Category Archives: First Amendment

ConLaw 1 Class 27 - The First Amendment - Free Exercise
Madison #39;s Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, Stansburg v. Marks, Wisconsin v. Yoder, Employment Division v. Smith , Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah,...

By: Josh Blackman

Read the original:

ConLaw 1 Class 27 - The First Amendment - Free Exercise - Video

Westfield Mayor to pay $53K in campaign sign violation case
Westfield Mayor Daniel Knapik on Monday accepted a federal judge #39;s ruling that he violated the First Amendment when he ordered campaign signs removed just before the 2011 municipal elections,...

By: WWLP-22News

Read the original here:

Westfield Mayor to pay $53K in campaign sign violation case - Video

INFOWARS Nightly News: with Lee Ann McAdoo Friday April 11 2014: Alex Jones/Special Report
Friday: The Infowars Nightly News. BLM Feds Assault More Protesters As #39;First Amendment Area #39; Taken Down. Plus. Sen. Sessions: #39;Deliberate Plan by President #39;. Tuesday: The Infowars Nightly...

By: Albert Dram

Read the rest here:

INFOWARS Nightly News: with Lee Ann McAdoo Friday April 11 2014: Alex Jones/Special Report - Video

Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency The Kelly File
Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency - The Kelly File What Happened To The First Amendment? =========================================== **Please Click Below...

By: Mass Tea Party

More here:

Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency The Kelly File - Video

America was just defeated from within TODAY 4/29/2014 - Martial law is next
We Just forfeited the FIRST Amendment and it was done by those who most need it and want it, Minorities. Because you insist on taking away the free Speech of one racist man, you will thereby...

By: David Vose

Read more:

America was just defeated from within TODAY 4/29/2014 - Martial law is next - Video

Donald Sterling is my HERO
Hes exercising his first amendment right . everyone relax!!!!

By: bettinman24

Follow this link:

Donald Sterling is my HERO - Video

Retaining Government Power to Make Economic Policy for Internet Access: Role of the First Amendment
Visit: http://www.uctv.tv/) High-speed Internet access providers claim that government-imposed limitations on their activities raise serious constitutional concerns. But given the current...

By: University of California Television (UCTV)

Read more:

Retaining Government Power to Make Economic Policy for Internet Access: Role of the First Amendment - Video

Apr 30, 2014 1:43pm

In his first appearance in front of Capitol Hill lawmakers in nearly 30 years, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens made a pitch today for a new amendment to the Constitution.

Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns, Stevens said in front of a Senate Rules Committee.

The amendment is a proposal he had included in his book Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, published earlier this month.

But the former justice, who retired from the court in 2010, argued his amendment is even more necessary in the wake of the recent McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court struck down aggregate donation caps on campaign contributions on the basis that the limits violated the First Amendment protection of free speech.

Stevens agreed with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., in arguing that classifying any amendment as absolute would do away with limits on acts like screaming fire in a crowded movie theater.

It is fundamentally wrong to assume that preventing corruption is the only justification for laws limiting the First Amendment rights of candidates and their supporters, Stevens said.

(AP Photo)

Shortly before Stevens took the stand, Schumer announced a plan by Senate Democrats to vote this year on a new constitutional amendment by Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., that would allow Congress to make laws restricting campaign finance contributions.

More here:

Former Supreme Court Justice Wants to Amend the Constitution

(CNN) - This past week, my inbox blew up with e-mails asking whether Donald Sterling's First Amendment rights were violated in the uproar over the Los Angeles Clippers owner's racist remarks about black people. After all, he was simply expressing his views, however unpopular.

While he did have some rights violated, his First Amendment rights remain intact.

The First Amendment protects you from the government punishing you because of your speech. The NBA is a private club, and it can discipline Sterling all it wants.

What about the chorus of criticism? Are we all violating his First Amendment rights by criticizing him? We are punishing him for his speech.

Nope. The First Amendment does not insulate you from criticism. In fact, that's the First Amendment in action. That is how the marketplace of ideas works. We float our ideas in the marketplace, and we see which idea sells.

Most everyone would agree that Sterling's ideas fail in the marketplace of ideas. Nevertheless, I reluctantly stand on Sterling's side today. What happened to him may have been illegal and was morally wrong.

Start with illegal. In California, you can't record a conversation without the knowledge or consent of both parties. The recording featuring Sterling and V. Stiviano may be the result of a crime. Once she gathered this information, someone leaked it (she denies it was her) -- and it went viral. This is where I think things went morally wrong.

We all say things in private that we might not say in public. Sometimes we have ideas that are not fully developed -- we try them out with our closest friends. Consider it our test-marketplace of ideas. As our ideas develop, we consider whether to make them public. Should we not all have the freedom to make that choice on our own?

The Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy made his own stupid and bigoted statements, and he's been nationally pilloried, too -- but he chose to make those statements to the world. He deserves every ounce of obloquy heaped upon him.

But does Sterling? Think about what his public character execution means. It means that we now live in a world where if you have any views that are unpopular, you now not only need to fear saying them in public, but you need to fear saying them at all -- even to your intimate friends. They might be recording you, and then that recording may be spread across the Internet for everyone to hear.

View original post here:

What happened to Sterling was morally wrong

In what amounts to a declaration of war on the Roberts Supreme Court, Senate Democrats said Wednesday that they will force a vote this year on a constitutional amendment to overturn several landmark First Amendment campaign finance rulings and give Congress explicit powers to set donation and spending limits for all federal campaigns.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat driving the effort, said the justices have taken the First Amendment too far and need to be reeled in by Congress.

SEE ALSO: Ex-Justice Stevens backs amendment on campaign funds

He said he had the blessing of fellow Democratic leaders to bring the amendment to the floor for a vote rather soon. They acknowledged that they have little hope of succeeding but said the vote was a way to send a message to the justices.

The First Amendment is not absolute, Mr. Schumer said. The only way that we can save American democracy, so that people still believe its one person, one vote and theres a semblance of fairness, is a constitutional amendment.

The move kicks off a fundamental debate over free speech, the limits of congressional powers and the nature of political campaigns.

Opponents said they were shocked that Democrats would attempt to amend the Constitution to limit something that the Supreme Court has called a fundamental right and that the move was another way to try to insulate lawmakers from having to hear from voters.

Campaign finance reform restrictions are always pitched as Lets prevent corruption, lets hold politicians accountable, and they do exactly the opposite, said Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican. Every single restriction this body puts in place is designed to do one thing protect incumbent politicians.

Campaign finance has been a touchy issue for decades but has taken on a more pointed tone in recent years.

In his 2010 State of the Union address, President Obama scolded the justices, sitting directly in front of him in the House chamber, for their Citizens United decision issued just days earlier.

Here is the original post:

Senate Dems vow vote to change Constitution, block campaign funding