Category Archives: First Amendment

Earlier this year, Virginia Commonwealth University banned students with fewer than 12 earned credits from joining fraternities and sororities. (Postmodern Studio / Shutterstock.com)

by Zach Greenberg

When FIRE asks universities to protect students free speech rights, weve gotten our fair share of outright denials, curt rejections, and shameless ghosting. But rarely does a public university suggest the First Amendment doesnt really apply to them. Allow us to present Virginia Commonwealth Universitys response to FIREs letter urging VCU to end deferred recruitment.

On Aug. 1, VCU banned students without 12 credits earned at the university from joining fraternities and sororities. FIRE warned the university that deferred recruitment violates students freedom of association, explaining in our July 26 letter that students have the fundamental right to join campus groups. Freedom of association is enshrined in the First Amendment, which protects the right of the individual to pick his own associates so as to express his preferences and dislikes, and to fashion his private life by joining such clubs and groups as he chooses.

Our argument is simple: Students are adults, bestowed with the full array of First Amendment rights, and fully capable of affiliating with a wide variety of organizations on and off campus. If VCU students are allowed to work full-time, play Division I athletics, and devote their energies to more than 500 other campus groups, common sense dictates they should also be able to rush a fraternity or sorority.

Not so, says VCU. According to the university, our letter relies on cases that are not controlling in the Fourth Circuit the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit a federal court whose rulings are binding on all state universities in Virginia. VCU claims that none of the cases FIRE cites deal with requirements a university places on students to be eligible to join a fraternity or sorority or other student organization.

Were pretty sure SCOTUS is binding on all states and, by extension, the public universities of those states, like VCU.

Lets check the tape: First, we cite Healy v. James, the seminal United States Supreme Court case establishing the expression and associational rights of student groups. Were pretty sure SCOTUS is binding on all states and, by extension, the public universities of those states, like VCU.

Next, we have Gay Alliance of Students v. Matthews, a case from the Fourth Circuit holding that a universitys denial of recruitment privileges violates students First Amendment rights. In Matthews, the university denied recognition to a student group, Gay Alliance of Students, because, in part, affiliation of individuals with homosexual activist organizations may have adverse consequences to some individuals involved.

The Fourth Circuit firmly rejected this rationale, finding that The very essence of the First Amendment is that each individual makes his own decision as to whether joining an organization would be harmful to him, and whether any countervailing benefits outweigh the potential harm.

VCU cannot ban students from associating with campus groups.

The university that lost the case? Virginia Commonwealth University. In the Fourth Circuit.

Seems like that would be applicable to VCU arbitrarily determining what groups its students can join today. One need not be a lawyer to understand how precedent works.

The dozen other cases we cite see our letter for yourself build the argument that VCU cannot ban students from associating with campus groups. Students have the right to join groups disfavored by the university, such as fraternities and sororities at VCU. As stated in Matthews, VCU cannot prevent students from joining groups merely because doing so may have adverse consequences to some individuals involved.

Whats next? Will VCU ban students who are bad at board games from the chess club? Will it ban unathletic students from playing intramural sports? Will it ban uncreative students from art societies or lactose intolerant students from the Alliance of Milk Drinkers? There is no First Amendment exception for university administrators coercing students for their own good, as courts have decried such paternalistic restrictions on students rights for more than 60 years. Irony abounds as VCU first-semester and transfer students surrender their First Amendment rights upon entering the state boasting the motto Thus Always to Tyrants.

Afford all your students the opportunity to join every campus group.

VCU promised a more detailed response to FIRE by the end of the month and asked if we have anything to add. We are content to rest on the binding legal precedent in our initial letter cases we urge VCUs legal team to read and then apply to its unlawful ban on students joining campus groups.

Beyond that, we have nothing to tell VCU but this: Save yourself the embarrassment of explaining to a judge how Virginia Commonwealth University is not bound by courts in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Afford all your students the opportunity to join every campus group. Uphold the First Amendment by ending deferred recruitment.

FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members no matter their views at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech,submit your case to FIRE today. If youre faculty member at a public college or university, call theFaculty Legal Defense Fund24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533).

See the original post:
Does the First Amendment apply to Virginia Commonwealth University? The public university doesn't seem to think so. - Foundation for Individual Rights...

From a decision last week by the Washington Court of Appeals in Sehmel v. Shah, written by Judge Lisa Worswick, joined by Acting Chief Judge Anne Cruser and agreed with on this point by Judge Bernard Veljacic:

Appellants argue that the act of not wearing a mask communicates a political message, and is therefore entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. We disagree.

Although the First Amendment forbids restrictions on speech, federal case law has long recognized that the First Amendment protects more than the "spoken or written word." "'Speech' includes nonverbal conduct if the conduct is 'sufficiently imbued with elements of communication.'"

In deciding whether conduct may constitute speech, thereby implicating the First Amendment, courts examine whether (1) the person intended to convey a message, and (2) whether it was likely that a person who viewed the conduct would understand the message. The United States Supreme Court rejected the idea that any conduct may be labeled as speech whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends to express or communicate an idea. The expression must be "overwhelmingly apparent" and not simply a kernel of expression. The fact that "'explanatory speech is necessary is strong evidence that the conduct at issue is not so inherently expressive that it warrants protection' as symbolic speech" [indirectly quoting Rumsfeld v. FAIR (2006)].

[A]n extensive line of federal cases has established that the choice to wear a mask is not expressive conduct because "there are several non-political reasons why one may not be wearing a mask at any given moment." Stewart v. Justice (S.D. W. Va. 2021). See Minnesota Voters All. v. Walz (D. Minn. 2020) (holding that an order requiring face coverings did not target conduct with a significant expressive element); Denis v. Ige (D. Haw. 2021) (same); Justice (holding that failing to wear a mask is not expressive conduct because "failing to wear a face covering would likely be viewed as inadvertent or unintentional, and not as an expression of disagreement with the Governor."); Antietam Battlefield KOA v. Hogan (D. Md. 2020) (holding that wearing a mask could be viewed as a means of preventing the spread of COVID-19, not as expressive any message).

We apply the same analysis here and hold that wearing or not wearing a mask is not sufficiently expressive so as to implicate First Amendment protections. While an individual may choose to wear, or not wear, a mask as a way to make a political statement, the subjective intent of the person engaging in the conduct is not determinative. Here, there is a host of reasons why a person may not be wearing a mask. Therefore, not wearing a mask is not "overwhelmingly apparent" as communicating a political message. Rumsfeld.

UPDATE: Sorry, messed up the headline; it at first said "Mask Ban ," but of course this is a mask mandate. Don't know what neurons crossed in my head for that one . Thanks to commenters Michael P and ah.clem for the correction.

Follow this link:
Mask Mandate Doesn't Violate the First Amendment Right to Engage in Symbolic Expression - Reason

Its never a good sign when a government launches a policy and instantly decrees that criticism of that policy is not allowed. Its happening in the US right now. This week President Biden signed a bill which, among other things, will pump billions of dollars into the renewable-energy sector. And woe betide the American citizen who queries the bill. Pity the American voter who wonders out loud if it might not be the best idea in the world for an advanced economy like Americas to become increasingly reliant on whimsical wind and solar power. For the Biden administration has already said that seeding doubt about renewables is unacceptable, and might even need to be silenced.

Its called the Inflation Reduction Act. It will do many things, including shake up elements of Americas tax system and lower the cost of prescription drugs. It is also, in the words of Forbes, the most comprehensive US initiative to mitigate climate change yet. It promises to plough $369 billion into energy security and climate-change reduction programmes over the next decade. Renewables will get a massive boost. The White House predicts that, thanks to this act, the US will have 950million solar panels and 120,000 wind turbines by 2030. And it is apparently every Americans duty to nod uncritically along with this revolution in renewables, because any expression of doubt about it could be bad for public health.

That chilling decree came from Gina McCarthy, the White Houses national climate adviser. In June, as this bill was wending its way through the Senate, Ms McCarthy gave an interview in which she called for a crack down on climate-change misinformation, as one headline put it. Theres nothing new in green types dreaming of silencing their opponents, of course. For decades the eco-movement has cynically branded critics of climate-change alarmism deniers and insisted they be deprived of the oxygen of publicity. But what is striking about McCarthys authoritarian disdain for climate-change misinformation is that she says she wants to chase down not only those who supposedly deny the science, but also those who question government policy.

McCarthy says denialism has moved on. Now its not so much denying the problem [of climate change], she says; rather, its seeding doubt about the costs associated with [green energy] and whether they work or not. So weve gone from science denialism to what? Political denialism? Policy denialism? Fossil-fuel companies are using dark money to fool the public about the benefits of clean energy, she says. And apparently, seeding doubt about clean energy is equally dangerous to [climate-change] denial. Asked if such doubts pose a threat to public health, in that they might hamper officialdoms plans to go green, McCarthy said: Absolutely. The solution to such health-harming scepticism? We need the tech companies to really jump in, she said. That is, the social-media giants must do more to thwart the policy deniers.

Welcome to the era of Gina McCarthyism, where officials insist that certain ideas are just too dangerous for public life. It is really worth thinking about the magnitude of McCarthys intervention. As the bill that Biden signed this week was being pored over and discussed by the American peoples elected representatives, this official from the White House was saying that any questioning of clean energy policy is equally dangerous to outright climate-change denial. As the Wall Street Journal points out, the shift from obsessing over science denialism towards fretting about policy denialism represents a move to censorship phase two which is shutting down debate over climate solutions. In problematising discussion about a particular policy, at the exact time that that policy was being weighed up by elected representatives, McCarthy was enforcing a chilling effect on the democratic process.

McCarthys call on Big Tech to jump in raises serious questions about the circumvention of the First Amendment. To the envy of many of us outside observers, the American government is forbidden from restricting freedom of expression. But private companies, on the platforms they own, face no such restraints. They can delete content, hide controversial ideas, unperson people. And its clear that some in the Biden administration are keen to outsource the authoritarian instincts that they are not allowed to act on to their likeminded friends in Silicon Valley. The social-media overlords are increasingly doing the censorious bidding of US government officials intervening in debates on everything from Covid to clean energy. Perhaps those conservative scholars who say Big Tech companies behave as state actors when they censor at the behest of government, and therefore should be sued under the First Amendment, are right.

It isnt just Gina McCarthy. Many in the green elite now openly talk about policy denial. Policy denial is when someone accepts that climate change is happening but [denies] that theres anything that can or should be done, says one observer. Scientific American says modern-day climate denial includes oppos[ing] policy measures to confront the problem. It gives as an example of policy denial Bjorn Lomborgs belief that poverty and access to safe food and drinking water need to be addressed before climate action is even considered. So even to question the prioritisation of climate change above all other issues, even to say Lets fix poverty first, is to be a denialist. This is a blatant effort to demonise criticism, scepticism and debate, which should be the lifeblood of every democracy worth the name.

Eco-censorship has always been fundamentally political. Even when greens said they were only going after people who question the science, really it was an ideological clampdown on heretics who dare to question the hysterical claims and harmful policies of the climate-change lobby. Now, however, its clearer than ever that this is political censorship. Out has gone the handwringing over science denial, in has come the demonisation of policy denial that is, of politics itself. Bidens new bill is not all bad. For one thing it will help to boost the nuclear industry, by investing in both existing nuclear plants and newer, more advanced reactors. But the billions for renewables are questionable. The entire idea of advanced societies turning to unpredictable, unreliable renewables is questionable. And people must be free to say so. It isnt denialism to question government policy its democracy.

Brendan ONeill is spikeds chief political writer and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan ONeill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

To enquire about republishing spikeds content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.

Read more:
The green threat to the First Amendment - Spiked

California church wins court battle over COVID fines

Ainsley Earhardt speaks with Pastor Mike McClure of San Jose's Calvary Chapel and constitutional attorney Mariah Gondeiro of the Advocates for Faith & Freedom non-profit to hear about their victory against COVID mandates.

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A California appeals court dropped nearly $200,000 in fines for a San Jose church that came under fire for violating COVID-19 restrictions on indoor gatherings during the height of the pandemic.

Mike McClure, pastor of Calvary Chapel, and constitutional attorney Mariah Gondeiro detailed the experience on "Fox & Friends" Thursday, relaying what they consider a victory for religious freedom.

"It's a blessing for the First Amendment," McClure told host Ainsley Earhardt.

CALIFORNIA CHURCH THAT WAS FINED OVER $200K FOR DEFYING COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS GETS FINES DROPPED

Pastor Mike McClure, from Calvary Chapel San Jose, speaks during a press conference outside of Santa Clara Superior Court in downtown San Jose, Calif., on Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2020. (Nhat V. Meyer/MediaNews Group/The Mercury News via Getty Images)

"Pastors across the country, I think we need to realize that we have this freedom that God's given us, and we're needed more today than ever with the hope, truth, love"

Gondeiro said the appellate court elected to drop the charges because the U.S. Supreme Court had already established a legal precedent on the issue.

"The Supreme Court has been very clear over the last year that these orders violated the First Amendment. This is a religious freedom case, and they violated the First Amendment because they discriminate against religion," she said.

SUPREME COURT DENIES NEVADA CHURHC'S APPEAL OF ATTENDANCE RESTRICTION AMID CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC

Supporters of Calvary Chapel San Jose wave to cars outside of Santa Clara Superior Court in downtown San Jose, Calif., on Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2020. (Nhat V. Meyer/MediaNews Group/The Mercury News via Getty Images)

"The county as well as the state of California allowed a lot of essential businesses or businesses that they deemed essential to stay opened, but not this church."

Gondeiro went on to restate the court acted in accordance with judicial precedent by dropping the fine.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The legal struggles for McClure are not over yet, however. The county is still attempting to slap him with a $2.8 million fine for the pandemic-era violations.

"If it's jail time, I'm ready for whatever. Honestly, I'm not wanting to fight the county. I think that they just don't understand the Constitution," he said.

"The fees are something I have honestly not thought about."

In a press release, Gondeiro said she expects the church to have a "complete victory" in that case as well.

Taylor Penley is a production assistant with Fox News.

Continued here:
California church that defied COVID restrictions wins court battle: 'A blessing for the First Amendment' - Fox News

August 19, 2022

Click for PDF

Decided August 18, 2022

Serova v. Sony Music Entertainment, S260736

The California Supreme Court held yesterday that a sellers promotional statements about an artistic work of interest to the public amounted to commercial speech, regardless of whether the seller knew of the statements falsity.

Background: The plaintiff sued Sony under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) on the theory that promotional materials for a posthumous Michael Jackson album misrepresented that Jackson was the lead singer. Sony filed a motion to strike under Californias anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that the plaintiffs UCL and CLRA claims were unlikely to succeed because those statutes target only commercial speech, not noncommercial speech about art protected by the First Amendment.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion should be granted because the plaintiffs claims targeted protected speech that was immune from suit under the UCL and CLRA. It reasoned that the promotional statements about the album related to a public issuethe controversy over whether Jackson was the lead singer on the albumand were more than just commercial speech because they were connected to music. The plaintiffs allegation that the statements were false did not strip them of First Amendment protection, according to the Court of Appeal, because Sony didnt know the statements were false.

Issues: Were Sonys representations that Michael Jackson was the lead singer on Michael noncommercial speech subject to First Amendment protection (in which case Californias anti-SLAPP statute would apply) or commercial speech (in which case the plaintiff could pursue UCL and CLRA claims against Sony)?

Courts Holding:

Sonys representations about the album constituted commercial speech, which can be prohibited entirely if the speech is false or misleading. And those representations did not lose their commercial nature simply because Sony made them without knowledge of their falsity or about matters that are difficult to verify.

[C]ommercial speech does not lose its commercial nature simply because a seller makes a statement without knowledge or that is hard to verify.

Justice Jenkins, writing for the Court

What It Means:

The Courts opinion is availablehere.

Gibson Dunns lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the California Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice leaders:

Litigation Practice

Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice

Related Practice: Media, Entertainment & Technology

View post:
California Supreme Court Holds That Seller's Promotional Statements About Controversial Album Are Commercial Speech Not Subject To Full First...

With help from Derek Robertson

"Mixers" like Tornado Cash were crucial to various crypto hacks. | shapecharge/iStock

Over the past 24 hours, a video of a bearded man crooning lines of computer code with the aid of an auto-tuner has achieved minor virality online.

In addition to being amusing, the video gets to the crux of a momentous legal question hanging over the digital era: How does the First Amendment apply to computer code?

In the song, by musician Jonathan Mann, the lyrics are lines of code from Tornado Cash, a software tool called a mixer used to obscure the provenance of crypto tokens, which the Treasury Department sanctioned last week after it was used by North Korean hackers.

The refrain of Manns song This is illegal argues that the sanctions amount to a constitutionally dubious ban on discussing the Tornado Cash code itself.

Its not clear that the sanctions actually outlaw reciting code, melodically or otherwise. But they do include what appears to be the first-ever ban on interacting with blockchain addresses controlled by self-executing code (sanctions normally ban transactions with accounts controlled by specific people or entities). And as crypto advocates mull legal challenges to the sanctions, theyre homing in on First Amendment objections.

A showdown over the constitutionality of the sanctions would reopen decades-old questions about the legal status of code. In all likelihood, it would be just the first major skirmish in a broader fight over the First Amendments application to blockchain systems, one that crypto advocates have been anticipating for years.

In the early 90s, the Justice Department launched an investigation of a programmer who had released an encrypted messaging system, Pretty Good Privacy, under the logic that the software which had the potential to thwart U.S. spying capabilities counted as a munition, and was therefore subject to an export ban. The government eventually dropped the case, and in 1999, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on First Amendment grounds in favor of another programmer, Daniel Bernstein, who challenged the application of export controls to cryptographic code.

This week, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which represented Bernstein in the 90s, has expressed reservations about the Tornado Cash sanctions, arguing that the government doesnt have the power to ban the dissemination of computer code.

EFF did not immediately respond to a request to discuss its First Amendment reservations in more depth. But the crypto advocacy group Coin Center, which is considering a lawsuit over the sanctions, fleshed out its First Amendment objections in a lengthy analysis published Monday. The analysis argues that both the intent and the effect of the sanctions is to have a chilling effect on people exploring the very idea of cryptocurrency mixers.

While this affects only a niche class of blockchain applications, the question of how far First Amendment protections extend to transmissions of information within blockchain systems could have more profound implications. Bitcoin advocates have long made the case that both Bitcoins source code and Bitcoin transactions are protected by the First Amendment.

But what if theyre wrong, and the government can ban Bitcoin?

Many legal experts contend that speech protections for computer code are context-dependent, weakening or disappearing when someone executes the code with a computer.

People would argue that is more akin to action than it is to speech, First Amendment lawyer Bob Corn-Revere, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine, told me.

But Corn-Revere, who served on Bernsteins legal team, said that since that case there has been a dearth of court decisions on the issue. As new software applications have raised new legal dilemmas, he said, new guidance about where and how computer code crosses from the realm of speech into the realm of action has yet to follow.

Thats the unanswered question, he said, in terms of where the courts go.

The Federal Reserve | AP Photo

Another unlikely crypto-world alliance is revealing just how unpredictable the fault lines around the new technology can be.

As POLITICOs Sam Sutton reported today for Pro subscribers, the crypto industry is flexing its burgeoning muscle on the Hill to convince lawmakers to stay out of the stablecoin business. The Federal Reserve has been exploring the concept of a digital dollar for some time now, and Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), who released a Fed digital dollar proposal earlier this year, told Sam that not only do private stablecoin providers view a central bank digital currency, or CBDC, as a potential threat, banks dont like it either, viewing it as as a potential disrupter of their very profitable payment systems.

Its a notable alliance if only because, as you might have heard (frequently), the crypto and banking industries dont exactly agree with each other on much. Neither, presumably, did Sens. Kristen Gillibrand, a progressive standard-bearer, or Cynthia Lummis, from deep-red Wyoming, who sponsored this years biggest piece of crypto legislation. The next unlikely team-up around a crypto policy issue whether it ends up being around regulatory classification, international relations, or maybe even rural revitalization will officially make a trend, by old newsroom rules. Derek Robertson

Crypto may be down, but it looks like the meme coins are making a comeback.

The mostly-worthless joke crypto tokens most notably touted by Elon Musk in the case of Dogecoin, which hes boosted so consistently that its more or less ceased to be a joke have seen a sudden jump in their value as of late even amid the overall crypto slump, with Dogecoin spiking nearly 11 percent over the past week as of this writing, and Shiba Inu nearly 20 percent. (And yes, theyre nearly all still named after dogs, from Akita Inu to Zelda Inu.)

Of course, these are matters of degrees. The current value of Dogecoin hovers around eight-tenths of a cent. Shiba Inus is mere fractions of a penny that stretch to six digits. Trading these coins is, essentially, a game: Theres no promise of technological transformation, financial anonymity, or the creation of fortunes, just playing around with miniscule amounts of money on your phone.

Provided, as always, that one doesnt get too greedy, theyre probably one of the lower-stress, and certainly one of the lower-stakes, means of dipping ones toe into the crypto market but to be clear, as they say on the forums and subreddits that comprise the communities which are essentially these coins raison detre, this is not financial advice. Derek Robertson

Stay in touch with the whole team: Ben Schreckinger ([emailprotected]); Derek Robertson ([emailprotected]); Konstantin Kakaes ([emailprotected]); and Heidi Vogt ([emailprotected]). Follow us @DigitalFuture on Twitter.

Ben Schreckinger covers tech, finance and politics for POLITICO; he is an investor in cryptocurrency.

If youve had this newsletter forwarded to you, you can sign up and read our mission statement at the links provided.

Link:
Crypto pleads the First- POLITICO - POLITICO

The election police of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis arrested and charged 20 people for allegedly voting in the 2020 presidential election illegally. The move is an attempt at bolstering the Big Lie of Donald Trump and the Republican Party of a stolen election and justifying the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol aimed at overturning the election.

Thursdays charges are the first major public action from the Office of Election Crimes and Security, a police force DeSantis created earlier this year dedicated solely to pursuing voter fraud and other supposed election crimes. The governors prosecutorial actions are both a political appeal to Trumps far-right base by fueling the false claims of widespread vote rigging and an attack against the working class and voting rights through the most anti-democratic and repressive measures.

The policing unit was part of Senate Bill (SB) 524, a voting law package DeSantis signed in April adding severe restrictions, including requiring voter rolls to be reviewed annually and updated, sharpening ID requirements and increasing penalties for violations of election laws.

The elections crime unit is presided over by the Florida Department of State, with its main focus being reviewing fraud allegations and conducting preliminary investigations. Already existing state law allowed the governor to appoint officers to investigate violations of election law but did not require him to do so.

With SB 524, DeSantis is now required to appoint a group of special officers from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement tasked with pursuing election law violations. The election crimes unit drastically undermines the authority of local prosecutors in handling such cases, a testament to DeSantis growing tyrannical grip over local law enforcement activities of all kinds.

At a campaign-style event in Fort Lauderdale, DeSantis declared that the 20 people charged had been previously convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense and were therefore exempt from a constitutional amendment that restores voting rights to some felons. Those arrested came from five different counties: Hillsborough (St. Petersburg), Orange (Orlando), Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade.

The charges levied against each voter included voting as anunqualified elector and false affirmation. Most of them were charged with a third-degree felony, which can result in up to $5,000 in fines and up to five years in prison.

They did not go through any process, they did not get their rights restored, and yet they went ahead and voted anyways, DeSantis said in front of right-wing supporters. That is against the law, and now theyre gonna pay the price for it.

All of those arrested had registered and voted in the 2020 elections while having past felony convictions. They assumed they qualified to vote due to a constitutional amendment approved in 2018 which restored the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they completed all terms of their sentence, including parole or probation.

Florida Amendment 4, however, does not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, and they would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless approved by the governor on a case-by-case basis and through a cabinet vote restoring their voting rights. According to testimony from those arrested, many of them were unaware that they did not qualify under Amendment 4.

Those arrested noted that their county tax collectors office had not notified them that they were unqualified to vote, and they had faced no issue registering. Gerri Karmer, chief communications officer for Hillsboroughs Elections Office, noted that the elections office was notified bystate officials in late 2021 and early 2022 that the voters had felony convictions and their rights were not restored, as part of a regular process.

Although the county elections office makes sure registration forms are filled out correctly, Karmer said, it is not the election offices role to verify the information but rather to submit it to the state for review.

One of the 20 charged described the strong-arm and intimidating tactics of police agents leading up to the arrest. One person said she found a Florida Department of Law Enforcement business card in her door frame a few weeks prior to her arrest, and when she called the number on it, the officer told her they found something fraudulent on her account. When the officers came to her job and asked if she had voted in 2020, she said yes and before long she found herself in handcuffs Thursday morning.

The establishment of the Office of Election Crime and Security last year coincided with the signing of SB 90, an omnibus voter suppression bill that authorized major restrictions on voting rights, focusing on in particular mail-in balloting and election workers. These were the two targets of the fascistic conspiracy theories of Trump and his fellow coup plotters, who alleged that both played a part in the former presidents electoral defeat.

The restoration of voting rights for convicted felons was passed alongside several amendments in recent years through ballot initiatives, with many of them having been opposed by the state legislatures Republican majority.

Floridas right-wing legislature introduced bill HJR 61 last year, raising the threshold to alter the state constitution from 60 percent of ballots cast to a full two-thirds, or nearly 67 percent of all votes.

Another bill passed was HB 699, which restricts the ability of Political Action Committees (PAC) to gather enough signatures to place proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot by placing a donation cap of $3,000 on PACs that are sponsoring proposed constitutional amendments.

Both laws came in response to popular support among Floridians for improved voting rights towards convicted felons, the gradual hiking of the states minimum wage and the legalization of medical marijuana. These measures are all deemed impermissible by corporations that want to keep workers impoverished, ultra-right evangelical groups, racists, police and agencies that enforce hated anti-drug laws, and by the Republican Party more generally.

The assault on voting rights in Florida has corresponded with other anti-democratic statutes DeSantis has signed in recent months targeting education and historical teaching. One of them, the Stop W.O.K.E Act, has served as part of a crusade to suppress free speech and conceal historical struggles against inequality in the name of preempting the influence of so-called woke ideology in schools and workplaces.

In one of the three lawsuits challenging the Stop WOKE Act, Tallahassee US District Judge Mark Walker ruled on Thursday that the law was unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment and impermissibly vague. Walker also refused to issue a stay that would keep the law in effect during any appeal by the state.

The suit against the law was filed by Clearwater-based Honeyfund.com and others, claiming their free speech rights were being curtailed because the law infringes on company training programs stressing diversity, inclusion, elimination of bias and prevention of workplace harassment.

Although DeSantis office has not officially responded to the ruling, the governor reiterated his fascistic political ambitions at two campaign-style rallies Friday. The first was for Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano, and the second, in Youngstown, Ohio, was for Republican Senate hopeful J.D. Vance.

Both events were organized by the reactionary student organization Turning Point Action. We must fight the woke in our schools, DeSantis declared to a cheering audience in Pennsylvania. We must fight the woke in our businesses. We must fight the woke in government agencies. We can never ever surrender to woke ideology. And Ill tell you this, the state of Florida is where woke goes to die.

DeSantis celebrated as victories his elimination of mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic in schools. At one point he directed the Florida Board of Education to dock the salaries of school board members and reduce overall funding to cash-strapped counties for defying his ban on mask wearing on K-12 campuses. He also touted his ban on vaccine passports, a reference to proof of vaccination required in some other areas of the country for entry in enclosed spaces.

He also spoke on his recent move against Hillsborough County State Attorney and Democrat Andrew Warren, who was suspended and effectively fired by DeSantis for opposing the governors far-right assault on abortion rights and anti-LGBTQ policies.

The firing of Warren exemplified the authoritarian strivings of DeSantis, who has become a Republican hopeful for the 2024 presidential election. The governor reportedly took action against the state attorney for signing a letter alongside prosecutors nationwide pledgingnot to prosecute people for violating abortion restrictions or a law prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors.

The responses of state Democrats have ranged from complete fecklessness to lending a craven olive branch to the states Republican Party apparatus in a bid to oust DeSantis in this mid-term elections. In a recent MSN interview, Florida Agriculture Commissioner and Democrat Nikki Fried, who is running for governor, attacked her primary challenger Charlie Crist from the right for failing to pull over moderate voters against the Republicans in the 2014 governors race.

Fried then lauded herself for receiving more Republican votes than any Democrat has ever received. When asked whether she was willing to approve the same reactionary bills that have been spearheaded by the Republicans in recent years, including the historic anti-abortion law passed this year limiting the procedure to before 15 weeks, the commissioner commended Republican legislators for their cooperation during her three-year tenure as agriculture secretary and their approval of her departments budgets.

In a particularly revealing remark, Fried said that there was an opportunity to work across the aisles and get things accomplished. She then appealed to the Republicans by vilifying DeSantis, saying that the party can go back to just being conversative with the incumbent out of office. This presentation all but provides a political pardon for the fascistic policymakers and operatives that dominate the Republican apparatus who have propelled the far-right legal rampage throughout the state.

Join the Socialist Equality Party!

The Socialist Equality Party is organizing the working class in the fight for socialism: the reorganization of all of economic life to serve social needs, not private profit.

Read more from the original source:
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has 20 people arrested for voting in the 2020 presidential election - WSWS

Speaking after Ryan was Leslie Kendrick, the director of the Center for the First Amendment at UVA Law. Kendrick, who chaired the committee that crafted UVAs free speech statement, invited the new UVA students to, among other things, take a broad view on the meaning of free inquiry.

Its debating people you disagree with, but its also finding communities and organizations of like-minded people thats freedom of association, Kendrick said. Its getting involved with your fellow students on issues that seem to have nothing to do with free speech. Sharing a common goal with different people such as volunteering for public service or playing on a team exposes you to new perspectives, helps you appreciate the good in others, and builds trust and respect.

Even something as simple as spending time with your roommates builds trust, which makes having real conversations easier. And the more real conversations we can have, the better off well be.

The search for the truth, Kendrick said, is not an easy process. She challenged students to keep an open mind.

If you went to the gym and didnt break a sweat, you would know you werent getting your moneys worth, she said. And if you go through college without sometimes being uncomfortable with ideas, the same thing is true. We learn, and we progress, by facing challenging ideas, not suppressing them.

Read the original here:
President Ryan to the Class of 2026: Be Curious, Not Judgmental - UVA Today

By Vivek Ramaswamy and Jed Rubenfeld

Alex Berenson is back on Twitter after being banned for nearly a year over Covid-19 misinformation. Last week the former New York Times reporter settled his lawsuit against the social-media company, which admitted error and restored his account. The First Amendment does not apply to private companies like Twitter, Mr. Berenson wrote last week on Substack. But because the Biden administration brought pressure to bear on Twitter, he believes he has a case that his constitutional rights were violated. Hes right.

In January 2021 we argued on these pages that tech companies should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines when they censor constitutionally protected speech in response to governmental threats and inducements. The Biden administration appears to have taken our warning calls as a how-to guide for effectuating political censorship through the private sector. And its worse than we feared.

Read more here:
Twitter Becomes a Tool of Government Censorship - The Wall Street Journal

A bill making its way through the South Carolina legislature would place a near-total ban on abortions, prohibiting the procedure except in cases where the life of the mother is at risk.

The measure, a draft of which is currently being considered by the state senate's Medical Affairs Committee, would also criminalize helping a person obtain an abortion including providing information about how to obtain an abortion. Under the current bill draft, a person who provides information could be prosecuted if they know the information "will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used for an abortion" and could face up to 25 years in prison.

Indiana-based attorney James Bopp, general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, which opposes abortion rights, helped draft the South Carolina bill.

National Right to Life wants to restore full legal protection to the unborn under the law, Bopp said. Since Roe v. Wade has been overturned, we can now do that.

But some legal experts think parts of the bill are on shaky legal ground and may violate the U.S. Constitution.

This particular law is constitutionally overbroad, Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles who specializes in First Amendment law, said. It covers speech that is constitutionally protected.

According to Volokh, the "aiding and abetting" portion of the draft bill would have more legal standing if it was narrowly focused on illegal abortions in the state.

If abortion is illegal and Supreme Court has said that it could be made illegal, then that does allow punishing at least certain kinds of speech related to abortion just like this is true with all crimes, he said.

The courts have repeatedly decided speech that encourages or solicits a person to commit a crime is not constitutionally protected, Volokh said. Just like assisting in a robbery could carry criminal penalties, he said, assisting in someones illegal abortion could legally carry penalties, too.

Jessie Hill, a law professor at Case Western University, said the problem with the South Carolina bill is it doesnt seem to distinguish between illegal and legal abortions.

For example, there's nothing that says specifically that the abortion being facilitated or about which information is given, Hill said. It doesn't say that that has to be an illegal abortion.

That, Hill said, could lead to punishing people who provide information about how to get abortions in other states, like North Carolina, where the procedure is legal.

If the abortion services are legal in those other states, then giving information about that is not normally a crime. And it can't be, Hill said. The states can't generally apply their laws beyond their own borders in that way.

Hill said criminalizing speech about a legal procedure likely violates the First Amendment since its not inciting or encouraging someone to commit a crime.

Bopp, of the National Right to Life Committee, maintains the bill is focused on illegal abortions and is fully constitutional.

South Carolina only has authority over acts committed in their own state," Bopp said. "And this would be an illegal abortion, which means an abortion illegal under the laws of South Carolina. If an actual abortion occurred outside the state, then it's not covered and it can't be covered.

The Medical Affairs Committee has scheduled a full-day of public input on South Carolina abortion legislation post-Roe for Aug. 17. The draft measure could be changed before going before the full state Senate for a vote.

Excerpt from:
Draft version of SC abortion bill raises concern among First Amendment experts - WUNC