Just as the 2020 presidential election has begun with Democratic candidate debates and the nation more polarized than ever, we add to the mix the impeachment proceedings against President TrumpDonald John TrumpAmash calls McCarthy incompetent, dishonest after '60 Minutes' interview GOP lawmaker blasts Trump for quoting pastor warning of civil war over impeachment '60 Minutes' correspondent presses McCarthy on impeachment inquiry MORE. Just when we need excellent journalism the most, the nation's news media are more incapable of informing and enlightening the public than at any time in modern history. It is a sad and in many respects tragic time for the nation's news media, marginalized by the economics of the digital age as well as by government, politics, and even the biases of the American people.

The economic calamity that has befallen news media, especially newspapers, has been well documented. The Pew Research Center reports that, in 2008, there were 114,000 journalists working in U.S. newsrooms including print, broadcast, and digital. In 2018, that number was 86,000, a decline of 25 percent. That change was particularly harsh for newspapers, with the number of newsroom employees declining to 38,000 from 71,000, a decline of 47 percent. Once-great metro newspapers in Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami, Philadelphia, Denver, Dallas and Atlanta have experienced dramatic decreases in circulation and news staffs. And frequently when news media have been forced to lay off employees, older and more experienced journalists are the ones out the door. Younger, less experienced and cheaper journalists fill the gaps.

In generations past, we had feisty secondary newspapers in major markets. Today, most are closed. In the few markets where secondary newspapers exist, they are just hanging on with barebones news staffs.

The University of North Carolina School of Media and Journalism reported last year that almost 1,800 newspapers 60 dailies and 1,700 weeklies have closed in the last 14 years. Many of the closures occurred in small towns and rural areas creating what university researchers call "news deserts," areas where people had no access to information about local and civic news.

Local television news has become more trivialized as viewership continues to decline. Network morning news programs are more devoted to breezy and brief news coverage with more emphasis on celebrity news and promotion of the prime-time lineup, especially programs such as The Bachelorette and Love Island.

The political damage that has been done to news media can't be underestimated. Trump has consistent applause lines in referring to journalists as "enemies of the people" and noting "fake news."

Both Trump and 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonSanders criticizes Pompeo for meeting with 'destructive' Kissinger Where's my Roy Cohn? Impeachment shakes up Democratic White House race MORE made changes to the First Amendment part of their campaigns in 2016. Trump proposed making it easier for public figures to sue media for damages, presumably eliminating the historic protections in the landmark Supreme Court decision in Times v. Sullivan in 1964. Clinton bought into the notion of changes that might overturn the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. Neither proposal had any chance of becoming reality, of course, but playing to the political base is now more important than discussions of substantive issues.

The fact that major political candidates and the dominant political parties are even discussing First Amendment changes shows how little regard exists for the protections and rights considered a foundation of our liberty. Not to mention a lack of respect for the role of the press as a check on government.

But the threats to the free flow of information and access to government didn't begin in 2016. We shouldn't forget that the Justice Department under Eric HolderEric Himpton HolderDemocrats sue over North Carolina's congressional maps Meet the Trump-appointed IG at center of whistleblower drama Eric Holder says Trump is subject to prosecution after leaving office MORE in the Obama administration seized telephone records of the Associated Press in a leak investigation in 2014. It apparently escaped administration notice that the action violated agreements protecting journalists published by the Justice Department in the 1970s.

Even earlier, the USA Patriot Act, passed within weeks of the terrorist attacks in 2001, closed off thousands of documents that had customarily been accessible, including many online. The act also provided government with a major loophole for "national security" that made it acceptable for government agencies to deny open records requests. Many state legislatures followed suit in creating new exemptions for security.

All of us appreciate government actions to keep us safe. But many journalists and First Amendment advocates found that the federal Freedom of Information Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1966, became virtually useless. The Associated Press reported that the Obama administration set records for refusals to the media and the public for information and also set records in tax money spent defending lawsuits over the refusals.

The track record for the Trump administration is no better and, in many cases, worse. Trump has even broken with tradition in refusing to release his tax returns. Transparency in the Trump White House seems more or less limited to opinions expressed on Twitter.

Overall trust in the nation's news media remains low, according to recent Gallup polling thathas tracked the confidence level since 1972. Only 41 percent of people surveyed have "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of confidence in news media to report events fairly and accurately. When political views are considered, the data are even more troubling. Among Democrats, 69 percent have confidence in the news media; among Republicans, only 15 percent have confidence.

The "echo chamber" effect of news consumption has also been made clear in polling by various organizations. Conservatives have their news sources, and liberals have theirs. Watching the same story on Fox News and CNN is often like watching news from two different planets. We seem to want only news that confirms what we believe.

Congress fares even worse than the news media in polling of confidence levels. As the impeachment process focuses on the House, Americans are sure to have even more sharply divided opinions about government and the news media. The charges that Trump asked a foreign government to investigate a political opponent are serious and deserve serious consideration from the Congress and serious, factual reporting from the nation's news media. Don't count on the public having much confidence in either.

TonyPedersonis professor of journalism and holds The Belo Foundation Endowed Distinguished Chair in Journalism at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. He is the former executive editor of the Houston Chronicle.

Go here to read the rest:

We can't allow presidents and public opinion to further diminish the work of the press | TheHill - The Hill

The internet has a hate problem. Trolls, white supremacists, and other hate groups spew vitriol and harass users on social media. The First Amendment protects hate speech, but the internet further blurred the line between speech and crime.

The State of Things partnered with the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media for a special broadcast about the First Amendment recorded in front of a live audience at The Carolina Inn in Chapel Hill.

To unravel the web of rules and laws concerning hate speech, The State of Things partnered with the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media for a special broadcast recorded in front of a live audience at The Carolina Inn in Chapel Hill. Stasio starts the conversation with Mary-Rose Papandrea and Rachel Glickhouse who explain how a criminal act must be committed for vitriolic speech to be treated as a crime. Papandrea is a professor of constitutional law and associate dean of academic affairs at the UNC School of Law and Glickhouse is a journalist and the partner manager for ProPublica's Documenting Hate project.

They continue the conversation by homing in on the experience of female journalists who experience heightened levels of harassment online. Allen Johnson and Elisa Lees Muoz analyze the shifting job of journalism and how online hate and harassment presents new challenges. Johnson is the executive editorial page editor of the Greensboro News & Record and the Winston-Salem Journal, and Muoz is the executive director of the International Women's Media Foundation. Plus, Wendy Scott joins the conversation to talk about how speech is regulated differently in private and public venues. Scott is an associate dean for academic success and a professor at Elon Law. Host Frank Stasio talks with the panel to understand the limits of the law when it comes to hate speech and how that speech affects those on the receiving end of hate.

Interview Highlights

Mary-Rose Papandrea on the tension between protected hate speech and its impact on marginalized communities:

There's a growing concern that hate speech does cause real harm to marginalized communities, in particular, that it's silent speech. So if you're thinking more holistically about our marketplace of ideas, which is the hallmark of the Supreme Court's jurisprudencebetter to let all speech thrive and compete then you're actually silencing some important speakers in this marketplace who don't feel comfortable speaking because they are targeted because of their race or ethnicity or gender.

Rachel Glickhouse on the variance in hate crime laws nationwide:

Not all police are trained in how to investigate hate crimes or what the hate crime law is in that state. Those rules about what police should be trained in varies by state. For example, some don't get any training [on hate crime] in the police academy. Some cities have a dedicated bias crime unit, many don't. How the individual police department will treat these types of crimes and the gravity to which they assign them can vary widely.

Elisa Lees Muoz on the impact of online attacks on journalists:

What we have found through our studies is that it causes similar impacts to PTSD, to being physically attacked. So these are really serious attacks. And they've often been called online harassment, and I don't call them harassment on purpose, because they are attack. They impact journalism tremendously. They impact the way that women journalists approach their stories, and they impact the stories that they're willing to take on. And they drive younger people, mostly younger women, out of the news profession, which just exacerbates the gender inequity that already exists in the news media.

Allen Johnson on the lack of diversity in newsrooms:

I've gone through this over my career and talking about diversifying the staff and hearing very flimsy excuses for why staffs aren't more diverse: We can't find one We can't find one who's qualified enough. Or: We had one one time, and it didn't work out. I just have never bought that I've seen too many people of color who are really good and who have done wonderful work in this profession to know that that's not true.

But the other thing that's happened with the economics is we've downsized. We don't hire as much. Staffs are smaller. And when we started downsizing, a lot of journalists of color were casualties. And so a bad situation didn't become worse, it became terrible.

Wendy Scott on using the first amendment to guide private speech regulation:

That gives me pause...to say we need to jump in and regulate and say who can't say what. On the other hand, it takes us back to hate speech and the fact that there are words that cross the line. Even though the court has only carved out a few exceptions, those exceptions can give us guidance in how we regulate speech online. So if you were, for instance, to think about Alex Jones and the things that he has said, could we apply the First Amendment test? Is he falsely shouting fire? Is he inciting imminent lawlessness? Maybe that standard could be applied. That could be a guide to self regulation [or] private regulation.

Original post:

Hate, Harassment, And The Right To Report - WUNC

The Justice Department on Friday issued a statement of interest in support of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis in its ongoing dispute with a former Catholic school teacher who alleges he was wrongfully terminated because he was in a same-sex marriage.The United States has a "substantial interest in religious liberty," the Justice Department says.

Joshua Payne-Elliott is suing the archdiocese, alleging that it illegally interfered with his contractual and employment relationship with Cathedral High School, causing Cathedral to terminate him.

But in itsstatement, the DOJ said that the First Amendment protects the right of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis to interpret and apply Catholic doctrine.

It was not immediately clear how binding the DOJ's statement is, or what impact it will have on Payne-Elliott's suit.

If the First Amendments Religion Clauses stand for anything, it is that secular courts cannot entangle themselves in questions of religious law, United States Attorney Josh Minkler said.

Background: Vatican pauses decree revoking school's Catholic status for refusing to fire a gay teacher

From July: An Indiana Catholic school fired a gay teacher for same-sex marriage. Now, a settlement

Payne-Elliott filed his suit in Marion County in July, saying in a news release that he hoped "this case will put a stop to the targeting of LGBTQ employees and their families." He was one of the three gay, married Catholic school employees fired at the direction of the archdiocese.

Two guidance counselors were fired from Roncalli High School. Payne-Elliott's husband, Layton Payne-Elliott, is a teacher at Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School. The archdiocese stripped Brebeuf of its Catholic identity after it refused to fire Payne-Elliott, though the Vatican recently suspended that ruling pending an appeal from the school.

Joshua Payne-Elliott (right), pictured with his husband Layton Payne-Elliott, is suing the Archdiocese of Indianapolis.(Photo: Photo provided by Kathleen DeLaney)

Officials with Cathedral said the archdiocese threatened to do the same if Joshua Payne-Elliott'semployment continued.

But Indianapolis Archbishop Charles C. Thompson has maintained that the church is not targeting anyone.

Rather, Thompson said, the archdiocese has a right toset whatever rules it wants for its schools and employees, includingthat they must live according to Catholic Church doctrine. The archdiocese began requiringa morality clause in teacher, administrator and counselor contracts at some of its schools four years ago, and at all Catholic schools two years ago.

"Religious liberty, which is a hallmark of the U.S. constitution and has been tested in the U.S. Supreme Court, acknowledges that religious organizations may define what conduct is acceptable and contrary to the teachings of its religion, for its school leaders, guidance counselors, teachers and other ministers of faith," the archdiocese said.

A statement of interest is described in court documents as a statement that speaks to the interests of the United States in a pending suit. It is not a ruling.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of religious institutions and people to decide what their beliefs are, to teach their faith, and to associate with others who share their faith, Eric Dreiband, assistant attorney generalfor the civil rights division, said in a statement. The First Amendment rightly protects the free exercise of religion.

The statement of interest saysthe First Amendment prevents courts from impairing the constitutional rights of religious institutions. The former teachers lawsuit attempts to penalize the archdiocese for determining that schools within its diocese cannot employ teachers in public, same-sex marriages, and simultaneously identify as Catholic, the statement says.

Supreme Court precedent holds that the First Amendment protects the archdioceses right to this form of expressive association, and courts cannot interfere with that right, according to the news release.

The statement of interest also says that courts cannot second-guess how religious institutions interpret and apply their own religious laws. Supreme Court precedent holdsthat the First Amendment forbids courts from engaging in quintessentially religious controversies.

Instead, the statement of interest says, the legitimacy of the Archdioceses decision as a matter of Catholic law is committed exclusively to the judgment of the Archdiocese.

Follow Justin L. Mackon Twitter: @justinlmack.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2019/09/27/u-s-justice-department-supports-archdiocese-gay-teachers-firing/3791560002/

Read the original:

US Department of Justice supports Indianapolis Archdiocese in firing of gay teacher - USA TODAY

Karrin Taylor Robson, opinion contributor Published 6:00 a.m. MT Sept. 22, 2019

Opinion: Too many young people think free speech means silencing others. Here's what Arizona is doing to combat that.

The "free speech zone" was empty as people filed into Ferguson Auditorium to hear Bree Newsome, an activist and public speaker, at A-B Tech September 29, 2017.(Photo: Angela Wilhelm, /awilhelm@citizen-times.com)

Free speech zones. Speakers shouted down. Safe spaces. Trigger warnings.

Sometimes it feels like what needs protection most on a college campus is the First Amendment itself.

Consider these incidents that paint a picture of a disturbing national trend:

The incidents are a troubling manifestation of sentiment reflected in recent polling: Far too many young Americans view the First Amendment with uncertainty, if not antipathy.

In 2018, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and YouGov surveyed college students nationwide on matters of free expression. Fully 96%of those polled say its important that their civil liberties be protected, and a plurality cite free speech as most essential.

Butwhat constitutes acceptable free expression? A majority of students, 57%, believe universities should be able to restrict speech that offends someone. Sixty percent of students say promoting an inclusive environment that is welcoming to a diverse group of students is more important than protecting free speech.

And 70% of those polled argue universities should exclude students from extracurricular activities if they express intolerant, hurtful or offensive viewpoints.

Separately, a 2017 survey of student attitudes by the Knight Foundation and Gallup found 37% of college students believe its acceptable to shout down a speaker, and one in 10 agree with using violence to stop a speech or rally they oppose.

Clearly, we have a problem.

President Trump's executive order on free speech on college campuses is in response to concerns from conservatives that colleges are too liberal. USA TODAY

Unfettered expression is fundamental to the American experience and appropriately enshrined in the Constitution as our nations first freedom. In a university context, free speech is fundamental to the learning process and the creation of knowledge; without free speech our ability to test our own ideas and assumptions is impossible.

In a civil society we solve our problems with words, not violence.Open and civil debate acts as a pressure release valve and without it, there is only physical confrontation.

Thats dangerous.

If respect for the First Amendment is ailing, our nations public universities must be part of the cure.

Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University and the University of Arizona are already among the nations leaders in protecting speech on campus. While state law bars public universities from herding demonstrators into the tiny so-called campus free speech zones common in other states, legislation signed into law in 2018 by Gov. Doug Ducey codifies the efforts of the board and universities to ensure free speech on campus.

Among its provisions, the law requires any campus restrictions on speech to be content neutral, and enables administrators to punish students who employ shout-downs and similar tactics to interfere with the speaking rights of others. This law underscores the commitment our universities have long held to ensure the fullest degree of intellectual freedom and free expression on our campuses.

For their pro-liberty policies, each of our public universities has been awarded by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education a green light its highest rating and an honor granted to fewer than 50 institutions in the country.

It is in this same spirit that the Arizona Regents' Cup was created. During the inaugural competition this November, teams of students from each of our states public universities will gather at the University of Arizona in Tucson to engage in a series of intellectual competitions culminating in an Oxford-style debate.

I envisioned this event as a celebration of free speech, civil discourse and democratic engagement, as well as a showcase of our public universities commitment to these bedrock principles.

Judges will include leading figures from government, industry and academia, and participating students will earn course credit while competing for $100,000 in scholarship awards, generously contributed by private donors.

For this first-of-its-kind competition, the student debaters will consider a timely topic: How best to balance freedom of expression with the needs of a diverse, inclusive and welcoming society.

As Gov. DougDucey said in his 2018 State of the State address: Here in Arizona, on our campuses, debate is encouraged, free speech is protected, and diversity of thought isnt just a platitude. Its alive and well in lecture halls, on debate stages, and in the pages of college newspapers.

Our nations young people are recommitting to the ideals of free expression at Arizonas public universities. May the Regents Cup become a shining example of civil debate at a time when our country desperately needs it.

And may the best team win.

Karrin Taylor Robsonis a member of the Arizona Board of Regents, attorney and business leader. She is the founder and president of Arizona Strategies, a land use strategy firm in Phoenix.

Read or Share this story: https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2019/09/22/first-amendment-under-assault-college-campuses-solution-arizona/2355512001/

Read this article:

College students say they respect the First Amendment, but do they know what that means? - AZCentral

Plaintiff Christopher Doyle

A federal judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the state of Marylands law banning licensed practitioners from engaging in conversion therapy treatment with minors. The legislation was signed into law by Maryland Gov.Larry Hogan(R) in May of 2018.

The lawsuit was initially filed by Christopher Doyle, a mental health therapist who teaches at Patrick Henry College in Virginia. He claimed the law infringed upon his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.

In a 25-page decision, which you can read in full below, U.S. District Judge Deborah Chasanow ruled that the prohibiting conversion therapy, which is a practice aimed at changing minors homosexual orientation, did not violate any constitutionally protected rights.

With regard to free speech, Chasanow reasoned that because the law only applies to professional therapists already subject to generally applicable licensing and regulatory rules in the course of their work, the government may restrict dangerous practices within that professional community.

Although [this law] regulates speech by prohibiting the use of language employed in the process of conducting conversion therapy on minor clients, it does not prevent licensed therapists from expressing their views about conversion therapy to the public and to their [clients], Chasanow wrote.Most importantly, [this law] does not prohibit practitioners from engaging in any form of personal expression; they remain free to discuss, endorse, criticize, or recommend conversion therapy to their minor clients.

Chasanow also stressed that the governments reason for banning the practice was supported by empirical research and expert opinions from within the professional community, which demonstrated a clear consensus that the practice presented a danger to children.

These sources indicate that conducting conversion therapy on minors could potentially harm their emotional and physical well-being and, thus, prohibiting the practice of conversion therapy on minors would abate the harmful outcomes caused by conversion therapy, she wrote.

Doyle also argued that the law targeted his sincerely held religious beliefs regarding human sexuality and gender by proscribing him from offering counseling consistent with those beliefs.

Chasanow rejected that argument, reasoning that the law was religiously neutral and had only an incidental effect on any religious practices.

The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof,' the judge wrote. The First Amendment does not, however, provide absolute protection to engage in religiously motivated conduct.

[A] law lacks neutrality if it targets religious beliefs or if its object . . . is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation,' the judge continued. [This law] prohibits all licensed practitioners from engaging in conversion therapy without mention of or regard for their religion. Thus, the statute is, at a minimum, facially neutral.

Doyle was represented by attorneys from Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal advocacy organization that promotes litigation related to evangelical Christian values.

The group responded to the ruling by saying the judge ignored binding Supreme Court precedent and issued an opinion dismissing Liberty Counsels lawsuit seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction against Marylands law prohibiting minors from receiving voluntary counseling from licensed professionals to reduce or eliminate unwanted same-sex attractions or gender confusion.

Liberty Counsel said it will immediately appeal this decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Doyle v. HOGAN et al by Law&Crime on Scribd

[image via YouTube screengrab]

Read more:

Federal Judge Rules Ban on Conversion Therapy Doesnt Violate First Amendment Rights - Law & Crime

The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government, which includes the right to participate in elections. These protections apply to individuals and businesses involved in paid and unpaid advocacy.

However, the government has the right to regulate speech as long as it passes a strict scrutiny test. That test was clarified in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decision holding that such regulation must show that the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

California law contains restrictions on political speech that have consistently been upheld as satisfying this demanding test. Because violations of these laws can trigger significant fines and criminal penalties, its important for businesses to understand them before diving into political participation, especially through contributions or paid lobbying.

Here are some laws governing political speech that businesses should know, just in time for the beginning of the election cycle.

The Political Reform Act Californias Political Reform Act is the starting point for laws on paid political participation. It has been almost 10 years since the Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. FEC that the First Amendment prohibits governmental entities from distinguishing between individuals and corporations in regulating independent political expenditures. Notably, the Court declined to overrule Buckley v. Valeo, which upheld limits on direct corporate contributions. The Court also upheld disclosure requirements like those in the Political Reform Act relating to political speech.

Campaign Disclosures The Political Reform Act and regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission both contain rules concerning campaign committee formation and periodic filings of disclosure statements for campaign receipts and expenditures. Contribution sources must be identified on the committees Form 460.

If a contribution is received through an intermediary, both the intermediary and the source of the contribution must be identified. Failing to disclose the true source of a contribution, more commonly known as laundering, is a serious violation. An employer may not reimburse employees for contributions, which would hide the true source of the contribution (the employer). The FPPC looks very closely at bundled contributions that come from one business or corporation or closely associated individuals.

Contribution Limits The Political Reform Act leaves some latitude to local agencies to regulate and limit political contributions. For example, San Diego and Los Angeles have city ethics commissions empowered to create and enforce additional layers of local contribution regulations. Many local jurisdictions have enacted local limits on campaign contributions that significantly restrict businesses and individuals abilities to contribute.

It is also common for agencies to require additional disclosure of local contributions in connection with their contract and franchise awards and the sale or lease of public lands. Agencies frequently ask to see a companys contributions to local races in connection with their submittal of a proposal for public contracts.

Californias Levine Act aims to ensure that appointed members of boards or commissions are not biased by political contributors who might appear before them in a proceeding involving a license, contract, permit or entitlement. This law covers all appointed officers of any local government agency. So, contributions to the election campaign of an appointed official can disqualify that official from participation on an appointed board or commission.

Serial and Ex Parte Communications The right to petition does not include the right to speak to any elected official at any time. Californias Ralph M. Brown Act prohibits a member of the public serving as a conduit of information of public business among the members of a quorum of a local agency. So, while it is permitted to whip votes among members of the state Legislature by telling the position of one legislator to another legislator, similar communications are prohibited among a majority of a city council or county board of supervisors.

Some ex parte communications (communications outside a formal meeting) are prohibited altogether. For examples, stakeholders are not permitted to petition some state boards and commissions (i.e., regional water quality control boards and the California Coastal Commission) outside their meetings.

Like individual speech, corporate speech enjoys First Amendment protection. However, such protection is not unfettered and often subject to state and local regulations intended to enhance disclosure in public decision-making and to control corruption.

Scott Smith is a partner at Best Best & Krieger LLP. Representing both businesses and public agencies, he advises on First Amendment issues at the intersection of public and private interests. He can be reached at scott.smith@bbklaw.com.

Visit link:

Election time: Yes, businesses have rights but legal restrictions, too - Press-Enterprise

History and social science professor Mickey Huff wrestled with topics ranging from censorship to fake news during Constitution Day at Diablo Valley College on Sept. 18 in the Student Union building.

Huff led a discussion with a room full of students about topics related to The First Amendment. Talking points included free speech, the right to read, propaganda, media coverage, and many more important topics. Huff made censorship, and fake news the primary focus, and presented his books Censored 2020, and the United States Of Distraction for any students who want to learn more on the topics.

It is hard to exercise your rights if you dont know your rights, said Huff.

During the event, Huff spoke about how the rise of fake news makes it harder to find good sources, and even how his friends have been accused of being influencers of Russia because of their reporting. However, the right to read and protection of the First Amendment in todays climate remained his main talking points. Huff wanted students to know their rights out of concern that some people arent interested in their own liberties.

Some students expressed strong opinions about their First Amendment rights. Celeste Orrick said she was concerned with free speech. Jaiden Aengus said he attended the event not only because it was a requirement for his political science class, but because of his personal concerns about the press.

I feel the freedom of the press has been decayed, said Aengus.

Huff gave out a handout about the upcoming Banned Books Week event that happens every September. According to the Banned Books Week Handbook, the event is a celebration of the freedom to access ideas.

Students can honor books, comics, plays, art, journalism, and much more during the event, according to the Banned Books Week handbook.

Huff shortly talked about the upcoming event, but had other important things to say on the students rights to read. According to him, he believes students can pass on what they learned about the First Amendment to fellow students.

Students can raise awareness of their rights by talking to their peers, said Huff.

Constitution Day is once a year on September 18, 2019, the date it was ratified. Protecting the First Amendment for Huff, Aengus, and Orrick, is important, as it is for all American citizens, even if some dont know what liberties it protects. One of the important goals this year was to raise awareness of these rights protected under the constitution.

Here is the original post:

It is hard to exercise your rights if you don't know your rights: Constitution Day highlights the First Amendment - The Inquirer

United States Constitution

First Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States that is part of the Bill of Rights and reads,

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 clauses of the amendment are often called the establishment clause, the free exercise clause, the free speech clause, the free press clause, the assembly clause, and the petition clause.

The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally restricted only what the federal government may do and did not bind the states. Most state constitutions had their own bills of rights, and those generally included provisions similar to those found in the First Amendment. But the state provisions could be enforced only by state courts.

In 1868, however, the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution, and it prohibited states from denying people liberty without due process. Since then the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually used the due process clause to apply most of the Bill of Rights to state governments. In particular, from the 1920s to the 40s the Supreme Court applied all the clauses of the First Amendment to the states. Thus, the First Amendment now covers actions by federal, state, and local governments. The First Amendment also applies to all branches of government, including legislatures, courts, juries, and executive officials and agencies. This includes public employers, public university systems, and public school systems.

The First Amendment, however, applies only to restrictions imposed by the government, since the First and Fourteenth amendments refer only to government action. As a result, if a private employer fires an employee because of the employees speech, there is no First Amendment violation. There is likewise no violation if a private university expels a student for what the student said, if a commercial landlord restricts what bumper stickers are sold on the property it owns, or if an Internet service provider refuses to host certain Web sites.

Legislatures sometimes enact laws that protect speakers or religious observers from retaliation by private organizations. For example, Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans religious discrimination even by private employers. Similarly, laws in some states prohibit employers from firing employees for off-duty political activity. But such prohibitions are imposed by legislative choice rather than by the First Amendment.

The freedoms of speech, of the press, of assembly, and to petitiondiscussed here together as freedom of expressionbroadly protect expression from governmental restrictions. Thus, for instance, the government may not outlaw antiwar speech, speech praising violence, racist speech, pro-communist speech, and the like. Nor may the government impose special taxes on speech on certain topics or limit demonstrations that express certain views. The government also may not authorize civil lawsuits based on peoples speech, unless the speech falls within a traditionally recognized First Amendment exception. This is why, for example, people may not sue for emotional distress inflicted by offensive magazine articles about them, unless the articles are not just offensive but include false statements that fall within the defamation exception (see below Permissible restrictions on expression).

The free expression guarantees are not limited to political speech. They also cover speech about science, religion, morality, and social issues as well as art and even personal gossip.

Freedom of the press confirms that the government may not restrict mass communication. It does not, however, give media businesses any additional constitutional rights beyond what nonprofessional speakers have.

Freedom of petition protects the right to communicate with government officials. This includes lobbying government officials and petitioning the courts by filing lawsuits, unless the court concludes that the lawsuit clearly lacks any legal basis.

Read more:

First Amendment - Britannica.com

First Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States that is part of the Bill of Rights and reads,

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 clauses of the amendment are often called the establishment clause, the free exercise clause, the free speech clause, the free press clause, the assembly clause, and the petition clause.

The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally restricted only what the federal government may do and did not bind the states. Most state constitutions had their own bills of rights, and those generally included provisions similar to those found in the First Amendment. But the state provisions could be enforced only by state courts.

In 1868, however, the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution, and it prohibited states from denying people liberty without due process. Since then the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually used the due process clause to apply most of the Bill of Rights to state governments. In particular, from the 1920s to the 40s the Supreme Court applied all the clauses of the First Amendment to the states. Thus, the First Amendment now covers actions by federal, state, and local governments. The First Amendment also applies to all branches of government, including legislatures, courts, juries, and executive officials and agencies. This includes public employers, public university systems, and public school systems.

The First Amendment, however, applies only to restrictions imposed by the government, since the First and Fourteenth amendments refer only to government action. As a result, if a private employer fires an employee because of the employees speech, there is no First Amendment violation. There is likewise no violation if a private university expels a student for what the student said, if a commercial landlord restricts what bumper stickers are sold on the property it owns, or if an Internet service provider refuses to host certain Web sites.

Legislatures sometimes enact laws that protect speakers or religious observers from retaliation by private organizations. For example, Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans religious discrimination even by private employers. Similarly, laws in some states prohibit employers from firing employees for off-duty political activity. But such prohibitions are imposed by legislative choice rather than by the First Amendment.

The freedoms of speech, of the press, of assembly, and to petitiondiscussed here together as freedom of expressionbroadly protect expression from governmental restrictions. Thus, for instance, the government may not outlaw antiwar speech, speech praising violence, racist speech, pro-communist speech, and the like. Nor may the government impose special taxes on speech on certain topics or limit demonstrations that express certain views. The government also may not authorize civil lawsuits based on peoples speech, unless the speech falls within a traditionally recognized First Amendment exception. This is why, for example, people may not sue for emotional distress inflicted by offensive magazine articles about them, unless the articles are not just offensive but include false statements that fall within the defamation exception (see below Permissible restrictions on expression).

The free expression guarantees are not limited to political speech. They also cover speech about science, religion, morality, and social issues as well as art and even personal gossip.

Freedom of the press confirms that the government may not restrict mass communication. It does not, however, give media businesses any additional constitutional rights beyond what nonprofessional speakers have.

Freedom of petition protects the right to communicate with government officials. This includes lobbying government officials and petitioning the courts by filing lawsuits, unless the court concludes that the lawsuit clearly lacks any legal basis.

More here:

First Amendment | Contents & Supreme Court Interpretations | Britannica.com

A Guide to the First Amendment

The First Amendment, sometimes called Amendment 1, is the first amendment to the United States Constitution and is also one out of ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment makes it illegal to make a law that establishes a religion, stops the freedom of speech, stops people from practicing their religion, stops the press from printing what they want, and stops people from exercising their right to assemble peacefully or demonstrating against the government.

Text of the First Amendment

The text of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is the following:

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.

What Does the First Amendment Mean?

There are many key phrases in the first Amendment. Here are some explanations on what exactly they mean.

Freedom of religion: The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prevents the government from setting up or establishing an official religion of the country. American Citizens have the freedom to attend a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or other house of worship of their choice. They can also choose to not be involved in any religion as well. Because of the First Amendment, we can practice our religion however we want to.

Freedom of speech: The First Amendment of the United States Constitution stops the government from making any laws that may stop us from saying what we feel or think. The American people have the right to share their opinions with other people or criticize the government.

Freedom of the press: Freedom of the press means we have the right to get information from many different sources of information. The government does not have the power to control what is broadcasted on radio or TV, what is printed in books or newspapers, or what is offered online. American citizens can request time on TV to respond to any views that they disagree with. They can also write letters to newspapers, which might be printed for others readers to see. Americans can also pass out leaflets that state their opinions. They may also their own online web pages that have their opinions.

Freedom of assembly: American citizens have the right to come together in private and public gatherings. Citizens can join groups for religious, social, recreational, or political reasons. By organizing in order to act on a common idea and accomplish a common goal, American citizens can more easily spread their ideas to others.

Right to petition: The right to petition the government means that American citizens can ask for adjustments or changes in the government. Citizens can do this by collecting signatures for petitions and sending them to elected representatives. They can also call, e-mail, or write to their elected representatives as well. Another way they can petition the government is by creating support groups that try to cause change by lobbying the government.

comments

Read the original post:

First Amendment - Kids | Laws.com

Recently there have been instances popping up all over social media regarding First Amendment Audits of law enforcement and government buildings and practices. The entire focus of these audits is to judge the proper (or often improper) response of law enforcement to the presence of a cameraman. The hopes of some auditors is to have a poor contact with law enforcement, resulting in a violation of their 4th Amendment rights and or a bad arrest. This obviously places the officer and agency in line for civil damages and embarrassing online videos. This also leads to interesting and valuable training opportunities!

A review of many of the posted audit videos shows us, extremely well trained and professional law enforcement officers acting what I can only describe as childish when confronted with an audit and a camera. From us blocking their view, following them, challenging them for ID, or even worse, pulling out our own cell phone and taking pictures and video of them. What is the point? The videos are never taken well by the public audience, and the comments; I wont even mention them.

I know, some of you may be saying But terrorists, they scout locations and police stations are a target. I agree. They certainly do. When was the last time you found a terrorist standing in wide open view, in public, blatantly videotaping a public building with obvious disregard for the police driving around? Probably never. If they were going to scout a location, they would do it and you likely would never know.

Honestly, as a law enforcement professional for the past twenty years, I have seen my share of video cameras, and baiting of law enforcement. At no time have I felt a threat when someone with a camera was filming me, my police station, or anything to do with us as law enforcement. Remember, the audits are carefully planned to remain in a place that they can legally be, and there is no law about recording activity or buildings from a public place. They are well within their rights to do so, and from my experience, the best response to an audit roaming around your police station public areas is to ignore them. They eventually lose interest and move on to somewhere they can make headlines.

Consider the audits as a reminder that we do serve the public, and in such, we should adjust our policing and our methods to suit the situation. We shouldnt be carrying heavy stones over glass bridges as law enforcement.

See original here:

First Amendment Audits and How to Respond California ...

An accurate recounting of history is necessary to appreciate the need for disestablishment and a separation between church and state. The religiosity of the generation that framed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (of which the First Amendment is the first as a result of historical accident, not the preference for religious liberty over any other right) has been overstated. In reality, many of the Framers and the most influential men of that generation rarely attended church, were often Deist rather than Christian, and had a healthy understanding of the potential for religious tyranny. This latter concern is to be expected as European history was awash with executions of religious heretics: Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim. Three of the most influential men in the Framing era provide valuable insights into the mindset at the time: Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and John Adams. Franklin saw a pattern:

If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England.

Benjamin Franklin, Letter to the London Packet (June 3, 1772).

The father of the Constitution and primary drafter of the First Amendment, James Madison, in his most important document on the topic, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments (1785), stated:

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. . . . What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people.

Two years later, John Adams described the states as having been derived from reason, not religious belief:

It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. . . .Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.

The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Vol. 4, 292-93 (Charles C. Little & James Brown, eds., 1851).

Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are examples of early discord. In Massachusetts, the Congregationalist establishment enforced taxation on all believers and expelled or even put to death dissenters. Baptist clergy became the first in the United States to advocate for a separation of church and state and an absolute right to believe what one chooses. Baptist pastor John Leland was an eloquent and forceful proponent of the freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state. For him, America was not a Christian nation, but rather should recognize the equality of all believers, whether Jews, Turks, Pagans [or] Christians. Government should protect every man in thinking and speaking freely, and see that one does not abuse another. He proposed an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution in 1794 because of the evils . . . occasioned in the world by religious establishments, and to keep up the proper distinction between religion and politics.

Pennsylvania, dubbed the Holy Experiment by founder William Penn, was politically controlled by Quakers, who advocated tolerance of all believers and the mutual co-existence of differing faiths, but who made their Christianity a prerequisite for public office, only permitted Christians to vote, and forbade work on the Sabbath. Even so, the Quakers set in motion a principle that became a mainstay in religious liberty jurisprudence: the government may not coerce citizens to believe what they are unwilling to believe. If one looks carefully into the history of the United States religious experiment, one also uncovers a widely-shared view that too much liberty, or licentiousness, is as bad as no liberty. According to historian John Philip Reid, those in the eighteenth century had as great a duty to oppose licentiousness as to defend liberty.

This essay is part of a discussion about the Establishment Clause with Michael McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. Read the full discussion here.

Establishment Clause Doctrine

The Establishment Clause has yielded a wide array of doctrines (legal theories articulated by courts), each of which is largely distinct from the others, some of which are described in Professor McConnells and my joint contribution on the Establishment Clause. The reason for this proliferation of distinct doctrines is that the Establishment Clause is rooted in a concept of separating the power of church and state. These are the two most authoritative forces of human existence, and drawing a boundary line between them is not easy. The further complication is that the exercise of power is fluid, which leads both state and church to alter their positions to gain power either one over the other or as a union in opposition to the general public or particular minorities.

The separation of church and state does not mean that there is an impermeable wall between the two, but rather that the Framers fundamentally understood that the union of power between church and state would lead inevitably to tyranny. The established churches of Europe were well-known to the Founding era and the Framers and undoubtedly contributed to James Madisons inclusion of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, and its ratification. The following are some of the most important principles.

The Government May Not Delegate Governing Authority to Religious Entities

The Court has been sensitive to incipient establishments of religion. A Massachusetts law delegated authority to churches and schools to determine who could receive a liquor license within 500 feet of their buildings. The Supreme Court struck down the law, because it delegated to churches zoning power, which belongs to state and local government, not private entities. Larkin v. Grendels Den, Inc. (1982). According to the Court: The law substitutes the unilateral and absolute power of a church for the reasoned decision making of a public legislative body . . . on issues with significant economic and political implications. The challenged statute thus enmeshes churches in the processes of government and creates the danger of [p]olitical fragmentation and divisiveness along religious lines.

In another scenario, the Supreme Court rejected an attempt to define political boundaries solely according to religion. In Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994), the state of New York designated the neighborhood boundaries of Satmar Hasidim Orthodox Jews in Kiryas Joel Village as a public school district to itself. Thus, the boundary was determined solely by religious identity, in part because the community did not want their children to be exposed to children outside the faith. The Court invalidated the school district because political boundaries identified solely by reference to religion violate the Establishment Clause.

There Is No Such Thing as Church Autonomy Although There Is a Doctrine that Forbids the Courts from Determining What Religious Organizations Believe

In recent years, religious litigants have asserted a right to church autonomythat churches should not be subject to governmental regulationin a wide variety of cases, and in particular in cases involving the sexual abuse of children by clergy. The phrase, however, is misleading. The Supreme Court has never interpreted the First Amendment to confer on religious organizations a right to autonomy from the law. In fact, in the case in which they have most recently demanded such a right, arguing religious ministers should be exempt from laws prohibiting employment discrimination, the Court majority did not embrace the theory, not even using the term once. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C. (2012).

The courts are forbidden, however, from getting involved in determining what a religious organization believes, how it organizes itself internally, or who it chooses to be ministers of the faith. Therefore, if the dispute brought to a court can only be resolved by a judge or jury settling an intra-church, ecclesiastical dispute, the dispute is beyond judicial consideration. This is a corollary to the absolute right to believe what one chooses; it is not a right to be above the laws that apply to everyone else. There is extraordinary slippage in legal briefs in numerous cases where the entity is arguing for autonomy, but what they really mean is freedom from the law, per se. For the Court and basic common sense, these are arguments for placing religion above the law, and in violation of the Establishment Clause. They are also fundamentally at odds with the common sense of the Framing generation that understood so well the evils of religious tyranny.

See the article here:

Amendment I - The United States Constitution

* { padding: 10px; flex: 1 100%;}.headerDiv { box-shadow: 0 0 4px 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3); background: #fff; color: #FFFFFF!important; background: #00baf2!important;text-align: center; margin: 0 auto; }.headerDiv a{color: #fae100!important;}.headerDiv ul{ list-style-type: none; font-weight: normal!important; font-size: 18px!important; margin: 0 10%; }.headerDiv p{font-weight: normal!important; font-size: 18px!important; margin: 0 10%;}.main { text-align: center; padding: 1%; margin: 1%; box-shadow: 0 0 4px 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);}.sections { padding: 0; margin: 0; list-style: none; display: -webkit-box; display: -moz-box; display: -ms-flexbox; display: -webkit-flex; display: flex; -webkit-flex-flow: row wrap; justify-content: center; }#primers { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/understanding-e1476278290453.png) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; }#primers.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9);}#topics { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/building-e1476276251199.jpg) center no-repeat;transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease;}#topics.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#faq{ background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/fac_faq_promo.jpg) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease;}#faq.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#podcast { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Podcast_share_TheFirstFive.jpg) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; }#podcast.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#survey { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/FAC_share_SOFA.jpg) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; }#survey.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#reportcard { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/News_FAC_Summer2017_ReportCard_sm-300x182.jpg) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; }#reportcard.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#column { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CuBx_vwXYAAJz5K-1.jpg) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; }#column.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#scotus { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/carousel_supreme-court-e1474319131299.jpg) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; }#scotus.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#moot { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FAC_MootCourt2016_Promo.jpg) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; }#moot.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#scholarship { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FAC_publications_promo.jpg) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; }#scholarship.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }.asset { font-size: 14px; text-align: center; box-shadow: 0 0 4px 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3); -webkit-transition: .125s linear; -moz-transition: .125s linear; -ms-transition: .125s linear; -o-transition: .125s linear; transition: .125s linear; position: relative; width: 250px; height: 180px;}.asset p {margin:1%;}.asset h3{font-weight: bold;}.asset a {position: relative; opacity: 0; text-decoration: none!important; color: #FFFFFF; text-align: center;} @media all and (min-width: 800px) { .main { flex: 2 0px; } .news { order: 3; } .headerDiv {order: 1;} .main { order: 2; } .footerDiv { order: 4; } width:30%; margin:auto 10%; } .textbox {display:block; background:rgba(0,0,0,0.8); color: #FFFFFF; position: absolute; bottom: 0; font-size: 16px;}#founder{ background: url('https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FAC_founder_promo.jpg') center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; } #founder.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#fac { background: url('https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/News_Newseum_bldg_2017.jpg') center no-repeat; transition: background-color 1s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 1s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 1s ease; }#fac.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }.footerDiv { background: #fff; box-shadow: 0 0 4px 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);}]]>

Our mission: providing resources to help the public understand how

work, and how these freedoms can be protected.

Visit link:

First Amendment Center | Freedom Forum Institute

The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England.

Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court inLemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, inPrince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety.

Sometimes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause come into conflict. The federal courts help to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter.

Check outsimilar casesrelated toEngel v. Vitalethat deal with religion in schools and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Follow this link:

First Amendment and Religion | United States Courts

Download a PDF of the Bill of Rights

Click for free Documents of Freedom lesson on the Bill of Rights

Click for free Voices of History lesson on the Bill of Rights

The first 10 amendments to the Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. James Madisonwrote the amendments, which list specific prohibitions on governmental power, in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties. For example, the Founders saw the ability to speak and worship freely as a natural right protected by the First Amendment. Congress is prohibited from making laws establishing religion or abridging freedom of speech. The Fourth Amendment safeguards citizens right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in their homes through the requirement of a warrant.

The Bill of Rights was strongly influenced by the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason. Other precursors include English documents such as the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the English Bill of Rights, and the Massachusetts Body of Liberties.

One of the many points of contention between Federalists, who advocated a strong national government, and Anti-Federalists, who wanted power to remain with state and local governments, was the Constitutions lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.

Madison, then a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, altered the Constitutions text where he thought appropriate. However, several representatives, led by Roger Sherman, objected, saying that Congress had no authority to change the wording of the Constitution. Therefore, Madisons changes were presented as a list of amendments that would follow Article VII.

The House approved 17 amendments. Of these, the Senate approved 12, which were sent to the states for approval in August 1789. Ten amendments were approved (or ratified). Virginias legislature was the final state legislature to ratify the amendments, approving them on December 15, 1791.

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.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Read more:

Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

This is one of the most confusing and controversial areas of the current school-prayer debate. While the courts have not clarified all of the issues, some are clearer than others.

For instance, inviting outside adults to lead prayers at graduation ceremonies is clearly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court resolved this issue in the 1992 case Lee v. Weisman, which began when prayers were delivered by clergy at a middle schools commencement exercises in Providence, Rhode Island. The school designed the program, provided for the invocation, selected the clergy, and even supplied guidelines for the prayer.

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the practice violated the First Amendments prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion. The majority based its decision on the fact that (1) it is not the business of schools to sponsor or organize religious activities, and (2) students who might have objected to the prayer were subtly coerced to participate. This psychological coercion was not resolved by the fact that attendance at the graduation was voluntary. In the Courts view, few students would want to miss the culminating event of their academic career.

A murkier issue is student-initiated, student-led prayer at school-sponsored events. On one side of the debate are those who believe that student religious speech at graduation ceremonies or other school-sponsored events violates the establishment clause. They are bolstered by the 2000 Supreme Court case Santa Fe v. Doe, which involved the traditional practice of student-led prayers over the public-address system before high school football games.

According to the district, students would vote each year on whether they would have prayers at home football games. If they decided to do so, they would then select a student to deliver the prayers. To ensure fairness, the school district said it required these prayers to be non-sectarian [and] non-proselytizing.

A 6-to-3 majority of the Supreme Court still found the Santa Fe policy to be unconstitutional. The majority opinion first pointed out that constitutional rights are not subject to a vote. To the contrary, the judges said the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to place some rights beyond the reach of political majorities. Thus, the Constitution protects a persons right to freedom of speech, press, or religion even if no one else agrees with the ideas a person professes.

In addition, the Court found that having a student, as opposed to an adult, lead the prayer did not solve the constitutional dilemma. A football game is still a school-sponsored event, they held, and the school was still coercing the students, however subtly, to participate in a religious exercise.

Finally, the Court ruled that the requirement that the prayer be non-sectarian and non-proselytizing not only failed to solve the problems addressed in Lee v. Weisman, it may have aggravated them. In other words, while some might like the idea of an inclusive, nonsectarian civil religion, others might not. To some people, the idea of nonsectarian prayer is offensive, as though a prayer were being addressed to whom it may concern. Moreover, the Supreme Court made clear in Lee v. Weisman that even nondenominational prayers or generic religiosity may not be established by the government at graduation exercises.

Another thorny part of this issue is determining whether a particular prayer tends to proselytize. Such determinations entangle school officials in religious matters in unconstitutional ways. In fact, one Texas school district was sued for discriminating against those who wished to offer more-sectarian prayers at graduation exercises.

On the other side of this debate are those who contend that not allowing students to express themselves religiously at school events violates the students free exercise of religion and free speech.

Case law indicates, however, that this may be true only in instances involving strictly student speech, and not when a student is conveying a message controlled or endorsed by the school. As the 11th Circuit case of Adler v. Duval County (2001) suggests, it would seem possible for a school to provide a forum for student speech within a graduation ceremony when prayer or religious speech might occur.

For example, a school might allow the valedictorian or class president an opportunity to speak during the ceremony. If such a student chose to express a religious viewpoint, it seems unlikely it would be found unconstitutional unless the school had suggested or otherwise encouraged the religious speech. (See Doe v. Madison School Dist., 9th Cir. 1998.) In effect, this means that in order to distance itself from the students remarks, the school must create a limited open forum for student speech in the graduation program.

Again, there is a risk for school officials in this approach. By creating a limited open forum for student speech, the school may have to accept almost anything the student wishes to say. Although the school would not be required to allow speech that was profane, sexually explicit, defamatory, or disruptive, the speech could include political or religious views offensive to many, as well as speech critical of school officials.

If school officials feel a solemnizing event needs to occur at a graduation exercise, a neutral moment of silence might be the best option. This way, everyone could pray, meditate, or silently reflect on the previous years efforts in her own way.

Read more:

First Amendment FAQ | Freedom Forum Institute

That's it. That's the entirety of our Constitution's First Amendment, the central tenet of our American way of life that gets dragged out every time someone's banned from Twitter.

There's a lot going on in those few sentences, and it's important to know when and how it applies to common situations -- and, equally as important, when it doesn't.

Let's look at some common First Amendment arguments; illuminated and debunked by a constitutional expert.

This is not a First Amendment issue though plenty of people think it is.

This scenario illustrates one of the biggest misconceptions people have about the First Amendment. Bottom line: It protects you from the government punishing or censoring or oppressing your speech. It doesn't apply to private organizations. "So if, say, Twitter decides to ban you, you'd be a bit out of luck," Nott says. "You can't make a First Amendment claim in court."

However, while it's not unconstitutional, if private platforms outright ban certain types of protected speech, it sets an uncomfortable precedent for the values of free speech.

If you work for a private company, it's probably not a First Amendment issue.

"It's the company's right to discipline their employees' speech," Nott says.

If you're a government employee, it's complicated.

Institutions like police departments, public schools and local government branches can't restrict employee's free speech rights, but they do need to assure that such speech doesn't keep the employee from doing their job. It's definitely a balancing act, and the rise of social media has made it harder for such institutions to regulate their employee's speech in a constitutional manner.

If it's a private institution, it's probably not a First Amendment issue.

If it's a public institution, the lines can get blurry.

"If you invite someone to speak on your campus and are a public university, you have to respect their First Amendment rights," Nott says. That doesn't mean you can't put regulations on a speech, like dictating the time, place, venue and suggestions for subject matter. It just means you can't do so in a way that discriminates against a certain point of view.

If students protesting play a hand in moving or canceling a speaker, that presents a different free speech challenge.

"If a speaker were to take legal action for being blocked from speaking, they can't do it against the students. You can't take constitutional action against a group of private citizens," she adds.

Such a complaint would have to go against the school, for allowing the constitutional breach to happen.

Definitely a First Amendment issue.

But, like pretty much everything in law, there are exceptions and nuances.

"It's definitely unconstitutional, unless you are trying to incite people to violence with your speech," Nott says. Even then, it needs to be a true threat -- one that has immediacy and some sort of actual intent.

It's a private company, so it's not a First Amendment issue.

There's that refrain again: Private companies, like social media sites, can do whatever they want.

But regulating conversations and posts online is a delicate balance for social media giants like Facebook.

"That says, if you are an internet company and you have some way for people to post or leave comments, you are not liable for what they do," Nott says. This covers things like obscenity, violence and threats.

The problem is, this protection often butts up against the enforcement of basic community standards.

"Facebook is under enormous pressure to take down, not just violent and illegal content, but fake news," Nott says. "And the more it starts to play editor for its own site, the more likely it is to lose that Section 230 protection."

This is a First Amendment issue, at the very least in spirit.

"Symbolic speech is protected by the constitution," Nott says. "In essence, you have the right to not speak. You have the right to silence."

In theory, a private employer could require you to stand for the anthem or say the Pledge of Allegiance, but such a requirement may run afoul of the Civil Rights Act. Even in schools, where there have been some cases of students being singled out for sitting or kneeling for the anthem, it would be hard to provide justification for punishment.

"This is an act of political speech, the most protected type of speech," Nott says. "It's completely not disruptive because it's silent." Plus, it is buttressed by court cases that have decided there is no requirement to salute the flag.

A First Amendment issue -- usually.

You are fully within your rights to record the police doing their job in public. And if you get arrested while doing so, your constitutional rights are being violated.

This is, unless you were doing something unlawful at the time of your arrest.

In a heated situation with police, that can also become a gray area. Physical assault or threats could obviously get you arrested, but what about if you were just yelling at the police while recording, say, to get them to stop an act or to pay attention?

"That's tough," Nott says. "If you were disturbing the peace, you can get arrested for that, or for other things. But the bottom line is it's not a crime to record police activities in a public space."

If it's a student publication, it's a First Amendment issue.

Nott points to a landmark Supreme Court cases from 1969 that has acted as a standard for cases involving free speech at public universities and colleges. That's Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which you can read more about below.

Another case, Bazaar v. Fortune from 1973, helps tailor these guidelines to the student press by stating that schools cannot act as "private publishers" just because they fund a student publication or program. In other words, they can't punish the publication -- whether it be through student firings, budget cuts or withdrawals or a ban -- just for printing or broadcasting something they don't like.

Now, a gentle reminder that this is just for PUBLIC schools. All together now: Private institutions can (usually) do what they want!

Visit link:

First Amendment and free spech: When it applies and ... - CNN

July is a special month for U.S. history because on the 4th of July, 241 years ago, our country declared its independence. Many Americans celebrate our nations birthday by gathering with friends and family to attend summer cookouts and watch fireworks. Others travel to the Capitol for even grander Independence Day festivities, filled with elected officials at the White House or at the Lincoln Memorial.

July is also a great month to reflect on the founding ideals of our country, the progress it has made, and how far it still has to go. In the midst of that reflection, some of us might even consider how our citizenship guarantees protections, which may not be accessible or practiced in other countries.

David L. Hudson Jr..

Advocacy and grassroots movements are key ingredients in affecting systemic change, but they are only possible because of the protections granted by the U.S. Constitution. Thats why we sat down with David L. Hudson Jr., First Amendment expert and law professor, to discuss some misconceptions about our First Amendment Rights. Hudson serves as First Amendment ombudsman for the Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center. He is an author, co-author or co-editor of more than 40 books, including Let The Students Speak: A History of the Fight for Free Expression in American Schools (Beacon Press, 2011), and The Encyclopedia of the First Amendment (CQ Press, 2008). He has served as a senior law clerk at the Tennessee Supreme Court, and teaches First Amendment and Professional Responsibility classes at Vanderbilt University School of Law and various classes at the Nashville School of Law.

David L. Hudson Jr. :My initial interest began in high school. I got in trouble for engaging in certain speech and felt the punishment was unfair. Later in life, my interest deepened after I joined the First Amendment Center. I got to speak at different schools and really enjoyed discussing student rights. Eventually, I took it up a notch by becoming personal friends with free speech activists like John and Mary Beth Tinker, and wrote books on the subject.

David L. Hudson Jr. :One misconception is that the First Amendment limits both public and private actors. Under the state action doctrine, the First Amendment limits only public actors. Another misconception is that many people dont realize that the First Amendment protects a great deal of obnoxious, offensive, or repugnant speech. Justice Brennan once referred to this as a bedrock principle of the First Amendment.

AGF NOTE: The protections you receive at a public park are much different from what you may be entitled to during working hours if you work at a private corporation. However, there is a grey area that exists in the law to ensure workers are not being exploited.Hate speech is, within reason, protected by the First Amendment. People are entitled to condemn religions, political parties, economic system, etc. The premise is that government should not control speech, whether it agrees or disagrees with what is being said.

David L. Hudson Jr. :Student organizers have to be carefuleven under the speech-protective standard articulated in the Tinker casebecause some courts have held that student walkouts are disruptive to the educational process. However, there is a healthy degree of protection for student political clubs and such. Advocacy should be protected but if it becomes substantially disruptive, then it becomes a problem.

AGF NOTE: The Tinker case refers to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). In the case, students in an Iowa public school organized a protest against the Vietnam War, where they wore black armbands as a symbol of their opposition to the war. Administrators found out and the Principal threatened to suspend all students who participated. After the protest, students were suspended and parents sued the school for violation of freedom of speech. The U.S District Court sided with the school, ruling the protest disrupted learning. The United States Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision in favor of the students in 1969. The court agreed that students, dont shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates. This has become known as the Tinker standard.

David L. Hudson Jr. :Students played a very significant role in the Civil Rights Movement. One of my favorite cases is Edwards v. South Carolina (1963). In that case, 187 African-American youth (and one white youth) were arrested for protesting and marching against segregation in Columbia, South Carolina.

David L. Hudson Jr. :It encompasses the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In a sense filing a lawsuit is a petition. But, when I think of petition in this context, I think of a list of signed student signatures, peacefully expressing their opposition to a school policy (like an overbroad or onerous dress code).

David L. Hudson Jr. :A key unanswered question concerns student rights online. Or asked another way how far does the arm of school authority extend to off-campus, online speech? We still dont know the answer.

As July comes to a close, we want encourage all of you to think about your advocacy and activism. In what ways are you an advocate and what causes do you champion with your everyday decisions? Whether you are currently a student or working professionally, consider the different protections and rights youre entitled to, depending on the context. Think about your ability to advocate for yourself and for others as a sacred component of your ability to move our country forward.

Kevin Hurtado is the Communications and Development Associate at Andrew Goodman Foundation. He graduated from Ramapo College of New Jersey with a Bachelors in International Studies and a minor in Human Rights and Genocide.Previously, Kevin worked as an Executive Assistant and Officer Manager at Newark Charter School Fund, a nonprofit dedicated to promoting educational equity in the city of Newark.

Read more from the original source:

A Conversation About First Amendment Rights with David L ...

The First Amendment Foundation is a highly visible and accessible source of authoritative information, expertise and assistance to the public and news media.Founded as a non-profit organization in 1984 by The Florida Press Association, the Florida Society of Newspapers Editors and the Florida Association of Broadcasters to ensure that public commitment and progress in the areas of free speech, free press, and open government do not become checked and diluted during Floridas changing times.

Floridas Sunshine Laws guarantee our right to open government, but government officials can get downright creative to keep their decision-making in the dark. Like the state agency that demanded $3,200 to copy a single page of a public record, or the city commissioner who accidentally dropped her government phone in the toilet after a reporter asked her to see her text messages. And of course, you, the taxpayer footed the $1.3 million legal tab to keep our Governor and his cabinet out of court over secret emails. Fortunately, we have the Florida First Amendment Foundation fighting on our side. I urge you to support the First Amendment Foundation and keep Florida government by the people, for the people and in the Sunshine.

Carl Hiaasen, Miami Herald columnist and author ofSkin Tight,Strip Tease, Skinny Dip, Nature Girl, Star Island,Bad Monkey, Razor Girl and many more.

Thepurpose of the First Amendment Foundation is to protect and advance the publics constitutional right to open government by providing education and training, legal aid and information services. Funding is based on voluntary contributions from various organizations and concerned individuals.

You know, the critical research of my book would not have been possible without access granted by law via Floridas longstanding Open Government laws. Without Sunshine, stories like the injustice I uncovered in Central Florida could not have come forward. The Florida First Amendment Foundation has been protecting your citizen right to know for the past 31 years. Support the First Amendment Foundation. Support Open Government. It pays dividends.

Gilbert King, February 2016. Pulitzer Prize winning author of Devil in the Grove Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

Our actions get results. In the past year, we led a broad coalition of open government advocates anddefeated a billthat would have made it harder to hold agencies accountable for public records violations. In dozens of courthouses and government offices around the country, citizens with FAFs help won access to the recordsand meetings.

Still,our job has never been more challenging and,with your help, we will continue to fight efforts to erode Floridas long-standing tradition of open government.

Find out more about the First Amendment Foundation.

Like Loading...

More here:

First Amendment Foundation

Some notable First Amendment court cases include:

Schenck v. United States, 1919: In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft during World War I.

The Schenck decision helped define limits of freedom of speech, creating the clear and present danger standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, the Supreme Court viewed draft resistance as dangerous to national security.

New York Times Co. v. United States, 1971: This landmark Supreme Court case made it possible for The New York Times and Washington Post newspapers to publish the contents of the Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship.

The Pentagon Papers were a top-secret Department of Defense study of U.S. political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Published portions of the Pentagon Papers revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson had all misled the public about the degree of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Texas v. Johnson, 1990: Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the administration of President Ronald Reagan.

The Supreme Court reversed a Texas courts decision that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. This Supreme Court Case invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag-burning.

Read this article:

First Amendment: Rights and Definition | HISTORY.com