Miami Herald | Do we still believe in free speech? Only until we disagree Miami Herald I do think the First Amendment tradition is under siege, said Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Pamela Geller, a firebrand commentator and founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, added, Freedom ... |
Read this article:
Do we still believe in free speech? Only until we disagree - Miami Herald
WASHINGTON, June 29, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute released the results of its State of the First Amendment survey, which examines Americans' views on freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition, and samples their opinions on contemporary First Amendment issues. The survey, conducted this year in partnership with Fors Marsh Group, an applied research company, has been published annually since 1997, reflecting Americans' changing attitudes toward their core freedoms.
The results of the 2017 survey show that, despite coming out of one of the most politically contentious years in U.S. history, most Americans remain generally supportive of the First Amendment. When asked if the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees, 69 percent of survey respondents disagreed.
However, there are ideological divisions in attitudes toward the First Amendment, with liberals and conservatives disagreeing on the amount of protection the First Amendment should provide in certain scenarios. Conservatives were more likely than liberals to believe that those who leak information should be prosecuted and that the government should be able to hold Muslims to a higher level of scrutiny. However, liberals were more likely than conservatives to think that colleges should be able to ban speakers with controversial views.
This year, 43 percent of Americans agreed that news media outlets try to report the news without bias a significant improvement from only 23 percent in 2016. However, a majority of Americans (53 percent) expressed a preference for news information that aligns with their own views, demonstrating that many Americans may not view "biased" news in a negative light. The 2017 survey also attempted to assessthe impact of the "fake news" phenomenon. Approximately 70 percent of Americans did not think that fake news reports should be protected by the First Amendment, and about one-third (34 percent) reported a decrease in trust in news obtained from social media.
Regarding freedom of religion, 59 percent of Americans believe that religious freedom should apply to all religious groups, even those widely considered as "extreme" or fringe. The age group least likely to agree with this is Americans between the ages of 18 and 29: Just 49 percent of them supported protection for all religious faiths, compared to over 60 percent for every other age group.
On free speech, 43 percent of Americans felt that colleges should have the right to ban controversial campus speakers.Those who strongly agreed or disagreed with this tended to be current students and/or activists (people who had participated in political actions over the past year, such as signing a petition or attending a protest) on both sides of the political spectrum.Other Americans even those in the 18 to 29-year-old millennial demographic were more lukewarm on this issue.
"We were glad to find that most Americans still support the First Amendment, although it's troubling that almost one in four think that we have too much freedom," said Lata Nott, executive director of the First Amendment Center. "It's also troubling that even people who support the First Amendment in the abstract often dislike it when it's applied in real life."
The 2017 survey was conducted and supported by Fors Marsh Group, and contributing support provided by the Gannett Foundation.
Click here to view the complete survey.
ABOUT THE NEWSEUM INSTITUTE'S FIRST AMENDMENT CENTERThe Newseum Institute's First Amendment Center is a forum for the study and exploration of issues related to free expression, religious freedom, and press freedom, and an authoritative source of information, news, and analysis of these issues. The Center provides education, information and entertainment to educators, students, policy makers, legal experts, and the general public. The Center is nonpartisan and does not lobby, litigate or provide legal advice. The Newseum Institute promotes the study, exploration and education of the challenges confronting freedom through its First Amendment Center and the Religious Freedom Center. The Newseum is a 501(c)(3) public charity funded by generous individuals, corporations and foundations, including the Freedom Forum. For more information, visit newseuminstitute.org or follow us on Twitter.
To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/first-amendment-center-releases-2017-state-of-the-first-amendment-survey-results-300481542.html
SOURCE Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center
http://www.newseuminstitute.org
More here:
First Amendment Center Releases 2017 State of the First ... - PR Newswire (press release)
By Tim Hunt
E-mail Tim Hunt
View all posts from Tim Hunt
I was saddened to read of the passing of Dick Baker, the long-time president and CEO of Ponderosa Homes. He died May 25 at the age of 73. I have known Dick for many years, particularly through his leadership of the homebuilders charity arm, HomeAid of Northern California. Many years ago, Dick was chairman of the group and initially rejected an application from Shepherds Gate for help with its Livermore campus that just had one residence hall and the offices built. I was serving on the board of Shepherds Gate at the time. I joined our Steve McRee, the Shepherds Gate CEO, when we met with Dick asked for reconsideration. He changed his mind about partnering with our organization. That partnership resulted in three key facilities on the Livermore campus: the second residence hall, the five cottages and last year, the long-awaited Life Center. HomeAid did have a policy of only helping a non-profit once, but modified it for Shepherds Gate and ended up building more than half of the campus. Dicks leadership led to the first commitment and those three buildings and the thousands of women and children who have been served there are a legacy to his vision in partnering with a faith-based organization that never has taken government money.
To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.
Read the rest here:
Supreme Court stands up for First Amendment - Pleasanton Weekly (blog)
The Jewish Federation of Greater Chattanooga invites the Chattanooga community to its 10th annual First Amendment Dinner on Thursday, July 13 at 6 p.m. at the Jewish Cultural Center, 5461 North Terrace Road.
"This event educates us about our first amendment rights and honors local veterans for their military service," officials said.
The keynote speakers will be Pam Sohn and Clint Cooper opposing editors of the Chattanooga Times Free Press.
We felt that Sohn and Cooper represent the Chattanooga Times Free Press statement attributed to Adolph Ochs To give the news impartially, without fear or favor," said Michael Dzik, executive director of the Jewish Federation.
The cost for this annual event is $12 (free for veterans and current military personnel) if reserved before July 11. After July 11, the cost is $14 for both veterans and non-veterans. RSVP to 493-0270 ext. 10 or rsvp@jewishchattanooga.com. Space is limited.
The First Amendment Dinner was started ten years ago as a way to honor veterans as well as military personnel and inform the public of their First Amendment Rights. Past speakers have included Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Hedy Weinberg of the ACLU, Pulitzer Prize winning political cartoonist Clay Bennett, among others. It is increasingly important for the public to understand the importance of keeping the freedoms we have grown to enjoy and to respect those who serve our country in order to keep these freedoms. said Mr. Dzik.
The Times Free Press publishes two editorial pages. On the left side, the Times opinion page offers a more liberal perspective and commentary. On the right, the Free Press editorial page presents a conservative viewpoint.
Mr. Cooper, a writer and editor in Chattanooga for 37 years and Chattanooga native, is a graduate of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He began his journalism career in 1980 as sports writer for the Chattanooga Free Press. For 20 years, Mr. Cooper was sports news editor for the Free Press, and was named assistant sports editor in 1999. Until taking this editorial post,, he was a feature writer primarily covering the faith beat.
During Mr. Cooper's time in the sports department, the Free Press received the Tennessee Sports Writers Association award for Best Section. He has been honored by the Southern League Baseball association for team coverage of the Chattanooga Lookouts. Mr. Cooper is a well-known figure in Chattanooga's faith community, having written a weekly column on religion for more than a decade. Mr. Cooper represents the conservative right side of the editorial page.
Pam Sohn has been an award-winning reporter and editor in Chattanooga for more than 30 years. Ms. Sohn began her journalism career at the Anniston (Al.) Star before coming to work for the Chattanooga Times and later the Chattanooga Times Free Press. In those years, she has been a reporter, assistant lifestyle editor, wire editor, city editor, Sunday editor, projects team leader, and now opinion editor
Ms. Sohn has won numerous writing and editing awards in both Alabama and Tennessee, including first-place honors for breaking news, investigative news, public service, features, reporting without a deadline, and editorials. During her tenure as Sunday editor at the Chattanooga Times Free Press, the paper received the 2002 first-place honors for Best Sunday editions and Sweepstakes Award -- best paper in the state. Ms. Sohn represents the liberal left side of the editorial page.
See original here:
Jewish Federation's Sets 10th Anniversary First Amendment Dinner ... - The Chattanoogan
A City of Seattle Democracy Voucher belonging to the wife of Mark Elste, a plaintiff in a new lawsuit challenging Seattle's first-in-the-nation voucher system for publicly financing political campaigns. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)
A new lawsuit is challenging Seattles first-in-the-nation voucher system.
Under the program, Seattle voters in 2015 decided to tax themselves $3 million a year in exchange for a $100 in vouchers that they can sign over to candidates.
The cost of the system is estimated to be about $11 and 50-cents per homeowner each year. A federal lawsuit filed on Wednesday by the Pacific Legal Foundation says it forces people to pay taxes to support candidates they dont necessarily agree with.
Part of human dignity is controlling what we believe, said Ethan Blevins, Attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation. So when we are forced to support values that grade against our own sense of right or wrong that strikes at the core of who we are. Thats what the First Amendment seeks to protect.
They call it a violation of the First Amendment, which guarantees not just right to speak freely but not speak. They feel that forcing homeowners to pay for these political donations is forcing them to speak politically with their money.
Supporters say its a novel way to counter the effect of big money in politics and gives lesser-known candidates a chance to be heard.
Continued here:
Lawsuit: Seattle democracy vouchers violate First Amendment - MyNorthwest.com
by Jaclyn Driscoll, Fox Illinois
A rally for religious liberty was held Wednesday because some Catholics say their first amendment rights have not and are not being protected. (WRSP)
A rally for religious liberty was held Wednesday because some Catholics say their first amendment rights have not and are not being protected.
"There's so many threats to religious freedom, from the redefinition of marriage and transgender issues, that we're dealing with a lot of issues at the same time," said Hillary Byrnes of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
"I think our state is doing a horrendous job of protecting religious freedom," Hillsboro resident Mary Jo Cerny said. "I am appalled on the national level at what they've done."
Cerny, a former business owner and devout Catholic, says the government shouldn't be able to force businesses and other organizations to abandon religious beliefs.
"When they say that anybody with same-sex marriage that I have to provide for them," Cerny said. "I hope we have 8 million stores close when they tell them they got to do it."
Same-sex marriage was a reoccurring topic at the event. Bishop Thomas Paprocki says although it's an opinion no longer supported by the Supreme Court, the church's belief on marriage is one he will stand by.
"I'm not free to change my views," Bishop Paprocki said. "These are teachings that have been handed out for the last 2000 years and it is my job as the bishop to teach what the Catholic Church teaches."
Though some argue this belief doesn't support inclusion, Cerny says Catholics should be more concerned with remaining firm in their faith.
"Stand up for it," said Cerny. "Don't say, Oh well, I've got to include you. Christ said you have to accept everybody. You can. You can pray for them. He also said do not associate with those you know the devil's controlled."
View original post here:
Some Catholics say First Amendment rights under attack | WRSP - FOX Illinois
The award honors New Hampshire residents and organizations who have worked to protect free speech and free press. The recipient, or recipients, will be recognized Nov. 16 during a ceremony at the Palace Theatre in Manchester.
A committee of judges chooses the winner from a pool of nominations submitted by the public. First Amendment recipients receive a bronze eagle sculpture created by Mrs. Loeb, along with a $1,500 award.
Nominations can be submitted at http://www.loebschool.org, or by calling 627-0005. The deadline to submit nominations is Sept 11.
The award and the school are legacies of the late Nackey S. Loeb, past president and publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader and Sunday News. The awards night is the main yearly fundraiser for the nonprofit school, founded in 1999 by Loeb. Its free classes and low-cost workshops attract students including middle schoolers and retirees. Instructors from media outlets and businesses around the state teach topics such as the First Amendment, journalism, photography, broadcasting, audio and video production, social media and public speaking.
Past recipients include former state Attorney General Philip McLaughlin, former Keene Sentinel Executive Editor Thomas Kearney, The Laconia Citizen, former legislator Daniel Hughes, former Dover City Councilor David Scott, Londonderry High School journalism adviser Mary Lukas, First Amendment attorney William Chapman, former ConVal School Board member Gail Pierson Cromwell, The Portsmouth Herald, David Lang and the Professional Fire Fighters of New Hampshire, The Telegraph of Nashua, slain journalist James Foley, former Portsmouth police officer John Connors, open government activist David Pearl and Timberlane Regional School Board member Donna Green.
This years panel of judges includes Rod Doherty, former executive editor of Fosters Daily Democrat; retired N.H. Supreme Court Justice Richard Galway; attorney Gregory Sullivan of Malloy & Sullivan LPC; and previous First Amendment Award recipients John Howe, the former Laconia Citizen executive editor; and Londonderry High journalism adviser Lukas.
Read more from the original source:
Loeb School accepting First Amendment Award nominations - The Union Leader
Mark Alexander Jun. 28, 2017
But the fact being once established, that the press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood, I leave to others to restore it to its strength, by recalling it within the pale of truth. Thomas Jefferson (1805)
Why we do what we do
Our Founders rightly asserted that the First Amendment protection of a free press would be a powerful check on statist usurpation that a free press was the most promising assurance for extending Liberty to future generations.
Consistent with the views of other Founders, Thomas Jefferson wrote, Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it. He also noted, No government ought to be without censors & where the press is free, no one ever will.
Indeed.
However, after his first term in office, in his 1805 second inaugural address, Jefferson wrote: During the course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been levelled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety.
A free press was and remains essential to the protection and advancement of Liberty. But as Jefferson noted, the disingenuous adulteration of that sacred First Amendment trust, in which the media abandons its responsibility and colludes with partisans to become an instrument of their bidding, perilously endangers the future of Liberty.
In principle, our Founders advocacy for a free press was correct. In practice today, however, the collusion between the statist Democrat Party and its press outlets the Demo/MSM propaganda machine, which now encompasses most of the mainstream media has devolved into the most significant self-inflicted threat to Liberty today.
To counter that threat, our team launched The Patriot Post two decades ago, when the Internet was a lonely and largely uncharted medium. But we believed it would be, long term, the most effective medium to reach the largest number of grassroots Americans with a genuine conservative message. Today, The Patriot Post is the oldest news, policy and opinion digest on the Web, and a highly acclaimed touchstone of Liberty for Americans from all walks of life.
We didnt attain that status on our own merits, however. When others observed that he was a great communicator, my mentor, Ronald Reagan, said humbly, I communicated great things, and they didnt spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries. Any success we have experienced comes solely from our steadfast devotion to and advocacy for the principles that have guided us for two centuries.
From day one, we have remained sharply focused on our original objective to counter the mainstream media (MSM) stranglehold on public opinion and to expose their corrupt collusion and obstructionist objectives. It was critical then, and now more than ever, that we effectively counter their statist rhetoric with our genuine conservative message to Support and Defend the inalienable Rights of Man outlined in our Declaration of Independence, and the Liberty and Rule of Law enshrined in our Constitution.
The alternative, if we do not all lock arms in opposition to this growing menace, is, irrevocably, tyranny.
A recent Harvard study evaluating media reporting on President Donald Trump or, more accurately, their echo chamber parroting of Democrat talking points makes clear their Leftmedia prejudice.
Of course, that bias has been well documented for years, as repeated surveys find that more than 90% of journalists support Democrats most of them leftist Democrats.
In 2014, The Washington Post noted the findings of an academic study, American Journalists in the Digital Age, that only seven percent of journalists are Republicans fewer than a decade ago.
In 2015, The Washington Times affirmed the findings of a book on media bias, entitled Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind, that more than 90 percent of D.C. journalists vote for Democrats.
In 2016, it was no surprise when the Washington Examiner reported the results of a Center for Public Integrity media study finding, Of the 430 people CPI identified as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors as well as other donors known to be working in journalism, 96 percent gave money to Clinton, according to federal campaign finance filings.
Of far more value to Hillary Clintons campaign were the in-kind contributions of her sycophantic media pool who tailored their reports to favor her election.
And note that, just prior to Trumps election, The Washington Free Beacon reported survey results that found, Not a single White House reporter is a Republican. (I know, youre shocked SHOCKED.)
Again, the leftward mainstream media trend has tracked with the leftward trend in the Democrat Party for three decades but that trend has accelerated dramatically in the past year to the point of raw collusion. The consequence is an accelerated decline in journalistic standards.
The purpose of this collusion was, originally, to ensure Clintons election last year. But after the shocking election of Donald Trump, the Left and its media partners transitioned from election-rigging to bald-faced obstruction and sabotage of Trumps agenda which is wholly antithetical to their own. (Regrettably, on occasion he fuels their diversionary schemes with his own unforced communication errors.)
Since the earliest days of his campaign, Trump has condemned the fake news obstructionists and their deceptive trial by media tactics, including the use of media polling to reflect the bias they promote.
A week after his inauguration, he opined, The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!
Trump took a lot of heat for suggesting the news media is the enemy of the American People. But Trump wrote that FAKE NEWS is the enemy, and he is absolutely correct on that point. As noted above, our Founders would agree that abandoning truth for licentious partisanship is a grave threat to Liberty.
A case study of what has now become an epidemic of fake news propagation by the Democrats MSM outlets would be CNNs most recent credibility crisis. The cable network, which sets the bar for Demo/MSM collusion (93% negative reporting on Trump and Republicans according to the aforementioned Harvard study), was caught in yet another counterfeit anonymously sourced report to further the Democrat Partys phony Trump/Putin conspiracy theory. Three senior CNN journalists from the investigative unit, including one Pulitzer recipient, resigned over this latest incident.
Its notable that right in CNNs back yard, just one day before that fake news report was published, voters in Georgias 6th District handed a hotly contested victory to a Republican in a special election to fill the seat of Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. It was the most expensive congressional election in history, and the Democrat outspent the Republican 7-1. But even with the full force and fury of the Demo/MSM machine, they still came up short. The Democrat brand is indeed toxic.
Conservatives, however, should take little comfort in this victory, because the Demo/MSM propaganda machine is gearing up and redoubling its efforts. In fact, in the declining cable news marketplace, MSNBC, the most abjectly biased of the news outlets, has just overtaken CNN and Fox News in the 25-54 demo for its weekday prime time lineup.
In 1822, Thomas Jefferson wrote of those who subscribe to such blather, Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.
All that said, theres another factor that has an enormous influence on mainstream media bias, regardless of where on the political spectrum a media outlets editorial influence falls.
The least visible factor corrupting the free press is its dependence on paid advertising, which is the life blood of the print and cable MSM. Ad revenues thus dictate editorial policies what news will be covered and how, and what news will not be covered. Dependence on ad revenue is also the reason the cable outlets run their ubiquitous shock alert banners 24/7, most often about news that isnt worth a report, much less the shock banner.
The insidious ad-influence factor is constantly running silent in the background, unless it manifests in a threat to boycott advertisers for networks most influential ratings generator like Bill O'Reilly, who was fired by Fox News to prevent loss of ad revenue.
And thats precisely why we made another critical decision when we started publishing in 1996 to accept no advertising in our online or email publications or to our lists of Patriot readers. Youll never have your senses assaulted on our website by pop-ups, browser hijacks or glittering unicorns, nor will you ever receive third-party advertising to your inbox because of us.
Our refusal to accept advertising is precisely why we note when asking for your support, We are not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we do not accept advertising to ensure our advocacy is not restrained by commercial influence. Our mission and operation budget is made possible by the voluntary financial support of Patriots meaning you!
Rest assured that the invisible advertising influence, which inevitably shapes what other websites report and how they report it, has absolutely zero editorial influence on The Patriot Post.
Of course, we also chose a donor-based revenue model in order that our message could reach a wider audience particularly young people on college and university campuses, and military personnel. (Notably, 100% of proceeds from the occasional Patriot Post Shop messages we send you supports our mission of service to military personnel and their families.)
Your Patriot team starts every day resolute in our mission to extend Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values.
The only thing that influences our editorial content is that mission in support and defense of Liberty.
Please join us in that mission by supporting The Patriot Fund today, so that we can recruit thousands of new Patriots to our ranks.
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis Pro Deo et Libertate 1776
Read more:
Democrat/MSM Collusion v the First Amendment and Liberty - Patriot Post
Sacramento Bee | Americans take the First Amendment for granted. They shouldn't under Trump Sacramento Bee The words of the First Amendment may be 45 of the the most important ever written. Those who doubt the value of those freedoms of religion, speech, the press, assembly and petitioning for redress of grievances might look to Asia, where I work, and ... |
Read the original here:
Americans take the First Amendment for granted. They shouldn't under Trump - Sacramento Bee
For example, Facebook generally allows the sharing of animal abuse, a category of speech the Supreme Court deemed protected in 2010. But diverging from First Amendment law, Facebook will remove that same imagery if a user shows sadism, defined as the enjoyment of suffering.
Similarly, Facebooks manual on credible threats of violence echoes First Amendment law on incitement and true threats by focusing on the imminence of violence, the likelihood that it will actually occur, and an intent to credibly threaten a particular living victim.
But there are also crucial distinctions. Where First Amendment law protects speech about public figures more than speech about private individuals, Facebook does the opposite. If a user calls for violence, however generic, against a head of state, Facebook deems that a credible threat against a vulnerable person. Its fine to say, I hope someone kills you. It is not fine to say, Somebody shoot Trump. While the government cannot arrest you for saying it, Facebook will remove the post.
These differences are to be expected. Courts protect speech about public officials because the Constitution gives them the job of protecting fundamental individual rights in the name of social values like autonomy or democratic self-governance. Facebook probably constrains speech about public officials because as a large corporate actor with meaningful assets, it and other sites can be pressured into cooperation with governments.
Unlike in the American court system, theres no due process on these sites. Facebook users dont have a way to easily appeal if their speech gets taken down. And unlike a government, Facebook doesnt respond to elections or voters. Instead, it acts in response to bad press, powerful users, government requests and civil society organizations.
Thats why the transparency provided by the Guardian leak is important. If theres any hope for individual users to influence Facebooks speech governance, theyll have to know how this system works in the same way citizens understand what the Constitution protects and leverage that knowledge.
For example, before the Guardian leak, a private Facebook group, Marines United, circulated nude photos of female Marines and other women. This prompted a group called Not in My Marine Corps to pressure Facebook to remove related pages, groups and users. Facebook announced in April that it would increase its attempts to remove nonconsensual nude pictures. But the Guardian leaks revealed that the pictures circulated by Marines United were largely not covered by Facebooks substantive revenge porn policy. Advocates using information from the leaks have begun to pressure Facebook to do more to prevent the nonconsensual distribution of private photos.
Civil liberties groups and user rights groups should do just this: Take advantage of the increased transparency to pressure these sites to create policies advocates think are best for the users they represent.
Today, as social media sites are accused of spreading false news, influencing elections and allowing horrific speech, they may respond by increasing their policing of content. Clarity about their internal speech regulation is more important now than ever. The ways in which this newfound transparency is harnessed by the public could be as meaningful for online speech as any case decided in a United States court.
Margot E. Kaminski is an assistant professor at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. Kate Klonick is a Ph.D. candidate at Yale Law School.
Margot E. Kaminski and Kate Klonick
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on June 27, 2017, on Page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Speech in the Social Public Square.
Read the original here:
Facebook, Free Expression and the Power of a Leak - New York Times
It's only the second day of Martin Shkreli's trial and already, Shkreli's attorney Benjamin Braufman has renewed a mistrial motion to attempt to bar press from the courtroom.
According to Braufman, the press is affecting juror sentiment given the "bad" and "inaccurate" publicity that Shkreli has received.
"The first amendment in this particular case needs to take a backseat for Mr. Shkreli's case," said Braufman.
Braufman cited a New York Post cover from Tuesday, June 27, that depicted Shkreli smirking with a headline captioned "Jury of His Jeers: 134 jurors out in 'Pharma Bro' trial: They all hate him".As Braufman reviewed the articles in question, Shkreli glanced over at the press situated in the back of the room and smirked.
To Braufman's dismay, Judge Kiyo Matsumoto denied the motion.
Shkreli is the former CEO of the biotech firm Retrophin Inc. (RTRX) as well as the founder of Turing Pharmaceuticals AG. He received negative press after increasing the price of Daraprim, a preventative medication geared towards those with HIV/AIDs, by nearly 5,000%. What used to cost $13.50 per pill now costs $750 for a single tablet.
Accused of defrauding investors of two hedge funds, Shkreli is said to have allegedly paid off two hedge fund investors using $11 million worth of Retrophin's assets. Currently, Shkreli is under federal investigation for eight counts of securities and wire fraud.
The case is expected to begin during the later-half of Tuesday, June 27, or on the morning of Wednesday, June 28. The court is still filtering through potential jurors to assemble a grand jury for the case. The judge initially summoned 130 prospective jurors, but an additional 50 prospective jurors joined the fray on Monday. On Tuesday, at about midday, the judge called in more prospective jurors.
Braufman further referenced his concern, believing that this "negative" press publicly affects juror sentiment. But Katherine Bolger, a lawyer at Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz LLP who represents various media outlets, argued that Shkreli's past actionsspeak for themselves.
"Mr. Shkreli has circulated these opinions himself," said Bolger. "It's not that jurors don't like Mr Shkreli, it's that Mr. Shkreli took a position that people don't like."
She continued that any restriction on public access to a proceeding has to be effective in protecting constitutional rights, which within this case, was not the instance.
"With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. It's about publicity that attacks the jurors," responded Braufman. He emphasized thathis intent was not to curtail coverage of Shkreli, but to curtail press coverage of the jurors.
Judge Matsumoto responded to the two by voicing caution: "Despite my admonishments to jurors to not read headlines...we have to probe very carefully."
According to Jeffrey Cramer, a former federal prosecutor and current Managing Director at Berkeley Research Group, it will be difficult for Shkreli to present himself as "an innocent dupe" given his prior statements.
"The smartest play is for him to stay quiet and let his lawyers argue that the Government has not met its burden of proof," said Cramer. "Defendants like this are usually their worst enemy in court. Most of his public statements on this topic have been fairly arrogant."
More of What's Trending on TheStreet:
Read more here:
First Amendment Needs to 'Take a Backseat' in Pharma Bro Trial: Lawyer - TheStreet.com
Mary Assel 12:05 a.m. ET June 27, 2017
Doug Early, of Sterling Heights, holds a "No Sharia" sign during a "March Against Sharia" on June 10 on Telegraph Road in Southfield. Protestors gathered to show their opposition to Islamic law, which they believe is threatening American rights.(Photo: Rachel Woolf / Special to Detroit News)
For all religious, social and political institutions to be effective, it is crucial to establish guidelines, rules and regulations for its supporters. Accordingly, the Quran outlines religious or Sharia guidelines for its believers so that as a religious entity, Muslims may conduct a just, ethical and moral life. Sharia guidelines are found in the canon of Islam as are elements of faith in the canons of Christianity and Judaism. They are intended to protect believers rights in matters such as marriage, education, safety, dietary restrictions, inheritance and peaceful cooperation among themselves and others.
The Quran sets forth a code of conduct for all Muslims to abide by if they wish to remain in compliance with divine revelations. In fact, all monotheistic religions require similar codes of conduct and divine obedience.
According to the First Amendment, it is illegal to deprive anyone from practicing or following the guidelines of religion. Every person in the United States has the right to religious freedom and by condemning those who worship God in ways that differ from ones own, is saying, I can worship God and follow his guidelines, but you cant, unless you worship him my way. Muslims are expressly told to protect non-Muslims in practicing their religion, so why should they be attacked for believing in the standard procedures of their religion?
Muslims believe that the Quran in which Sharia guidelines are found is one of the most sacred religious texts in the history of mankind. Muslims consider it to be the direct word of God transmitted to the Prophet Mohammed through the Angel Gabriel. It emphasizes the importance of believing in God and the afterlife. It outlines the stories of prophets and saints and how to emulate their conduct. In Islam, the most important codes of conduct are the five pillars of Islam: fasting, charitable giving, performing the pilgrimage, daily prayer and the belief in one God.
While living in secular countries, many Muslims choose to abide by the five pillars of Islam and comply with Sharia guidelines in matters such as marriage, inheritance, dietary restrictions, charitable contributions and dress code. Yet, in legal matters they conform to the lawful guidelines of their country of residence. It is clear in the Quran that secular law and the laws set forth by a countrys constitution take precedence over Sharia.
It is Muslims obligation to obey the established civil law enforcement agencies of the country in which they live. They must obey the law of the land and pledge allegiance to its flag as long as it does not deny the existence of God. Hence, Sharia guidelines are not a substitute for civil law, and U.S. courts have never ruled based on its content. In fact, in many instances, Sharia guidelines run parallel to civil law. For example, it forbids incest, alcohol, gambling, prostitution and discrimination based on race, sex and color. If any of the latter are transgressed in Islam, the punishment is harsh, but only in Muslim theocracies. More importantly, is when transgression does takes place, God encourages forgiveness. Also, there is no standardized manual of Sharia guidelines since it is based on the fiqh or the interpretation of the Quran.
There are courts in Muslim countries that do not rule based on Sharia guidelines and if they do, they have their own version of its application. Sharia is more of an interpretation or fiqh created by Islamic scholars. The interpretations are based on their understanding of what it means to live a life that serves the individual and society as a whole. Sharia guidelines are usually separate from the laws of the governing authorities and do not supersede civil law. Its guidelines do not come in a handbook, and it is incorrect to say Sharia urges the declaration of war on non-Muslims, and most certainly, does not subjugate women. There is nothing in the Quran that promotes the subjugation of women. It is more a traditional or cultural trend that has weaved itself into Sharia guidelines of countries with low appreciation for womens rights.
Sharia guidelines prescribe moral guidance and ethical behavior. It is the duty of every Muslim to comply with their standards as long as these actions do not harm or cause grief to others. They have the right to fulfill or not fulfill their religious obligations and cannot be forced to do so since they believe in free will.
Dr. Mary Assel is the retired director of the English Language Institute at Henry Ford College.
Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2ubukvf
Read the original:
Column: First Amendment protects Sharia law - Detroit News - The Detroit News
To commemorate World Refugee Day (Tuesday, June 20th), Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC) and over 60 faith leaders and attorneys made a pilgrimage to the Adelanto Detention Facility from Los Angeles to visit with our friends and clients, many of whom had been on a hunger strike the week prior. ICE and GEO Group denied all our visits. In response to a peaceful 5-minute interfaith prayer outside the facility, ICE and GEO Group then put the entire facility on lockdown.
Attorneys and family members who were not part of the pilgrimage and who had already been granted entrance to the facility were expelled from the facility by ICE and GEO Group in response to our prayer. This included young children clinging to their toys. They had driven for hours to visits their parents.
This comes just days after ICE and GEO Group admitted to violating the First Amendment rights of 9 men detained at Adelanto who were brutally assaulted and attacked with pepper spray. The 9 men, who were later joined by 33 women, went on hunger strike at Adelanto to protest substandard medical care, unjustly high immigration bonds, lack of basic respect, and lack of opportunities to connect with family.
When we see abuse in detention, it is our moral obligation to speak up and stand in solidarity with our friends in detention. By denying us access after a peaceful and short prayer, ICE has tried to make us choose between our First Amendment rights and visiting our friends and clients in immigration detention. This is not a choice our government can legally ask us to make.
As an attorney in California, I also was denied visits with 14 of my clients on Tuesday who were detained at the Adelanto Detention Facility. I had received email approval from ICE in advance of Tuesday for four of my legal assistants to conduct legal visits at Adelanto with me. According to the Adelanto Detention Facility rules, attorneys are allowed 24 hour access to their clients in immigration detention. And federal standards require attorneys to have access to their clients seven days a week without pre-approval; only legal assistants require pre-approval by ICE. To visit at Adelanto through regular visitation hours as a family member, friend, or community member does not require pre-approval from ICE or GEO Group.
On Tuesday, we were provided with no reason for why our visits were being denied. The warden of the Adelanto Detention Facility told us that ICE had denied our visits due to the circumstances. However, neither ICE nor GEO Group would define what were the circumstances.
Could the visitation denials be retaliation for CIVICs role in passing a new California law just days before? The new law bans immigration detention expansion and ensures that our state Attorney General can monitor immigration detention facilities. There were already construction vehicles on the Adelanto Detention Facilitys property, and it looked like the facility was attempting to build an expansion. The new California law could prevent this expansion. The facilitys most recent expansion in 2015 resulted in $21 million in additional annualized revenue for GEO Group and its shareholders. While we are not certain why ICE and GEO Group locked us out of the facility, the timing is suspicious.
Photo by Nancy Evans
On other occasions, GEO and ICE have arbitrarily and without valid grounds denied access to attorneys and visitor volunteers associated with CIVIC in retaliation for peaceful protest activities and public statements protected by the First Amendment.
In November 2015, attorneys and legal assistants were denied visits with people on hunger strike.
In May 2015, GEO Group and ICE prevented me from visiting my clients after I lawfully exercised my First Amendment rights.
In August 2013, CIVIC visitor volunteers and I were barred from visiting for over a month at the Adelanto Detention Facility in retaliation again for exercising our First Amendment rights. The ACLU of SoCal and Sidley Austin LLP raised concerns about the 2013 and 2015 denials in a letter dated August 24, 2015, which to this day neither GEO nor ICE has responded to.
Earlier this year, in January 2017, CIVIC filed a federal civil rights complaint about a general increase in family and community visitation denials at Adelanto.
In March 2017, CIVIC filed a federal civil rights complaint, detailing access denials and restrictions in violation of federal policy at Adelanto and 13 other immigration detention facilities in Arizona, California, Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
While CIVIC and allies remain concerned about general visitation denials and these past First Amendment violations, Tuesdays visitation denials marked a disturbing new Constitutional violation. ICE and GEO Groups retaliation against the faith leaders violated their fundamental right to free exercise of religion.
This denial of freedom of religion mirrors the type of abuse happening inside the Adelanto Detention Facility on a regular basis. Women who went on hunger strike last week explain that they often try to pray in circles, holding each others hands. But the GEO guards physically break up their prayer circles and threaten them with the hole, also known as solitary confinement. ICE has allowed this behavior by GEO Group to go unchecked, despite complaints by people in immigration detention directly to ICE.
When our prayers are stopped by GEO Group, it makes me feel like praying is something bad, said one woman who was on hunger strike last week. But what I say to them is that if being put in the hole is for God, then take me.
The Morning Email
Wake up to the day's most important news.
Visit link:
ICE Violates First Amendment Rights of 60 Faith Leaders and Attorneys - HuffPost
Rhode Island's General Assembly has the chance to become the 13th state to pass a law protecting the rights of student journalists.
Earlier this year, student journalists at a Kansas high school decided to write a profile about their newly hired principal. As they researched the principals background, they began unearthing questions about her educational credentials.
For example, the young reporters found that she had received master's and doctoral degrees from a school, Corllins University, that was not currently accredited and that had been portrayed in articles as a "diploma mill." Four days after article ran in The Booster Redux, the principal resigned.
That story ended up earning the students widespread praise and national news coverage. But that story probably would never have seen the light of day if Kansas hadn't had a student press-freedom law on the books, said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, based in Washington, D.C. They had the courage to go forward because the law protected their backs, he said.
In May, Vermont became the 11th state to pass a student press-freedom law. In early June, Nevada became the 12th state to enact such a law. And now, as the General Assembly nears the end of this years legislative session, Rhode Island has the chance to become the 13th state to pass a law protecting the rights of student journalists.
State Sen. Gayle L. Goldin, D-Providence, said the Booster Redux scoop bolsters the case for her bill, the Student Journalists Freedom of Expression Act (Senate Bill 0600). What it shows you is the value of having the freedom for students to do that kind of investigative journalism, she said. They were able to bring accountability to their school and to the whole school system, and on top of that, it was an incredible educational experience for them.
State Rep. Jeremiah T. OGrady, D-Lincoln, has introduced a similar bill (House Bill 5550), which extends protection to college journalists as well as the high school journalists protected by Goldins bill.
Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition, said, "Student journalism is perhaps the greatest civics lesson we can teach in our schools. By allowing students to write about whats important to them, we are sending the message that what they say matters and needs to be heard. This is empowering not just for them but for the entire community that needs to know what is happening in our schools and to have the opportunity to do something about it. These student journalists arent just our future watchdogs. They are our eyes and ears right now.
LoMonte had a simple message for Rhode Island officials: I would tell them that journalism is not a problem for schools its a solution.
With the advent of social media, it is futile for schools to try to stop students from learning about and having conversations about controversial topics, LoMonte said. You cant hold back the flood of information," he said. "Its much better to manage it in a journalistically responsible way. I always tell people its their choice: The discussion of controversies will take place either in a supervised, accountable newsroom or on social media. But its definitely going to take place.
LoMonte said he has heard of no organized opposition to the legislation in Rhode Island. The only thing is hallway chatter that high school students are too young to be trusted with press freedom," he said. "My answer to that is: Read the bill. Its filled with safeguards.
For example, the Rhode Island legislation would not authorize or protect expression by a student that is libelous or slanderous or that incites students as to create a clear and present danger of the commission of an unlawful act or the violation of school district policy.
But the legislation would protect student journalists, and their advisers, from retaliation and censorship when articles address controversial topics.
Mike Donoghue, executive director of the Vermont Press Association and first vice president of the New England First Amendment Coalition, said Vermont legislators heard from student journalists about pushback they received from school officials when writing about controversies such as an impasse in teacher negotiations, sexting cases involving students and a bond item to repair schools. Such issues are reported by other media and theyre discussed by students in other settings, so students should be free to report on them, he said.
In its 1988 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of a public high school in St. Louis, Mo., to censor student newspaper stories about teen pregnancy and the effects of divorce on children. States such as Massachusetts reacted to the Hazelwood ruling by passing press-freedom acts, and now a second wave of anti-Hazelwood bills are moving forward.
To help in the effort, Donoghue said he and LoMonte tried to get Vermont-based Ben & Jerrys to create a new flavor of ice cream called Hazelwood is Nuts. But Rhode Island shouldnt wait for Ben & Jerry; it should provide student journalists with protection so they can get their own scoops.
Edward Fitzpatrick is a former Providence Journal columnist,a board member of the New England First Amendment Coalition and director of media and public relations for Roger Williams University. His First Amendment column will appear monthly in The Journal. This piece first appeared on the university's First Amendment blog at rwu.edu/about/blogs/first-amendment-blog.
Read more here:
The First Amendment: A bill to protect RI student journalists - The Providence Journal
Washington D.C., Jun 26, 2017 / 11:32 am (CNA/EWTN News).- In one of the biggest religious cases of the term, the US Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a church-owned playground can be eligible for a public benefit program.
Chief Justice John Roberts, delivering the opinion of the Court, wrote June 26 that the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran, the church at the center of the case, from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.
The decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer was about religious people being treated just like everybody else, stated Mike Farris, president of Alliance Defending Freedom.
At issue was a playground owned by Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Mo., and operated by the churchs preschool. To resurface the playground for safety reasons, the church had applied for a state reimbursement program that provides rubber surfacing material made from used tires. Trinity Lutheran had ranked the fifth most qualified out of 44 applicants for the program.
The states natural resources department ultimately ruled the church ineligible for the program because of its religious status. The Missouri state constitution forbids taxpayer funding of churches. The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state.
The Supreme Court reversed that ruling and sent it back to the lower courts.
Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Elena Kagan joined Chief Justice Roberts opinion of the Court that the denial of the churchs eligibility for the program violated the free exercise clause. Justice Stephen Breyer filed an opinion concurring in Chief Justice Roberts' judgement.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined the Courts opinion except for a footnote stating that the decision was about discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing, and does not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.
I worry that some might mistakenly read the footnote to apply only to playground resurfacing cases, or only those with some association with childrens safety or health, or perhaps some other social good we find sufficiently worthy, Gorsuch wrote.
He added that the general principles here do not permit discrimination against religious exercisewhether on the playground or anywhere else.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the Courts opinion.
The Church had argued that the new surface would be a safety upgrade for the playground operated by its preschool and used by members of the community during non-school hours.
It was used by both church members and non-members, they insisted, and should not be ruled ineligible for a state benefit program available to other entities just because it is owned by a religious institution.
Opposing the church was the ACLU, which had argued that to make the church eligible for state benefits would be an unconstitutional violation of the establishment clause.
Missouris denial of the church, however, goes too far under precedents of Supreme Court decisions, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, and violates the Free Exercise Clause.
The Missouri law was passed during a time when many other states were passing laws barring public funding of sectarian schools, widely viewed at the time to mean Catholic schools and other religious schools that were not part of the public school system. The laws were modeled after the federal Blaine Amendment, proposed in the 1870s and named after Maine Congressman James Blaine. His amendment was proposed, but never passed by Congress.
In oral arguments in the case, justices also discussed the broader constitutionality of religious groups having access to other public benefits, including a Jewish synagogue requesting a security detail.
Catholic leaders applauded Mondays ruling.
The Supreme Court is signaling in this decision that the government must stop its growing hostility towards religion and religious institutions, and that antiquated and anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments should not be used as a weapon to discriminate against people of faith, Maureen Ferguson, senior policy advisor with The Catholic Association, stated.
For over a century, Blaine Amendments have enshrined into law discrimination against faith-based charities and schools that form an essential part of American society, Ashley McGuire, senior fellow with The Catholic Association, stated. In this case, a state Blaine Amendment was used to justify blacklisting a Christian elementary school from a playground safety program solely on religious grounds.
Blaine Amendments are anti-Catholic in their origin, and getting rid of them is more than a century overdue, she added. Todays decision demands a more fair and inclusive approach to government programs meant to serve all people."
The decision will have an effect in the future, David Cortman, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, who argued the case for the church before the Court in April, said. Whenever religious people, organizations, see themselves being discriminated against, this case will be the controlling precedent, he added.
Members of Congress also weighed in on the decision. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) called it an important ruling for religious liberty with profound significance for Americas civil society.
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), co-chair of the Congressional Prayer Caucus and who filed an amicus brief with colleagues on behalf of Trinity Lutheran in the case, stated that todays decision affirms the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religionto have more than just a belief but to live out your faith without discrimination from the government.
The case was ultimately between the church and the states natural resources department. Missouris attorney general recused himself in the case.
Missouris governor Eric Greitens (R) had already announced that in the future, religious institutions could be eligible for benefit programs of the natural resources department. However, the Court stated on Monday that that announcement does not moot this case.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, stated that this case is about nothing less than the relationship between church and state.
The Court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church, she added. Its decision slights both our precedents and our history, and its reasoning weakens this countrys longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that it is true the Department has not criminalized the way Trinity Lutheran worships or told the Church that it cannot subscribe to a certain view of the Gospel.
But, as the Department itself acknowledges, the Free Exercise Clause protects against indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions. And a church being denied participation in public benefits because of its religious character can be such an indirect coercion on the free exercise of religion, he continued.
In this case, there is no dispute that Trinity Lutheran is put to the choice between being a church and receiving a government benefit. The rule is simple: No churches need apply.
Original post:
Supreme Court rules in favor of church in crucial First Amendment case - Catholic News Agency
NBCNews.com | A Colorado 'cake artist' bakes up a big First Amendment case for Supreme Court Charlotte Observer With rookie Justice Neil Gorsuch on board, the high court said Monday that it would consider the highly anticipated First Amendment case in the term that starts in October. The dispute arises from Gorsuch's home state, and will provide an early test ... Three Thoughts on the Masterpiece Cakeshop Cert Grant Supreme Court to Hear Anti-LGBT Bakery Case Supreme Court to decide case of baker who refused to make wedding cake for gay couple |
Visit link:
A Colorado 'cake artist' bakes up a big First Amendment case for Supreme Court - Charlotte Observer
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on Monday in a closely watched religious rights case involving limits on public funding for churches and other religious entities as the justices issue the final rulings of their current term.
The nine justices are due to rule in six cases, not including their decision expected in the coming days on whether to take up President Donald Trump's bid to revive his ban on travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries in which an emergency appeal is pending.
Of the remaining cases argued during the court's current term, which began in October, the most eagerly awaited one concerns a Missouri church backed by a conservative Christian legal group. The ruling potentially could narrow the separation of church and state.
Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox
A decision in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church, located in Columbia, Missouri, set the stage for more public money to go to religious entities. The church sued after being denied state taxpayer funds for a playground improvement project because of a Missouri constitutional provision barring state funding for religious entities.
Trinity Lutheran could be headed for a lopsided win, with two liberal justices joining their conservative colleagues in signaling support during the April oral argument. It was one of the first in which Trump's conservative appointee to the court, Neil Gorsuch, participated.
The dispute pits two provisions of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment against each other: the guarantee of the free exercise of religion and the Establishment Clause requiring the separation of church and state.
A broad ruling backing the church could hearten religious conservatives who favor weakening the wall between church and state, including using taxpayer money to pay for children to attend private religious schools rather than public schools. President Donald Trump's education secretary, Betsy DeVos, is a leading supporter of such "school choice" plans.
FILE PHOTO: Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts (R) stands with associate Justice Neil Gorsuch during his investiture ceremony at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., June 15, 2017. Reuters
The most notable of three immigration-related cases in which rulings are due on Monday is a dispute over whether immigrants detained by the U.S. government for more than six months while deportation proceedings unfold should be able to request their release. The case takes on additional significance with Trump ratcheting up immigration enforcement, placing more people in detention awaiting deportation.
The court also is set to decide a case that could clarify the criminal acts for which legal immigrants may be deported. Another involves whether the family of a Mexican teenager shot dead while standing on Mexican soil by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Texas can sue for civil rights violations.
As the justices look to finish work before their summer break, they must decide what to do with Trump's travel ban, which was blocked by lower courts. His administration has made an emergency request asking for the ban to go into effect while the litigation continues.
The March 6 executive order called for a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to let the government implement stronger vetting. Trump has said the order is needed urgently to prevent terrorism in the United States.
See the original post here:
Highbrow Magazine | How the First Amendment Trumps Political Correctness Highbrow Magazine On Monday June 19, in the case of Matal v. Tam, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled yet again that the First Amendment trumps political correctness. This time, though, the circumstances were a bit unusual. Simon Tam, an Asian-American musician, founded ... Editorial: Court shores up First Amendment Editorial: Win for 1st Amendment Our View: First Amendment Racist trademarks legal, still not right |
Excerpt from:
How the First Amendment Trumps Political Correctness - Highbrow Magazine
An Asian-American rock group with an edgy name can now trademark that name thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck a blow for the First Amendment and against federal bureaucrats consumed by political correctness.
In an 8-0 ruling this week, the high court found that the disparagement clause used by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny trademark protection for the Oregon-based band The Slants is quite simply unconstitutional.
The band, of course, can call itself anything it wants, but without trademark protection couldnt safeguard its rights for, say, T-shirts or other items after the patent office found the name offensive. Theyve been fighting this lunatic ruling since 2011
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, found, The clause reaches any trademark that disparages any person, group, or institution. It applies to trademarks like the following: Down with racists, Down with sexists, Down with homophobes. It is not an anti-discrimination clause; it is a happy-talk clause. In this way, it goes much further than is necessary to serve the interest asserted.
Dont you wonder if those ubiquitous Yankees Suck T-shirts were ever covered?
Alito also noted, It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the grounds that it expresses ideas that offend.
Also cheering the ruling were the Washington Redskins, whose appeal of a similar 2014 ruling has been awaiting action on this case.
Redskins owner Dan Snyder has insisted the team name represents honor, respect and pride for Native Americans. Those who disagree are free to not buy tickets or T-shirts and to exercise their own First Amendment rights. They just cant have overreaching government bureaucrats fighting their battles for them.
Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar grounds is hateful, Alito wrote, but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought we hate.
And thank goodness for that!
Continued here:
Editorial: Win for 1st Amendment | Boston Herald - Boston Herald
The North Carolina legislature is the counter-argument against the story of the mule and the two-by-four. No matter how often you hit them over the head, and various courts have done it 12 times in the past year, you still don't get their attention. Sometimes, the mule is just dumb.
Getty
From there, we skip up to Wisconsin, where the state's university system remains stubbornly unimpressed with the Republican legislature and with the leadership of Scott Walker, the goggle-eyed homunculus hired by Koch Industries to manage this particular Midwest subsidiary. You may have been following the various fights on college campuses regarding "controversial" speakers and the reaction against them. (If you're a regular reader of right-wing media, you believe that mere anarchy has been loosed upon the world. Just lie down with a cold compress for a while.) There are "free speech" advocates on both sides of the big ditch here, exercising their First Amendment rights at the top of their lungs and, occasionally, exercising their First Amendment right of assembly in a fashion thought to be too vigorous.
Luckily, the Wisconsin Republicans have a solution: Throw out the latter group. From The Capital Times:
The controversial legislation has drawn criticism from those who say it would curb free speech rather than expand it and that it would stand in the way of the UW System's authority to manage its own campuses. Its supporters say its goal is to encourage free expression and to ensure all viewpoints can be heard at public universities. "Today we are ensuring that simply because you are a young adult on a college campus, your constitutional rights do not go away," said bill author Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum.
Watch now as Kremer deftly ties his own shoes together.
Under the measure, students who repeatedly engage in "violent or other disorderly conduct that materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others" would be subjected to discipline that, on a third incident, would result in expulsion. The bill requires UW System campuses to launch investigations and hold hearings the second time a student is alleged to have interfered with the expressive rights of others. The hearings and their outcomes would be reported annually to a newly formed Council on Free Expression.
You see the joker in the deck there, right? "Other disorderly conduct." As defined by what"a Council On Free Expression."
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
A what? Thought police! Somebody wake up Ben Shapiro. There's work to be done in Madison! Of course, Wisconsin is not the only test case.
Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison, said the country has faced free speech struggles throughout its history, but they have been resolved without legislative intervention. "This is really part of a political program," Berceau said. "It's part of the continuing effort to really establish a conservative stronghold in our country on every institution, and now they're going after or universities." The bill is similar to others being considered throughout the country, modeled after sample legislation prepared by the conservative Goldwater Institute, and takes some pieces from a provision members of the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee removed from Gov. Scott Walker's budget proposal.
Of all the techniques of artificial victimization common to modern conservatism, the whole "political correctness" thing is one of the most threadbare, and this attempt at legislating away the parts of the First Amendment you don't like is the best evidence of that we've seen in a while.
And we conclude, as is our custom, in the great state of Oklahoma, where Blog Official Derelict Oil Well Artist Friedman of the Plains brings us the tale of Rogers County Sheriff Scott Walton, who is not working and playing well with others, as the Tulsa World explains.
The telephone exchange stemmed from a May 25 incident in which a deputy with the Rogers County Sheriff's Office drove past Officer Craig Heatherly, who attempted to flag down the deputy for backup in a gun-related traffic stop, according to an internal police email. However, dash cam video allegedly shows the deputy driving past without stopping to help In the cellphone audio, Walton can be heard telling Heatherly that he "handled it wrong" and he "owe(d) the man an apology" in reference to the deputy. Heatherly responded that he and Walton would have to "agree to disagree on that one." "We'll agree to disagree," Walton said, "but I do agree that you're a f---- coward. OK."
I have to agree with FOTP here. What makes it art is "We'll have to agree to disagreeyou fcking coward!" From NPR to Deadwood in one complex sentence. Awesome.
This is your democracy, America. Cherish it.
The Constitution Simply Was Not Built for This
Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page.
Read more:
In Scott Walker's Wisconsin, the First Amendment Only Applies to Certain People - Esquire.com