A bill aimed at curtailing violent protesters is poisedfor a return engagementat the Gold Dome early next year when lawmakers convene for their 2022 legislative session.

In a committee hearing Tuesday, Democrats and civil rights groups said the measure could chill free speech.

Thebills author, Republican Sen. Randy Robertson of Cataula, said the measure will protect the right to peaceful protest and punish only those who break the law by engaging in violence, destroying property or blocking roads.

When this legislation was first brought forward last year, and as the author of this legislation, I take full responsibility for that, there was some miscommunication as to what the intent of the legislation was, Robertson said. And what the intent of this legislation is is fairly simple. It is to protect peaceful and lawful assembly. What it is to push back against is unlawful assembly, violent assembly and situations where citizens who may want to come out and exercise their rights are not intimidated or pushed back or infiltrated by individuals who are there to disrupt their right to peacefully assemble.

Under the proposed law, protesters who break the law would face increased penalties. Participating in a protest with seven or more people and committing violence against a person or property or blocking a highway during a protest could both land Georgians with a felony charge and a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000 or up to five years imprisonment. Defiling a publicly owned monument, cemetery or structure comes with even steeper punishments a fine of up to $15,000 or up to 15 years behind bars.

It would also require cities and counties to establish a process for granting permits for all protests on public property, regardless of size, and governments that fail to provide reasonable law enforcement protections for protests that become violent could be made to pay damages for injuries or property damage.

Robertson gave the example of last summers violent racial justice protests and the Jan. 6 U.S.Capitol riotas the type of events the bill is intended to target. The Georgia Capitol has added increased security measures including a perimeter fence after protests over police brutalityrocked Atlantalast year.

The bill also offers a legal shield for those who cause injury or death while fleeing such a protest if they do so under the reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to prevent or terminate an attack upon the accuseds property or person.

Sen. Elena Parent, an Atlanta Democrat, questioned whether that last part would allow motorists to simply run protesters over.

It seems like its like a license or escape hatch for individuals who would kind of run people over with their cars, she said. It just seems to really kind of almost, if not encourage, give license to that type of behavior.

Robertson said his intent was to provide that defense only in desperate situations.

I would attribute it to almost the castle doctrine, where an individual is securely in their vehicle and theres a threat by someone, to impede their free movement to the point where that individual felt unduly threatened and prevented from leaving, someone may be trapped in their vehicle in these situations.

Robertson gave the example of Los Angeles truck driver Reginald Denny, who was pulled from his truck and severely beaten by four men in the riots that followed the acquittals in the Rodney King trial in 1992.

Vasu Abhiraman, deputy political director and senior policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the law already protects people who cause injury in self-defense and outlined several other problems the ACLU has with the legislation.

Among them, Abhiraman said the bill would provide local officials an incentive to crack down on peaceful protests rather than risk them getting out of hand and risk liability.

The incentives go further than, for example, avoiding gross negligence, he said. They go towards avoiding any lawsuit established for that cause of action, and as municipalities have certain budgets for defending themselves against a suit like this, as they establish their standard operating procedure, were very concerned that that standard operating procedure will be anti-First Amendment, anti-peaceful assembly.

As the Senators discussed the measure, deliberations were underway in thetrial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three men, killing two of them, during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse argued he fired in self defense.

If this bill becomes law, more people could be inspired to take justice into their own hands, potentially escalating dangerous situations, Abhiraman said.

Unfortunately, theres a case going on now involving somebody who thought they were volunteering to protect businesses, and it ended really, really poorly, and we can all see that, he said. Do we want to invite more actions like that into our communities in Georgia, the cradle of the Civil Rights Movement?

Robertsons bill did not receive a vote and will not advance during the current special session, but the Legislature is likely to revive it when they return in January.

Visit link:

Lawmaker to revive protester bill critics say could infringe on 1st Amendment rights - Now Habersham

You may recall our previous post about the unpermitted concern that was held in honor of a felon who was fatally shot after a police pursuit that ended in Santa Ana. In that post we alluded to a response by Santa Ana Mayor Vince Sarmiento, to a resident, regarding that event. We now have a copy of that response and it is unbelievable.

Sarmiento wrote:

Remember that Mayor Sarmiento is a bankruptcy lawyer. He is so successful at this that his law firm does not even have a website but you can confirm what he does here.

Sarmiento is of course dead wrong in his response about the unpermitted event. That event was a concert and the only reason that Santa Ana City Council Member Johnathan Ryan Hernandez and his homies did not pull a permit for that event was that they could not afford to pay the City back for the money that was spent on that event. I am told by city insiders that the City spent perhaps as much as $100K on police services and public works on that unpermitted event.

The First Amendment by the way has limits. You cannot go in a crowded movie theater, for example, and yell that there is a fire when there is no fire.

By Sarmientos logic no one should ever have to pull a permit again for any event using his specious First Amendment argument.

Shutting down a portion of a busy street like Bristol is a big deal. That was an inconvenience for the residents and the businesses in that area. And it tied up police resources too!

Here is the response we got from an attorney today about Sarmientos poor grasp of the law:

The government may place reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of free speech expression so long as they are content neutral, narrowly tailored and provide alternate means to express the views. Remember, even the ACLU acknowledges that the first amendment does not give you a right to block traffic or entrances to buildings. This is unbelievable!

Sarmiento is a scofflaw and so is Hernandez. It is beyond disturbing that we have elected officials who dont support our local ordinances.

By the way we have turned in official requests to City Hall for specific data regarding the money spent on the unpermitted concert for a felon. Once we get that info we will post it here.

Like Loading...

Related

Go here to see the original:

Mayor Sarmiento says you don't need to pull city permits for public events because of the First Amendment - newsantaana.com

They also tried to pass off some of their remarks as humor, which Peter Simi, an expert witness for the plaintiffs, said was a common tactic by adherents of the extreme right to try to camouflage their goal of sparking another Civil War to create a white homeland.

Whats your favorite Holocaust joke? Mr. Cantwell, who was acting as his own lawyer, asked Matthew Heimbach, the former leader of a neo-Nazi organization, on the witness stand. My favorite? said Mr. Heimbach, who went on to deny the Holocaust.

What is this civil case? This trial takes aim at the organizers of the rally with plaintiffs seeking damages for the injuries they sustained. Lawyers are relying on a federal law from 1871designed to protect the rights of free slaves against the Ku Klux Klan.

Who are the plaintiffs? The nine plaintiffs include an ordained minister, a landscaper and several students. They are seeking damagesfor injuries, lost income and severe emotional distress.

Who is being sued? The defendants in the Charlottesville rally civil case are drawn from a range of white nationalist or neo-Nazi organizations, and include far-right figures like Richard B. Spencer, Jason Kessler and Christopher Cantwell. They do not have a uniform defense.

Why does this case matter? The trial will revisit one of the most searing manifestationsof how hatred and intolerance that festers online can spread onto the streets. The plaintiffs say they decided to act after there was no broader federal or state effort to hold the organizers accountable.

Some defendants brazenly acknowledged their animosity toward Black people, Jews and other minorities as well as their admiration for Adolf Hitler. The derogatory slurs they used to describe minorities cropped up in the testimony repeatedly.

Michael Hill, 69, president of the League of the South, an organization akin to the Ku Klux Klan, was asked to read part of a pledge that he had posted on the groups website. I pledge to be a white supremacist, racist, antisemite, homophobe, a xenophobe, an Islamophobe and any other sort of phobe that benefits my people, so help me God, Mr. Hill read, avowing, I still hold those views.

Nathan Damigo, the former head of a white nationalist group called Identity Europa that rebranded itself as the American Identity Movement after Charlottesville, testified that he was a racist. When the lawyer questioning him pressed Mr. Damigo on the point, his lawyer, James Kolenich, objected. He has already referred to himself as a racist, Mr. Kolenich said.

Both the lawyers for the plaintiffs and the judge have stressed that in a civil case, meeting the legal standard for a conspiracy did not require a formal agreement between the parties or even that they knew one another. But the violence had to be foreseeable, the lawyers said, highlighting the many social media posts in which the organizers predicted violent clashes with antifa and other opponents.

Jason Kessler, the main organizer of the rally, wrote that he was building an army for the Battle of Charlottesville, for example, writing under a pseudonym that participants should not openly carry weapons. I dont want to scare antifa off from throwing the first punch, I want them to start something.

View original post here:

Charlottesville Rally Trial: What We've Learned So Far - The New York Times

BAYCOUNTY Bay County Sheriffs deputies arrested an independent photo journalist on Tuesdayin violation of his First Amendment, constitutional rights, the journalist's attorney says.

Jason Gutterman, a self-described photo journalist and First Amendment auditor,was arrested outside the UPS Customer Center at 3205 Minnesota Ave., across the street from Mosley High School. A Bay Countycourt threw the case out on Friday, however, said Kevin Alvarez, a Tallahassee-based attorney who represented Gutterman after the incident.

It was not even close to being constitutional, Alvarez said.

Bay County: Free food in a box? Bay County gets on board with growing worldwide projectfor the needy

More: Give Grandma a break: Where to get Thanksgiving meal carryouts in the Panama City area

The entire incident was captured on video by Gutterman and his 17-year-old son, who was also arrested, but never booked at the jail or charged with a crime. The video was posted to Guttermans YouTube channel, Amagansett Press, on Saturday. As of 4p.m. on Saturday, the video had garnered more than 93,000 views.

The channel has more than 304,000 subscribers and has multiple videos with hundreds of thousands of views, all in different states, where Gutterman challenges authorities to see if First Amendment rights there will be upheld.

Were gonna pay a little visit on these folks here and find out if they honor and respect our right to take video and photographs in public and from publicly accessible areas of public places, Gutterman said at the start of his video.

In the video, Gutterman is standing on a public sidewalk, recording video of the UPS building. Under the First Amendment, in general any member of the public can record video or shoot photographs of property or people as long as they do so on public property.

At one point in the video, a deputy approaches Gutterman andaskswhat hes doing noting thathed received a complaint about a man atthe building with a video camera. Gutterman declines to tell the deputy what he's doing, at which point he then calls his superior officer for backup.

The superior officer, who identifies himself in the video as Sgt. Ralph Grainger, then questions Gutterman as to why he is at the site filming. Grainger then tells Gutterman that he is in violation of a Florida statute that prevents anyone from being within 500 feet of a school without a legitimate purpose in this case being Mosley High School across the street.

Howeverthe statute cited, Florida statute 810.0975, was declared unconstitutionally vague in 2008 by the U.S. District Court of Florida. In that case, Gray v. Kohl, the court permanently enjoined the state of Florida and its officers from enforcing the statute.

The court agreed with me about the statute, Alvarez said. It took me about two seconds to look it up … it wasnt exactly rocket science.

Later in the video, after Gutterman repeatedly disputes the statute, Grainger arrests him and also orders that Guttermans son be handcuffed.

Alvarez said Gutterman spent two days in jail before the court released him and dismissed the charges on Friday.

A Saturday statement from the Bay County Sheriff's Office admits that Gutterman was arrested on basis of the statute. However, it notes that the statute was amended in 2013 and that the problems identified were corrected by the Florida Legislature and that it remains a chargeable offense.

"Despite historical questions about Florida State 810.0975, BCSO deputies decided to err on the side of caution and remove Gutterman from the School Safety Zone," the statement reads. "They believed it was more important to protect the students from potential harm than it was to protect their reputations from any potential damage they would face on social media.

As such, the Bay County Sheriffs Office could choose to pursue this charge against Gutterman, but has decided not to do so," the statement adds.

In a Saturday email to The News Herald, Alvarez disagreed with the sheriff's office, writing that the Legislature in 2013 never changed the problematic issues with the statute, just added a punishment enhancement.

But to Alvarez, it doesn'tmatter if the statute was constitutional because his client was still complying with the law.

The thing is, even if the statute wasnt unconstitutional, he had a legitimate purpose for being there … he was there for journalistic activities, Alvarez said.

The sheriff's office statement notes that deputies would receive additional training because of the incident.

"The Bay County Sheriffs Office remains committed to constitutional policingand protecting the rights of the people we serve," the statement reads."Our deputies have received specialized training to ensure they protect constitutional rights andin light of this incident, we will be adding to our training curriculum."

Read this article:

WATCH VIDEO: Journalist arrested in Bay County in violation of 1st Amendment, lawyer says - The News Herald

A New York trial court judge ordered The New York Times on Thursday to temporarily refrain from publishing or seeking out certain documents related to the conservative group Project Veritas, an unusual instance of a court blocking coverage by a major news organization.

The order raised immediate concerns among First Amendment advocates, who called it a violation of basic constitutional protections for journalists, a viewpoint echoed by The Times. Project Veritas issued a statement in support of the order, arguing that it did not amount to a significant imposition on the newspapers rights.

The judges order is part of a pending libel lawsuit filed by Project Veritas against The Times in 2020. That suit accuses the newspaper of defaming Project Veritas in its reporting on a video produced by the group that made unverified claims of voter fraud in Minnesota.

Led by the provocateur James OKeefe, Project Veritas often conducts sting operations including the use of fake identities and hidden cameras aimed at embarrassing Democratic campaigns, labor organizations, news outlets and other entities. It is the subject of a Justice Department investigation into its possible involvement in the reported theft of a diary that apparently belonged to President Bidens daughter, Ashley.

Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a lawyer who represents media outlets including CNN, called the courts order ridiculous.

Even though its temporary, the Supreme Court has said even the most modest, minute-by-minute deprivations of these First Amendment rights cannot be tolerated, Mr. Boutrous said. To go further and suggest a limit on news gathering, Ive never heard of such a thing.

In a Nov. 11 article about the Justice Department investigation, The Times published excerpts from memos prepared by a lawyer for Project Veritas, which elucidated ways for the group to engage in deceptive reporting practices, like creating fake identities, while avoiding any breach of federal law.

The memos predate the libel case against The Times by several years. But on Wednesday, Project Veritas filed a motion arguing that The Times had breached its right to attorney-client privilege by disseminating the memos, and accused the paper of trying to embarrass a litigation opponent. (Along with the written excerpts, images of the memos were briefly posted on Nov. 11 on The Timess website. A Times spokeswoman said that this was inadvertent, and that the images were removed after editors discovered the mistake.)

On Thursday, the trial court judge, Charles D. Wood of State Supreme Court in Westchester County, ordered that The Times immediately sequester, protect and refrain from disseminating any of the materials prepared by the Project Veritas lawyer. Furthermore, Justice Wood instructed The Times to cease further efforts to solicit or acquire those materials, effectively preventing the newspaper from reporting on the matter.

The order was to remain in place until a hearing next week. The Times planned to immediately oppose it in an appellate court.

Nov. 18, 2021, 9:05 p.m. ET

This ruling is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent, Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The Times, wrote in a statement on Thursday.

When a court silences journalism, it fails its citizens and undermines their right to know, Mr. Baquet wrote. The Supreme Court made that clear in the Pentagon Papers case, a landmark ruling against prior restraint blocking the publication of newsworthy journalism. That principle clearly applies here. We are seeking an immediate review of this decision.

This month, federal agents conducted court-ordered searches at locations in New York City and in Westchester County associated with members of Project Veritas, including the home of Mr. OKeefe, as part of an investigation into how the diary said to belong to Mr. Bidens daughter surfaced publicly in the days before the 2020 election.

Lawyers for Project Veritas said that the group had received the diary from two unidentified people, and that the group believed the diary had been legally obtained. A warrant used in the search of Mr. OKeefes home indicated that federal authorities believed the property was stolen.

Project Veritas has sought to portray itself as a journalistic organization protected by First Amendment rights afforded to the news media. The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the Justice Department for invasive searches and seizures of properties affiliated with the group, though the A.C.L.U. added that reasonable observers might not consider their activities to be journalism at all.

Mr. OKeefe, in his own statement on Thursday, suggested that The Timess coverage of the Justice Department searches had been biased. The paper needs to decide if it is in favor of press freedom for all, or only itself, because it cant have it both ways, Mr. OKeefe wrote.

Among other aims, Mr. OKeefe has said he is determined to expose what he describes as a liberal bias in the mainstream media and major technology companies like Google and Facebook.

Project Veritas has acknowledged that it discussed the diary with sources before deciding against publishing it. A right-wing website later published photographs that it claimed were images of the diary, saying it had obtained the images from a person working for a media organization that had chosen not to publish a story.

That right-wing website, National File, had several ties to Project Veritas. Mr. OKeefe was once the president of a company registered to the same address as the company that owns the right-wing website. The websites owner also shares an address in Wyoming with a firm run by a former British spy, Richard Seddon, who taught espionage tactics to Project Veritas operatives.

View original post here:

Judge Tries to Block New York Timess Coverage of Project Veritas - The New York Times

Last month, Glenn Youngkin, Virginia's Republican governor-elect, targeted Toni Morrison's "Beloved" in a campaign ad that featured a parent upset that the 1987 novel was taught to her son when he was a high school senior.

It is not the only book of Morrison's, a Black woman, to be challenged in some communities and as the debate over education again heats up, books have become a flashpoint around the U.S.

A wide variety of books have been challenged or banned for a wide variety of reasons, according to the American Library Association, which keeps a running list of the most challenged books in libraries and schools.

Most of the books on the 2020 list the most recent available are challenged, banned or restricted due to alleged "LGBTQIA+ content," "anti-police messages," themes of race, "divisive language" and "sexually explicit language," according to the ALA.

Deborah Stone, director of ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom, told CBS News there appears to be an organized effort to challenge books that deal with two broad topics: racism or Black American history and the LGBTQ community.

Stone said campaigns to ban books may be spreading more easily due to social media, and ALA has seen different people from different communities use the same language when arguing against books a clue that they got the idea from someone else, possibly online.

She said campaigns to ban books are usually a coordinated effort by activists targeting school boards.

Books with themes about race are often banned under the "false claim" of critical race theory, Stone said. "We're talking about works of literature, we're talking about individuals talking about their experiences in society not critical race theory," she said. "But there's a real effort to limit and restrict access to these materials."

Critical race theory acknowledges racial disparities that have persisted in U.S. history and offers an academic framework to understand how racism is reinforced in U.S. law and institutions.

There is no evidence it is taught in K-12 schools, but its tenets have inspired dozens of states to pass laws that ban critical race theory, which often makes it easier for parents to successfully campaign against certain books.

Under Texas' new law banning critical race theory in the classroom, teachers cannot discuss the idea that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex."

Jerry Craft's "New Kid," a book about an African American boy going to a new school that is majority White, "is not in any way racist or critical race theory," and has won literary awards, Stone said. But parents in Katy, Texas successfully stopped an October appearance by Craft, and had "New Kid" temporarily removed from the school "by simply saying it represented critical race theory," she said.

"It is inappropriate instructional material," Bonnie Anderson, a former candidate for the Katy Independent School Board, told CBS affiliate KKTV in October about the book. "They are pointed at White children displaying microaggressions to children of color. The books don't come out and say, 'We want White children to feel like oppressors,' but that is absolutely what they will do."

Another parent, Omerly Sanchez, told KKTV her elementary school-aged son loved the book. "He said it was funny," Sanchez said.

Like other laws that ban critical race theory, a new law in Tennessee bans teaching any concepts that would make someone feel "discomfort, guilt, anguish, or distress solely because of the individual's race or sex," and prohibits lessons that suggest anyone, based on their race or sex, is "inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously."

Sharon Roberson, the president and CEO of the YWCA of Nashville and Middle Tennessee, denounced the law. In a letter to the Tennessee Department of Education, Roberson said it will have harmful effects on children's education and society as a whole.

"The intention is really to put us in this war against each other. For people to say that if you discuss these issues this is going to cause harm to children, whereas teachers are trained to teach and if you really want your students to have the advantage of a global society that we're in, they're going to have to know their history," Roberson said.

Stone said it's not just books with themes of race that are often challenged. "Coming of age" books that depict puberty, sexuality or sex acts are commonly considered "obscene" even though these themes are just one part of the book, and the concern often misrepresents the piece of literature as a whole.

"'Beloved' is one of the best examples of that that's in the headlines right now it isn't pornographic or obscene, it just deals with sex," she said.

The book, which is set in the Reconstruction era and vividly portrays the horrors of slavery and its legacy, contains passages that are violent and sexually explicit.

Republican lawmakers across Texas are working to enforce a ban on what they consider "divisive concepts."

Republican State Representative Matt Krause put together a list of 850 books he believes should be banned, including "Rainbow, a first book of Pride," aimed at young readers, and "Underneath It All: A History of Women's Underwear," aimed at young adults. Krause, a candidate for Texas attorney general, sent a letter to Texas school districts asking them to report how many books from the list they currently make available to students.

Krause also asked districts to identify any other books that may include: human sexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, AIDS, sexually explicit images or material that "might make students feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex," according to CBS Dallas. CBS News has reached out to a representative for Krause for comment and is awaiting response.

Another Republican state lawmaker in Texas, Jeff Cason called on the state's attorney general to investigate school districts that have sexually explicit books in their library. One of the books he deemed inappropriate is "Gender Queer," by Maia Kobabe,which its publisher describes as a "useful and touching guide on gender identity."

Earlier this month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott echoed Krause and Cason's concerns and asked the Texas Association of School Boards to remove books from school libraries that could be what he called "pornographic" or "obscene."

Stone said books "that reflect the lives of LGBTQIA persons and families," are often targeted as "obscene" or "pornographic" which they are often not. "You might not be the audience, your child might not be the audience, but more often than not, there is an audience for the books and often they are desperately needed," she said.

Parents of students in North Hunterdon High School in New Jersey also challenged books with LGBTQ themes such as "Gender Queer" and another coming-of-age novel, "Lawn Boy," according to My Central Jersey.

At a Hamilton County School Board meeting in Tennessee, parents turned out in large crowds over challenges to books on the reading lists for grades 8 through 12, including Angie Thomas' "The Hate U Give," CBS affiliate WDEF-TV reports.

In Virginia Beach, Virginia, school officials asked the superintendent to ban four books "Lawn Boy," "Gender Queer," "A Lesson Before Dying" by Ernest Gaines and "The Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison for "pornographic content," according to The Virginian-Pilot, which obtained copies of their email to the superintendent.

Stone said censorship that forbids the reading of a certain book is a violation of library users' First Amendment rights. She also said every parent has a right to raise concerns about a book. "It's part of the First Amendment as well, the right to petition," she said.

ALA encourages libraries and school boards to hear concerns about books, but to also have a "reconsideration policy" in place that asks petitioners if they've actually read the book in its entirety and what the basis of their complaint is, Stone said.

Just because someone says a book is obscene or inappropriate, doesn't mean it actually is, Stone said. "It just means it doesn't meet their values or needs."

Trending News

Caitlin O'Kane is a digital content producer covering trending stories for CBS News and its good news brand, The Uplift.

Read the original post:

"Beloved" isn't the only book parents have challenged. From critical race theory to obscenity, here's how and why books get targeted. - CBS...

Michael Flynn, Donald Trumps first national security adviser, was widely condemned after calling for the establishment of one religion in the US.

Religious freedom is enshrined in the first amendment to the US constitution, which says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Regardless, at a rally staged in San Antonio on Saturday by the Christian nonprofit news media network American Faith, Flynn said: If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion. One nation under God and one religion under God.

In response, the Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar, one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, said: These people hate the US constitution.

Mark Hertling, a retired general and media commentator, called Flynn, himself a retired general, an embarrassment to the US army.

His words are disgusting, Hertling said.

On Sunday, the veteran reporter Carl Bernstein told CNN that Flynn, as one of the knaves and fools and dangerous authoritarian figures with whom Trump surrounded himself in and out of office, was saying out loud things that have never been said by an aide or close associates to the president of the United States.

Bernstein added: It should be no surprise to know that Michael Flynn is saying the kind of things that he is saying, but whats most significant here is that much of the Republican party something like 35% in in exit polls said they favour Trump because Christianity is being taken away from them.

So Michael Flynn is not that far away from huge numbers of people in this country.

Flynn is no stranger to controversy. Fired from a senior intelligence role by Barack Obama, he became a close aide to Trump before resigning as national security adviser after less than a month in the role, for lying to the FBI about contacts with Russians.

Flynn pleaded guilty to one criminal charge under Robert Muellers investigation of Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow, a plea he sought to withdraw before receiving a pardon from Trump.

He has since emerged as an influential figure on the far right, linked to the QAnon conspiracy theory and appearing to advocate armed insurrection.

In San Antonio, Flynn called the indictment of another Trump ally, Steve Bannon, over the investigation of the Capitol attack, an abuse of freedom of speech another first amendment freedom.

The Capitol was attacked on 6 January by Trump supporters seeking to overturn his election defeat. Flynn is himself the subject of a subpoena from the investigating House committee. On Friday, he told Fox News he had nothing to hide.

In Texas, Flynn called the House investigation a crucifixion of our first amendment freedom to speak, freedom to peacefully assemble.

His remarks about religion attracted support from a prominent contender in a vicious party fight for a Republican Senate nomination in Ohio.

Josh Mandel, a former Ohio state treasurer, tweeted: We stand with General Flynn.

Mandels own religion has been the subject of debate and controversy. In September, the Forward published an op-ed which asked if he was obscuring his Jewishness in order to appeal to far-right Christian voters.

In response, Mandel described himself as a Proud American. Proud Jew. Proud Marine. Proud Zionist. Everything Democrats hate.

Mandels religion was the subject of a controversial attack ad from another Republican hopeful, Mark Pukita, who denied charges of antisemitism.

Amid criticism of his support for Flynn, Mandel said freedom of religion [is not equal to] freedom FROM religion. He also said: America was not founded as a secular nation.

Read more:

Trump ally Michael Flynn condemned over call for one religion in US - The Guardian

TOPEKA, Kansas Republican lawmakers look determined to take on the Biden administrations insistence that employers pressure their workers to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

The Legislature meets in a special session next week to engage in battle with the federal government over the vaccine mandates. But courts will likely have the final say on if the mandate is legal, and some factions worry such bold action to fight mandates could further atrophy the state's ability to respond to public health crises.

This week, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration paused enforcement of its own temporary emergency standard requiring companies with 100 employees or more to mandate that workers either get vaccinated or submit to regular testing.

Legislative leaders waited until the emergency standard was in place to call a special session. But now that the rule is in legal limbo, its unlikely the Republicans who dominate the Legislature will abandon plans to give workers the freedom to dodge the mandates simply by invoking religious objections. Or drop other proposals offered in the spirit of civil liberties and aimed to undercut the federal mandates.

Were not going to let the Biden Administration force businesses to play God or doctor and determine whether a religious or medical exemption is valid or not, Republican Senate President Ty Masterson said in a statement announcing the session. Were going to trust individual Kansans.

Conservative legislators in Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Wyoming and North Dakota have already completed special sessions and passed bills aimed at nullifying new federal mandates.

Lawmakers in Florida passed a bill that would fine businesses $10,000 per violation if they didnt offer a number of exemptions to their employees. The governor in Wyoming signed only one of the 20 bills that were written during the special session a law that gives his office $4 million dollars to challenge federal vaccine mandates. Four of the states, including Kansas, will elect governors next year.

The New York Times reports Kansas lawmakers are among legislators across the country that passed more than 100 laws that limit state and local health powers. State lawmakers passed a bill earlier this year modifying the Kansas Emergency Management Act to shift power away from local public health officials and the governor and toward elected county commissioners.

Yet even if the federal mandate is struck down, new state laws making changes to religious exemptions in Kansas could transform the legal and public health systems for years to come.

It seems like the bills are drafted to let the exemptions swallow the rule, said Sharon Brett, legal director of the Kansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Brett said theres no freedom of religion provision in the First Amendment that allows a person to put another person in danger by practicing their religion.

If employers have incentives to skimp on verifying the sincerity of an employee who invokes a religious exemption the way such things are subject to challenge in avoiding military service, for instance Brett said that would mark a fundamental change.

It basically gives a two-tiered system of justice, Brett said, where the religious rights of people in free society are upheld over public safety.

That sends a really difficult and unfortunate signal about who we are, and how we uphold the First Amendment in this country, she said.

New laws strengthening religious exemptions for COVID-19 vaccines could also wind up undercutting laws on the books requiring vaccinations for school-aged children.

It sets a precedent, said Dr. Marcus Plescia, the chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. It's particularly concerning for childhood vaccinations.

He cited previous national measles outbreaks where some people garnered religious exemptions and remained unvaccinated. In cases like that, Plescia said, public health officials have often been able to lobby religious leaders to convince them of the good vaccines would do in their communities.

But in this case, he said some of these religious exemptions arent really something that religions themselves are even calling for.

State and local health officials face this political and legal fight when theyre already besieged by the pandemic. Thats made it harder to campaign against new laws that could have far-reaching effects on a range of vaccinations.

Theres not a clear sort of national advocate who can step in, Plescia said.

Meanwhile, he said groups like the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council have drafted model legislation adopted by legislatures across the country.

Abigail Censky is the political reporter for the Kansas News Service. You can follow her on Twitter @AbigailCensky or email her at abigailcensky (at) kcur (dot) org.

The Kansas News Service is a collaboration of KCUR, Kansas Public Radio, KMUW and High Plains Public Radio focused on health, the social determinants of health and their connection to public policy.

Kansas News Service stories and photos may be republished by news media at no cost with proper attribution and a link to ksnewsservice.org.

Follow this link:

Kansas lawmakers look to undercut federal vaccine mandates, and that worries public health officials - KCUR

SAN JOSE (KPIX) For the first time in the Elizabeth Holmes Theranos fraud trial, the jury got to hear Holmes speak on Thursday, but not because she was testifying on the witness stand.

Audio recordings taken from an interview Elizabeth Holmes did withFortune Magazine journalist Roger Parloff were played in court.

Holmes can be heard making claims that other witnesses have said were false, such as how Theranos devices could do a thousand blood tests, that the company did all of its own tests, and didnt rely on 3rd party analyzers.

This journalist is echoing the testimony that the jury has been hearing for the last 11 weeks, said former prosecutor and legal analyst Michele Hagan.

This is a powerful witness, hes summing up. Hes reminding the jury of all the claims that Elizabeth Holmes made to these witnesses. Its not a good day when your own voice comes back to incriminate you, Hagan added.

On cross examination, defense attorney John Cline started probing into Parloffs other sources for his reporting.

Parloff refused to answer some questions, citing journalistic privilege to not reveal confidential sources under the First Amendment.

The judge had to conference with lawyers to discuss that, outside the presence of the jury.

Parloff brought his own lawyer to court to make his case just before the trial broke for the day.

Parloff will be back on the witness stand on Friday.

Read more:

Theranos Trial Hears From Witness Who Published Flattering Holmes Profile - CBS San Francisco

It is time for Attorney General Merrick Garland and the FBI to lay their cards on the tableand fastor else they will find themselves enveloped in a burgeoning scandal that will further damage their already-teetering reputation and in a way that will do lasting damage to free speech.

In a recentletter, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told Garland thatinformation receivedfrom a whistleblower has called into question the accuracy and completeness oftestimonythat Garland gave before the House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 21.

This is serious business.

It is no secret that many parents are upset, and understandably so, about the fact that their young children are beingtaughtcritical race theory, with teachers making students stand in privilege circles, dividing them into categories of oppressor and oppressed based solely on their skin color and ethnicity, compelling white students to apologize for their whiteness, assigning students to read highly politicized books and essays promoting the controversial1619 Projectand the view that our society is systemically racist, and other things of that ilk.

>>>Merrick Garland Abuses His Authority To Suppress Dissent

Promoters of critical race theory are unapologetic and respond, as former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe recentlydid, I dont think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.

Suffice it to say, they are not pleased that school board races have been getting more national and local attention than ever before, and parents across the country have been making their displeasure known in articles, in letters to the editor, and at public meetings.

Not content to make their case in the court of public opinion, the National School Boards Association took things to an entirely new and completely inappropriate level.

In a Sept. 29letterto President Joe Biden, the president and the interim executive director and chief executive officer of the National School Boards Association informed the president that Americas public schools and its education leaders are under an immediate threat.

Citing a few examples of disturbances at school board meetings by individuals who were upset about mask mandates and critical race theory curriculaall of which were, presumably, ably handled by state and local authorities or by the school boards themselvesand stating that such incidents were impacting the delivery of educational services to students and families, the letter implored Biden to deploy the Justice Department, the FBI (including its national Security Branch and Counterterrorism Division), the Department of Homeland Security, and the U.S. Secret Service (including its National Threat Assessment Center) to combat this supposed scourge.

The letter stated, without providing support, that extremist hate organizations were showing up at school board meetings, and that these protests should be characterized as equivalent to a form of domestic terrorism and hate crimes.

The letter stated that federal law enforcement authorities should employ the full array of tools at their disposal, including the Patriot Act, against these perpetrators of domestic terrorism.

In amemorandumissued shortly thereafter (and in a series of internal emails that werewrittenprior to the memorandum), the president of the National School Boards Association informed its state association officers and executive directors about the letter and added that it had been actively engaged with the White House and the Department of Justice, among others, for several weeks about the growing threats to its members.

The memorandum went on to claim that [i]n response to its letter, the attorney general issued a memorandum ordering all U.S. Attorney Offices and local FBI offices to reach out to local and state law enforcement officials to coordinate efforts.

Issued only days after the National School Boards Association letter to Biden, theGarland memodated Oct. 4 and issued to FBI Director Chris Wray, the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, the head of the departments Criminal Division, and all 93 U.S. attorneysstated that the Justice Department would shortly be announcing a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel and directed the recipients to convene meetings with local leaders within 30 days to discuss strategies to address the situation and to open lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.

The backlash was immediate. During his Oct. 21 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Garland admitted that while he didnt have any details about the number of threats that had been made against school officials, heacknowledgedreading the National School Boards Association letter and relying upon its representation that there has been a spike in violent conduct and threats against school officials. He also stated, We read in the newspapers reports of threats of violence.

Garland admitted, though, that he could not imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children, nor a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorists.

He further testified, I do not think that parents getting angry at school boards for whatever reason constitute domestic terrorism. Its not even a close question. It is this testimony that Jordan now claims was false or, at least, misleading, although Jordan acknowledges that perhaps Garland did not know when he testified about the actions the FBI had taken in response to his memo.

The day after Garland testified before the House, the National School Boards Associationapologizedfor its Sept. 29 letter and stated that there was no justification for some of the language included in the letter.

A week later, on Sept. 27, Garland testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and refused to back down. He informed its members that he stood behind his memo,statingthat it did not say to begin prosecuting anybody, and that it had nothing to do with politics.

Garlandsaidhe did not rely on the National School Boards Association letter in preparing and issuing his memorandum, andaddedthat he didnt think its reasonable to read this memo and think its chilling anyones rights.

In his letter, Jordan informed Garland that he had received a memorandum from an FBI whistleblower, dated the day before Garlands testimony before the House Judiciary, in which two high-ranking FBI officials informed all of its field offices:

As a result [of the Garland memo], the Counterterrorism and Criminal Divisions created a threat tag, EDUOFFICALS, to track instances of related threats. We ask that your offices apply the threat tag to investigations and assessments of threats specifically directed against school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff. The purpose of the threat tag is to help scope this threat on a national level and provide an opportunity for comprehensive analysis of the threat picture for effective engagement with law enforcement partners at all levels.

Jordan continued that [t]his disclosure provides specific evidence that federal law enforcement operationalized counterterrorism tools at the behest of a left-wing special-interest group against concerned parents.

Perhaps. There is, of course, a big difference between investigating an actual threat of physical violence against someone and investigating a concerned parent who expresses his or her views at a school board meeting.

If, in fact, the FBI has no evidence of any threats of physical violence and is applying this tag to upset parents who show up at school board meetings to express their displeasure, that would be outrageous and heads should roll.

If, on the other hand, the FBI has lots of information about actual threats or instances of physical violence against school officials, that would be very different.

So far, at least, the onlyprominent exampleof anyone making a threat at a school board meeting that has been disclosed did not involve a concerned parent threatening a school board official, a teacher, or a school administrator.

Rather, it involved a supporter of critical race theory, who irately informed parents that if they continued to complain about the indoctrination to which their children are being subjected, he would return next time with over 1,000 soldiers ready to go who are locked and loaded.

The FBI has responded to all this bysayingthat it has never been in the business of investigating parents who speak out or policing speech at school board meetings, and we are not going to start now, and that it remains fully committed to preserving and protecting First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech.

In other words, nothing to see here, just move along.

Nope. Not this time. Not good enough. Not even close.

The FBIs reputation is in serious jeopardy. Recent reports of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse and credible claims that the upper echelons of the FBI hierarchy acted in a highly partisan manner in connection with its investigation of former President Donald Trump and many of those who worked on his campaign or in his administration have shaken the publics confidence in the most powerful law enforcement agency in this country.

>>> Critical Race Theory

Additionally, there is a dark period in the FBIs history in which it conducted a covert counter-intelligence surveillance programdubbedCOINTELPROin which it infiltrated and discredited domestic political organizations and individuals that were engaged in First Amendment-protected political speech and activities, but which the FBI deemed to be subversive. The public needs to be reassured in a convincing and prompt manner that history (including recent history) is not repeating itself, and that the FBI is not just doing the bidding of a powerful political ally of the Biden administration.

So far, at least, the biggest threats that the public has seen is the threat of a massive chilling effect on those who want to exercise their First Amendment rights and the threat to the Department of Justices and the FBIs reputation.

The public needs to be reassured that parents who speak up at school board meetings about their childrens education are not going to find themselves in an FBI database with a threat tag next to their names or, even worse, find themselves under investigation or placed in handcuffs and dragged away by federal authorities.

Garland and Wray should return to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to answer some tough questions about all of this.

Likewise, the FBI should disclosewith as much specificity as possiblehow many threat cases it is investigating, the precise nature of the alleged threats, the federal crimes that may be implicated, and why the bureau believes that state and local authorities are incapable or insufficient to investigate these cases.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

Follow this link:

Are Parents Being Tagged as Domestic Terrorists by the FBI? Justice Department Needs to Show Its Cards - Heritage.org