Category Archives: First Amendment

The book has been banned in 10 counties across the nation.

BUNNELL, Fla. Flagler County deputies are looking into a complaint about a book. Investigators are trying to determine if a criminal investigation is even necessary.

The publication is geared toward the LBGTQ+ community. George M. Johnson, the author behind the novel, said people misinterpret his wring as pornography. Students, however, responded with a rally against censorship.

Students argue that "All Boys Aren't Blue" has material that is geared toward the LGBTQ+ community. The book has been banned in 10 counties across the nation.

It is important to note, the book is not part of any school curriculum. Johnson described his book as a "coming of age" story.

The book has been criticized for being pornographic and obscene, including topics such as sex, sexual assault and consent.

"All Boys Aren't Blue" caught the attention of one Flagler county school board member. Jill Woolbright made a formal complaint to the Flagler County Sheriff's Office. Records show the board member was upset about chapters 11 and 12.

The report goes on the show Woolbright inquired about the policy on banning books with the school board. She would have needed three votes to move forward with that process, but didn't succeed.

Flagler County officials said Woolbright didn't read the entire book. As far as the investigation, Flagler County officials sent First Coast News the following statement:

The complaint is being reviewed to determine the merit of the allegation or if a criminal investigation is warranted under Florida laws and case laws. Sheriff Staly will ensure the rights of everyone under the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment are protected.

Before the school board meeting Tuesday, First Coast News reached out to every member. However, no one has responded to that email.

See the original post here:
Flagler County deputies looking into possible criminal investigation regarding book themed for LGBTQ+ readers - FirstCoastNews.com WTLV-WJXX

Governments needed to leave the U.N. climate summit committed to keeping remaining fossil fuels in the ground as soon as possible. Climate scientists have long warned that burning oil, coal and gas is the No. 1 contributor to the climate emergency. President Joe Biden must use his executive authority to stop federal fossil fuel expansion and dangerous pipeline projects. Congress must end fossil fuel production as soon as possible in ways that provide for workers and communities, and dramatically fund renewable energy technologies.

Making this difficult to achieve is the power of fossil fuel corporations, thanks to Supreme Court decisions awarding never-intended constitutional rights: First Amendment free speech rights to spend money influencing elections and policies; Fourth Amendment privacy rights preventing public inspections to protect communities and the environment; and Fifth Amendment takings rights that represent a massive deterrent to keeping fossil fuels in the ground since trillions of dollars of lost future profits would have to be compensated.

House Joint Res. 48, proposing the We the People Amendment, would abolish corporate constitutional rights, ensuring that the rights of people and the right to a livable world are achievable. Newly elected U.S. Rep. Shontel Brown needs to become a co-sponsor.

Greg Coleridge,

Cleveland Heights

Greg Coleridge is outreach director of the national Move to Amend Coalition.

See the article here:
Adoption of We the People Amendment would help achieve green agenda: Letter to the Editor - cleveland.com

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie argues the GOPs most important domestic issue is school boards restricting parents First Amendment rights.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie told FOX Business Maria Bartiromo that parents rights should be a top priority for the GOP heading into the midterms after a bombshell memo revealed the FBI was reportedly instructed to use counter-terrorism tactics against angry parents.

"This to me is the most important domestic issue that the Republican Party should be discussing over the course of the next year," he said on "Mornings with Maria" Wednesday.

"Targeting parents who are objecting to what school boards are trying to shove down childrens throats is restricting their First Amendment rights and their rights as parents to be involved in their childrens education."

GOP REP ACCUSES MERRICK GARLAND OF 'PERJURING' HIMSELF AFTER EXPLOSIVE FBI WHISTLEBLOWER DOCS RELEASED

Christie believes that the Republican Party should be the party of parental choice.

"We need to be skeptical about America's future," he said. "We need to be the party of parental choice in education and parental involvement in education, and that's going to make the education system better, stronger and our education better for our kids."

A man whose one-minute time limit during the public comment section ended yells at the school board as hes asked to leave the Loudoun County school board meeting October 26, 2021 in Ashburn, VA. Loudoun County schools have been roiled with controvers (Photo by Katherine Frey/The Washington Post via Getty Images / Getty Images)

Christie suggested Democrats struggle with addressing the scholastic conflict could cause the Party trouble in next years midterm elections.

"When you have Joe Biden in the White House, who's a member of the teachers union, the teachers union is making the decisions regarding education in this country," Christie explained, "and if that doesn't frighten every parent who's watching this show and make them stand up and say 'no,' then I don't know what would."

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

The former governor said he plans to serve as a fundraising co-chair for every Republican governor running for office in 2022, claiming their election could have direct effects on each states education system.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie previews his new book Republican Rescue and discusses midterm trouble for Democrats.

"That's why we've got to win the House of Representatives back in 2022 and win these governorships back in order to impact education even more," Christie said.

READ MORE FROM FOX BUSINESS

Fox News' Bailee Hill contributed to this report.

More here:
Christie on bombshell FBI whistleblower memo: This is the 'most important' issue Republicans should discuss - Fox Business

A whistleblower in the Biden administration came forward Tuesday to claim that Attorney General Merrick Garland lied to Congress when he testified in October that the FBI isn't targeting parents protesting school board meetings. In response, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., called for Garland to return to Capitol Hill to answer for the allegations.

Hawley told "Fox News Primetime" Tuesday that the whistleblower's allegations show "parents are getting the domestic terrorist treatment" from the Biden administration.

FBI Director Christopher Wray is sworn in before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 2, 2021. (Graeme Jennings/Pool via AP) (AP)

"Garland said 'oh, no, we would never treat them like domestic terrorists' of course thats what left wing groups wanted. Garland said we are not going to do that [but] now we know the counter-terrorism division has been tracking parents," Hawley said.

Garland previously testified that the Department of Justice "supports and defends the First Amendment right of parents to complain as vociferously as they wish about the education of their children about the curriculum taught in the schools. That is not what the memorandum is about at all."

"I cant imagine any circumstance in which the patriot act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children nor can I imagine a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorism," the attorney general continued.

Hawley said he read the leaked email relative to the allegation that showed officials "drawing up lists of crimes" they could potentially charge parents with.

"Why is the Patriot Act being used against parents?" he asked, referring to the 2001 counter-terror law signed by President Bush in the wake of 9/11 terror attacks.

Attorney General Merrick Garland testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing examining the Department of Justice on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 27, 2021. (Tasos Katopodis/Pool via AP) (Tasos Katopodis/Pool via AP)

Host Jesse Watters said leaked emails show that Wray's agency created a "threat tag" to track school board incidents and parents themselves.

"We ask that your offices apply the threat tag to investigations of threats specifically directed at school board administrators, board members, teachers and staff," Watters read from one email.

CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Hawley said that Garland "at the very least" must be called back to the Senate Judiciary Committee and explain himself, while Watters noted that the media and Democrats seem to otherwise treat whistleblowers as "heroes."

"I would like to see how this whistleblower gets treated," he said.

Later Tuesday, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., further criticized Garland, saying in a statement that "Bidens Department of Justice is using FBI criminal and counterterrorism resources to target parents."

"The National School Board Association has since apologized for its letter, going as far as saying they 'regret' sending it. To date, more than half of the countrys state school board associations have already distanced themselves from the national group. But despite the facts, Attorney General Garland has continued his investigations of parents at school board meetings."

"This is further proof that we have a President in the White House who is more interested in going after our own citizens, including concerned parents, than he is in going after actual threats," the Bakersfield lawmaker continued, adding that every American should be "alarmed" by the precedent set by Garland.

See more here:
AG Garland must come back to Congress after whistleblower claims he lied about FBI targeting parents: Hawley - Fox News

Vargas represents District 1 on the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. She serves as vice chair and lives in the South Bay.

As a young girl in Mexico, I could never have imagined I would go on to graduate college with a degree in politics, or that I would be privileged enough to become an American citizen and have a career that has given me the opportunity to fight for the rights of my communities the rights to pursue their own iterations of the American dream, with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Having worked at different levels of government and as an executive in the nonprofit sector, I would often find myself as the sole woman or person of color in a room. It is a responsibility that I had no choice but to embrace having to be the person who speaks out to ensure we are not ignoring or erasing voices that deserve to be heard in the halls of power.

We provide this platform for community commentary free of charge. Thank you to all the Union-Tribune subscribers whose support makes our journalism possible. If you are not a subscriber, please consider becoming one today.

I ran for supervisor, acutely aware of the climate in which I was doing so. Politics of fear, hate and division have run rampant and spared no level of government. In the face of this, I vowed that I would continue to fight for what is right and advocate as I always have, as a voice to the voiceless. As the first Latina and immigrant elected to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors in its more than 170-year history, I am once again embracing the responsibility I have to represent the people and communities that molded me. The weight of that responsibility can often become heavy.

When I was sworn into office, I swore an oath to uphold our Constitution, which includes the First Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech. I have always believed that our Constitution is a living and breathing document that has and must adapt to be reflective of the diversity and divergence of opinions in our great republic. I am also aware that at the time it was brought to life, African Americans had been, and still were, under the binds of slavery, and women had not yet won the right to vote, both of which took hundreds of years to reverse. I will always work to uphold the Constitution, but I also have a lived experience as a woman, and as a person of color, and I know the damage of hate speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from accountability, and I will always hold hate speech accountable for the damage that it causes.

My mother always taught me to stand up for what is right, and to speak out against hate. It is an uncomfortable reality for many of our allies to reckon with. That any person of color can tell you. We endure microaggressions daily, from being asked if I would like documents translated into Mexican for me to understand to being spoken at in half speed presumably so that I can keep up with someones English. Or having to sit quietly as colleagues speak and make decisions on behalf of people whose lived experience they could never understand. Women of color endure double the responsibility to represent two marginalized identities. Women of color have been at the forefront of so many of our social movements in this country that have sought to bring equity to the systems and governments that were not created for people like us. We have often done so in the shadow of male counterparts, asked to help carry the water for movements but denied seats at tables of power.

On Nov. 2, an individual, as he had done repeatedly on record, once again proudly read off his premeditated, prewritten and rehearsed insults to members of the board, and ultimately directed despicably racist comments at the countys public health officer, a respected and dedicated public servant. I have no doubt she is capable of defending herself and remaining composed in the face of a blatantly racist aggression. But that is the very issue, women of color are asked to endure these aggressions quietly and respectfully. I do not regret my response, and I would do it again. I could not in good conscience permit such an attack to stand not on my watch.

I ask our allies to step up and help shoulder this responsibility. Speak out against hate speech and help us create spaces where women and people of color are not left to carry the burdens of racism. So that we too can access our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, free from hate.

Excerpt from:
Opinion: As a county supervisor, I wasnt going to sit silently and listen to a racist attack - The San Diego Union-Tribune

First Amendment audits are a largely American social movement that usually involves photographing or filming from a public space. It is often categorized by its practitioners, known as auditors, as activism and citizen journalism that tests constitutional rights;[1] in particular the right to photograph and video record in a public space.[2][3] Auditors believe that the movement promotes transparency and open government.[4] However, critics argue that audits are often confrontational in nature, as auditors often refuse to self-identify or explain their activities.[5][6] Some auditors have also been known to enter public buildings asserting that they have a legal right to openly carry firearms, leading to accusations that auditors are engaged in intimidation, terrorism, and the sovereign citizen movement.[7][8][9]

Auditors tend to film or photograph government buildings, equipment, access control points and sensitive areas, as well as recording law enforcement or military personnel present.[10] Auditors have been detained, arrested, assaulted, had camera equipment confiscated, weapons aimed at them, had their homes raided by a SWAT team, and been shot for video recording in a public place.[11][12][13][14][15][16] Such events have prompted police officials to release information on the proper methods of handling such an activity.[17][18] For example, a document sponsored by the International Association of Chiefs of Police states that the use of a recording device alone is not grounds for arrest, unless other laws are violated.[19]

The practice is predominantly an American concept, but it has also been seen in other countries including the United Kingdom,[20] Canada, and India.[citation needed]

Auditors typically travel to a place that is considered public property, such as a sidewalk or public easement, or a place open to the public, such as a post office or government building, and visibly and openly photograph and record buildings and persons in their view.[21]

In the case of sidewalk or easement audits, the conflict arises when a property owner or manager states, in substance, that photography of their property is not allowed. Sometimes, auditors will tell property owners upon questioning that they are photographing or recording for a story, they are photographing or recording for their "personal use", or sometimes auditors do not answer questions.[22][23] Frequently, local law enforcement is called and the auditor is sometimes reported as a suspicious person. Some officers will approach the auditors and request his or her identification and an explanation of their conduct. Almost universally, auditors will invoke the 4th Amendment that they are not required to identify themselves unless being suspected to have committed a crime. They quote the relevant law to the officer as the basis for their refusal to self-identify.[6][24] This sometimes results in officers arresting auditors for failing to identify themselves, obstruction of justice, disorderly conduct, or any potential or perceived crime that could potentially be justified by the occasion.[25][26]

The legality of recording in public was first clearly established in the United States following the case of Glik v. Cunniffe,[27] which confirmed that restricting a person's right to film in public would violate their First and Fourth amendment rights. As the 7th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals explained in ACLU v. Alvarez, "[t]he act of making an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendments guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording. The right to publish or broadcast an audio or audiovisual recording would be insecure, or largely ineffective, if the antecedent act of making the recording is wholly unprotected."[28][29] However, the legality of the auditors' actions beyond mere filming are frequently subject to debate. As long as the auditor remains in a public place where they are legally allowed to be, they have the right to record anything in plain view, subject to very limited time, place, and manner restrictions.[30][31]

Some auditors occasionally yell insults, derogatory language, and vulgarities at police officers who attempt to stop them from recording or improperly demand identification.[10] Police will sometimes charge auditors with disorderly conduct when they engage in behavior that could be considered unlawful. For example, an auditor in San Antonio was prosecuted and convicted of disorderly conduct after an audit.[32] After the trial, the Chief of Police for the City of San Antonio stated "[the verdict] puts a dagger in the heart of their First Amendment excuse for insulting police officers..."[33] Despite the San Antonio Police Chief's statement, insulting the police is consistently treated as constitutionally protected speech.[34][35][36] In State of Washington v. Marc D. Montgomery, a 15-year-old successfully won an appeal overturning his convictions for disorderly conduct and possession of marijuana on the grounds of free speech. Montgomery was arrested after shouting obscenities, such as "fucking pigs, fucking pig ass hole" at two police officers passing in their patrol car. Citing Cohen v. California, the Court ruled that Montgomery's words could not be classified as fighting words, and restricting speech based merely on its offensiveness would result in a "substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process."[37]

The rights exercised in a typical audit are freedom of speech in the First Amendment, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures in the Fourth Amendment, and the right to remain silent in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Auditors attempt to exercise their First Amendment right to photograph and record in public while avoiding committing any crime. The reason for this stems from the Supreme Court's decision in Terry v. Ohio which held that it was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment to detain someone when the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Further, following the Supreme Court's decision in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Court held that in States that have stop and identify statutes, a person may be required to provide their name to an officer who has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

The conflict with law enforcement officers generally arises because officers sometimes deem photography, in and of itself, "suspicious behavior" and use that as a reason to detain an Auditor and demand identification. Universally, Courts that have reviewed this specific issue have held that the fact that a person takes a photograph or makes an audio or video recording in a public place or in a place he or she has the right to be, does not constitute, in and of itself, a reasonable suspicion to detain the person, probable cause to arrest the person, or a sufficient justification to demand identification. Some states have even revised their penal code to reflect that issue.[38] Nonetheless, officers frequently illegally detain or arrest auditors for "suspicious behavior."[39][40]

One of the main problems that auditors face in subsequent lawsuits are the Supreme Court's decisions in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, and Anderson v. Creighton, which held that government officials, including officers, would be shielded from liability and damages as long as their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights".[41] Therefore, while a Fourth Amendment seizure claim might exist for an auditor who stood on a public sidewalk and took pictures of a police station only to be handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car, a First Amendment claim would be dismissed because although a violation occurred, it was not "clearly established."[42] Qualified immunity allows "all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law" to escape liability for egregious and obvious violations of civil rights.[43] So far the 1st, 3rd,[44] 5th, 7th,[45] 9th,[46] and 11th[47] Circuits have held that recording the police in the course of their official duties is a clearly established right.

Auditing is controversial in nature due to the confrontational tactics of some auditors, which some may see as intimidation or harassment.[48] In addition, many public employees are not familiar with handling people walking around silently recording their interactions. While the conduct is generally legal, such activity may cause some people to feel alarmed. Some auditors cite independent research into relevant laws, pointing out that they are currently being recorded by cameras in the building, or by stating that there is no expectation of privacy in public.

Audits are even more confrontational when aggressive auditors engage in verbal disputes with government employees. Some auditors may use profane language during the audit. Some may confuse obscenity for profanity, and while the latter is generally protected by the first amendment, the right to engage in a verbal dispute depends highly on the circumstances. While on public streets, parks, or sidewalks, the right to free speech is at its highest, as one is within a traditional public forum. However, in limited public forums, such as public buildings, meeting rooms, and other public lobbies, the right to free speech may be more limited.

One auditor stated that the goal of an audit is to "put yourself in places where you know chances are the cops are going to be called. Are they going to uphold the constitution, uphold the law . . . or break the law?"[49] Auditors state that they seek to educate the public that photography is not a crime, while publicizing cases where officers illegally stop what is perceived as illegal conduct.[50][51]

An auditor selects a public facility and then films the entire encounter with staff and customers alike. If no confrontation or attempt to stop the filming occurs, then the facility passes the audit;[52] if an employee attempts to stop a filming event, it fails the audit.[53]

Some auditors are concerned that if officers are willing to harass, detain, and arrest auditors, who intentionally avoid doing anything that might be considered a crime, normal citizens might shy away from recording officers for fear of retaliation.[54][55] Justice Jacques Wiener of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit wrote in a 2017 federal appeals decision in favor of an auditor detained for filming police officers, Filming the police contributes to the publics ability to hold the police accountable, ensure that police officers are not abusing their power, and make informed decisions about police policy.[6]

Read more:
First Amendment audits - Wikipedia

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.

Although some government action implicating religion is permissible, and indeed unavoidable, it is not clear just how much the Establishment Clause tolerates. In the past, the Supreme Court has permitted religious invocations to open legislative session, public funds to be used for private religious school bussing and textbooks, and university funds to be used to print and publish student religious groups' publications. Conversely, the Court has ruled against some overtly religious displays at courthouses, state funding supplementing teacher salaries at religious schools, and some overly religious holiday decorations on public land.

One point of contention regarding the Establishment Clause is how to frame government actions that implicate religion. Framing questions often arise in the context of permanent religious monuments on public land. Although it is reasonably clear that cities cannot install new religious monuments, there is fierce debate over whether existing monuments should be removed. When the Supreme Court recently considered this issue in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), and McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), it did not articulate a clear general standard for deciding these types of cases. The Court revisited this issue inSalazar v. Buono (08-472), a case which consideredthe constitutionality of a large white Christian cross erected by members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on federal land in the Mojave Desert. While five justices concluded that a federal judge erred in barring a congressionally ordered land transfer which would place the memorial on private land, there was no majority reasoning as to why. Three Justices held that the goal of avoiding governmental endorsement of religion does not require the destruction of religious symbols in the private realm, while Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring this complaint.

Read the original here:
Establishment Clause | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia ...

The University of Kentucky is increasingly the first choice for students, faculty and staff to pursue their passions and their professional goals. In the last two years, Forbes has named UK among the best employers for diversity, and INSIGHT into Diversity recognized us as a Diversity Champion four years running.UK is ranked among the top 30 campuses in the nation for LGBTQ* inclusion and safety. UK has been judged a Great College to Work for" threeyears in a row, and UK is among only 22 universities in the country on Forbes' list of "America's Best Employers." We are ranked among the top 10 percent of public institutions for research expenditures a tangible symbol of our breadth and depth as a university focused on discovery that changes lives and communities. And our patients know and appreciate the fact that UK HealthCare has been named the states top hospital for five straight years. Accolades and honors are great. But they are more important for what they represent: the idea that creating a community of belonging and commitment to excellence is how we honor our mission to be not simply the University of Kentucky, but the UniversityforKentucky.

Continue reading here:
2021 State of the First Amendment Address Scheduled for Nov. 17 - UKNow

The University of Florida denied three of its professors permission to testify in a voting rights case against the state, saying it was a "conflict of interest" and "adverse to UF's interests." Jeff Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images hide caption

The University of Florida denied three of its professors permission to testify in a voting rights case against the state, saying it was a "conflict of interest" and "adverse to UF's interests."

Three University of Florida professors were denied permission from the school to testify in a major voting rights case against the state, documents filed in federal court show.

The plaintiffs in the case, which was filed in May, are a coalition of voting rights organizations that are suing Florida Secretary of State Laurel Lee. The groups argue that a new state law, which severely limits the ability to vote through a drop box or vote by mail in the state, discriminates against voters of color and violates the Voting Rights Act.

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed S.B. 90 into law in the first week of May, at an event that allowed no local reporters but was streamed live by Fox News. Republicans say the law is needed to protect "election integrity and transparency." Lee has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

As part of the testimony, the plaintiffs were seeking three professors from the university Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin to testify as expert witnesses. All three specialize in voting rights and behavior and election law.

The documents filed Friday, though, reveal that the University of Florida denied all three professors permission to testify, saying it was a "conflict of interest" marking a departure from normal procedure and bringing up a concerning limitation of free speech.

The professors' requests to appear as expert witnesses were filed through the university's conflict of interest office, which requires faculty to "report any outside activities and interests." Guidance from the university shows that serving as an expert witness is considered to receive "low scrutiny" and is "generally approved" as long as it is "not likely to adversely impact UF's interests."

Responding to McDonald and Austin's request to testify, the university said that "litigation against the state is adverse to UF's interests," according to the documents the plaintiffs filed Friday.

For Smith, the university said, "Outside activities that may pose a conflict of interest to the executive branch of the State of Florida create a conflict for the University of Florida."

The plaintiffs say that since DeSantis is the head of the state's executive branch, they intend to ask if the governor's office was involved in the university's decision.

The professors' attorney, Paul Donnelly, sent a letter to the university on Friday calling the school's decision "unacceptable."

"Faculty do not forfeit their First Amendment rights as citizens by accepting an offer of employment with UF," Donnelly wrote. "Professors Smith, McDonald, and Austin testify as expert witnesses in their fields on their own time. Their testimony does not interfere with any of their job duties. There are no conflicts of interest."

In an interview with NPR, Donnelly said that "it's unprecedented in American history for a public institution to attempt a ban like this. ... It's chilling the exercise of free thought and speech."

Donnelly's letter asks the university to reverse its decision. But even if it doesn't, the original decision to deny permission is already grounds for a strong violation of the First Amendment, Margaret Russell, a professor of law at California's Santa Clara University, told NPR.

"There's a very long history, as long as universities in this country, of academic freedom of professors," Russell said.

"When professors are hired, they are hired for their expertise in teaching, in research," she said, "They're not just employees of the university. They are serving the public, the students, the field of academic knowledge. And in this case, a very important area of voting rights."

Russell said she's never seen a ban like this imposed; the university's decision, if maintained, would set a "disastrous" precedent of curtailing academic freedom, she said.

The University of Florida released a statement on Saturday saying it has a "long track record" of supporting free speech.

"It is important to note that the university did not deny the First Amendment rights or academic freedom of professors Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin," the school said in an email to NPR. "Rather, the university denied requests of these full-time employees to undertake outside paid work that is adverse to the university's interests as a state of Florida institution."

The university has strong ties to DeSantis. The chair of the board of trustees at the school, Mori Hosseini, is an adviser to DeSantis and a major Republican donor.

Read the rest here:
UF professors denied permission to testify in voting rights case - NPR

Parents and community members attend a Loudoun County School Board meeting which included a discussion about critical race theory, in Ashburn, Va., June 22, 2021. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)

Attacking woke curricula on First Amendment grounds wont work. Parents must instead hold school boards accountable in local elections.

When it comes to exposing the illegitimacy of the administrative state, Columbia Law School constitutional scholar Philip Hamburgers work has been invaluable. This past weekend, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, he turned his attention to another pernicious progressive project: the conversion of the nations public schools into ideological-indoctrination factories that peddle woke, race-obsessed anti-Americanism.

Professor Hamburger is right to highlight this projects offensiveness to the parents of schoolchildren as among its worst features. That said, parental dissent, which is widespread but not unanimous, is just one reason why the project should be resisted. And Hamburger strains mightily not only to portray this dissent as the dispositive objection to progressive curricula, but to portray such curricula as a violation of the constitutional right to free speech.

It is an ill-conceived theory, and reliance on it will only disserve a critical cause by giving progressives an easy target to shoot at.

Hamburger asserts:

Education is mostly speech, and parents have a constitutional right to choose the speech with which their children will be educated. They therefore cannot constitutionally be compelled, or even pressured, to make their children a captive audience for government indoctrination.

It would be generous to describe these propositions as dubious. Lets assume for arguments sake that most pedagogy, like most human interaction, takes the form of speech, and therefore that the whole of education is, as Hamburger maintains, covered by the First Amendment. Even if all that were true, what he is arguing for here would not be freedom of speech, but freedom from speech.

Essentially, he posits that the First Amendment gives one party to a protected communication a veto over the other. By this logic, if parents wanted their children to be taught that two plus two equals five, teachers would be expected to comply. Ironically, moreover, Hamburgers suggestion that public schools are compelling parents to make their children a captive audience for government indoctrination, or at least pressuring them to do so, is belied by the very legal authority that he offers in support of his specious First Amendment claim.

That precedent is Pierce v. Society of Sisters, a 1925 Supreme Court decision. Society of Sisters involved an Oregon law mandating that children attend the states public schools, which would have the effect of shuttering private schools. Hamburger may be right that the Oregon law was motivated by anti-Catholic bigotry. Yet his description of the case is circumscribed in its implication that only religious schools stood to be affected by the law. From that faulty premise, he proceeds to misconstrue the Courts invalidation of the law as granting parents a right to control the content of their childrens education on First Amendment grounds. He then compounds this error by rationalizing that, because the freedom of parents in educating their children belongs to all parents, not only the faithful, the First Amendment liberty the Court must have been relying on is free speech, not free exercise of religion.

Where to begin? Perhaps with the fact that Society of Sisters is not a First Amendment case. Nor was it solely concerned with private schools of a religious orientation.

The Society of Sisters corporation which operated various primary, high school, and junior-college schools was joined by another plaintiff objecting to the states public-school mandate: Hill Military Academy, a nonreligious enterprise (it operated military-training academies for boys age five to 21) that would also have been put out of business by the Oregon law.

The Court invalidated the law not on First Amendment grounds but explicitly on the grounds that these businesses Fourteenth Amendment right to economic liberty, rooted in the protection of property, had been violated.

To be sure, the Court found that the religious and military schools would be impermissibly destroyed because the state was unreasonably interfer[ing in] the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. But the remedy for that, the Court ruled, was that parents could not be compelled to send their children to state-operated public schools. The Court did not come close to implying much less holding that the Constitution empowered parents to control the content of education in public schools.

Indeed, the Court implicitly endorsed the content of public-school curricula: In upholding the private schools right to operate, the Court stressed that Hill Military Academy, just like the public schools, provided courses of study [that] conform to the requirements of the state board of education.

State standards were, of course, different in 1925 than they tend to be today in jurisdictions dominated by progressives. As the Court then observed:

No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare.

Obviously, even though many of our teachers are as exemplary as ever, today we can no longer blithely assume that states will ensure students are instructed in principles of good citizenship, as conveyed by teachers of good character and patriotic disposition. State support for progressives indoctrination agenda precisely entails unleashing willfully left-wing educators to undermine patriotism. Nevertheless, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did not federalize education, which remains a state responsibility in our federalist system. Society of Sisters affirms that the states have the power to supervise and regulate schools public and private.

That does not render parents helpless. Far from it. If parents find state public schools wanting, Society of Sisters offers them a remedy: They can send their children to the private schools that the Courts ruling safeguarded.

The case simply does not imply that parents have a First Amendment right to control what is taught in public schools. Nor is it clear how such a right would work in practice, since (a) the First Amendment aims to promote even objectionable speech, not suppress it; and (b) not all parents would agree on what should be taught in the public schools, which is why the Courts vouchsafing of a viable alternative to the public schools makes sense.

Constitutional conservatives have too often fallen into the trap of believing the courts will save us from the progressive onslaught even when constitutional counterclaims were strong, as for example were the First Amendment free-speech objections to campaign-finance legislation and the commerce-clause objections to Obamacare. The judiciary is not going to rescue parents from the Lefts abuse of scholastic instruction through means that ought to be anathema to constitutional conservatives regardless: a federal judicial diktat based on an unsupportable reading of free-speech principles.

The First Amendment offers no quick fix here. The only way to solve the problem is through democratic accountability at the local level: Parents, who have the greatest interest in their childrens education, must get themselves elected to school boards and make their voices heard in protest against progressive indoctrination.

Thankfully, that push is already underway.

Link:
The Wrong Way to Fight Progressive Indoctrination in Public Schools - National Review