Speech restrictions are un-American

In Ohio and across the nation, state legislatures and school districts are banning books, limiting what can be taught in public schools and state universities, restricting the types of events that public librariescan host, and even saying that certain words can't be uttered in certain settings.

The people who are doing this are the same ones that yammer about Second Amendment rights while trampling the First Amendment.

This is what Nazis did; it is what Vladimir Putin does; it is not what we do in the United States ofAmerica.

Jim Kroeger, Fairlawn

After watching President Joe Bidens March 26 speech in Poland, I am reminded of lyrics from the U2 song Crumbs from your Table: where you live should not decide whether you live or whether you die. To allow thousands of Ukrainians to die because they are not a part of NATO, thus on the wrong side of the street, is so immoral. To say that Bidens speech ranks up there with those given in Europe by John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan is a joke; those great men did not cower to tyrants. May God have mercy on those in charge who think sanctions alone are the answer.

Randy Ley, Tallmadge

Go here to read the rest:

Letters to the editor: Book bans, teaching restrictions in public schools are un-American - Akron Beacon Journal

FIRE commends University of Northern Iowa for quickly affirming to resident assistants that the university will respect their First Amendment rights.(Photo courtesy University of Northern Iowa)

by Sabrina Conza

The University of Northern Iowa has made clear to resident assistants that they may speak with the media as private citizens after FIRE raised concerns about UNI requiring pre-approval of RAs communications.

In February, The Northern Iowan student newspaper sent RAs an anonymous survey asking about their experiences on campus, but a UNI official quickly told RAs that university media relations officials must approve all RA-themed media responses to the press. On March 17, FIRE wrote UNI explaining that government employees, including RAs at public institutions, have the right to speak to the media in their individual capacities on matters of public concern.

On March 23, UNI responded to FIRE, affirming that the school strongly values the First Amendment rights of [UNI] students and employees and pledging not to restrict RAs right to speak with the media. And on March 29, UNI told its RAs that they may speak with the media (including on-campus newspapers) in their capacity as a private citizen without seeking prior approval from UNI Housing & Dining.

UNI told FIRE, We continue to value opportunities to assure Resident Assistants as with all UNI students and employees understand the protections afforded under the First Amendment.

As much as FIRE will readily criticize universities unconstitutional policies and practices, we much prefer commending universities when they do the right thing.

FIRE commends UNI for quickly affirming to RAs that the university will respect their First Amendment rights.

We have seen this scenario play out many times before, with mixed results. In just the last couple of years, after FIREs intervention, University of North Carolina, University of Missouri, and University of Virginia changed their policies which limited RAs ability to speak with the media, bringing them into compliance with the First Amendment. Louisiana State University and Frostburg State University, on the other hand, both refused to fully respect RAs First Amendment rights.

Other institutions with restrictive practices of silencing students and employees speech or suppressing the student press should take note as much as FIRE will readily criticize universities unconstitutional policies and practices, we much prefer commending universities when they do the right thing.

If youre a student or faculty member facing censorship or prior review from your university, or a student journalist facing restrictions on communicating with sources, reach out to FIRE. We may be able to help.

FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members no matter their views at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If youre a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).

View original post here:

VICTORY: After FIRE letter, University of Northern Iowa clarifies resident assistants may speak with media - Foundation for Individual Rights in...

Happy National Transgender Day of Visibility, to all trans Kansans. Im delighted youre here, and your tenacious courage inspires me.

Also, Id like to apologize for a handful of other Kansans who have decided to score political points on your lives.

This 2022 celebration comes with two giant asterisks. First, of course, the Legislature has been wrangling over Senate Bill 484. Its anti-trans discrimination gussied up as a way to protect girls sports, a breathtaking distortion for which both Sen. Renee Erickson and Senate President Ty Masterson should feel lasting shame.

Then the Washburn University College Republicans decided to show that theirs is decidedly not a big tent party by inviting conservative author Michael J. Knowles for a speech called Banning Transgenderism.

Note that the title isnt We should protect female athletes. Its not I disagree with some things transgender people say. Its not I wonder if this whole gender situation has gotten out of hand.

Nope. Its Banning Transgenderism. As in, an entire group of people who live and work among all of us. For that matter, people who also serve as Kansas legislators.

Thankfully, Washburn University president Jerry Farley took a stand against callous hatred, writing in an email to campus that while he supported the First Amendment, I am disappointed when those rights are used to make others feel unwelcome and even unsafe in our community. While we support the right to speak freely, Washburn University does not condone the hate and misinformation spread by the speaker and his supporters.

No doubt Farley will catch flack from predictable, bigoted corners of the commentariat. But he did the right thing.

High-profile support for this celebratory day also came from Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly. She issued a proclamation marking the occasion. President Joe Biden also noted the date with a forceful statement.

To everyone celebrating Transgender Day of Visibility, I want you to know that your President sees you, Biden said. On this day and every day, we recognize the resilience, strength, and joy of transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming people.

Farley, Kelly and Biden have the right idea. Transgender people didnt just pop into existence over the last three or four years. They have always existed, with historical documentation dating to 5000 B.C.

The fact that trans folk now live visibly and authentically throughout our state and country should be a source of pride for all of us. Even college Republicans.

Read the original here:

On a day celebrating transgender visibility, Kansans offer the best and worst in response - Kansas Reflector

Republican lawmakers are about to advance a bill that will waste hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars while making the Internet less safe for Georgians. The Common Carrier Non-Discrimination Act, which passed in the Senate earlier this month, is part of a broader effort by Republican legislators to punish digital services for enforcing their policies with respect to the social media accounts of former President Trump.

This bill would force digital services to carry all users content neutrally, irrespective of what risks that content creates. By doing so, it would put Georgians at greater risk to everything from foreign disinformation and propaganda from Russian agents and extremist content from anti-American jihadists, who, according to the Senate bill, all deserve equal treatment.

This law would bind digital services hands, preventing them from standing between American Internet users and the torrent of foreign disinformation, Communist propaganda, and extremism propagated by adversaries abroad. Digital services need the flexibility this law would take away to fight those evolving online threats.

Some Georgia lawmakers appear to believe private businesses have to give access to any speaker. But Internet services have made commitments to their users to try and protect them from certain problematic content, and that is itself a speech interest. A digital service saying we dont want to host Nazi Party candidates is exercising its own First Amendment rights, and Internet users can choose services whose communities and norms best align with their own preferences.

Georgia lawmakers are well aware that government attempts to dictate speech online violate the Constitution. Legal experts have warned that this bill will inevitably face the same legal challenges as similar proposals in neighboring states that were found unconstitutional and Georgians will be stuck with the legal tab. Over the past year, other states have introduced legislation to impose new rules on private companies online content moderation practices, which would limit their ability to remove offensive or harmful content. Next door, Floridians are already paying the price for the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, over which the state recently lost a federal court case.

The battle is not yet over, and public records requests reveal that just one Florida state agency has already wasted nearly $700,000 to defend the unconstitutional new law. Before the case is over, Florida taxpayers are almost certain to have lost seven figures to the frivolous political stunt whose only real impact has been to make work for lawyers and get news attention for its sponsors. The same situation is playing out in Texas, where a federal judge recently blocked a similar anti-censorship bill from taking effect. The judge concluded that Texas, just like Florida, was unconstitutionally infringing on digital services right to exercise editorial discretion in deciding what content was suitable for their communities.

Through a series of hearings on the Common Carrier Non-Discrimination Act, Georgia lawmakers have been repeatedly warned that it will face the same fate as proposals in Florida and Texas. However, the bills sponsors dont seem to mind asking their constituents to foot the bill for a political stunt, and they have proven theyre willing to sacrifice user safety to punish perceived political enemies.

In a time of economic uncertainty and geopolitical instability, the last thing Georgians need is officials wasting their tax dollars on ill-conceived laws that would flood their screens with foreign disinformation, propaganda, and extremism. Georgia legislators ought to pull the plug on this proposal.

Follow this link:

Despite warnings, Republicans poised to stick Peach State with steep legal tab for political stunt - Disruptive Competition Project

The slap seen round the world at this years Academy Awards has moved comedy clubs across the United States to try and prevent a potential new norm.

According to TMZ, theStand Up NY in New York City posted a sign on its storefront window establishing that heckling and physical abuse of comics is prohibited, and patrons will be immediately removed from the showroom. The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences claimed Wednesday that Will Smithwas asked to leave the Dolby Theater after he walked on stage and smackedChris Rockin response to ajoke about the actors wife Jada Pinkett Smith, but refused.

Stand Up NY is making it clear that patrons will not betreated with the same type ofleniency.Comedians play a critical role in our society, especially during times of chaos and uncertainty. They make us laugh, bring perspective and remind us there are different ways of seeing our reality, the statement reads. Comics must be protected.

Laugh Factory owner and CEO Jamie Masada told The Hollywood Reporter that there has been a noticeable mood shift since comedy clubs reopened following closures due to the pandemic. Masada has since added security in several locations, but the Oscars incidenthas reignited a conversation about going even further to ensure the safety of comedians.

Masada has discussed various approaches, which range from installing metal detectors tohaving someone positioned near or by the stage. Im going to talk to my staff, just for this weekend, and say, We definitely need you by the stage now. That is your post. Just in case someone is just trying to re-create a moment or feels emboldened by what Will Smith did. And its unfortunate, he said.

The Laugh Factory has publicly backedRock in the days that followed the Oscars with a sign on its marquee declaring its support of the First Amendment, adding, The comedy community loves & supports you Chris.

Read more:

Comedy Clubs Bump Up Precautionary Measures in Wake of Oscars Slap - Complex

[co-author: Jorden Johnson]

On March 21, 2022, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released its much-anticipated proposed rule titled "The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors." The proposed enhanced disclosure requirements draw from groups dedicated to developing effective climate-related disclosures, including the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. SEC Chair Gary Gensler believes the enhanced disclosure requirements will provide consistent, comparable, and reliable climate-risk information to investors. Environmentally-focused investors appear to agree that the rule, if finalized, will provide much needed guidance, but not everyone is convinced.

Ready or not, the SEC's proposed rule may well be finalized this year and, if so, would begin applying to certain filings as soon as FY 2023. In this alert, we answer some commonly asked questions regarding disclosure requirements the proposed rule would add, the SEC's authority to require climate disclosures, and the potential impact of the disclosure requirements.

Charged with protecting investors and maintaining investor confidence, the SEC's existing regulatory framework requires that public companies, broker-dealers, and certain company insiders disclose "material" information, or information that a "reasonable shareholder" would likely consider important.1

In 2010, the SEC issued guidance on pertinent non-financial disclosure rules that required some disclosures related to climate change, including the disclosure of material effects of compliance with federal, state, and local provisions regulating the discharge of materials into the environment and environmental litigation. The SEC noted then that, depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular registrant, certain items may require disclosures regarding the impact of climate change.

The newly proposed rule clarifies that a registrant would be required to disclose the following:

Further, if the registrant has publicly set climate-related targets or goals, the registrant must disclose information about:

When responding to any of the proposed rules' provisions concerning governance, strategy, and risk management, a registrant may also disclose information concerning any identified climate-related opportunities. A registrant that qualifies as a "large accelerated filer" or "accelerated filer" will also be required to obtain a third-party attestation report on its Scope 1 and 2 emissions disclosures.

Major legislation that provides the framework for the SEC's oversight of the securities markets includes the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act of 1940, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act. SEC Chair Gensler maintains that the proposed rule lies within the scope of the SEC's authority to regulate the information material to investors, while critics of the SEC's proposed rule, including SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce, argue that the rule exceeds the authority of SEC. Two of the most likely legal challenges to the proposed rule pertain to (a) the materiality standard and (b) the First Amendment.

Regarding materiality, in TSC Industries v. Northway2, the Supreme Court explained that, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, information is only material to investors, and therefore requiring disclosure, if there is a "substantial likelihood that the disclosure of the omitted fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the total mix of information available." Some law professors and scholars have noted that, while climate-related disclosures may be material to some investors, the disclosures may be completely irrelevant to others. This may lead companies to challenge the proposed rule as requiring immaterial disclosures.

As for the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has closely scrutinized disclosure requirements in several cases and has explained that there must be a substantial relationship between the government interest and the information required to be disclosed such that the strength of the government interest reflects the seriousness of the burden on First Amendment rights.3 And so, certain law professors, among other critics of the proposed rule, have suggested that the government interest does not reflect the burden on First Amendment rights since the proposal is not limited to materials that interest all investors. It is therefore likely the SEC will face challenges on the basis of the registrants' First Amendment rights.

If adopted as proposed, public companies will have to present much more detailed disclosures regarding climate-related matters in their SEC filings, including in their financial statements. Many larger public companies have already been disclosing these matters, albeit perhaps not at the level of detail contemplated in the SEC's proposed rule. These larger companies should further refine their reporting processes and controls so that they are in a position to effectively compile and present the climate-related information in a manner subject to attestation by third parties. Smaller companies should also begin assessing their reporting processes as they relate to climate-related matters so the companies will be prepared to comply with the proposed new disclosure requirements. Form 10-K and proxy season is already a busy time for companies, and it looks like aggregating detailed, climate-related information could now be a substantial part of that busy season.

As far as timing is concerned, Large Accelerated Filers will have until FY 2023 (for their Form 10-K filed in 2024) to comply with all proposed disclosures, including Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions metrics and until FY 2024 (for their Form 10-K filed in 2025) to comply with Scope 3 metrics. Accelerated Filers and Non-Accelerated Filers will have until FY 2024 (for their Form 10-K filed in 2025) to comply with all proposed disclosures including Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emission metrics and until FY 2025 (for their Form 10-K filed in 2026) to comply with Scope 3 metrics. Smaller Reporting Companies will have until FY 2025 (for their Form 10-K filed in 2026) to comply with all proposed disclosures including Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emission metrics and are exempt from complying with Scope 3 requirements. There is also a transition period for the attestation requirements. Large Accelerated Filers and Accelerated Filers will have to provide third-party attestation at a limited assurance level for fiscal years 2 and 3 after the Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions compliance date and at a reasonable assurance level for fiscal years 4 and beyond after the Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions compliance date.

1 TSC Indus., Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 449 (1976).

2 426 U.S. at 448.

3 See, e.g., Natl Assn of Mfrs. v. Taylor, 582 F.3d 1, 9 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

Original post:

FAQ: The SEC's Proposed Rule on the Enhancement and Standardization of Climate Related-Disclosures - JD Supra

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Go here to see the original:

Craig Carter: Another lecture on the First Amendment - Ontario Argus Observer

14 January 2022

Freeman Mathis & Gary

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In the recent decision entitledDoe v. Hopkinton PublicSchools, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuitrejected students' contention that posting abusive andembarrassing video of another student online was protected speech.The student members of the high school hockey team sued theHopkinton (Mass.) school district, the superintendent of schools,and the high school principal, and argued they were wrongfullydisciplined by the high school. Some students photographed andvideo-recorded a fellow member of the team and his family on manyoccasions, without his permission, and then shared images anddemeaning comments to a small group on the Snapchat social mediaapplication.

The offensive Snapchats included expletive-laced comments andreactions regarding the teammate's appearance, voice, anatomyand family members. A complaint was made to the school pursuant tothe Massachusetts Bullying Prevention and Intervention statute,Mass. Gen. Laws. Ch 71, 37Hand37O. An investigation determined that thevictim had suffered numerous acts of bullying as defined both bylaw and the district's Anti-Bullying Policy. Moreover, thevictim experienced being excluded, embarrassed, and feeling bulliedby the unauthorized sharing of his and his family's images onsocial media. The investigation further determined that the hockeyteam members were aware of, encouraged, joined, and participated inthe bullying. These activities occurred in the locker room, atschool, and on bus rides to away hockey games and later shared viathe internet. The involved students, including those who did notconfront the victim in person but simply joined in offensive onlinecommenting, were suspended from school.

Several of the disciplined students filed a lawsuit in U.S.District Court in Boston alleging that the school district hadviolated their rights to freedom of speech and freedom ofassociation (including the right to associate in the Snapchat groupand share offensive material) under state and federal law. U.S.District Court Judge William G. Young rejected the claims anddismissed the students' case against the Hopkintondefendants.

On appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the studentscontended that sending and discussing privatemessages among friends over the Snapchat platform was aconstitutionally-protected activity and that the school districtunlawfully interfered with their rights. The First Circuit rejectedthat bullying behaviors were protected by the First Amendment tothe U.S. Constitution. The Court accepted the conclusions by theschool district that the offensive speech and Snapchatparticipation violated school policy and state law and werecausally connected to other hockey players' active bullyingof the victim. The court noted that Children often bully asa group. The children who stand on a sidewalk and cheer as one oftheir friends shakes down a smaller student for his lunch money maynot be as culpable, but they are not entirely blameless. Thedecision held that it was reasonable for the school to concludethat the messages and the students' participation in theSnapchat group fostered an environment that emboldened thebullies and encouraged others in the invasion of the[victim's] rights. The evidence showed that they were wellaware of the effects of that conduct on their teammate. TheCourt determined that the speech and conduct at issue in a schoolenvironment are not protected by the FirstAmendment.

TheDoe v. Hopkinton Public School caseemphatically rejects the rights of students toparticipate in school bullying. It provides further guidance andprotection to schools and districts as they carry out legalobligations to investigate and discipline students for bullyingbehaviors.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration from United States

Continue reading here:

US Court Of Appeals Rules That Student "Snapchat Bullying" Is Not A First Amendment Protected Activity - Litigation, Mediation &...

A key reason for the nations polarization can be found in the newly released Knight Foundation study on free expression. It is clear that too many Americans fail to understand the importance of free expression and the functional interdependence required to implement that basic human right. Basically, citizens get to express themselves in exchange for allowing other citizens the same freedom. Further, the Constitutions First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting the citizens broad expression rights. The Knight study shows too many Americans are oblivious to these notions that are essential in a free society.

A healthy democracy requires a healthy First Amendment atmosphere. When corners of the society get comfortable with squelching the expression of alternate views, oppression and authoritarianism necessarily follow. That sort of community censorship is bad enough, but when some citizens want to greenlight the government to crack down on nonconformist or unapproved perspectives, a nation is on the road to despotism. Evidence of such warning signs is found in the Knight report, which surveyed over 4,000 American adults across the nation.

A disappointing 26 percent of respondents believe government should prohibit a person from sharing political views that are offensive to some. Granted, the survey statement lacks context and is hypothetical, but this statement should be easy for any red-blooded American to handle. Just as scary, 32 percent of those surveyed are okay with the government having the ability to block or censor online news providers. The constitutional framers would be shocked to see even a fraction of Americans willing to allow such government regulation of expression, regardless of content.

The Knight study also indicates Americans are confused about the importance of allowing a wide-ranging and lively marketplace of ideas.

Some citizens apparently think they have a corner on reasonable ideas and see no need for anybody else to think otherwise. Only 77 percent of Americans agree with the statement, Having different points of view, including those that are bad or offensive to some, promotes healthy debate in society. The other 23 percent are obviously confident their own ideas are not bad or offensive.

Only 90 percent of respondents agree that People should be allowed to express unpopular opinions. In the United States, that percentage should be 100. Throughout American history, unpopular opinions engaged the rhetorical sphere, survived, and with the help of debate and reason, emerged into acceptance, new policy and altered attitudes. Respondents who dont agree with letting unpopular opinions circulate themselves likely have opinions that their fellow citizens might perceive to be unpopular. The First Amendment was formulated exactly to let offbeat or unpopular opinions enter the discussion. Otherwise, the mob of community censorship extinguishes societal debate.

Not surprisingly, the Knight report shows a partisan divide regarding perceptions of free expression. Democrats, for example, are much more concerned than Republicans are about the spread of misinformation in society. There is also partisan disagreement over content regulation on social media platforms and what constitutes legitimate public protest. It appears how one views free expression rights is affected by the lens of party affiliation.

It is difficult to assess why Americans have such incomplete understanding and appreciation for the free expression principle. The nations education system must shoulder part of the responsibility, beginning from elementary school up through college. Insufficient education about civics, American history and the Constitution leaves students clueless as to why the framers created a First Amendment and how, despite some bumps in the road, it has functioned to keep the nation free for all these years.

A more discouraging explanation for this national lack of commitment to free expression is that a large swath of the citizenry simply doesnt support the concept. Perhaps they fear their views cant withstand scrutiny in the marketplace and thus are comfortable with allowing suppression from the cancel mobs or even government. The raw power of censorship serves authoritarian impulses. That might seem attractive to certain people who want to shut other voices out of the dialogue, but that sounds good only until it is your opinion that gets disfavored.

Restricting the flow of expression is bound to cause societal division, as is being witnessed in America today. Suppression ultimately doesnt work in free societies.

A first step in reducing polarization is to gain recognition that fellow citizens are allowed to have and express their views and that such occasionally raucous freedom is preferable to forced conformity of thought.

Until Americans more fully understand the principle of free expression, coaxing civil dialogue into the nations deliberations will be difficult, and polarization will continue to reign.

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

Read the original here:

Ending nation's polarization begins with understanding First Amendment | TheHill - The Hill

The city of Baton Rouge tried to throw a law professor in prison after he shared publicly available body camera footage showing police officers strip-searching a minor in public. On Friday, a federal judge ruled that this violated the First Amendment.

That footage, originally shared withReason,was captured at a 2020 traffic stop. Baton Rouge Police Department (BRPD) officers cuffed 23-year-old Clarence Green and his 16-year-old brother, pulling down their pants on the sidewalk to look for drugs. Officer Troy Lawrence Jr. and thenSgt. Ken Camallo subsequently went to the family's home and searched it, weapons drawn, without a warrant.

When the story sparked considerable outrage, the government zeroed in on Thomas Frampton, the attorney who represented the Greens and disseminated the clips, which were already a part of the public record. During a May press conference convened to address the video, East Baton Rouge Parish Attorney Anderson "Andy" Dotson III notified Frampton that the government would seek to hold him in contempt of court, which carried up to six months in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison.

"In measuring 'the significance of [Frampton's] alleged criminal activity', the Court finds under the circumstances of this case, there was no criminal activity," writes Judge John W. deGravelles in a 92-page opinion published Friday. "Frampton released a Video that was in the public domain, belonged to his clients, and he released it on the instructions and with the knowledge of his clients."

The footage of Camallo's warrantless home entry might be an even bigger headache for the BRPD that thepublic strip-search. This was his third such search in under three years. He has since been demoted, but he's still with the department.

"BRPD officers' contempt for the constitutional rights of everyday Baton Rouge citizens, like the Green Family, is jaw-dropping," Frampton declared in a public statement. "But then you see how the lawyers who defend and enable these officers act, and it makes a lot more sense. Sadly, it's the taxpayers who will end up paying for their misdeeds."

Indeed, the Green family reached a $35,000 settlement with the city after Clarence spent five months in jail. The government moved to dismiss its case against him, and a federal judge agreedbut not without first benchslapping the state for actions that could be criminal.

"Such an intrusion, in abject violation of the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects citizens against unwarranted governmental intrusions in their homes, may justifiably be considered to be a trespass subject to prosecution under" Louisiana law, wrote Judge Brian A. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.

The city of Baton Rouge insisted that it was Frampton who violated the law, by disseminating the video. But it was the city that put that footage into the public record in the first place.

DeGravelles thinks this was never really about prosecuting someone for breaching the law. Instead, he says, it was about revenge and skirting accountability. "The record is replete with evidence," he writed, "that the City/Parish would not have pursued this matter in the absence of its bad faith motive to retaliate."

See the original post:

Judge: Baton Rouge Violated the First Amendment by Trying To Imprison a Professor for Sharing Body Camera Footage - Reason