 2010 Citizens United decision, a 5-4 Supreme Court struck down the part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that prohibited organizations such as Citizens United, a political action committee, from expending funds for electioneering immediately prior to an election. In this case the Federal Election Commission blocked the 2008 broadcast of Hillary: The Movie, which was critical of Hillary Clintons presidential bid.

During the arguments in the case, the Justice Department attorney defending the law admitted the law also would censor books critical of candidates, though newspapers and other media, most owned by large corporations, were exempted from the law and may criticize, editorialize and endorse or oppose candidates freely. Some corporations are more equal than others.

Cortez Mastos statement concluded, The Democracy for All Amendment returns the right to regulate elections to the people by clarifying that Congress and the states can set reasonable regulations on campaign finance and distinguish between individuals and corporations in the law.

The problem is that free speech is not free if the incumbent government satrapy can curtail its dissemination.

Justice Anthony Kennedy explained this in his majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC: As a restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign, that statute necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process. (Government could repress speech by attacking all levels of the production and dissemination of ideas, for effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others).

The fact the expenditure is coming from a group instead of an individual does not negate the First Amendment guarantee of the freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely, because it also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

An assembly is not just a crowd of people on the street, it is also an organization.

Reid in one of this many diatribes on the subject said: But the flood of special interest money into our American democracy is one of the greatest threats our system of government has ever faced. Lets keep our elections from becoming speculative ventures for the wealthy and put a stop to the hostile takeover of our democratic system by a couple of billionaire oil barons. It is time that we revive our constituents faith in the electoral system, and let them know that their voices are being heard.

This implies the voters are too stupid to hear an open and free-wheeling debate and not be influenced by the volume or frequency of the message.

Lest we forget, in the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump was outspent by Hillary Clinton by two-to-one $600 million to $1.2 billion.

Censorship is unAmerican and unnecessary. Cortez Masto should abandon this assault on free speech.

The rest is here:
Commentary: New senator wants to shred First Amendment protection - Elko Daily Free Press

The San Luis Obispo Tribune

Armstrong stood up for First Amendment, Harmon overstepped her office The San Luis Obispo Tribune As a graduate of Cal Poly, President Jeffrey Armstrong made me very proud for standing firm and putting the First Amendment first and overruling the liberal cupcakes' attempt to ignore the First Amendment (Protecting free speech at Cal Poly is an ...

See the original post:
Armstrong stood up for First Amendment, Harmon overstepped her office - The San Luis Obispo Tribune

The First Amendment says, 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.

The First Amendment says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This Amendment is being tried already after just a few weeks into a new administration:

Four journalists jailed while reporting on the demonstrations in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 1. They will be charged with felonies for showing America what was going on after the inauguration.

Steve Bannon, senior advisor to the President, tells America to ignore journalists and the news. Does this mean we are to listen to the AltTruth coming out of the Press Room, early morning tweets and Conway instead of what photographs show of the sparse crowds on Jan. 20? On Nov. 12, 2013, at a book signing in D.C., Steve Bannon said the following when asked what his political philosophy was: Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and thats my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of todays establishment.

It looks like hes well on his way to doing just that.

The news channel watched by the president for news is FOX (Faux) News. This source of information has been proven to be accurate only 40 percent of the time. This is his source while he calls CNN a source of fake news. Again, photographs shown on this station that were taken at 12:01 by a Routers photographer from the Washington Monument and shown on CNN dont lie.

Instead of focusing on the issues confronting our country, tweets and speeches about the election being rigged that he would have won by 45 million votes if it werent for fraud. He defined fraud as being registered to vote more than once. Perhaps he forgot to check with his daughters, Ivanka and Tiffany, his son-in-law, who is another senior advisor or senior advisor Bannon all of whom are registered in two different states, thus meeting the presidents definition of voter fraud.

An Executive Order banning entry of people from six countries even if they have valid green cards based on religion is against a law passed by Congress 50 years ago. Where is the legal counsel to advise when Executive Orders break the law and cause chaos at airports here and around the world? And why were Congressmen denied access to those detained at Dulles airport after a Federal Court intervened Saturday?

Kelly Conway dissed the judge since he was an Obama appointee is the Oval Office and its unelected spokespeople saying the president can choose what judicial decisions they will uphold?

One last note: Trumps approval rating after just 8 days in office was a 51 percent disapproval rating according to Gallup. In Gallups history, no president has had a disapproval rating like this in such a short period of time. By the same pollster using the same methodology, it took Reagan 727 days to reach a disapproval rating under 50 percent, Bush I took 1,336 days, Bush II 1,205 days.

If you havent read George Orwells 1984 this might be a good time to read it (or re-read it if you havent in a few years). It may just move you to action.

Have a great day ...

Follow this link:
Letter to the Editor: What's the future of the First Amendment? - Gridley Herald

BY MIA BLONDIN

You may have seen a video or photo of FedEx employee Matt Uhrin stopping protesters from burning an American flag in downtown Iowa City. The original video blew up and was featured on several different news outlets. Most of the comments I saw about the situation on Twitter or Facebook praised Uhrin for what people saw as a patriotic act. Personally, my favorite was a tweet with the quote, Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.

It is natural for the internet to make this a meme, and to allow Uhrin the 15 minutes of fame some think he deserves, but its important to think about this from the point of the protestors too. Uhrin was right to extinguish their flame, but not for the reason many think.

If you are in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication you had to memorize the first amendment for J30 and if youve even been in Meredith Hall you have most likely passed by the metal plaque where it is displayed. Under the first amendment (my favorite amendment) people have the right to burn the flag. The Supreme Court has ruled that burning the flag is covered under the free speech section of the first amendment, no matter how disrespectful it might seem.

Now if you just read that and are thinking about how unfair or insulting that is, Im right there with you. I have family in the military and one of my best friends from high school is in Florida with the Air Force right now. To me the flag represents so much more than Trump, who hasnt even been in office for a month. I dont agree with people that burn the flag, but I have to respect their right to free speech.

The real problem for these protestors was where the burning took place. Two members of the group of about 10 people face charges for open burning, which is a simple misdemeanor in Iowa City, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $650. This protest didnt happen in an open field or even a confined space, my first thoughts while watching the video were how many people pass by that spot every day. The protesters would have had every type of Iowa City resident pass by them: college students on their way to class, doctors or businessmen getting food on their lunch break, and even parents with young children. There is a playground I used to visit quite often as a child less than 100 yards away from where the entire incident took place.

While I understand that everyone needs to cope with the increasing stress of the Trump presidency in their own way, I dont agree with the burning of the American flag, and I certainly dont agree with the spot the protesters chose.

In the middle of the altercation, Uhrin quoted former Iowa quarterback Ricky Stanzi when he said, If you dont love it, leave it.

Trump in the White House has motivated me to spin that quote into If you dont love it, do something productive to fix it.

Bottom line: I dont agree with the burning of the flag, and I wish the protestors had a more productive way to show they dont agree with the policies being introduced, but I have to respect their rights as Americans to speak out and protest.

Read more here:
Burning flags and the first amendment - Times-Delphic

You know its bad when entertainment industry trade publications start getting serious.

TheWrap, the digital trade pub known for its gossipy inside take on the movie and TV business, is breaking out the law books and expanding its editorial coverage to include First Amendment matters, according to founder, CEO and editor-in-chief Sharon Waxman.

Waxman announced The Wrap is adding a reporting position focused on the First Amendment beat. That's in response to the alleged threats to free speech posed by the administration of President Donald Trump, as well as the proliferation of fake news distributed by social media platforms like Facebook.

Per Waxman: The reporter will cover challenges to freedom of the press, expression, assembly and religion inan erawhen those freedoms are under new and severepressures.

Trumps rhetorical attacks on the mainstream news media, which he accused of bias and dishonesty, became a central element of his presidential election campaign. Since taking office, he and his advisors have not moderated their tone.

In one widely cited example, in an interview with The New York Times, Steve Bannon, Trumps chief strategist, remarked: The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while. I want you to quote this. The media here is the opposition party. They dont understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States.

Continued here:
'TheWrap' Adds First Amendment Reporter 02/08/2017 - MediaPost - MediaPost Communications

Matthews

The RADIO TELEVISION DIGITAL NEWS FOUNDATION has announced that MSNBC host CHRIS MATTHEWS will host its 2017 First Amendment Awards Dinner on MARCH 14th at the GRAND HYATT WASHINGTON.

"When it comes to American politics, CHRIS MATTHEWS has seen it all, and he's done a remarkable job of explaining it all to a generation of viewers," said RTDNF Chair KATHY WALKER. "We're delighted to have him as our master of ceremonies, as we honor champions of the First Amendment and support the work of our Foundation."

ABC RADIO NEWS VP/GM STEVE JONES, NPR's NINA TOTENBERG, and HUBBARD BROADCASTING CEO, Pres./Chairman STANLEY S. HUBBARD are the 2017 First Amendment Awards recipients. JONES will receive the First Amendment Service Award, while HUBBARD will be honored with the First Amendment Leadership Award and TOTENBERG will be given the RENDF Lifetime Achievement Award. Also to be honored are CBS NEWS Correspondent BILL WHITAKER (the LEONARD ZEIDENBERG First Amendment Award) and authors and former BLOOMBERG POLITICS co-managing editors MARK HALPERIN and JOHN HEILEMANN (the First Amendment Award). And the event will offer special recognition for NPR photographer DAVID GILKEY, "PBS NEWS HOUR" anchor GWEN IFILL, and former RTDNF trustee GEORGE GLAZER, all of whom passed away in 2016.

see more Net News

See more here:
Chris Matthews To Host RTDNF's First Amendment Awards Dinner ... - All Access Music Group

By Mark Trahant

Jenni Monet, a Native American journalist, was arrested last week while covering Standing Rock. You'd think that would trigger a lot of support from the national and regional news media.

There is an idea in law enforcement called the "thin blue line." It basically means that police work together. A call goes out from Morton County and, right or wrong, law enforcement from around the country provides back up.

Jenni Monet was arrested while covering the Standing Rock movement last week. But most of the press has been silent about the charges she facesand the implications for the First Amendment.Aboriginal People's Television Network

You would think journalism would be like that, too.

When one journalist is threatened, we all are threatened. We cannot do our jobs when we worry about being injured or worse. And when a journalist is arrested? Well, everyone who claims the First Amendment as a framework should object loudly.

Last Wednesday, Monet was arrested near Cannon Ball, North Dakota. She was interviewing water protectors who were setting up a new camp near the Dakota Access Pipeline route on treaty lands of the Great Sioux Nation. Law enforcement from Morton County surrounded the camp and captured everyone within the circle. A press release from the sheriff's Department puts it this way: "Approximately 76 members of a rogue group of protestors were arrested." Most were charged with criminal trespassing and inciting a riot.

As was Monet. She now faces serious charges and the judicial process will go forward. The truth must come out.

But this story is about the failure of journalism institutions.

The Native press and the institutions that carry her work had Monet's back. That includes Indian Country Media Network, YES! Magazine and the Center for Investigative Reporting's Reveal. In Canada the Aboriginal People's Television Network reported on the story during its evening news. And, the Los Angeles Times has now weighed as well in with its own story written by Sandy Tolan who's done some great reporting from Standing Rock.

The Native American Journalists Association released a statement immediately:

"Yesterday's unlawful arrest of Native journalist Jenni Monet by Morton County officers is patently illegal and a blatant betrayal of our closely held American values of free speech and a free press," NAJA President Bryan Pollard said, "Jenni is an accomplished journalist and consummate professional who was covering a story on behalf of Indian Country Today. Unfortunately, this arrest is not unprecedented, and Morton County officials must review their officer training and department policies to ensure that officers are able and empowered to distinguish between protesters and journalists who are in pursuit of truthful reporting."

Yet in North Dakota you would not know this arrest happened. The press is silent.

I have heard from many, many individual journalists. That's fantastic. But what about the institutions of journalism? There should news stories in print, digital and broadcast. There should be editorials calling out North Dakota for this egregious act. If the institutions let this moment pass, every journalist covering a protest across the country will be at risk of arrest.

After her release from jail, Monet wrote for Indian Country Media Network:

"When Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman was charged with the same allegations I now facecriminal trespassing and riotingher message to the world embraced the First Amendment. 'There's a reason why journalism is explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution,' she said before a crowd gathered in front of the Morton County courthouse. "Because we're supposed to be the check and balance on power."

The funny thing is that journalism institutions were not quick to embrace Goodman either. I have talked to many journalists who see her as an "other" because she practices a different kind of journalism than they do.

Monet's brand of journalism is rooted in facts and good reporting. She talks to everyone on all sides of the story, including the Morton County Sheriff and North Dakota's new governor. She also has street cred and knows how to tell a story. Just listen to her podcast and you will know that to be true.

So if we ever need journalism institutions to rally, it's now. It's not Jenni Monet who will be on trial. It's the First Amendment. Journalism is not a crime.

Mark Trahant is the Charles R. Johnson Endowed Professor of Journalism at the University of North Dakota and a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. He writes a regular column at YES!, where he is a contributing editor. Reposted with permission from our media associate YES! Magazine.

Read more:
First Amendment Under Siege as Another Journalist Arrested at Standing Rock - EcoWatch

New York Times

First Amendment Support Climbing Among High School Students New York Times High school students protesting outside the Supreme Court building in Washington. Credit Susan Walsh/Associated Press. Support among American high school students for the First Amendment is stronger today than it has been in the last 12 years, ... Teens who follow the news on social media are more likely to support the First AmendmentMashable High School Student Support for First Amendment at Highest Level in a DecadeThe Tiger Media Network all 3 news articles »

Read this article:
First Amendment Support Climbing Among High School Students - New York Times