Nevadas newly elected U.S. senator, Catherine Cortez Masto, has already taken up the cudgel against the First Amendment previously wielded by her predecessor, Harry Reid.

She put out a press release recently announcing that she has joined with other congressional Democrats to reintroduce a constitutional amendment that would overturn Supreme Court rulings that have held that it is a violation of the First Amendment to restrict the amount of money corporations, nonprofits, unions and other groups may spend on political campaigns and when they may spend it.

In its current incarnation it is being called the Democracy for All Amendment. In previous years it bore the unwieldy acronym DISCLOSE Act Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections. Reid frequently took to the floor of the Senate to pound the table for the amendment and disparage the Koch brothers political spending as the embodiment of evil.

The U.S. Constitution puts democratic power in the hands of the American people not corporations or private companies, the press release quotes Cortez Masto as saying. Since the Citizens United decision, big corporations have gained unprecedented influence over elections and our countrys political process. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation; its critical that we end unlimited corporate contributions if we are going to have a democratic process and government that will truly work for all Americans.

In the 2010 Citizens United decision, a 5-4 Supreme Court struck down the part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that prohibited organizations such as Citizens United, a political action committee, from expending funds for electioneering immediately prior to an election. In this case the Federal Election Commission blocked the 2008 broadcast of Hillary: The Movie, which was critical of Hillary Clintons presidential bid.

During the arguments in the case, the Justice Department attorney defending the law admitted the law also would censor books critical of candidates, though newspapers and other media, most owned by large corporations, were exempted from the law and may criticize, editorialize and endorse or oppose candidates freely. Some corporations are more equal than others.

Cortez Mastos statement concluded, The Democracy for All Amendment returns the right to regulate elections to the people by clarifying that Congress and the states can set reasonable regulations on campaign finance and distinguish between individuals and corporations in the law.

The problem is that free speech is not free if the incumbent government satrapy can curtail its dissemination.

Justice Anthony Kennedy explained this in his majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC: As a restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign, that statute necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process. (Government could repress speech by attacking all levels of the production and dissemination of ideas, for effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others).

The fact the expenditure is coming from a group instead of an individual does not negate the First Amendment guarantee of the freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely, because it also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

An assembly is not just a crowd of people on the street, it is also an organization.

Reid in one of this many diatribes on the subject said: But the flood of special interest money into our American democracy is one of the greatest threats our system of government has ever faced. Lets keep our elections from becoming speculative ventures for the wealthy and put a stop to the hostile takeover of our democratic system by a couple of billionaire oil barons. It is time that we revive our constituents faith in the electoral system, and let them know that their voices are being heard.

This implies the voters are too stupid to hear an open and free-wheeling debate and not be influenced by the volume or frequency of the message.

Lest we forget, in the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump was outspent by Hillary Clinton by two-to-one $600 million to $1.2 billion.

Censorship is unAmerican and unnecessary. Cortez Masto should abandon this assault on free speech.

Thomas Mitchell is a longtime Nevada newspaper columnist. You may email him at thomasmnv@yahoo.com. He also blogs athttp://4thst8.wordpress.com/.

Continued here:

New senator wants to shred First Amendment protection - Mesquite Local News

Unofficial co-sponsors of the bill? Milo Yiannopoulos and Scottie Nell Hughes

Rep. Martin Daniel, left, and Sen. Joey Hensley introduce the "Tennessee Student Free Expression Act," for when the First Amendment just isn't enough.

Sure, the First Amendment is, you know, a constitutional protection and all, but if you're a conservative minority in a sea of big, bad liberals on college campus, sometimes you just need a safe space, you special snowflake you. It can be very hard these days to speak your mind in a country with a Republican president and a Republican majority in Congress and the Senate and a Republican supermajority in both chambers of the Tennessee Legislature and a Republican governor and two Republican senators and seven out of nine Congressional districts represented by Republicans, not counting all the many, many, many, many Republicans in office at the local level across the state of Tennessee. Nope, it is definitely the poor College Republicans and other conservatives on campus who definitely need greater free speech protection than what the First Amendment offers.

At least, that's what state Rep. Martin Daniel (R-Knoxville) and Sen. Joey Hensley (R-Hohenwald) are saying is their justification for filing the "Tennessee Student Free Expression Act," a revamped version of a similar bill Daniel filed last year. However, this year they are nicknaming the bill the "Milo Act," after Breitbart writer/editor and noted white supremacist Milo Yiannopoulos, whose recent appearance at the University of California at Berkeley was cancelled after protests turned violent.

Daniel and Hensley who have both been accused of assault in the past, Daniel during a primary debate last summer and Hensley in 2015 after his ex-wife alleged he hit her with his truck, twice are just horrified, horrified, that students in California would try to prevent Yiannopoulos from speaking and are using those protests as justification for their bill. (Never mind that Yiannopoulos spoke at Vanderbilt University without incident last fall.) At the press conference announcing the legislation, they showed clips from Berkeley, and then they showed a video from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville last fall in which a white male student dressed up as Trump had his wig knocked off by an African-American female student walking past him. The video characterized this as an "assault"; however, the woman keeps walking away with no further incident rude, yes, but nothing even close to assault.

The presser proceeded with Daniel and Hensley talking about the bill, followed by Trump surrogate andFox talking head Scottie Nell Hughes who has stated in the past that "riots aren't necessarily a bad thing," at least, if they are in support of Trump. A member of the UTK College Republicans also spoke, as did the student who had portrayed Trump in the aforementioned video. Someone else read a statement from Yiannopoulos, who said he wished he could be here but was, alas, stuck in Florida. Afterwards, legislative staff on both sides of the aisle seemed flummoxed by the lengthy production. ("What the hell was that?" one staffer texted this reporter.)

The bill itself is not nearly as noxious as last year's version, which stated, in part:

The governing boards of the institutions shall prohibit an institution from:

(1) Establishing safe zones;

(2) Requiring or encouraging the issuance of trigger warnings;

(3) Establishing a system for students or other persons to report incidents of mere bias, where no threats or harassment occurred;

(4) Disciplining students for microaggressions

Several UTK professors contacted by the Scene expressed relief that the newer bill is more vaguely worded, but they still have many concerns.

"The opening of the 'free speech' bill sounds like an insult: as if those of us who work at the university are not already advocates of free speech, as if we haven't spent our entire lives embracing and promoting free speech," says UT-Knoxville English professor and poet Marilyn Kallet. "No thinking person would oppose free speech. But isn't that what we are already doing?"

Another UTK English professor, Lisi Schoenbach, says the legislation raises more questions than it answers.

"Why such a bill would be necessary? And why the legislature should be involved in the governance of the university?" asks Schoenbach. "It appears to me that the bill repeats a lot of very standard language that can be found in any number of places regarding the importance of free expression on campus, except with extra emphasis on how important it is to have disagreeable and unpleasant speech on campus. Wouldnt this be an argument in favor of Sex Week, and lots of other campus speech that the legislature finds disagreeable?"

When asked about Sex Week and other such things on campus to which conservatives in the Legislature have taken exception, Hensley said the issue with that was not the free speech but the university spending money on it. When asked if bringing a speaker like Yiannopoulos would not also cost money, he changed the subject.

Pippa Holloway, a history professor at MTSU and president of the MTSU chapter of the American Association of University Professors, says the bill is completely unnecessary.

"The legislation's claim that 'state institutions of higher education have abdicated their responsibility to uphold free speech principles' has no basis in fact. I would challenge the representative to visit our campuses; meet with our students, faculty, and administrators; and learn more about how Tennessee colleges and universities operate before wading into territory he obviously knows little about," Holloway comments.

"The legislation would require colleges and universities to modify the content of their freshman orientation and send emails every semester during the first week of classes reminding students of their First Amendment protections. What about the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights? Should we send out emails every semester reminding them of their Second Amendment rights also? And what about the Third Amendment? If students are asked to quarter a solider in their house during a time of peace, shouldn't we remind them every semester that they can say no? If those questions sound ridiculous, they should, because such micromanaging of the daily operations of college campuses through state law IS ridiculous," Holloway adds.

The thing is, state campuses already do have free speech policies in place. When asked if they had read UT's policy, for one, the legislators admitted they had not. It's also unclear that they have any idea as to who Yiannopoulos actually is. When introducing the bill, Hensley commented, "We dont want to allow hate speech or offensive speech, but certainly when it comes to political issues, every student should have their right to expression." When asked if that wasn't exactly what Yiannopoulos often incites hate speech Daniel replied, "Were just asking that university administrators abide by and respect the first amendment, thats all."

But Yiannopoulos is a proponent of hate speech, in addition to misogyny, racism, homophobia (despite being openly gay himself) and general meanness. He thinks women shouldn't learn science or math. It is nearly impossible to be so horrible that Twitter will actually permanently ban you, yet Yiannopoulos managed it. It seems likely that the writer has only glommed onto the legislation as part of his never-ending quest for self-promotion, especially given that he has a book coming out in March why legislators who had a problem with LGBT diversity funding at UT want to help promote a man whose book was originally going to be called The Dangerous Faggot Manifesto is, well, odd.

UT itself has only issued a vague statement on the bill, with spokesperson Gina Stafford saying in an email, The proposed legislation would apply to all public universities in Tennessee, including the University of Tennessee. The constitutional right of free speech is a fundamental principle that underlies the mission of the University of Tennessee, and the University has a long and established record of vigorously defending and upholding all students right to free speech.

The ACLU of Tennessee also says it will be keeping an eye on the bill.

"This legislations goal of promoting free speech on state campuses is certainly laudable, and the bill contains elements that indeed foster free expression. However, in areas of campus that are not considered public fora, a public university has multiple obligations not only to free speech but also to preventing creation of a hostile environment. The devil is in the details and we are still in the process of closely analyzing this measure," says executive director Hedy Weinberg.

Meanwhile, says Schoenbach, if Daniel and Hensley really want to know about free speech on campus, they should take a class.

"If only there were a way for them to learn about the difference between facts and opinions, critical thinking skills, evidence based argumentation. There should be some state-provided access to this sort of information!" says Schoenbach.

Continue reading here:

First Amendment Needs Protecting from Liberals, Say Republican Legislators - Nashville Scene

News Release NEFAC Feb. 9, 2017

Contact: Justin Silverman 774.244.2365 mail@nefirstamendment.org

The New England First Amendment Coalition is pleased to announce the addition of Lia Ernst, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont, to its Board of Directors.

Were very excited to have Lia join NEFAC and help our efforts defending the First Amendment in Vermont, said Justin Silverman, the coalitions executive director. Shes going to be a tremendous resource not only for our organization but for all New Englanders.

At the ACLU of Vermont, Ernst litigates civil liberties, civil rights and open government cases; advocates before state and municipal governmental bodies on ACLU legislative priorities; and educates community groups on protecting and exercising their rights.

Before coming to the Vermont affiliate, Ernst had been a legal fellow at the ACLU of Massachusetts and a legal intern at the ACLU of Michigan. She also clerked for two years with U.S. District Court Judge Julian Abele Cook Jr. in Detroit and for one year with Judge Norman H. Stahl of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston. In between, she was an associate attorney at a Michigan law firm outside Detroit, focusing on criminal defense and attorney ethics.

Ernst is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School and holds a masters degree in anthropology from the University of Wisconsin. Her undergraduate degree is from Swarthmore College, where she majored in biology. She served two years in the Peace Corps in Guinea, West Africa after college.

See the original post here:

Lia Ernst of Vermont ACLU Joins NEFAC Board, Strengthens First Amendment Efforts - vtdigger.org

Nevadas newly elected U.S. senator, Catherine Cortez Masto, has already taken up the cudgel against the First Amendment previously wielded by her predecessor, Harry Reid.

She put out a press release recently announcing that she has joined with other congressional Democrats to reintroduce a constitutional amendment that would overturn Supreme Court rulings that have held that it is a violation of the First Amendment to restrict the amount of money corporations, nonprofits, unions and other groups may spend on political campaigns and when they may spend it.

In its current incarnation it is being called the Democracy for All Amendment. In previous years it bore the unwieldy acronym DISCLOSE Act Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections. Reid frequently took to the floor of the Senate to pound the table for the amendment and disparage the Koch brothers political spending as the embodiment of evil.

The U.S. Constitution puts democratic power in the hands of the American people not corporations or private companies, the press release quotes Cortez Masto as saying. Since the Citizens United decision, big corporations have gained unprecedented influence over elections and our countrys political process. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation; its critical that we end unlimited corporate contributions if we are going to have a democratic process and government that will truly work for all Americans.

In the 2010 Citizens United decision, a 5-4 Supreme Court struck down the part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that prohibited organizations such as Citizens United, a political action committee, from expending funds for electioneering immediately prior to an election. In this case the Federal Election Commission blocked the 2008 broadcast of Hillary: The Movie, which was critical of Hillary Clintons presidential bid.

During the arguments in the case, the Justice Department attorney defending the law admitted the law also would censor books critical of candidates, though newspapers and other media, most owned by large corporations, were exempted from the law and may criticize, editorialize and endorse or oppose candidates freely. Some corporations are more equal than others.

Cortez Mastos statement concluded, The Democracy for All Amendment returns the right to regulate elections to the people by clarifying that Congress and the states can set reasonable regulations on campaign finance and distinguish between individuals and corporations in the law.

The problem is that free speech is not free if the incumbent government satrapy can curtail its dissemination.

Justice Anthony Kennedy explained this in his majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC: As a restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign, that statute necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. Were the Court to uphold these restrictions, the Government could repress speech by silencing certain voices at any of the various points in the speech process. (Government could repress speech by attacking all levels of the production and dissemination of ideas, for effective public communication requires the speaker to make use of the services of others).

The fact the expenditure is coming from a group instead of an individual does not negate the First Amendment guarantee of the freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely, because it also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

An assembly is not just a crowd of people on the street, it is also an organization.

Reid in one of this many diatribes on the subject said: But the flood of special interest money into our American democracy is one of the greatest threats our system of government has ever faced. Lets keep our elections from becoming speculative ventures for the wealthy and put a stop to the hostile takeover of our democratic system by a couple of billionaire oil barons. It is time that we revive our constituents faith in the electoral system, and let them know that their voices are being heard.

This implies the voters are too stupid to hear an open and free-wheeling debate and not be influenced by the volume or frequency of the message.

Lest we forget, in the 2016 presidential election, Donald Trump was outspent by Hillary Clinton by two-to-one $600 million to $1.2 billion.

Censorship is unAmerican and unnecessary. Cortez Masto should abandon this assault on free speech.

See more here:

Commentary: New senator wants to shred First Amendment protection - Elko Daily Free Press

By Mark Trahant

Jenni Monet, a Native American journalist, was arrested last week while covering Standing Rock. You'd think that would trigger a lot of support from the national and regional news media.

There is an idea in law enforcement called the "thin blue line." It basically means that police work together. A call goes out from Morton County and, right or wrong, law enforcement from around the country provides back up.

Jenni Monet was arrested while covering the Standing Rock movement last week. But most of the press has been silent about the charges she facesand the implications for the First Amendment.Aboriginal People's Television Network

You would think journalism would be like that, too.

When one journalist is threatened, we all are threatened. We cannot do our jobs when we worry about being injured or worse. And when a journalist is arrested? Well, everyone who claims the First Amendment as a framework should object loudly.

Last Wednesday, Monet was arrested near Cannon Ball, North Dakota. She was interviewing water protectors who were setting up a new camp near the Dakota Access Pipeline route on treaty lands of the Great Sioux Nation. Law enforcement from Morton County surrounded the camp and captured everyone within the circle. A press release from the sheriff's Department puts it this way: "Approximately 76 members of a rogue group of protestors were arrested." Most were charged with criminal trespassing and inciting a riot.

As was Monet. She now faces serious charges and the judicial process will go forward. The truth must come out.

But this story is about the failure of journalism institutions.

The Native press and the institutions that carry her work had Monet's back. That includes Indian Country Media Network, YES! Magazine and the Center for Investigative Reporting's Reveal. In Canada the Aboriginal People's Television Network reported on the story during its evening news. And, the Los Angeles Times has now weighed as well in with its own story written by Sandy Tolan who's done some great reporting from Standing Rock.

The Native American Journalists Association released a statement immediately:

"Yesterday's unlawful arrest of Native journalist Jenni Monet by Morton County officers is patently illegal and a blatant betrayal of our closely held American values of free speech and a free press," NAJA President Bryan Pollard said, "Jenni is an accomplished journalist and consummate professional who was covering a story on behalf of Indian Country Today. Unfortunately, this arrest is not unprecedented, and Morton County officials must review their officer training and department policies to ensure that officers are able and empowered to distinguish between protesters and journalists who are in pursuit of truthful reporting."

Yet in North Dakota you would not know this arrest happened. The press is silent.

I have heard from many, many individual journalists. That's fantastic. But what about the institutions of journalism? There should news stories in print, digital and broadcast. There should be editorials calling out North Dakota for this egregious act. If the institutions let this moment pass, every journalist covering a protest across the country will be at risk of arrest.

After her release from jail, Monet wrote for Indian Country Media Network:

"When Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman was charged with the same allegations I now facecriminal trespassing and riotingher message to the world embraced the First Amendment. 'There's a reason why journalism is explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution,' she said before a crowd gathered in front of the Morton County courthouse. "Because we're supposed to be the check and balance on power."

The funny thing is that journalism institutions were not quick to embrace Goodman either. I have talked to many journalists who see her as an "other" because she practices a different kind of journalism than they do.

Monet's brand of journalism is rooted in facts and good reporting. She talks to everyone on all sides of the story, including the Morton County Sheriff and North Dakota's new governor. She also has street cred and knows how to tell a story. Just listen to her podcast and you will know that to be true.

So if we ever need journalism institutions to rally, it's now. It's not Jenni Monet who will be on trial. It's the First Amendment. Journalism is not a crime.

Mark Trahant is the Charles R. Johnson Endowed Professor of Journalism at the University of North Dakota and a member of The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. He writes a regular column at YES!, where he is a contributing editor. Reposted with permission from our media associate YES! Magazine.

See the original post:

First Amendment Under Siege as Another Journalist Arrested at Standing Rock - EcoWatch

The San Luis Obispo Tribune

Armstrong stood up for First Amendment, Harmon overstepped her office The San Luis Obispo Tribune As a graduate of Cal Poly, President Jeffrey Armstrong made me very proud for standing firm and putting the First Amendment first and overruling the liberal cupcakes' attempt to ignore the First Amendment (Protecting free speech at Cal Poly is an ...

Link:

Armstrong stood up for First Amendment, Harmon overstepped her office - The San Luis Obispo Tribune

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Writer says the more rights that are taken away, the harder it will be to return them.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Letter to the editor 11:32 a.m. CT Feb. 7, 2017

American flag.(Photo: Getty Images/Fuse)

EDITOR: Our First Amendment right, Freedom of Speech, is being repressed more and more each day. Information has been removed from our government websites, government employees have been issued gag orders and the press has been told to shut up.

As more and more of these rights are getting taken away, the harder it will be to return them. Do you really want to live in a country where the government controls what you believe by controlling the information that is released to you? If this does not scare you, why doesnt it?

Thank you to all those government employees who are standing up for our rights by archiving this information before it was removed, by creating alternate information sites, by standing up to protect your right to choose what information to believe.

This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. This is a United States Constitution issue. Stand up and demand the return of your First Amendment rights before it is too late.

Mary Hague,

Mosinee

Read or Share this story: http://wdhne.ws/2kJxSUm

2:31

3:22

3:45

1:33

1:56

3:24

3:03

3:39

3:14

3:37

0) { %>

0) { %>

Here is the original post:

Demand return of First Amendment rights - Wausau Daily Herald

BY MIA BLONDIN

You may have seen a video or photo of FedEx employee Matt Uhrin stopping protesters from burning an American flag in downtown Iowa City. The original video blew up and was featured on several different news outlets. Most of the comments I saw about the situation on Twitter or Facebook praised Uhrin for what people saw as a patriotic act. Personally, my favorite was a tweet with the quote, Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil.

It is natural for the internet to make this a meme, and to allow Uhrin the 15 minutes of fame some think he deserves, but its important to think about this from the point of the protestors too. Uhrin was right to extinguish their flame, but not for the reason many think.

If you are in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication you had to memorize the first amendment for J30 and if youve even been in Meredith Hall you have most likely passed by the metal plaque where it is displayed. Under the first amendment (my favorite amendment) people have the right to burn the flag. The Supreme Court has ruled that burning the flag is covered under the free speech section of the first amendment, no matter how disrespectful it might seem.

Now if you just read that and are thinking about how unfair or insulting that is, Im right there with you. I have family in the military and one of my best friends from high school is in Florida with the Air Force right now. To me the flag represents so much more than Trump, who hasnt even been in office for a month. I dont agree with people that burn the flag, but I have to respect their right to free speech.

The real problem for these protestors was where the burning took place. Two members of the group of about 10 people face charges for open burning, which is a simple misdemeanor in Iowa City, punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $650. This protest didnt happen in an open field or even a confined space, my first thoughts while watching the video were how many people pass by that spot every day. The protesters would have had every type of Iowa City resident pass by them: college students on their way to class, doctors or businessmen getting food on their lunch break, and even parents with young children. There is a playground I used to visit quite often as a child less than 100 yards away from where the entire incident took place.

While I understand that everyone needs to cope with the increasing stress of the Trump presidency in their own way, I dont agree with the burning of the American flag, and I certainly dont agree with the spot the protesters chose.

In the middle of the altercation, Uhrin quoted former Iowa quarterback Ricky Stanzi when he said, If you dont love it, leave it.

Trump in the White House has motivated me to spin that quote into If you dont love it, do something productive to fix it.

Bottom line: I dont agree with the burning of the flag, and I wish the protestors had a more productive way to show they dont agree with the policies being introduced, but I have to respect their rights as Americans to speak out and protest.

Read the rest here:

Burning flags and the first amendment - Times-Delphic

TheWrap Is Hiring a Reporter to Cover the First Amendment

TheWrap has addeda reporting position devoted to writing aboutmatters relating tothe First Amendment.

The reporter will cover challenges to freedom of the press, expression, assembly and religion inan erawhen those freedoms are under new and severepressures.

The decision follows multipleattacks by the White House on the media, including President Donald Trump referring to the press as the opposition party and top presidential adviser Steve Bannon enjoining the press to shut up and listen. It also follows the rise of fake news sites and a debate over the role of social media networks like Facebook in disseminating falsified reporting. All of these will be the daily reporting territory for this new position.

Also Read: Trump vs. Press Freedom: How Much Damage Can He Do?

TheWrap has posted the following position, and is taking resumes for an experienced reporter and writer:

TheWrap is a news site focused on the entertainment business, culture and media. The subjects we cover including journalism, movies, TV shows and the internet exist because of the First Amendment. From curbs on religious freedom to threats on the news media, we believe the First Amendment is under attack.

As our First Amendment reporter, you will cover every aspect of the First Amendment in America today. You should be endlessly fascinated by this subject, and passionately committed to reporting on freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. You will write about how the First Amendment functions and is challenged in the U.S. today, writing with wit, depth and flexibility.

This beat could fuel dozens of stories a day, so youll need strong news instincts and judgment to prioritize which ones are the most important, as well as excellent time management to balance breaking news, short dispatches and investigative pieces. You wont always need to write fast, but youll have a much easier time if you can. Youll develop a network of sources of all viewpoints, reflecting the reality that governments, corporations, activists and individuals can all prop up or undercut First Amendment freedoms. You should alsobe a deep thinker who will help us define this role in ways we cant yet imagine.

This is a full-time position that includes competitive pay, health insurance and vacation.

Apply toeditors@thewrap.com

Read original story TheWrap Is Hiring a Reporter to Cover the First Amendment At TheWrap

Go here to see the original:

TheWrap Is Hiring a Reporter to Cover the First Amendment - Chron.com

Matthews

The RADIO TELEVISION DIGITAL NEWS FOUNDATION has announced that MSNBC host CHRIS MATTHEWS will host its 2017 First Amendment Awards Dinner on MARCH 14th at the GRAND HYATT WASHINGTON.

"When it comes to American politics, CHRIS MATTHEWS has seen it all, and he's done a remarkable job of explaining it all to a generation of viewers," said RTDNF Chair KATHY WALKER. "We're delighted to have him as our master of ceremonies, as we honor champions of the First Amendment and support the work of our Foundation."

ABC RADIO NEWS VP/GM STEVE JONES, NPR's NINA TOTENBERG, and HUBBARD BROADCASTING CEO, Pres./Chairman STANLEY S. HUBBARD are the 2017 First Amendment Awards recipients. JONES will receive the First Amendment Service Award, while HUBBARD will be honored with the First Amendment Leadership Award and TOTENBERG will be given the RENDF Lifetime Achievement Award. Also to be honored are CBS NEWS Correspondent BILL WHITAKER (the LEONARD ZEIDENBERG First Amendment Award) and authors and former BLOOMBERG POLITICS co-managing editors MARK HALPERIN and JOHN HEILEMANN (the First Amendment Award). And the event will offer special recognition for NPR photographer DAVID GILKEY, "PBS NEWS HOUR" anchor GWEN IFILL, and former RTDNF trustee GEORGE GLAZER, all of whom passed away in 2016.

see more Net News

More:

Chris Matthews To Host RTDNF's First Amendment Awards Dinner - All Access Music Group

New York Times

First Amendment Support Climbing Among High School Students New York Times High school students protesting outside the Supreme Court building in Washington. Credit Susan Walsh/Associated Press. Support among American high school students for the First Amendment is stronger today than it has been in the last 12 years, ... High School Student Support for First Amendment at Highest Level in a DecadeThe Tiger Media Network Teens who follow the news on social media are more likely to support the First AmendmentMashable all 3 news articles »

Originally posted here:

First Amendment Support Climbing Among High School Students - New York Times

TheWrap Is Hiring a Reporter to Cover the First Amendment

TheWrap has addeda reporting position devoted to writing aboutmatters relating tothe First Amendment.

The reporter will cover challenges to freedom of the press, expression, assembly and religion inan erawhen those freedoms are under new and severepressures.

The decision follows multipleattacks by the White House on the media, including President Donald Trump referring to the press as the opposition party and top presidential adviser Steve Bannon enjoining the press to shut up and listen. It also follows the rise of fake news sites and a debate over the role of social media networks like Facebook in disseminating falsified reporting. All of these will be the daily reporting territory for this new position.

Also Read: Trump vs. Press Freedom: How Much Damage Can He Do?

TheWrap has posted the following position, and is taking resumes for an experienced reporter and writer:

TheWrap is a news site focused on the entertainment business, culture and media. The subjects we cover including journalism, movies, TV shows and the internet exist because of the First Amendment. From curbs on religious freedom to threats on the news media, we believe the First Amendment is under attack.

As our First Amendment reporter, you will cover every aspect of the First Amendment in America today. You should be endlessly fascinated by this subject, and passionately committed to reporting on freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. You will write about how the First Amendment functions and is challenged in the U.S. today, writing with wit, depth and flexibility.

This beat could fuel dozens of stories a day, so youll need strong news instincts and judgment to prioritize which ones are the most important, as well as excellent time management to balance breaking news, short dispatches and investigative pieces. You wont always need to write fast, but youll have a much easier time if you can. Youll develop a network of sources of all viewpoints, reflecting the reality that governments, corporations, activists and individuals can all prop up or undercut First Amendment freedoms. You should alsobe a deep thinker who will help us define this role in ways we cant yet imagine.

This is a full-time position that includes competitive pay, health insurance and vacation.

Apply toeditors@thewrap.com

Read original story TheWrap Is Hiring a Reporter to Cover the First Amendment At TheWrap

View original post here:

TheWrap Is Hiring a Reporter to Cover the First Amendment ... - Danbury News Times

President Trump came to the National Prayer Breakfast last week with cheering words about religious liberty. Together with his picks of Vice President Mike Pence and Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, he has made strong inroads among Christian conservatives.

But Trump needs to deepen his knowledge and broaden his interest in religious liberty.

When he talks about religious liberty, he almost always brings up the sole issue of the Johnson Amendment.

The Johnson Amendment is a 1954 law that prohibits religious organizations from participating in "any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." Trump wants to scrap that, and congressional Republicans have a bill to do it.

Great. Freedom of speech is crucial. Passing and signing the Free Speech Fairness Act, a bill sponsored by Sen. Jim Lankford to repeal the Johnson Act, would be great.

But Trump needs to look wider at religious liberty, which was for years under attack by President Obama, and recognize that it is a far-reaching matter of conscience that extends to all manner of issues at the nexus of public and private life.

St. Augustine once wrote of a hypothetical man sentenced to death. "What does it really matter to a man whose days are numbered what government he must obey," Augustine asked, "so long as he is not compelled to act against God or his conscience?"

This is where the crisis is for the faithful in America today. Trump owes it to the religious conservatives who elected him to enter this fight.

The Obama administration tried to force Hobby Lobby's owners to pay for employees' morning-after birth control, which may function as abortifacients. They also fought the Little Sisters of the Poor to force the nuns to pay for birth control for convent staff. Obama's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has gone after a Catholic School that fired a gay teacher after he married another man.

Also from the Washington Examiner

The Senate on Tuesday received 1 million petition signatures calling for senators to reject Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions' nomination to be attorney general.

"He decides whom to charge and perhaps not to charge, and which laws to enforce most vigorously, and perhaps which not. And that comes to my central complaint and my reason for opposing Senator Sessions," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., when delivering the signatures.

Blumenthal sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which approved Sessions' nomination last week.

The petition signatures were collected by various civil rights groups such as the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and Voto Latino.

02/07/17 5:03 PM

Recently the ACLU sued Catholic hospitals in an effort to force them to perform abortions.

Wedding photographers, bakers and florists have all come under fire by state governments for not facilitating gay weddings.

These are cases where people were forced to choose between the law and a conscientious wish to follow the precepts of their faith. The Obama administration proposed the novel view that First Amendment protections of a person's free exercise of religion ceased the moment he or she entered into commerce.

Obama went out of his way to restrict the First Amendment, speaking regularly of the "freedom of worship," rather than to what the amendment actually refers to, which is the "free exercise of religion." In other words, he tried to pen religious liberty in so it could be exercised only on the Sabbath.

These are the threats to religious liberty that Trump needs to assault first. He needs to protect the conscience rights of believers.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Kelly said his team would work with the victims' families while the cases are prosecuted as well.

02/07/17 4:45 PM

He could start by making it clear that the Obama administration's view of the First Amendment was pusillanimous and he does not accept it. The freedom of worship is just a small part of the free exercise of religion.

Trump has a good role model in Judge Neil Gorsuch, his nominee for Supreme Court. In one of his many rulings, Gorsuch quoted court precedent to say, "The 'exercise of religion' often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts."

Importantly, Gorsuch's rulings don't only include Christians, but also have covered Muslims and Native Americans.

Trump could also get to work undoing Obama's birth control mandate, a gratuitous culture-war assault on conscience. The president could make it clear across the executive branch that holding a traditional view of marriage is not bigotry, and those who hold these views thus don't deserve government prosecution or persecution.

Fights over the Johnson Amendment are worthwhile, but secondary, because politics are secondary. For the religious, the things of the world are nothing compared to the eternal. That means the most important thing Trump can do for those millions of Americans for who religious faith is pre-eminently important, is to make sure government isn't coercing them to do what God forbids.

Top Story

Federal appeals court will rule on executive order, which may then be taken up by Supreme Court.

02/07/17 1:50 PM

Original post:

How Trump can sure up the First Amendment - Washington Examiner

Jenni Monet, a Native American journalist, was arrested last week while covering Standing Rock. Youd think that would trigger a lot of support from the national and regional news media.

There is an idea in law enforcement called the thin blue line. It basically means that police work together. A call goes out from Morton County and, right or wrong, law enforcement from around the country provides back up.

You would think journalism would be like that, too.

When one journalist is threatened, we all are. We cannot do our jobs when we worry about being injured or worse. And when a journalist is arrested? Well, everyone who claims the First Amendment as a framework should object loudly.

Last Wednesday, Monet was arrested near Cannon Ball, North Dakota. She was interviewing water protectors who were setting up a new camp near the Dakota Access pipeline route on treaty lands of the Great Sioux Nation. Law enforcement from Morton County surrounded the camp and captured everyone within the circle. A press release from the sheriffs Department puts it this way: Approximately 76 members of a rogue group of protestors were arrested.Most were charged with criminal trespassing and inciting a riot.

As was Monet.She now faces serious charges and the judicial process will go forward. The truth must come out.

But this story is about the failure of journalism institutions.

The Native press and the institutions that carry her work had Monets back. That includesIndian Country Media Network,YES! Magazine, and theCenter for Investigative Reportings Reveal. InCanada the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network reported on the story during its evening news. And,The Los Angeles Times has now weighedas well in with its own story written by Sandy Tolan whos done some great reporting from Standing Rock.The Native American Journalists Association released a statementimmediately:Yesterdays unlawful arrest of Native journalist Jenni Monet by Morton County officers is patently illegal and a blatant betrayal of our closely held American values of free speech and a free press, NAJA President Bryan Pollard said, Jenni is an accomplished journalist and consummate professional who was covering a story on behalf of Indian Country Today. Unfortunately, this arrest is not unprecedented, and Morton County officials must review their officer training and department policies to ensure that officers are able and empowered to distinguish between protesters and journalists who are in pursuit of truthful reporting.

Yet inNorth Dakota you would not know this arrest happened. The press is silent.

I have heard from many, many individual journalists. Thats fantastic. But what about the institutions of journalism? There should news stories in print, digital and broadcast. There should be editorials calling out North Dakota for this egregious act. If the institutions let this moment pass, every journalist covering a protest across the country will be at risk of arrest.

After her release from jail, Monet wrote for Indian Country Media Network,When Democracy Now!s Amy Goodman was charged with the same allegations I now facecriminal trespassing and riotingher message to the world embraced the First Amendment. Theres a reason why journalism is explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, she said before a crowd gathered in front of the Morton County courthouse. Because were supposed to be the check and balance on power.

The funny thing is that journalism institutions were not quick to embrace Goodman either. I have talked to many journalists who see her as an other because she practices a different kind of journalism than they do.

Monets brand of journalism is rooted in facts and good reporting. She talks to everyone on all sides of the story, including the Morton County Sheriff and North Dakotas new governor. She also has street cred and knows how to tell a story. Just listen to her podcast Still Here and you will know that to be true.

So if we ever need journalism institutions to rally, its now. Its not Jenni Monet who will be on trial. Its the First Amendment. Journalism is not a crime.

This article was originally published atTrahantReports. It has been edited for YES! Magazine.

The rest is here:

Journalism and the First Amendment on Trial at Standing Rock - YES! Magazine

President Trump came to the National Prayer Breakfast last week with cheering words about religious liberty. Together with his picks of Vice President Mike Pence and Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, he has made strong inroads among Christian conservatives.

But Trump needs to deepen his knowledge and broaden his interest in religious liberty.

When he talks about religious liberty, he almost always brings up the sole issue of the Johnson Amendment.

The Johnson Amendment is a 1954 law that prohibits religious organizations from participating in "any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office." Trump wants to scrap that, and congressional Republicans have a bill to do it.

Great. Freedom of speech is crucial. Passing and signing the Free Speech Fairness Act, a bill sponsored by Sen. Jim Lankford to repeal the Johnson Act, would be great.

But Trump needs to look wider at religious liberty, which was for years under attack by President Obama, and recognize that it is a far-reaching matter of conscience that extends to all manner of issues at the nexus of public and private life.

St. Augustine once wrote of a hypothetical man sentenced to death. "What does it really matter to a man whose days are numbered what government he must obey," Augustine asked, "so long as he is not compelled to act against God or his conscience?"

This is where the crisis is for the faithful in America today. Trump owes it to the religious conservatives who elected him to enter this fight.

The Obama administration tried to force Hobby Lobby's owners to pay for employees' morning-after birth control, which may function as abortifacients. They also fought the Little Sisters of the Poor to force the nuns to pay for birth control for convent staff. Obama's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has gone after a Catholic School that fired a gay teacher after he married another man.

Also from the Washington Examiner

President Trump is still popular in core Republican strongholds.

02/07/17 12:06 AM

Recently the ACLU sued Catholic hospitals in an effort to force them to perform abortions.

Wedding photographers, bakers and florists have all come under fire by state governments for not facilitating gay weddings.

These are cases where people were forced to choose between the law and a conscientious wish to follow the precepts of their faith. The Obama administration proposed the novel view that First Amendment protections of a person's free exercise of religion ceased the moment he or she entered into commerce.

Obama went out of his way to restrict the First Amendment, speaking regularly of the "freedom of worship," rather than to what the amendment actually refers to, which is the "free exercise of religion." In other words, he tried to pen religious liberty in so it could be exercised only on the Sabbath.

These are the threats to religious liberty that Trump needs to assault first. He needs to protect the conscience rights of believers.

Also from the Washington Examiner

In a marked departure from the previous administration, the Trump State Department announced a wait-and-see approach in response to a controversial Israeli settlement bill Monday.

"We are aware that the Knesset passed legislation relating to Israeli homes in the West Bank built on private Palestinian land," America's diplomatic arm said in a statement.

"We understand that according to Israeli law this legislation could face a number of legal challenges because, among other reasons, this is the first time since 1967 that Israeli civil law is being applied directly to the West Bank, and that Israel's Attorney General has stated publicly that he will not defend it in court.

02/07/17 12:04 AM

He could start by making it clear that the Obama administration's view of the First Amendment was pusillanimous and he does not accept it. The freedom of worship is just a small part of the free exercise of religion.

Trump has a good role model in Judge Neil Gorsuch, his nominee for Supreme Court. In one of his many rulings, Gorsuch quoted court precedent to say, "The 'exercise of religion' often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of (or abstention from) physical acts."

Importantly, Gorsuch's rulings don't only include Christians, but also have covered Muslims and Native Americans.

Trump could also get to work undoing Obama's birth control mandate, a gratuitous culture-war assault on conscience. The president could make it clear across the executive branch that holding a traditional view of marriage is not bigotry, and those who hold these views thus don't deserve government prosecution or persecution.

Fights over the Johnson Amendment are worthwhile, but secondary, because politics are secondary. For the religious, the things of the world are nothing compared to the eternal. That means the most important thing Trump can do for those millions of Americans for who religious faith is pre-eminently important, is to make sure government isn't coercing them to do what God forbids.

Top Story

President Trump is still popular in core Republican strongholds.

02/07/17 12:06 AM

See original here:

How Trump can shore up the First Amendment - Washington Examiner

Citizens do not have a First Amendment right to read the full court decisions that support the legality of the NSAs bulk data collection program, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court concluded in an opinion issued on January 25th.

The court rejected a motion from several civil rights groups that argued the First Amendments right-of-access doctrinewhich entitles the public to access certain court proceedings and documents, typically in criminal casesapplies to those bulk-collection decisions.

The motion was filed in November 2013, five months after leaks by Edward Snowden publicly revealed the existence of an NSA bulk collection program. The motion sought the FISCs opinions addressing the legal basis for the bulk collection of data. According to a government filing, there are four such decisions, all of which were publicly released in 2014 after declassification reviews: an August 2013 amended memorandum, an October 2013 memorandum, an opinion and order (whose date was redacted), and a memorandum opinion, also with a redacted date.

Since those documents were released, the only remaining question for the FISC to answer was whether the public had a right to access the material redacted from those decisions.

The court dismissed the motion on standing grounds. It concluded that the movantsthe ACLU, the ACLU of the Nations Capital and the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinicdid not have a right to the documents and therefore did not suffer an injury when parts of the documents were kept secret. As a result, the court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the motion.

The ACLU made a similar First Amendment argument in a motion it filed in October seeking access to all major FISC decisions issued since Sept. 11, 2001. (For more on that motion and the right-of-access doctrine, see our previous coverage here.) The court has not yet ruled on that motion, but it set a deadlineof March 10 for the government to respond to the ACLUs arguments.

The Right of Access Argument

Like its motion from October, the ACLUs 2013 motion relied on the right of access doctrine, which generally requires court proceedings and documents to be open to the public if they meet a two-part test, known as the experience and logic test: they have historically been public (the experience prong) and public access offers some kind of discernible benefit (the logic prong). The idea behind the doctrine is straightforward: The First Amendments freedom of speech, press and assembly clauses provide the public with a right not only to speak or to take action, but also to listen, observe, and learn, as Justice Brennan wrote in 1980.

Both the ACLU and the FISC applied the experience and logic test to decide whether the public has a right to access FISC opinions, but they reached opposite results.

On the experience prong, the ACLU argued that courts normally disclose opinions that interpret the meaning and constitutionality of statutes, so there was historical precedent for the FISC to do the same. But the FISC said that framing was too broad. It said the real question is whether FISC proceedingsrather than court proceedings generallyhistorically have been accessible to the public. FISC opinions have not typically been released to the public, so the court concluded that the ACLU did not satisfy the experience prong of the test.

On the logic prong, the FISC similarly rejected the ACLUs arguments. While the ACLU claimed that public access would improve the legitimacy, accuracy and oversight of the FISC, the court said those arguments were just conclusory. Citing its 2007 opinion in In re Motion for Release of Court Records, the court identified a variety of risks that might come about with such access, including the possibility that public access would encourage the government to forgo surveillance in certain cases and conduct surveillance without the courts approval in cases where the need for court approval is unclear. It concluded that the ACLU made no attempt to dispute or discredit these detrimental effects.

The FISCs decision is bad precedent for the ACLUs pending motion, filed in October, that makes essentially the same First Amendment argument. But its not necessarily fatal. The October motion seeks a broader range of materialall of the FISCs major opinions and orders dating back to the September 11 attacksand includes additional bases for relief beyond the First Amendment, arguing that Rule 62 of the FISCs procedural rules allows third parties to motion for public release of decisions, and inviting the court to use its inherent supervisory power over its own records to release its opinions. If the government chooses to respond to that motion by the March 10 deadline set by the court, the ACLU will have until March 31 to reply.

See more here:

FISC Rejects Claim That Public Has a First Amendment Right to Court Decisions About Bulk Data Collection - Lawfare (blog)

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Vincent Tolliver, who previously ran an unsuccessful campaign forCongressin Arkansas, was expelled from the campaign by interim DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazil, after telling The Hill he didnt believe his rivalRep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn) should become chairman because of his Islamic faith, citing the religions positions on homosexuality.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

His being a Muslim is precisely why DNC voters should not vote for him. Muslims discriminate against gays. Islamic law is clear on the subject, and being gay is a direct violation of it. In some Muslim countries, being gay is a crime punishable by death, Tolliver said.

Clearly, Mr. Ellison is not the person to lead the DNC or any other organization committed to not discriminating based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Im shocked [the Human Rights Campaign] has been silent on the issue. A vote for Representative Ellison by any member of the DNC would be divisive and unconscionable, not to mention counterproductive to the immediate and necessary steps of rebuilding the Democratic Party, he continued.

Having participated in a forum for potential DNC Chair candidates on Saturday, Tolliver was consequently expelled from the race by interim chair Donna Brazile, who described his comments as disgusting.

However, Tolliver has now pledged to take legal action against the DNC, claiminga violation of his constitutional First Amendmentrights.

Tolliver confirmed he would be taking legal action to Breitbart News, saying that the Democratic establishment are denying me due process and are attempting to suppress my voice, in violation of my First Amendment right, adding that he stands by his views on Islam.

The DNC and the Democratic establishment are attempting to prevent me from freely expressing known and indisputable tenets of lslamic law.Moreover, through sleight of hand tactics, interim chair Donna Brazile falsely accused me of discriminating against Mr. Ellison and cast aspersions by suggesting I was intolerant of religious freedom, he alleged.

Furthermore,the DNCs blocking my candidacy is a glaring contradiction to the 2016 Democratic Platform, that as Democrats, we respect differences of perspective and belief, and pledge to work together to move this country forward, even when we disagree.I am a lifelong Democratic who believes in people and not power and elitism which has successfully corrupted the DNC and the Democratic Party, he continued.

The DNC chairmanship election will take place later this month, with the winner being announced February 26th.

You can follow Ben Kew on Facebook, on Twitter at @ben_kew,oremail him at bkew@breitbart.com

Excerpt from:

Expelled Candidate for DNC Chair Suing Democrats for Breach of First Amendment - Breitbart News

"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 redress of grievances."First Amendment, U.S. Constitution

In the first two weeks of the Trump administration, the President or his staff have taken actions against, or complained about, the expression of each part of the first amendment. It's like they've never even read it.

Police departments in large cities have had to deal with protest crowds for years, and most of them, most of the time, do fairly well. Now, in the Trump era, departments in even small towns have had to engage in a crash course in how to respond. Most of them are also doing fairly well in respecting their citizen's first amendment rights. Visalia held a protest recently, where organizers expected maybe 80 or 100 people to show up. Imagine everyone's surprise, especially the Visalia Police Department's, when an estimated 500 were on hand to express themselves. VPD must have done a good job, we've not heard of any issues arising from the peaceful protest. (a lot of nonsense on Facebook about it, but that doesn't really count)

I think the protests are the only good thing I've seen happen as a result of Trump winning the Presidency. He's reminded the American people of their basic civil duty, and their right to engage in defending their country. I doubt he thought it would be in response to his actions (or just his presence), though.

We're going to be seeing a lot of this kind of thing in the future. I have no doubt that instigators will try to inflame things by engaging in violence and destruction (as we saw in Berkeley), and of course the Fox News and Breitbarts of the country will try to lay the blame on liberals and liberalism. They'll ignore hundreds of peaceful demonstrations, and focus on the few outliers. After all, that's how they drive their ratings and page clicks. I have no doubt that Robert Reich was correct when he stated on CNN that outside agitators invaded the Berkeley protests, set fires and broke windows, and that they are linked to right-wing organizations. Peaceful protests don't suit their agenda, so it's not unexpected that things like that happen.

I expect more events like Berkeley will happen, as the right wing begins to recognize how badly they're losing the hearts and minds of the public.

To qoute Scotty: "Hold on tight, lassie. It gets bumpy from here."

And since my recent posts have generated a lot of uniformed commentary on the Visalia Times Delta's Facebook page, here some important information:

This is not an "article". I am not a journalist. I am not employed by the Visalia Times Delta, and they do not edit or censor or otherwise control, my posts.

I am a "community blogger" and my blog is hosted at the Visalia Times Delta's page, on Gannett's servers. If you want to become a community blogger, contact the Times Delta. This has been available to the public for several years. Take advantage of it, it's fun!

First Amendment quote and image from

US Courts.gov

.

View original post here:

1st Amendment - Visalia Times-Delta

Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Credit card surcharges are synonymous with cash discounts. However, eleven states, including Texas, prohibitpassing credit card surcharges onto consumers as a way to cover the merchant fees associated with credit card payments. Bans on surcharges are not a new phenomenon in the United States, but when the federal ban expiredin 1984, these bans were largely left to state legislatures.

The most recent case regarding this matter, Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, was heard by the Supreme Court earlier this year and concerned New York businesses that fell under the bans jurisdiction.

The argument was made that banning a surcharge to cover the interchange fees when a customer opts for the use of a credit card in lieu of cash or other similar means was a violation of the First Amendment right of businesses.

While it is legal under the New York statute as well as many others to offer a cash discount, businesses are not allowed to label the transaction fee a credit card surcharge.

The First Amendment argument is weak. The idea that it is meant to protect consumers with transparency is suspect. Aside from refusing merchants the right to label a cash discount or lack thereof a particular way, very little of the legal wording of these provisions mention anything explicitly regarding free speech.

A major problem with the free speech argument is that the enforcement history concerning the charges has been ambiguous over the years. Even the aim of the statute is slightly arbitrary.

Whether these statutes imply that two prices, one for credit cards and one for cash equivalents, is prohibited or these statutes are aimed at curbing bait-and-switch pricing tactics is not entirely clear.

If businesses were forced to convey the reason for the credit card surcharge instead of a cash discount, it would be a way of controlling speech as well.

The reason a business wouldnt want to convey the surcharge: to avoid the awkward conversation of why their customers suddenly have to bear the brunt on the transaction costs, which I imagine is a highly prevalent phenomenon.

Behavioral economic theories play a role in the case but are hard to quantify or find legitimate empirical evidenceaffirming a rejection of the ban. Overall, the argument that could potentially justify the overturn of such bans are not without merit. The surcharges could transfer more power from credit card companies to consumers.

Consumers sentiments could change regarding the frequent use of credit cards as well as provide consumers with more information about transactions with increased transparency. All that aside, even with commercial speech taken into account, these laws most definitely regulate conduct as opposed to speech.

In effect, this renders the First Amendment argument as an appeal that comes off as little more than grasping at straws.

Opinion columnist Nicholas Bell is an MBA graduate student and can be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com

Tags: Credit Cards, economics

Excerpt from:

Credit card surcharges and the First Amendment - The Daily Cougar

Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Center of the Newseum Institute.

On Jan. 27, International Holocaust Remembrance Day, President Donald Trump issued an executive order temporarily halting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, suspending the refugee program and permanently imposing a religious test for refugees going forward.

Jen Smyers of Church World Service spoke for many people of faith working on behalf of refugees when she called Jan. 27 a shameful day in the history of the United States.

Numerous national security experts and diplomats including more than 1,000 State Department officials have also spoken out, warning that the order is wrongheaded and dangerous. The optics of an American policy that appears to target Muslims seriously tarnishes the reputation of the U.S. in Muslim-majority countries and throughout the world.

The initial chaos and confusion surrounding the rollout is a harbinger of the damage to come from alienating Muslims worldwide, empowering radicals, and abandoning refugees to suffer in camps. Far from making us safer, the executive order is widely viewed as a direct threat to our national security and an assault on American values.

Of all the controversial provisions of the order, none is more problematic and damaging than the religious test that gives priority to refugees fleeing religious persecution if, and only if, they are a religious minority in their country of origin. The intent is clear: Open the door to Christians from Muslim-majority countries while doing everything possible to keep Muslims out.

Although the order does not explicitly mention Muslims and administration officials insist it is not a Muslim ban we know the motive behind the order from Trumps own campaign promise to mandate the complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.

Facing fierce backlash last summer, Trump retooled the Muslim ban to make it more palatable, but he did not retreat from his intention to keep Muslims out. Asked by NBC News in July if he was backing away from his Muslim ban, Trump answered:

I dont actually think its a rollback. In fact, you could say its an expansion People were so upset when I used the word Muslim. Oh, you cant use the word Muslim. Remember this. And Im OK with that, because Im talking territory instead of Muslim.

Now, six months later, Trumps Muslim ban under another guise is the official policy of the United States government.

From a human rights perspective, the most disturbing parts of the executive order bar refugees for four months, cut the number allowed in by 60,000, impose a religious test, and freeze indefinitely the refugee resettlement of Syrians. Taken together, these policies add up to an inhumane, immoral and woefully inadequate response to the greatest humanitarian crisis since World War II.

Contradictions and ironies abound. Trump recently told Christian Broadcast News that he wanted to help Syrian Christians, whom he claimed (without citing evidence) were deliberately kept out while Syrian Muslim refugees were let in under the last administration. But his executive order bars all refugees from Syria indefinitely meaning that Christians facing genocide in Syria will have no haven in America.

Last year the U.S. accepted a small number of Syrians (10,000 as of August 2016) out of the nearly 5 million Syrian refugees. After Trumps order, the number will be zero. Once the four-month ban on refugees from other countries is lifted, the number of projected refugees will be cut almost in half and those seeking entry will face a religious test.

Beyond humanitarian concerns, I am convinced that Trumps order is also unconstitutional. The Establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from targeting Muslims for exclusion and favoring Christians for admission; in short, prioritizing some religious groups over others. Lawsuits have already been filed challenging Trump on First Amendment and other constitutional grounds.

If strengthening national security is the goal, keeping out refugees Muslim or otherwise is not the solution. Refugees are currently vetted for over two years before being allowed entry, and no person accepted into the U.S. as a refugee has been implicated in a fatal terrorist attack since systematic procedures were established for accepting refugees in 1980, according to an analysis of terrorism immigration risks by the Cato Institute.

Orwellian doublespeak cannot obscure the hostility toward Muslims and Islam that animates President Trumps executive order on immigration. A Muslim ban is a Muslim ban by any other name.

On the day we remember the Nazi genocide of the Jews, the United States closed the door to those fleeing genocide today.

A shameful day indeed.

Charles C. Haynes is vice president of the Newseum Institute and founding director of the Religious Freedom Center.

Read more from the original source:

First Amendment: 'A shameful day' - hays Post