Washington state Rep. Matt Shea is accused of damaging the Capitol steps in Olympia with olive oil during a counter-protest in March.

Washington state has issued a $4,761 cleaning bill to embattled state Rep. Matt Shea (R-Spokane Valley) for an incident in March.

During a Satanist demonstration on the state Capitol steps in Olympia, surveillance cameras captured Shea with a bottle of olive oil during an apparent counter-protest.

Investigators say Shea spilled oil down the steps, causing thousands of dollars in damage. Officials say the oil was spilled on historic pieces of marble and sandstone and required extensive cleaning and repairs.

On Wednesday, Shea was sent a $4,761.34 bill for the damage and clean-up costs.

Justin Harvey-John Ashby, a self-described Satanist, who attended the March event, said he saw Shea pouring out the oil.

"He was mumbling a prayer and then I saw him dump out the oil on the steps," said Ashby, who considered it a risk to public safety.

He said he remembered thinking, "'What is wrong with you?'"

Ashby was glad the state gave Shea the cleaning bill.

"Hell yeah," said Ashby "I believe that he should be punished for disregarding the public safety and destroying public property."

Tarkus Claypool, media liaison for the The Satanic Temple of Washington, shared the following statement on Thursday:

"The fine people at DES(Department of Enterprise Services) are actually very protective of those granite steps. They asked us to change to our ritual to ensure that our invocation didn't damage them. We showed respect for public property as all responsible citizens should, especially elected officials.

It's going to take a lot more than Matt Shea and his bottle of salad dressing to stop us from exercising our first amendment rights. So he and the rest of the WA State legislature can count on us asking to give an invocation next year."

Gov. Jay Inslee and House and Senate leaders called for Shea to resign from the House of Representatives after an investigation determined he organized and participated in events considered "domestic terrorism" by investigators.

He has not responded to requests for comment.

See original here:

Satanists support $4,700 cleaning bill sent to embattled Washington state Rep. Matt Shea - KING5.com

Submitted by William Elder.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, wrote James Madison.

Strong clear words. Words often twisted to serve one political cause or another. These days it is the vociferous far right of the Republican Party, often religious conservatives. Religion, even their Protestant evangelical version of it, is alive and well in todays America, no fear except fear itself, as one President put it

Less clear is the jumbling together of freedom of speech, press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. Each could have used its own separate mention, clarification.

The press, reporting as best it can against the administrations all-out attempts to control, silence, or distort its factual examination of our shortcomings, is grappling with the right wings antipathy to fact itself, the truth regarding its failures and misgovernance, the gross incompetence of its leaders, especially top down.

The freedom of speech part, so bantered about by every side of every argument, forgets one key and vital right implied therein, though not implicitly stated: That implied right is: For your speech, however heartfelt, has the concomitant right to be ignored by all thoughtful men and women: We hear you; we understand; we choose to ignore your comments; we thank you! Next!

Petition(ing) the Government for a redress of grievances good or ill, substantive or frivolous if they were shingles they would keep us all dry for a thousand years, with a money-back guarantee for five hundred more! No Constitutional worry there.

This First Amendment is but one of the strong pillars driven into our political landscape by our Founders, not at the time of their Constitutional deliberations but forced upon them, as a required afterthought, an extended measure of not merely our structure of governance, but our invite to humanity come participate equally in it.

Related

Read the rest here:

The First Amendment To the Constitution of The United States of America - The Suburban Times

Divorcing couples have a First Amendment right to disparage each other on social media even if probate judges are worried the bitterness will impact the mental health of children caught between their warring parents, the states highest court has ruled.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court said free speech rights were wrongly curtailed by a non-disparagement order forbidding the husband or wife from posting about the divorce on Facebook and other social media sites until their child turned 14. At the time the order was issued, the child was a toddler, the SJC said.

We conclude that the nondisparagement orders at issue here operate as an impermissible prior restraint on speech, the SJC ruled. The judge put careful thought into his orders in an effort to protect a child caught in the middle of a legal dispute who was unable to advocate for himself[but since] there was no showing of an exceptional circumstance that would justify the imposition of a prior restraint, the nondisparagement orders issued here are unconstitutional.

The social media ban was crafted by two Norfolk Probate and Family Court judges arising from the divorce between Ronnie Shakand his former wife, Masha M. Shak, who had one son born in 2017 during their 15-month marriage, records show.

In 2018, Ronnie Shak made multiple Facebook postings accessed by members of the former couples synagogue, Masha Shaks relatives, and a Facebook group with more than 700 members. The postings accused Masha Shak of wrongly blocking Ronnie Shak from seeing their son, leading Probate and Family Court Judge Virginia Ward to issue a two-paragraph order that banned both from posting any comments, solicitations,solicitations, references or other information regarding this litigation on social media."

Misha Shak sought a contempt citation when Ronnie Shak posted on Facebook after Wards order. Judge George Phelan then took up the matter and issued an 11-page order banning social media postings until the couples son turned 14. Phelan also put the ban on hold so the SJC could review the constitutionality of his decision, which he said he believed was necessary but raised significant legal issues that the top state court must address.

In a 13-page ruling written by Justice Kimberly S. Budd, the SJC said government has very limited authority to stop someone from publicly expressing their views under the First Amendment and Article 16 of the states constitution. Prior restraint is acceptable when harm is immediate and cannot be prevented by any means other than suppressing the free speech rights, the court noted.

But there was no evidence in this case, the court said in the decision issued Thursday.

The potential impact on a childs mental health at some point in the future does not meet that high legal threshold, especially in this case where the child cannot on his own access social media and when no information has been produced showing a current link between Facebook postings and proof of an emotional harm to the child, the court noted.

Budd added: As important as it is to protect a child from the emotional and psychological harm that might follow from one parents use of vulgar or disparaging words about the other, merely reciting that interest is not enough to satisfy the heavy burden of justifying a prior restraint."

The court noted that probate judges - and litigants - may be able to curtail social media postings under other laws, by reaching a mutually agreed upon non-disparagement order, or by civil lawsuits for emotional harm. Judges can also caution the parents their social media postings will impact custody decisions, the SJC said.

But none of the laws are even necessary, the court noted, if the parents recognize whats most important during divorce litigation - their children.

"The best solution would be for parties in divorce and child custody matters to rise above any acrimonious feelings they may have, and, with the well-being of their children paramount in their minds, simply refrain from making disparaging remarks about one another,'' the SJC said.

John R. Ellement can be reached at john.ellement@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @JREbosglobe.

Read more:

Divorcing couples have First Amendment right to disparage each other on social media, SJC rules - The Boston Globe

Would mandating public exposure of Russian hostile information operations in the United States violate the Constitutions First Amendment guarantee of free speech? At first glance, the question seems absurd how would the Bill of Rights protect Russian intelligence and propaganda operations?

But the issue arises because Russian messages aimed at American audiences may include comments from American sources, raising concerns that exposure would imply that the original authors of the content are part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

This could have a chilling effect on the original American authors right to free speech. They might be branded as fellow travelers a derogatory label from the Cold War or at the very least, useful idiots a term sometimes attributed to Lenin to describe nave individuals who were susceptible to Communist propaganda.

Neither label applies here. Unlike the early days of the Russian Revolution or Cold War era, todays Russian propagandists are not seeking to advance Communist ideology, but rather are intended to weaken its perceived foes. The American authors they cite are not advancing or defending Russian causes.

Russias hostile information operations are continuous and extend to a broad range of domestic issues. Russia aims to create confusion, foment distrust of all institutions, and deepen discord on just about every contentious topic, including national debates on race, immigration, policing gun control, and other issues. Russian efforts seek to amplify extreme positions, often magnifying dissonance and aggravating divisions by promoting the polar expressions of both sides of the issue. This is where domestic content is used.

The First Amendment issue recently came up in continuing discussions among participants in a workshop on Russias Weapons of Mass Deception that examined the threat of hostile Russian information operations and possible countermeasures. This was not new territory for them.

Most had long firsthand experience in this area. They had served in the White House, the State Department, United States Information Agency, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, as well as independent research centers under both Republican and Democratic administrations. They pointed out that the United States has a long history of countering Soviet and Russian disinformation, propaganda, and other influence operations targeting the West.

Among the options discussed, one of the most useful and least controversial countermeasures to Russian influence operations is public exposure. The public has a right to know what the Russians are doing, how they are doing it, and the scale of their activities. Current efforts contribute to awareness of Russian information operations but do not ensure public disclosure.

Exposure is not censorship. It does not prevent or regulate speech. It could be achieved by legally requiring self-disclosure, by mandating government exposure of foreign information operations, or by a combination of the two mandatory self-disclosure of Russian efforts and exposure of those Russian actors who do not comply.

Ample precedents exist for mandating transparency and limiting foreign interference. Persons and organizations operating in the United States on behalf of foreign governments must register as foreign agents. This law was passed in 1938 to preclude censorship.

The constitutional guarantee of free speech is generally considered also to include the right of Americans to receive speech from foreign speakers, including hostile governments. Imposing a disclosure requirement does not prevent this; it enables the public to evaluate the material better.

Other examples of the disclosure include campaign financing, the sponsors of political ads, and the routine voluntary practice by newspapers to label sponsored inserts that are paid for by foreign governments.

The United States rarely shuts down foreign news broadcasting in this country, even though the broadcasts may offer alternate viewpoints or criticism of U.S. policies.

However, the U.S. government has required RT and Sputnik, which are funded by the Russian government, and CGTN, which is funded by the government of China to register as foreign agents. This is not because of foreign-government funding, but because of a judgment that, unlike the BBC and the other foreign broadcasters, these three are responsive to current foreign-government policy goals. They are not independent.

This does not mean they cannot operate in the United States. Indeed, a Midwest radio broadcaster transmits Sputnik news daily. They must identify themselves.

While discussants were comfortable with the government exposing foreign information campaigns, they did not want to see exposure become a means of belittling or vilifying Americans whose content might be repeated in part or in whole, correctly or out of context, by Russian operators. Close oversight of any effort could be required to ensure that selective exposure is not abused to support political agendas. All of the respondents are mindful of the current partisan environment.

The lack of any effective American response could encourage Russia as well as other adversaries of the United States to continue or escalate their campaigns. Exposing Russian activities is a matter of policy and politics, not the Constitution or the law.

First Amendment concerns are important, but they do not protect hostile information campaigns by foreign actors, nor are they a legal excuse for inaction by the United States.

Brian Michael Jenkins is a senior adviser to the president of the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.

Here is the original post:

Exposing Russian information operations does not violate the First Amendment | TheHill - The Hill

I was rereading one of my favorite opinionsJustice Jackson's dissent in U.S. v. Ballard (1944)and I thought I'd pass it along. The defendants were convicted for using the mails to defraud people into joining (for money) the "I Am" movement. The alleged false claims were,

that Guy W. Ballard, now deceased, alias Saint Germain, Jesus, [and] George Washington, had been selected as a divine messenger; and that the words of the alleged divine entity, Saint Germain, would be transmitted to mankind through the medium of Guy W. Ballard;

that [the Ballards], by reason of their alleged high spiritual attainments and righteous conduct, had been selected as divine messengers through which the words of Saint Germain[] would be communicated to mankind under the teachings commonly known as the "I Am" movement;

that [the Ballards] had, by reason of supernatural attainments, the power to heal persons of [incurable] diseases , and had in fact cured hundreds of persons .

The court concluded that it was permissible to convict the (surviving) Ballards based on a showing that they didn't sincerely believe what they were saying, though the jury couldn't consider the truth or falsehood of what they were saying. Justice Jackson dissented:

I should say the defendants have done just that for which they are indicted. If I might agree to their conviction without creating a precedent, I cheerfully would do so. I can see in their teachings nothing but humbug, untainted by any trace of truth. But that does not dispose of the constitutional question whether misrepresentation of religious experience or belief is prosecutable; it rather emphasizes the danger of such prosecutions.

In the first place, as a matter of either practice or philosophy I do not see how we can separate an issue as to what is believed from considerations as to what is believable. The most convincing proof that one believes his statements is to show that they have been true in his experience. Likewise, that one knowingly falsified is best proved by showing that what he said happened never did happen.

How can the Government prove these persons knew something to be false which it cannot prove to be false? If we try religious sincerity severed from religious verity, we isolate the dispute from the very considerations which in common experience provide its most reliable answer.

In the second place, any inquiry into intellectual honesty in religion raises profound psychological problems. [I]t is not theology and ceremonies which keep religion going. Its vitality is in the religious experiences of many people [:] " conversations with the unseen, voices and visions, responses to prayer, changes of heart, deliverances from fear, inflowings of help, assurances of support, whenever certain persons set their own internal attitude in certain appropriate ways."

If religious liberty includes, as it must, the right to communicate such experiences to others, it seems to me an impossible task for juries to separate fancied ones from real ones, dreams from happenings, and hallucinations from true clairvoyance. Such experiences, like some tones and colors, have existence for one, but none at all for another. They cannot be verified to the minds of those whose field of consciousness does not include religious insight. When one comes to trial which turns on any aspect of religious belief or representation, unbelievers among his judges are likely not to understand and are almost certain not to believe him.

And then I do not know what degree of skepticism or disbelief in a religious representation amounts to actionable fraud. Belief in what one may demonstrate to the senses is not faith. All schools of religious thought make enormous assumptions, generally on the basis of revelations authenticated by some sign or miracle. The appeal in such matters is to a very different plane of credulity than is invoked by representations of secular fact in commerce.

Some who profess belief in the Bible read literally what others read as allegory or metaphor, as they read Aesop's fables. Religious symbolism is even used by some with the same mental reservations one has in teaching of Santa Claus or Uncle Sam or Easter bunnies or dispassionate judges. It is hard in matters so mystical to say how literally one is bound to believe the doctrine he teaches and even more difficult to say how far it is reliance upon a teacher's literal belief which induces followers to give him money.

If the members of the ["I Am"] sect get comfort from the celestial guidance of their "Saint Germain," however doubtful it seems to me, it is hard to say that they do not get what they pay for. Scores of sects flourish in this country by teaching what to me are queer notions. It is plain that there is wide variety in American religious taste. The Ballards are not alone in catering to it with a pretty dubious product.

The chief wrong which false prophets do to their following is not financial. The collections aggregate a tempting total, but individual payments are not ruinous. I doubt if the vigilance of the law is equal to making money stick by over-credulous people.

But the real harm is on the mental and spiritual plane. There are those who hunger and thirst after higher values which they feel wanting in their humdrum lives. They live in mental confusion or moral anarchy and seek vaguely for truth and beauty and moral support. When they are deluded and then disillusioned, cynicism and confusion follow.

The wrong of these things, as I see it, is not in the money the victims part with half so much as in the mental and spiritual poison they get. But that is precisely the thing the Constitution put beyond the reach of the prosecutor, for the price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.

I do not doubt that religious leaders may be convicted of fraud for making false representations on matters other than faith or experience, as for example if one represents that funds are being used to construct a church when in fact they are being used for personal purposes. But that is not this case, which reaches into wholly dangerous ground.

When does less than full belief in a professed credo become actionable fraud if one is soliciting gifts or legacies? Such inquiries may discomfort orthodox as well as unconventional religious teachers, for even the most regular of them are sometimes accused of taking their orthodoxy with a grain of salt. I would dismiss the indictment and have done with this business of judicially examining other people's faiths.

Read the original post:

The Price of the First Amendment "Is That We Must Put Up With a Good Deal of Rubbish" - Reason

As the COVID-19 crisis stretches on, were seeing more conflict, more protests and particularly more online rancor in the debate over how and if public officials should open up society or government restraints on gatherings, from bowling leagues and bars to religious services and retail stores.

The First Amendments protection for free speech covers most of what we may say, whether its impolite, insulting, biased or uplifting, even commentary or forcefully expressed opinions that most of us would find repulsive or repugnant.

But one area not protected as free speech is called a true threat, words that cause a person to fear for their safety or life. In a crisis, we may find things we say are taken in a different context by police, prosecutors and juries than at other, less stressful times.

Unfortunately for those trying to measure their own remarks, setting out a precise definition for what constitutes a true threat has flummoxed even the U.S. Supreme Court. The result is a division of opinion in federal and state courts across the country.

Toss in the new machinations of social media, which remove the element of face-to-face confrontation, but also provide a degree of anonymity and lack of restraints and the lines dividing protected and unprotected speech blur even more.

Speech threatening bodily harm made to a specific person standing in front of you while you have a weapon for example, holding a knife and saying I have a knife and Im going to cut your throat leaves little doubt that its a true threat.

But what if the person at whom those same words are directed isnt nearby when the remark is made, but sees it hours or days later on social media? What if the speaker sets the words to music, posts the statement as part of a YouTube video and later claims it was just a form of anger control therapy even if the intended target (think you or me) took the threat seriously?

For many years, evidence that a statement could be judged as putting any reasonable person in fear was enough to support a conviction in many courts. But in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Elonis v. United States, focused on the intent of the person making the statement, effectively saying that consideration was important and perhaps essential when deciding if the speaker was indeed issuing a true threat.

But the high court didnt set out any means of measuring intent, leaving things hanging. Two years later, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, in Perez v. Florida, where the court refused to reconsider the conviction of a man who threatened to blow up a liquor store, that while states must prove more than mere utterance of threatening words, some level of intent is required (and) the Court should also decide precisely what level of intent suffices under the First Amendment, noting that did not happen in Elonis.

All of that leaves many of us subject to state laws that dont include a requirement to consider what we might mean when we say it, just how a reasonable person would feel about our words. Got enough money or time to get to the Supreme Court? Such a conviction would seem likely to be thrown out.

Not the bright line between right and wrong that we should expect to see when it comes to criminal prosecutions.

Case in point: According to Kentuckys Lexington Herald Leader, Louisville lawyer James Gregory Troutman, 53, was charged April 22 with terroristic threatening for two Facebook posts directed at Gov. Andy Beshear.

Maybe some should ask Beshear in a press conference about his thoughts on William Goebel, Troutman was reported by police to have said in a post, For those of you who dont know the history its a good read. Goebel, shot to death in 1900, in is the only serving U.S. governor ever assassinated.

Police said Troutman also later posted, in a Facebook exchange about Beshear ordering photos to be taken of license plates of churchgoers flouting social distancing orders, With any luck the gov will be the one at whom the shooting will be directed.

Police said Troutman was threatening to commit a crime likely to result in death or serious physical injury to the Kentucky governor. But Troutmans lawyer said the man didnt say he was going to kill him.

If you were sitting on a jury considering the charges against Troutman, a 1969 Supreme Court decision in Watts v. United States might help you decide. In that Vietnam War-era case, a protester was charged with threatening President Lyndon Johnson for telling a rally that if they ever make me carry a rifle, the first man I want to get in my sights is LBJ.

The court later decided that Watts had engaged in a crude form of political hyperbole rather than utter a true threat. The justices identified what later came to be known as the Watts factors: The context in which the words were spoken, the reaction of those who heard the remarks and the certainty of the remarks.

They noted that Watts made his statements during a political rally, that those who overheard his remarks laughed and his statement was conditional rather than definitive.

Still today, some lower courts use the Watts factors to determine whether speech crosses the line into the realm of true threats, Freedom Forum First Amendment Fellow David Hudson notes.

Another kind of hyperbole: Wishing that a meteor will fall from the sky and injure or kill a certain person may well be what most of us would find hateful and morally wrong, but its safely protected under the First Amendment.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court found in 2003, in Virginia v. Black perhaps its most direct ruling about true threat that the state of Virginia could prosecute people for cross burning intended to intimidate or instill fear in others. Dissenting voices said cross burning is always unprotected speech since it can have no effect other than intimidating others, but the courts majority did not agree. Again, the intent of the speaker, as in Elonis, rather than the meaning to those receiving the message, was held most significant.

The justices did offer this definition: True threats are those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group.

Adding to the conflicted legal views over true threats was the 2019 refusal by the justices to consider an appeal by Jamal Knox, a Pittsburgh rap music artist convicted over lyrics in a song Fuck the Police, recorded in 2012 while facing weapon and drug charges. The song named arresting officers and included lyrics saying, Lets kill these cops cuz they dont do us no good / pullin out your Glock out cause I live in the hood and Ima jam this rusty knife all in his guts and chop his feet your shift over at 3 and Im gonna fuck up where you sleep.

Critics of Knoxs conviction note that other more widely recognized artists have used similar statements in their music without prosecution and that local courts generally dont understand the role of rap music in urban culture.

Officials cited Knoxs specific identification of the officers and in 2018 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said his lyrics were threats, not political, social or academic commentary, nor are they facially satirical or ironic.

From armed protestors confronting state police officers in the Michigan capitol building to armed revelers at a Texas bar arrested in a SWAT raid, from angry crowds outside a number of gubernatorial residences to violent words on social media, the potential for threating actions and actual violence today is higher than ever.

So how to judge whether your words, expressive conduct (such as marching with signs or weapons) or violent social media posts are protected speech?

Colleagues at the Freedom Forums education unit provide a lesson plan for free to help you navigate those First Amendment true threat waters: In You Cant Say That?! you will learn about restrictions to freedom of speech in public life and the court cases that determined when and why those limits apply.

Bottom line: In the U.S., the First Amendment certainly protects your right to speak. But theres no absolute protection from the effects of what you say particularly when those words may put a specific person in fear of injury or death.

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum, and president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at gpolicinski@freedomforum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.

More here:

What words make up a true threat? Well, that depends - The Mercury

Today, the North Carolina Supreme Court handed down State v. Mylett, in which the UCLA First Amendment Clinic had filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment. The court reversed the defendant's conviction on the grounds that there wasn't enough evidence that he conspired to intimidate a juror (congratulations on that to Rob Heroy, the defendant's lawyer), and therefore didn't need to reach our arguments that the juror-intimidation statute, as interpreted by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, was overbroad.

But I thought I'd pass along our amicus brief for those who are interested in such thingsand of course I wanted to thank our superb pro bono local counsel, Noell Tin of Tin Fulton Walker & Owen, and my student Bruce Lee, who worked on the brief with me.

Summary of Argument

N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-225.2criminalizes "threatening" or "intimidating" a juror because of his or her "prior official act as a juror." This statute is content-based on its face, because it "draws distinctions based on the message a speaker conveys" Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2227 (2015)here, based on whether it conveys a "threatening" or "intimidating" message. The statute is also content-based because it requires prosecutors and other law enforcement officials to "examine the content of the message that it conveyed to determine whether" a violation has occurred. McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518, 2531 (2014).The Court of Appeals thus erred in concluding that the statute merely criminalizes conduct, not speech, and in concluding that the statute is content-neutral.

Because the statute is content-based, it must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. See Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2231.The statute can satisfy this test if the statute is read as limited to "true threats," one of the narrow categories of speech that is excluded from First Amendment protection. See, e.g., Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359-60 (2003).

But the Court of Appeals read the statute as going beyond just true threats, even though the dissent pointed out that such a broad reading violates the First Amendment. Indeed, the decision below upheld a conviction even though the trial court expressly refused the defense's request to instruct the jury that "threaten" and "intimidate" was limited to true threats.

This makes it possible for convictions to rest solely on constitutionally protected speechfor instance, statements that can be seen as "intimidat[ing]" people through fear of public embarrassment or social ostracism. Under such a reading, it could be a crime for a newspaper to harshly criticize jurors' decisions, or for a "group of people who had gathered in a public space outside a courthouse to voice their dissatisfaction with a verdict in a high profile case," State v. Mylett, No. COA17-480, 2018 WL 6314137, at *17 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015) (McGee, dissenting). This cannot be constitutional.

This Court should therefore overturn the Court of Appeals' decision, and conclude that 14-225.2must be interpreted as limited to "true threats."

Argument

[I.] Section 14-225.2 is a content-based speech restriction

Section 14-225.2criminalizes any speech that is "threatening" or "intimidating" to a juror and that is said in response to that juror's official act. The statute is content-based for two related reasons: First, it restricts speech based on the "message a speaker conveys," Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2227here, a message that is "threatening" or "intimidating." Second, it requires prosecutors and other "'enforcement authorities' to 'examine the content of the message that is being conveyed to determine whether' a violation has occurred," McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518, 2531 (2014) (citation omitted), again to see if the content is "threatening" or "intimidating."

This would be true even if 14-225.2were read as limited to criminalizing true threats (a reading the court below did not adopt). Laws that permissibly restrict true threats are nonetheless content-basedin Virginia v. Black, the Court listed bans on "true threats" as "restrictions upon the content of speech," albeit ones that are allowed under the First Amendment. 538 U.S. 343, 358-59 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Likewise, in Watts v. United States, the Court noted that a statute making it illegal to threaten to kill or injure the President of the United States criminalized "a form of pure speech." 394 U.S. 705, 707 (1969) (per curiam). The same is true of this statute.

The Court of Appeals thus erred in concluding that the statute is content-neutral, and that it restricts conduct, not speech. See State v. Mylett, No. COA17-480, 2018 WL 6314137, at *3-5 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015). Though the statute does not mention speech expressly, and could in theory be violated by nonspeech conduct, here the statute covered Mylett's speech because of the supposedly threatening or intimidating message that the speech communicated. Even laws "directed at conduct" are content-based speech restrictions when "the conduct triggering coverage under the statute consists of communicating a message." Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28 (2010).

Thus, in Holder, the Court held that a statute prohibiting "material support" to foreign terrorist organizations was a content-based speech restriction, even though "material support" "most often does not take the form of speech at all." Id. at 26-28. Likewise, 14-225.2 is not rendered content-neutral just because the statute happens to also criminalize threatening or intimidating conduct as well as threatening or intimidating speech.

Similarly, in Cohen v. California, the Court struck down the conviction of a man who was convicted under a statute prohibiting maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person by "offensive conduct." 403 U.S. 15, 16 (1971). Cohen was convicted for wearing a jacket bearing a vulgar and offensive anti-draft message; and because "[t]he only 'conduct' which the State sought to punish [was] the fact of communication," the Court treated the law as a content-based restriction on speech. Id. at 18; Holder, 561 U.S. at 27-28; United States v. Playboy Entm't Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000) (giving Cohen as an example of a case involving "a content-based speech restriction"); Police Dep't v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972) (same); see also Eugene Volokh, Speech as Conduct: Generally Applicable Laws, Illegal Courses of Conduct, "Situation-Altering Utterances," and the Uncharted Zones, 90 Cornell L. Rev. 1277, 1284 (2005).The same analysis applies to 14-225.2.

[II.] Section 14-225.2 would not be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest unless it is read as limited to "true threats"

Because the statute is a content-based speech restriction, it is unconstitutional unless it is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2231 (2015); State v. Bishop, 368 N.C. 869, 877 (2016). The State does have a compelling interest in "ensuring that jurors remain free from threats and intimidation directly resulting from their duty to serve." State v. Mylett, No. COA17-480, 2018 WL 6314137, at *5 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015). And if the law were read as limited to constitutionally unprotected true threats, it would be narrowly tailored. "'True threats' encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence," Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003), and intimidation "in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of a true threat." Id. at 360.

But laws criminalizing threatening speech "must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind" in order to distinguish true threats "from constitutionally protected speech." Watts, 394 U.S. at 707. In this case, though, the Court of Appeals rejected the dissent's call to read the statute as limited to true threats. State v. Mylett, No. COA17-480, 2018 WL 6314137, at *19 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015) (McGee, C.J., dissenting). The law as read by the court below thus covers a broad range of speech that might be loosely seen as "intimidating" rather than threatening, or might be seen as threatening just embarrassment or social ostracism rather than criminal conduct.

Other courts have recognized the importance of following Watts and limiting threat statutes to "true threats." Thus, in State v. Johnston, the Washington Supreme Court held that a statute banning "threaten[ing] to bomb or otherwise injure any public or private school building" could only apply to true threats. 156 Wash. 2d 355, 360 (2006). Under any looser construction, the court reasoned, the statute would be rendered "unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment." Id. at 363. And because the jury was not instructed using the true threats standard, the court reversed the conviction. Id. at 366.

Similarly, in State v. Perkins, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin overturned a conviction under a statute criminalizing threats against judges because the jury instructions failed to distinguish between true threats and "hyperbole, jest, innocuous talk, expressions of political view, or other similarly protected speech." 243 Wis. 2d 141, 165 (2001). To be constitutional, the jury instructions needed to "contain a clear definition of a threat based on the true threat standard." Id. at 166. Likewise, Mylett's conviction should be reversed and the case retried with the jury being given such a "clear definition of a threat."

[III.] If read as the court of appeals read it, the statute would be facially overbroad and thus unconstitutional

The Court of Appeals' interpretation also renders the statute invalid on its face. Under the First Amendment, "a law may be invalidated as overbroad if 'a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.'" United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 473 (2010) (citation omitted). Here, if the statute were not read as limited to true threats, it would indeed have a substantial number of unconstitutional applications.

Speech could be said to be "intimidating" or "threatening," for instance, just because it makes people fear public embarrassment or social ostracism. Under the Court of Appeals' reading of the statute, then, a newspaper columnist could be prosecuted for naming jurors and condemning their recent verdict in a way that some jurors saw as "intimidating," even if the op-ed made no constitutionally unprotected true threats. Yet a conviction on this basis would be unconstitutional: "[s]peech does not lose its protected character . . . simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action." NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 910 (1982).

Likewise, the Court of Appeals' loose reading of "threatening" and "intimidating" could apply to angry denunciations of a jury verdict (criminal or civil) in a political candidate's speech, or on a citizen's Facebook page, if the speakers have reason to think that the denunciations might be forwarded to some jurors. And, as the Court of Appeals dissent noted, the statute could permit the prosecution of citizens who had lawfully gathered "outside a courthouse to voice their dissatisfaction with a verdict in a high profile case," State v. Mylett, No. COA17-480, 2018 WL 6314137, at *17 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015) (McGee, dissenting), even when they do not make any true threatsa prosecutor could argue that the mere presence of an angry and passionate crowd would intimidate a juror leaving the courthouse.

The way to avoid such unconstitutional facial overbreadth is to do what the dissenting judge below suggested, and what the Washington and Wisconsin Supreme Court decisions cited above did: read the statute as limited to "true threats," and as requiring that the jury be instructed accordingly.

Conclusion

Section 14-225.2restricts speech and not just conduct, and restricts it based on its content. That is permissible if the statute is read as limited to "true threats," a constitutionally unprotected category of speech. But the jury was not instructed that it had to find a true threat, and the Court of Appeals rejected the dissenting judge's call to read the statute as limited to true threats. The Court of Appeals decision should therefore be reversed.

View original post here:

The First Amendment and Broad Juror Intimidation Statutes - Reason

Local resident Regina Dayton speaks to Marco Island City Council on Jan. 21, 2020.(Photo: Omar Rodrguez Ortiz/Staff)

Tworesidents filed alawsuit against the city of Marco Island and City Council ChairpersonErik Brechnitzalleging their first amendment rightswere violated.

Regina L. Dayton and Ray Seward are requestingthe 20th Judicial Circuit courtenter its judgment compelling a declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages against all defendants and award of attorneys' fees to plaintiffs.

On Jan. 21, both residents slammed councilor Larry Honig during a councilmeeting after a Naples Daily News reportrevealed he admitted to betheonly person providing content to marcopolitics.com, awebsite targeting council candidates as well as current and former city councilors.

Brechnitzinterrupted Daytonon several instances during her time at the podium.

"My comments are not meant to be in opposition to a person but in support for what is right," Dayton said. "I once voted for Mr. Honig, and there is no denying his intellect nor the hours he devotes to city issues but this is a different matter."

Brechnitzinterrupted Dayton's prepared speech.

"Mrs. Dayton, if it'snot going to be about a specific councilorplease do not name any councilors," Brechnitz said. "This is about policy issues."

"If this is gonna become an attack on someone "

Chairperson of the Marco Island City Council, Erik Brechnitz, requested a motion to approve the 2019-2020 city budget on Sept. 16, 2019.(Photo: Omar Rodrguez Ortiz/Staff)

More: Marco residents, councilor speak up about Honig during City Council meeting

Dayton did not let Brechnitz finish the sentence.

"Oh no, sir," Dayton said."And I think that if you let me finish you'll see that's my intent too."

Dayton continued.

"Clearly, Mr. Honig in his written response to the FEC now admits that he alone wrote the content of the website marcopolitics, which many Marco Islanders found repulsive after repeatedly denying this."

Brechnitz interrupted Dayton again.

"Mrs. Dayton, this sounds like an attack to me," Brechnitz said.

In response, Dayton said it was not meant as an attack.

"It's what it sounds like," Brechnitz said."I dont want you to attack any personal councilor up here. Lets not make it personal."

Dayton then continued uninterrupted for the rest of her speech.

"I was going to ask [...] that all of you consider a vote of no confidence for Mr. Honig because I wanted you to be the collective consciousness of our community," Dayton said.

After her turn at the podium, Dayton spoke with the Eagle about her exchangewith Brechnitz.

"I never anticipated that response from Brechnitz," Dayton said. "If Mr. Honig's statements were considered freedom of speech, this should have been as well."

Local resident Ray Seward speaks to Marco Island City Council on Jan. 21, 2020.(Photo: Omar Rodrguez Ortiz/Staff)

Sewardalso spoke about Honig that night without specifically saying his name.

"Im not here to attack anyone but I was attacked by one individual on this council," Seward said. "I was slanderedand I was lied to."

"I feel I should have the right to confront that individual in public."

After a back and forth with Brechnitz, Seward said the individual should expect a letter from his attorney. He later told the Eagle that the individual he was referring to was Honig.

Dayton told the Eagle on April 22 she was personally hurt after the incident with Brechnitz.

"Both of us were personally hurt.We were shocked. We were embarrassed, but that wasn't our issue," she said."That's done, there is nothing that can take that away."

"But when citizens in our community want to stand before their elected officials and speak the truth and (are) told to sit down and are censored, that's wrong."

Dayton said the purpose of the lawsuit, filed April 3, is to preventother residentsfrom goingthrough a similar experience.

"What's important to me about filing this lawsuit is to ensure [...] that in the future, when others wish to speak to their elected officials, they are given that opportunity," she said.

Dayton also said the lawsuit could have been avoided.

"The hope was that chair Brechnitz would make an outreach to Ray and I and say 'my intentions were well founded [...] but it was wrong,' and we would have moved forward," Dayton said.

"There wouldn't have been no lawsuit."

Dayton was allowed by Brechnitz to "say nearly everything she wanted to say, except naming me in her baseless personal attacks," according to Honig.

"Bear in mind, this is the same person who constantly files self-serving complaints against city staff and other councilors," Honig wrote April 22. "Taxpayers have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct payments as well as legal fees and her complaints are always dismissed as frivolous."

On March 27, 2019, the Federal Election CommissionnotifiedDayton that the complaint she filed against Honigalleging his website violated Florida's election lawswas 'legally insufficient.'

"The redlined editorial contained political analysis, fact-checking, opinion, and name-calling," wrote Tim Vaccaro, the commission'sexecutive director. "However, in my opinion, it did not include anything that would amount to more than free political speech."

"The complaint appears to be based upon hearsay," Vaccaro wrote.

This is not Dayton's first complaint or lawsuit against the city or its councilors.

In 2019, the Florida Bar dismissed Dayton's complaints filed against Councilor Jared Grifoni and City Attorney Alan Gabriel over their conduct in the handling of battery allegations against former City Manager Lee Niblock.

In two separate letters to Dayton, Bar counsel Teresa Goodson wrote that there was insufficient evidence to prove either man had committed any violations of rules governing attorney conduct.

In 2014, the city paid $150,000 to Dayton and her husbandTimothy J. Dayton as part of apair of settlement agreements which concluded their long-standing dispute over the city building departments inspection of the couples home as it was being constructed.

It wasa squabble that found the Daytonsseeking redress through a Collier County Circuit Court lawsuit and multiple administrative complaints filed with the Florida Department of Building and Professional Regulation against the city and its inspectors.

As far as were concerned, this is behind us, said Dayton of the quest she and her husband began in 2007, when they filed the first of their multiple DBPR complaints against Marco and its building officials.

City Manager Mike McNees responded to the Eagle's request for comment but asked that further questions be directed to Alan Gabriel, city attorney.

"I wont have anything to say about the lawsuit while its ongoing, something that would hold true for any such suit," McNees wrote April 22.

Brechnitz did not respond to a request for comment.

Additional reporting by Naples Daily News reporter Devan Patel and correspondent Don Manley.

Omar Rodrguez Ortiz is a community reporter for Naples Daily News and Marco Eagle. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram as@Omar_fromPR, and on Facebook. Support his work by subscribing to Naples Daily News.

Read or Share this story: https://www.marconews.com/story/news/2020/04/30/lawsuit-filed-against-marco-island-alleges-first-amendment-violation/3004029001/

Read more here:

Lawsuit filed against Marco Island alleges first amendment violation - Marco News

U.S. history is full of instances where people have taken a stand against what they perceive as excess, overreach, inaction, ineptness, or just plain evil on the part of local, state and/or federal government.

Dean Manning is a reporter at the News Journal.

The nation was founded by just such people, and they added provisions in the U.S. Constitution to ensure future generations would have a legal leg to stand on should they feel the need.

The Constitution guarantees the right for people to peacefully assemble and to speak their minds without fear of reprisal from the government.

Since 1791 when the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, was ratified, courts have found some limitations.

In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that false speech, such as the familiar Yelling fire in a crowded theater and causing panic, is not protected, unless there is actually a fire.

The ongoing COVID19 pandemic has resulted in pushback from people across multiple states, including Kentucky, who are demanding governors ease the restrictions.

Gov.Andy Beshear instituted restrictions on what businesses may remain open. Main Street in Corbin is a ghost town, while the budding revitalization of downtown Williamsburg has been stopped in its tracks.

One of the final steps was closing state parks, including Cumberland Falls and banning groups of more than 10 people from congregating.

The governor had also ordered that churches not hold in-person services, using online and drive-in options.

When protestors went to the State Capitol in Frankfort, where thousands have gone in the past to voice their anger, the protestors were called out by their fellow citizens.

Among the suggestions was that Gov. Beshear call in the Kentucky State Police to break up the protest.

Im a liveandletlive type of person.

You want to be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, Hindu, Shinto, Sikh, Pagan, other, or none of the above? Preach it!

You love President Trump, or hate President Trump, and want to march down Main Street in Corbin with a sign proclaiming that, or shout it on your Facebook page? Go for it!

You want to abolish the United States and want to join a one-world government, or just start over with whatever utopia you may dream up? More power to you!

And, yes, if you dont like a particular race, creed, color or sexual orientation and want to voice that, I will defend your right to say that without interference from the government, even though I believe it makes you among the worst people there are.

I understand the governor is trying to keep COVID19 from spreading. But just as he can get on his soapbox every day at 5 p.m. and speak to the masses, so those protestors, and, yes, those who agree with him, have the right to gather and voice that.

With the popular opinion on free speech spiraling further and further toward perceived hate speech being banished, the need to stand for free speech is even greater.

Perception is a pendulum. What is accepted speech today, may be hate speech tomorrow and a citizen who stands by while free speech is eroding could very easily find their own views outlawed in the future.

So, while you may not like what the protestors who stood outside the capitol were saying, voicing support for their right to do so is essential, as you may be part of the next group seeking to exercise that same right.

Link:

First amendment rights should not be suppressed, even during pandemic The News Journal - The News Journal

Dr. Dan Erickson, who owns several urgent care facilities throughout California and is a specialist in emergency medicine, warned of the collateral damage resulting from the coronavirus outbreak and the stay at home orders, which, he said, only elongates the curve and decreases immune systems, and isnt a good plan and his early warnings on the issue, he said, were silenced.

Erickson made the comments during a Facebook Live broadcast on Thursday night with House Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Andy Biggs, R-AZ, and Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

As Im weighing both the collateral damage and the virus, itself damage and saying I think the collateral damage in the state of California far outweighs the actual virus. Californias at about 1,800 deaths today and we have about 40 million people, Dr. Erickson said. Every death is of course terrible, but, again, the influenza also in 2017-2018 had about 60,000 deaths. So some of the early models we saw were predicting 2 million and that didnt exactly occur.

The early decision to keep the country at home, Erickson said, despite not knowing if it was the best decision or not. Initially the rate of diagnosis at his clinic was 6.5 percent, and, after testing 5,213 patients during a two-month period. Erickson then decided to hold a press conference to be transparent after he had tested 50-60 percent of the population in Kern County. The video, which was posted to Youtube, was promptly removed from the platform for what the tech-giant says violates community guidelines.

One model that Erickson said hes been persistently monitoring is in Sweden, where the countrys top epidemiologists, including Anders Tegnell, have taken a different approach to the virus than the U.S. by keeping the economy open and allowing life to stay as normal as possible, which he says is successful and should be looked at as a possible way for our country to reopen. The model, although not initially intended by Swedens epidemiologists, may have also brought about a certain herd immunity to the virus in its population.

The decision to lock down the U.S. was because it was something to do and we were afraid when we watched China, he said. But theres data for handwashing, we have great data for handwashing, but I think we took on a program that didnt have a lot of science to it, I tried it and I toed the line for two months. And then after I had collected all my data, I looked at it, I said, you know, I think theres a better approach.'

Because many states have implemented pauses on elective surgeries, hospitals are being forced to close and/or furlough workers. He also said that the stay at home orders have presented significant tolls on patients mental health. In order to navigate the debate on reopening the country, Erickson advocated for a formation of a physicians COVID alliance for doctors treating patients with the virus on a daily basis to bring what theyre seeing with their own eyes to the publics attention.

See the original post:

Urgent Care Doctor Silenced By Youtube Says His First Amendment Rights Have Been Attacked - Sara A. Carter

The response to the coronavirus pandemic by many national and state leaders upsets me. However, the struggle in Kansas politics over Gov. Kellys limits on church gatherings bewilders me. A warning about meeting in large groups, of course, is proper when health experts and evidence show that such gatherings have consistently yielded a multitude of sick people and many deaths.

A warning about church gatherings is not necessarily an attack on the constitutional right to exercise religion. The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees us the right to practice our individual religious beliefs.Free exercise of religion, however, does not mean allowing religious people to act in ways that place themselves and others in harms way.Now do not get me wrong here.

To me, churches provide essential services and perform crucial work. I do not, however, read the governors order as shutting down my church or denying me the right to exercise my faith.

In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court, inSherbert v. Verner,considered a case asking whether the state of South Carolina violated the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment by denying unemployment benefits to a person for turning down a job which required working on the Sabbath.The Court ruled 7-2 that the statute did not impede a persons right to freely exercise religion.In 1985, inThornton v. Caldor, the court considered a Connecticut statute providing employees with the absolute and unqualified right not to work on their religions Sabbath. The court, 7-1, held that the statute violated the constitution because it effectively gave religious concerns automatic control over all secular interests and took no account of the rights or interests of employers and employees and had the primary effect of advancing a particular religious practice.

The court asks three questions in religious freedom questions:Does the policy or law have a clear and compelling secular purpose, does the law apply neutrally to religious and non-religious activity and is the law designed to persecute or oppress a particular religion or its practices.

Separation of church and state does not prevent the government from limiting church activities that are dangerous or harmful.Right now, gathering cheek to jowl is dangerous.Religious people usually share the values of family, charity, peace and respect for others. Fundamental to my faith is the aim to do no harm to others.Whether we wear Sunday clothes, yamika, kufi, hijabs or our jammies, I believe we have the same mission.Taking care of each other is an act of obedience to our faith.

Church gathering is important.The No.1 reason Christians are encouraged to find a church home is because the Bible instructs us to be in relationship with other believers. We have a need to come together to encourage one another as members of our faith and we work together to fulfill an important purpose in our community and onthe earth.In Hebrews 10:25, Paul taught, Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another But he also said in Hebrews 13:17, Obey your leaders and submit to their authority.They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.

I admit that Paul was not talking about the 2020 coronavirus pandemic.Pauls early religious gatherings did not occur in church buildings. The political and religious authorities of his time were often persecuting his followers rather than trying to protect them.Pauls early church did not have the benefit of electronics and media gatherings. But there were differences of opinion in the early churches just as there are today.Hopefully, our present differences are not based on politics and power struggles.Some believe that church gathering can be carried out safely; others choose to forego meeting in person but stay in communion in other ways.I can see both sides of the controversy. Are not we all are in agreement that this crisis is real?Because this pandemic is somewhat apocalyptic, people of faith have duties to serve each other and the world during the crisis.I hope we will learn some lessons that we can apply after the danger has abated.

When one of us is sick, or poor, or homeless, all of us are affected.Community and communication matters.

We ought to assure that those workers who do the truly important tasks are paid a living wage.Health care is not just a need, it is a right and we all have a duty as a community to provide care to each other.We thrive and overcome disaster by communicating openly and working together with love and respect for the least of us.Competition may have its place in the economy but cooperation is more important.

And when it is safe, let us all return with praise and thanksgiving to our church homes.

Marti Crow is a Leavenworth Times columnist.

Go here to read the rest:

MARTI CROW: Church gatherings and the first amendment - Leavenworth Times

Audrey S. Whitlock, one of the founders of "ReOpen NC" and an admin of the ReOpen NC Facebook page, a group agitating to end social distancing measures in North Carolina, recently revealed that she tested positive for COVID-19 and was an asymptomatic carrier for who knows how long.

While most people in Whitlock's position might feel horrible, might be worried about who else they may have infected, might walk back some of the bullshit they've been spreading ... she is doing no such thing. In fact, without a hint of regret, Whitlock took to Facebook to claim that requiring her and others with COVID-19 to quarantine themselves is a violation of both their First Amendment rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Which, you know, it's not.

Yes, she's literally mad that she's not allowed to go rally for the right for everyone to spread highly communicable diseases just because she's got a highly communicable disease.

Via The Raleigh News & Observer:

"I have been told not to participate in public or private accommodations as requested by the government, and therefore denied my 1st amendment right of freedom of religion," Whitlock wrote. "If I were an essential employee, I would be denied access to my job by my employer and the government, though compensated, those with other communicable diseases are afforded the right to work. It has been insinuated by others that if I go out, I could be arrested for denying a quarantine order. However, the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination by employers, places of public accommodation, and state and local government entities. . Where do we draw the line?"

The line, actually, is very clear. She could Google for the line. Freedom of Religion does not mean the right to attend, in person, a specific church, while one is being quarantined due to having a contagious illness. Whitlock is free to practice her religion at home, by herself, as many are doing right now and as many did even prior to the pandemic.

While the ADA does protect those with communicable diseases, it doesn't cover situations wherein the person with the communicable disease poses a direct threat to other people. In cases like this, people can be quarantined and they can be denied access to certain public accommodations for as long as they are infectious.

Via The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coverage of Contagious Diseases:

Audrey Whitlock may really want to go to her rallies, she might really want to go to church, but it is perfectly legal to prevent her from doing those things that if she poses a threat to others. Despite what she may have been led to believe, she is not actually the only person in the whole entire world. While she may be asymptomatic, while COVID-19 may not have killed her or put her on a ventilator, other people who also exist might not be so lucky. Ms. Whitlock might not care if those people die or get sick, but they might, and therein lies the rub.

The ReOpen NC group has continued holding protests every Tuesday throughout this, and Whitlock has refused to tell the news media whether or not she has attended these rallies. However, screenshots from the ReOpen NC Facebook group posted in the public group Banned From ReOpen NC suggest that she may have been to and posted video from at least one of them.

Nice!

[The Raleigh News & Observer]

Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us! Also if you are buying stuff on Amazon, click this link!

Read more:

'ReOpen NC' Founder Has COVID-19, Says It Is Her First Amendment Right To Infect Others - Wonkette

News organizations are businesses, and like pretty much all other businesses, they have been financially harmed by the COVID-19 crisis. Advertising revenue the lifeblood of the journalism industry has diminished, leaving news outlets across the country to cut budgets, reduce wages and furlough staffers. Like employees in other businesses, people who work in the news industry are real human beings with families to feed and mortgages to pay. They are suffering in this uncertain financial climate.

Unlike other businesses, however, the news industry shouldnt be getting in line to seek government financial assistance, even during this national crisis. Thats because news outlets are different from widget manufacturers or local restaurateurs. The journalism industry produces news, and that product just shouldnt be tarnished or compromised by taking financial handouts from the very government the press is designed to monitor on the citizens behalf. (NOTE: The Hill has notaccepted stimulus funding)

An independent press is a hallmark of American democracy. A free press was allowed to blossom in the nation from the time the First Amendment was ratified, a controversial notion then and now. The free press has often been referred to as the Fourth Estate, serving an unofficial but essential role in watch-dogging the government.

Journalists are supposed to provide an independent news flow to the citizenry to counter bureaucrats and power-hungry politicians who are happy to snooker society with self-serving propaganda. For that role to be conducted effectively, the press must be independent in all facets, including financially. The press has enough credibility problems without creating any appearance that its independent news judgments could be influenced by taking government handouts.

Some news organizations are willing to compromise their independence from government in this harsh financial climate, already having pulled in millions of federal dollars from the Paycheck Protection Program. And more government help might be on the way. More than 70 United States senators from both sides of the aisle have signed a letter to the federal Office of Management and Budget, asking the OMB to direct federal agencies to buy public service advertising time in media outlets as a way to financially boost broadcasters and newspapers across the country. The letter originated with Sen. Steve DainesSteven (Steve) David DainesThe nation's free press should refuse federal bailouts The Hill's Coronavirus Report: Madeleine Albright says Trump's America First strategy is hurting US with a virus that knows no borders; Fauci warns states against 'leapfrogging' reopening guidelines Democratic Senate campaign committee books M in fall TV ads MORE (R-Mont.). Local media outlets surely need the money, but taking charity from the OMB because of senators pressure sure looks like government strings.

It turns out that a wide majority of news outlets dont even qualify for funds from the PPP. Many local news organizations are part of much larger corporate structures that employ over one thousand people, the threshold for participants in the PPP. The reality in the media world today is that few news outlets are mom and pop local entities, but instead are parts of big corporations that have grown like cancers through years of consolidation. These consolidated big shots have harmed local journalism with a bottom line mentality and general loss of real localism.

Federal financial support for journalism is not a brand new concept. Newspapers have benefited for years from discounted postal rates. Federal funding supports NPR and PBS. Even these small gestures could be questioned, but hardly compare to downright financial rescues.

None of this is to say the news industrys financial problems are not real or that the nation wouldnt suffer if news outlets disappeared from the local or national landscape. Broadcasters and newspaper publishers serve essential roles in their communities. But taking federal money disrupts the social distancing that has defined the press and government relationship throughout Americas history.

There have to be other ways to protect the news industry, but without government handouts. One media company reported to be receiving PPP money is the Seattle Times. It would seem mega-billionaires (and Washington state residents) such as Bill Gates or Howard Schultz could step in to fund local journalism with a foundation grant that could provide funds, but allow for autonomous journalistic operation. The COVID-19 crisis could well be the prompt for a reshuffling of how news gets provided in our nation. The declining revenues and staff layoffs surrounding journalism were underway long before COVD-19.

The American press has always boasted about its independence and fought the good fight for over two centuries to keep it that way. Now is not the time to compromise that spirit. Maintaining the public trust means making sure there is no appearance of government influence in the news product. Press freedom is more important than federal money, even during these desperate times.

Jeffrey McCall is a media critic and professor of communication at DePauw University. He has worked as a radio news director, a newspaper reporter and as a political media consultant. Follow him on Twitter@Prof_McCall.

See original here:

The nation's free press should refuse federal bailouts | TheHill - The Hill

If youre reading this Sunday editorial as you hold a paper copy of The Tribune-Democrat, youre doing so for the last time at least for a while.

We announced on Wednesday that we had made the very difficult decision to discontinue print publication two days a week Tuesdays and Sundays, beginning May 5.

The move was a direct response to the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic locally, with many of our loyal advertisers closed or seeing business reductions.

And the move was made with much discussion about the obvious impact on our readers and the community, and with guidance from our parent company, CNHI LLC.

As Publisher Rob Forceystated in his note to readers on the front page of Wednesdays editions, we hope these cost-cutting measures are temporary.

We look forward to a day, hopefully soon, when we can report that local businesses are operating fully, that our own conditions have improved and that well be getting back to business as usual.

But, as reporters covering the COVID-19 situation have repeatedly told us,the road ahead is uncertain.

Health experts cant predict when a safe treatment will be widely available, then when a vaccine might be ready or even when we can safely move about without wearing masks and maintaining safe distances between one another.

We remain steadfastly optimistic about the ability of our region to bounce back from adversity as weve demonstrated throughout our history of floods, recessions and declines in some key economic sectors.

And it is our hope that as the region rebounds, we can rewind the clock on these decisions about our days of print publication.

But hope is not a strategy.

Wevemade a choiceto help our business navigate the short term and we are now taking steps to make sure we continue to provide our valued customers with the content they need and want.

We will publish an electronic edition on Tuesdays, despite the absence of a physical newspaper includingdaily obituaries and death notices, Classifieds and other material, which will also appear in print on Wednesdays.

Our new Weekend Edition will contain content traditionally published on Saturdays (Church page, In The Spotlight, puzzles and daily comics) as well as those features and sections that have historicallybeen delivered on Sundays (Living, Business, Comics and TV Magazine) along with two days worth of advertising circulars and coupons,editorials and letters to the editor, obituaries, feature columns and news reports.

We will continue to maintain a robust website every day, as youve come to expect, with the latest news on the coronavirus, sports, politics and other topics of immediate interest.Weve made COVID-19 updates freely available at tribdem.com, and our online audience has never been stronger although, that hasnt translated into a surge of online subscribers.

Our goal is to take away nothing our customers cherish except for some paper and ink twice a week.

We have been uplifted and empowered by the responses of many of our readersand community leaders who have reached out to us to say they understand the economic challenges we are facing just as many of them are and that theyll stand with us through this difficult period.

And, as many have reminded us, local news coverage matters indeed, now more than ever.

Communities that lose newspapers then lose much more connectivity to events and organizations, participation in civic duties such as voting, a watchdog on those in power, a champion of the voiceless, a cheerleader for individuals and institutions making a difference, a platform fordiscourse and change.

The Tribune-Democrat has been serving this region, in various forms, since 1853 through the power of the printing press, the internet, social media, and powered by the First Amendment and the passion of generations of journalists, sales representatives, press operators, administratorsand delivery personnel.

Now, were adapting, evolving. But were not going away.

With the duty of serving our community as our guide and inspiration, we pledge to remain as our Editorial page reminds us a tribune of the people.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read this article:

Editorial | Commitment to readers and the community endures despite changes - TribDem.com

SundayMay3,2020at6:52AM

Although I have produced pages through Monday, Friday was my last day at The Providence Journal. It has been my tremendous honor to have served the people of Rhode Island on these Commentary pages for nearly 21 years, fighting political corruption, advancing reform and defending our hard-won freedoms, particularly the First Amendment. Along the way, I was privileged to be named a Pulitzer Prize finalist for Commentary and to win the Yankee Quill Award for lifetime achievement in New England journalism and many other prizes.

Expressing ideas is often a difficult task, subjecting one to personal attacks or worse. But I can never forget the extraordinary kindnesses I received. I feel wonderfully blessed to have won the friendship and support of readers as well as leaders in business, government, and religion here, and to have edited the work of superb journalists and writers, including our intrepid corps of letter writers. I hope you will stay in touch with me via Twitter @Ed_Achorn and facebook.com/ed.achorn. I am eager to write more books and hope you will check out my new one (see Froma Harrops marvelous column today).

I wish all of you and the brave little state that welcomed me more than two decades ago a healthy and vibrant future. Thank you for everything.

Edward Achorn

TO OUR READERS: This content is being provided for free as a public service during the coronavirus outbreak. Sign up for our daily or breaking newsletters to stay informed. Please support local journalism by subscribing to The Providence Journal.

More:

Edward Achorn: A personal note to readers - Opinion - The Providence Journal

The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The 14th Amendment includes the state governments.

The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the civil right to peaceful public assembly cannot be limited without a specifically applicable statute.

The problem:Gov. Tom Wolfs order to shut down businesses in the entire state without specific statutory authority for a pandemic, such as the coronavirus, has caused unnecessary economic harm.

Fascism is defined as when a political philosophy, movement or regime that exalts government above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression of opposition.

The solution:Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, Civil Rights Act of 1871 provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, ...

Dr. Bill Choby

Latrobe

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

The rest is here:

Letter to the editor | Wolf lacked authority to close businesses - TribDem.com

CLEVELAND, Ohio Freshman Laura Davis doesnt remember if she had class the morning of Monday, May 4. If she did, she didnt go. She had plans to attend a noon rally. Photography student John Filo headed out to see what he could capture, though he was kicking himself for missing the action on campus over the weekend. Roseann Chic Canfora was worried about her brother. And, like everyone else, Gerald Casale could not have imagined how that day would end.

All were students at Kent State University that fateful day, when two thousand people exercised their First Amendment right to speak against a war many Americans thought was justified. Four were killed when the National Guard fired: Jeffrey Miller, Allison Krause, William Schroeder and Sandra Scheuer. Nine were injured.

They were shot as they rallied for what they believed in, exercising their rights as Americans. The shots shocked the world.

It still holds that power to show that people will sacrifice for these freedoms, said Idris Kabir Syed, a Kent State University associate professor who teaches a May 4 class. That saying that freedom aint free is very symbolic and very important here at Kent State.

May 4 brought the Vietnam War, and casualties, to a Midwest college town, forcing America to begin to reckon with its role in the war.

There was this profound change in how America thought about the war that came about because of the shootings on May 4. I mean, it really was the day the war came home, said Davis, the founding director of the May 4 Visitors Center on the Kent campus.

After the shooting, students sat on the grassy hill, as a professor screamed through a microphone to stop, lest they be slaughtered.

Kent State and schools across the country were closed. Many people blamed students for the senseless deaths. Protestors received bomb threats and hate mail. It took years for the shooting to receive the recognition it deserved. You could park your car over the spot students died until 1999.

Its painful. Do you know how hard it is for Middle America to accept the fact that American soldiers would turn their guns on American people without some provocation or reason, good reason to do so? said Canfora, a Kent sophomore at the time, whose brother Alan was shot in the wrist.

Everyone on campus that day carries May 4 with them, recalling the events in vivid details.

These are their stories.

And everything was just frozen in this chaos in horror and screaming: Gerald Casale remembers May 4, 1970

I just curled over and I just started shrieking: Theyre shooting their guns: Laura Davis remembers May 4, 1970

My immediate response was I dont know how I missed getting shot: John Filo remembers May 4, 1970

It was then that we realized it was live ammunition: Roseann Chic Canfora remembers May 4, 1970

I have great pride in the revolt: Kent State University shooting victim Alan Canfora recounts events leading to May 4, 1970

The rest is here:

Kent State University survivors tell their stories 50 years later - cleveland.com

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and former Vice President Joe Biden asked the secretary of the Senate to locate an alleged harassment complaint from a former staffer Tara Reade.

In a letter sent Friday to Secretary of the Senate Julie E. Adams, Biden requests "that you take or direct whatever steps are necessary to establish the location of the records of this Office, and once they have been located, to direct a search for the alleged complaint and to make public the results of this search."

"I would ask that the public release include not only a complaint if one exists, but any and all other documents in the records that relate to the allegation," the letter continues.

Reade has alleged that Biden sexually assaulted her when she was a staffer in 1993. After making her allegations last month on a podcast, Reade filed a criminal complaint against Biden, alleging he shoved his hand under her skirt and penetrated her with his fingers in a Senate corridor in 1993, Insider previously reported.

Biden has denied the accusation and publicly addressed it on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Friday morning.

"No, it is not true," Biden said on "Morning Joe."

"Women have a right to tell their story, and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims. We encourage them to do so, because these accusations are false," Katie Bedingfield, Biden's communications director, said in light of the allegations.

Reade also claims she was sexually harassed when she worked in Biden's office, stating that she was told to "serve drinks at an event because Biden liked the way she looked," Insider also reported.

On Friday, Biden called for the National Archives to release any records that might that could see if there was ever a complaint brought against him for sexual misconduct. The National Archive said they didn't have them and that they're most likely held by the Senate.

"I'm confident there is nothing no one that I'm aware of filed a complaint, no one in my office at the time is aware of any such request or complaint," Biden said on "Morning Joe." "I'm not worried about it at all. If there's a complaint, that's where it would be."

Reade said Biden's Senate papers at the University of Delaware could have evidence of her accusations. However, Biden claimed his Senate papers wouldn't include personnel records.

Reade said while she never brought up the assault to aides, she did bring up the harassment including to former chief of staff, Ted Kaufman.

"Ted Kaufman took notes when I spoke with him," Reade told Insider. She thinks those notes could be retrieved in the Senate archives.

Kaufman told Insider he didn't remember Reade.

As of Thursday, Biden's campaign avoided requests to open the 1,875 boxes of records, Insider reported. A spokeswoman for the University of Delaware told Insider that the collection was accessed by Biden's campaign staff in the spring of 2019.

According to Insider, members of Congress don't have to release their official records, and if they choose to make them public, they can choose what to make public and what to keep private, according to Insider.

"I think access to his senatorial records would help to vet Tara Reade's claims because they would contain records from the time that she worked for him," Lata Nott, a fellow at the Freedom Forum Institute's First Amendment Center, told Insider. "The First Amendment doesn't say you have to release your senatorial papers, but you know what? It would be good if you did. It would show a commitment to openness and transparency and the public understanding of what you did in your time as a senator and how you would be as a presidential candidate."

See the original post:

Joe Biden allows access to Senate records tied to assault allegations - Business Insider

This article was produced by the Independent Media Institute.

Donald Trump is at war with the First Amendment and the free press. The war is on full display nearly every day in his rage-filled press conferences on the COVID-19 pandemic, in which he regularly condemns the "fake news" media and bashes reporters who dare to ask the slightest probative questions about his handling of the ongoing public-health crisis.

Trump's war is also longstanding. And it is waged not only on television and in angry tweets and at campaign rallies (which have been put on hold because of the coronavirus), but also in courtrooms across the country in the form of defamation lawsuits designed to shame, silence and punish his critics.

The latest victim of the president's intimidation-by-litigation strategy is TV station WJFW, an NBC affiliate located in Price County in the rural reaches of northern Wisconsin. On April 13, Trump's principal reelection campaign committeeDonald J. Trump for President, Inc., headquartered in New York Citysued the station in the county's circuit court. The suit alleges that the station had libeled the campaign and harmed the reputation of the president by airing an anti-Trump attack ad produced by Priorities USA Action, a pro-Democratic Super PAC.

Entitled "Exponential Threat," the ad features audio and video clips of Trump downplaying the severity of the virus and disavowing any responsibility for his administration's slow and incompetent response to the virus overlaid against a graph displaying the exponential rise in the number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. since January.

The lawsuit contends that the ad stitched together Trump's statements about the virus in a false, misleading, deceptive and malicious manner to make it appear that he had called the virus a "hoax." According to the complaint, Trump never termed the virus itself a hoax, but instead said at a rally in Charleston, South Carolina, on February 28, that the Democrats were perpetrating a hoax by politicizing his record on the virus.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of other recent threats made by the Trump campaign to take legal action against TV outlets in Florida, Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania for broadcasting the same ad.

The president's campaign committee has also been busy suing print media. In March, the committee sued the Washington Post for defamation allegedly arising from opinion columns written by journalists Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman in June 2019 on the possibility of renewed foreign collusion in the 2020 election. And in February, Trump's 2016 campaign committee sued the New York Times, claiming defamation stemming from an op-ed about Russian collusion written in March 2019 by Max Frankel, who had served as the paper's executive editor from 1986-94.

Sadly, the president's latest round of defamation revenge is part of a pattern that dates back to his formative days as a real-estate developer and publicity-seeking huckster in New York City.

As detailed in a 2016 study published by the Media Law Resource Center, Trump filed his first major libel suit in 1984, when he took the Chicago Tribune and architecture columnist Paul Gapp to court, claiming that he had sustained $500 million in damages as a result of an article Gapp had written, maligning Trump's plans to build a 150-story skyscraper in lower Manhattan. The case was dismissed the following year after the presiding judge determined Gapp's article was a constitutionally protected expression of opinion.

The Media Law Resource Center study also summarizes Trump's failed defamation lawsuit against writer Timothy O'Brien and the Time Warner Book Group, Inc. Now a senior columnist with Bloomberg Opinion, O'Brien asserted in a 2005 bookTrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donaldthat Trump wasn't actually a billionaire. O'Brien's estimate of Trump's net wealth so rankled the future president that he demanded "a whopping $5 billion in damages." Like the lawsuit against Gapp, the case was eventually dismissed.

In addition, the study chronicles Trump's case against comedian Bill Maher. Trump targeted Maher in 2013 for a disparaging joke he told on NBC's Tonight Show, in which he offered to donate $5 million to charity if Trump could prove he was not "the spawn of his mother having sex with an orangutan." After Trump sent a copy of his birth certificate to Maher and the comedian refused to pay up, Trump sued Maher for breach of contract in California. Trump voluntarily withdrew the case eight months later, however. Although his then-spokesperson, Michael Cohen, told Politico that Trump planned to amend and renew the lawsuit, he never did.

Like most of Trump's past defamation forays, the president's latest round of defamation lawsuits seems destined to crash and burn. The cases will falter for one simple reason: they are utterly devoid of legal merit.

Under the Supreme Court's landmark 1964 ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, criticism of public officials is entitled to stringent First Amendment protections. As the great liberal Justice William Brennan wrote for a unanimous court in Sullivan, the Constitution embodies our "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks"

Public officials, Brennan instructed, must be precluded from recovering damages for allegedly defamatory statements related to official conduct unless they prove that the statements are made with "actual malice"that is, that they are made with the knowledge that they are false or with "reckless disregard" of whether they are true or false.

In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court extended Sullivan's "actual malice" holding to defamation lawsuits initiated by "public figures" and business entities that have obtained public-figure status, such as Trump's political campaign committees.

Sullivan is one of the Supreme Court's most consequential decisions, providing the press with the safeguards needed to keep the public informed and hold the rich and powerful to account. Among the court's current members, only Clarence Thomas has gone on record to suggest that Sullivan be reconsidered.

Why, then, does the president persist? The answer, it appears, is purely political.

At a rally in Fort Worth, Texas, in February 2016, Trump told a throng of cheering red-meat followers, "I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people I've ever met. They're terrible. If I become president, oh, do they have problems. They're going to have such problems."

And then he added, in a veiled reference to Sullivan:

As of now, the president is losing his war on the First Amendment and the free press. But as Trump's improbable rise to power confirms, the future remains uncertain. If we have learned anything in the Trump era, it is that our constitutional rights can never be taken for granted.

Bill Blum is a retired judge and a lawyer in Los Angeles. He is a lecturer at the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication. He writes regularly on law and politics and is the author of three widely acclaimed legal thrillers: Prejudicial Error, The Last Appeal, and The Face of Justice.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

View original post here:

Trump Escalates His Angry Assault On The First Amendment - The National Memo

Representative Chad Christensens platform says that he believes in strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution. There are no exceptions. But his behavior belies this belief when he violates the First Amendment rights of people by blocking them from commenting on his official Facebook page. Crusading for his own rights while denying other peoples is a hallmark of Representative Chad Christensens tenure in our state legislature.

In Randall v. Davison, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled early last year that a public official cannot block an individual from commenting on the officials Facebook page. The court held that blocking would be viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the U.S. Constitutions First Amendment. In a similar decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled later last year in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump that President Trump could not block an individual from his Twitter account. A quote from that case says it all: While [the public official] is certainly not required to listen, once he opens up the interactive features of his account to the public at large he is not entitled to censor selected users because they express views with which he disagrees.

The Facebook page Chad Christensen for Idaho is described on the page as a political organization, not Rep. Christensens personal page. He regularly uses it to discuss legislative matters. He regularly allows comments by non-constituents, so long as the comments support him and his positions.

One of us, Maggie, was blocked on April 17 from Representative Christensens public Facebook page. I was highly critical of his protest in Boise. I had requested that he remain away from Teton County for 14 days post protest. He was venturing to a higher COVID transmission area and could be exposed. He said that he would come to Teton County if he wanted but in a responsible manner. He would don a mask. I watched the protest online. He was behaving in a foolhardy manner no mask, too close to others. I told him so. I also requested that instead of protesting, he work on supply chain issues for more testing or harvesting issues for farmers. No one wants this shut down. It is a horrendous hardship for all. I explained to Representative Christensen that the shutdown protected healthcare workers and the most vulnerable members of society. I explained that his actions would endanger others. I was blocked. My voice was silenced.

One of us, Carolyn, was blocked twice. The first time was for simply asking how Representative Christensen interpreted some language in the Second Amendment. He did not reply, merely blocked me. After I made some public comments on another page, he unblocked me. The second time was for asking whether mocking people who created a safe space in the Idaho Capitol building comported with the Christian values that Rep. Christensen claims to follow.

Rep. Christensen has said that he blocks people for harassment. Nothing that either of us have said amounts to harassment. Criticism of positions, however harsh, doesnt rise to that level. He also claims to block people for name-calling. We have never called names. We have been called names many times by Rep. Christensen and others on the page, none of whom ever appeared to be blocked.

We expect that we will always differ in opinion from the District 32B representative on any number of issues. As grown-ups, we understand that reasonable minds can differ, and others dont have to agree with us. But a public official has the obligation to listen respectfully to differing views. Holding office requires the ability to listen and govern people who possess varying political ideas. While in office a great many individuals will disagree with you. Representative Christensen has shown repeatedly he is incapable of tolerating criticism.

Further, a public official has the obligation not to violate the First Amendment rights of others. Representative Christensen will champion his own rights and those of his loyalists, but he infringes on the rights of others. This is all accomplished while he touts his love of the Constitution. Individuals who understand and respect the Constitution do not deny others their First Amendment rights. The people of his district deserve better.

Carolyn Dessin and Maggie Shaw, Driggs

View post:

First amendment and Facebook | Opinion - Teton Valley News