Bayonne High Schools Turning Point USA club is now old enough to have students who participated as freshmen away at college.

Yet in its fifth year, the club affiliated with a prominent and controversial national conservative youth organizations is sparking debate in the Bayonne school community about the national group one teacher called it a flea-ridden dog and whether a chapter belongs in the high school.

Students who identify themselves as minorities told the Board of Education at its October meeting they feel less safe at school knowing that they have peers who affiliate themselves with Turning Point USA, whose past controversies involve spreading disinformation and hateful rhetoric against Blacks, Jews, Muslims and the LGBT+ community.

Two teachers called for a rebranding of the club at the September board meeting, arguing that while a debate or young Republicans club would be appropriate, a club affiliated with the flea ridden dog Turning Point USA risks hurting the high school community because of the national organizations reputation.

Club members, meanwhile, say the chapter welcomes students of all beliefs and backgrounds and is simply a place to converse and debate about political topics. Its the First Amendment that is keeping district officials as little more than spectators to the discussion.

Administrators monitor what goes on in the club, like all clubs, but at this time do not see grounds to change it because the students are exercising their freedom of speech and have not broken school rules, Board of Education President Maria Valado said in an interview.

Censoring or curtailing speech is very complicated, so our attorneys have advised us that the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that students do not shed their constitutional rights and right to freedom of speech when they come into the school building, Valado said.

Bill Montgomery and a then-teenage Charlie Kirk founded the national Turning Point USA organization in 2012. It now claims to be the most organized, active and powerful network of conservative student activists and names its core values as freedom, free markets and limited government.

It has also had its fair share of controversy. National and chapter leaders have been documented using racist and other bigoted language. Some have been found to have ties to white nationalist groups and the organization itself has crossed paths with groups such as the anti-Muslim group ACT for America. A watchlist of professors and a paid pro-Trump disinformation campaign have been alleged.

Bayonne alum Petra Ghaly founded the high schools chapter during the 2017-18 school year. Club meetings are a space where students discuss or debate political topics freely and without judgment, said current President Mark Basta and Vice President Jessica Longobardi.

Recent meetings have included discussions about COVID-19, inflation and capitalism versus socialism, Longobardi said. She called it a non-partisan club where most participants are more likely to lean conservative.

Ghaly, who graduated in the spring, said she jumped through hoops to start the club and keep it running, first being told that she couldnt start the club because of its political nature, and then in its second year having to reapply for it to continue operating.

A teacher called Longobardi a domestic terrorist and Ghaly a white supremacist because of their involvement in the club; and Ghaly claims she was subjected to online harassment that included death threats from other students when she was elected student representative of the Board of Education.

She, Basta and Longobardi have attended Turning Point USA conferences, and Basta said hes shut down conversations about the club disaffiliating from the national organization.

If we really pick on an organization as being racist just because someone said something that implied racism, wed be filtering out every political organization, Basta said.

Members of other clubs, meanwhile, said that Turning Points presence at the school makes them feel unsafe.

I believe that this is one of those times that students are allowed to be upset and should speak out, senior Zaria Keith, president of the Young Black Excellence club, told the Board of Education. This is immensely uncomfortable and is causing students of color to feel as though their fellow classmates could feel a sense of superiority over them just because of their skin.

Its the values of Turning Point USA as an organization that makes students like Mell Scott feel unsafe, the senior who also spoke before the board said. Scott, the president of the LGBTQ+ and allies club and a member of the Young Black Excellence club, who also identifies as transgender and queer, said the values and morals in this organization are a direct attack against people like me.

Basta and Valado said the students from Turning Point and the other clubs met after the board meeting to discuss the issues and they invited each other to meetings to get a better understanding of what theyre like. Scott said he and Keith went to the clubs next meeting before learning it had been cancelled.

Valado said students can continue expressing their views to the board, which will intervene if there are incidents that occur at Bayonne High School.

In an interview, Scott said he recognizes that the clubs existence is a freedom of speech issue and doesnt expect for the club to get disbanded. Students, however, deserve some reassurance from members of Turning Point USA that the club does not pose a threat to clubs that serve as safe spaces for marginalized students, Scott said.

I kind of dont understand the demographic that theyre looking for, Scott said. I want them to at least address to everyone say Hey we know what type of things Turning Point is known for, and I would like for them to just kind of address or highlight that just to at least keep other kids who are Black or gay or trans at ease knowing that at least thats a place that theyre not going to be targeted.

Read more from the original source:

Bayonne High conservative club has critics on one side, First Amendment defenders on the other - nj.com

Most courts presented with right of access claims consider both the common law and the First Amendment. The common law right of access "extends to all judicial documents and records" while the First Amendment "secures a right of access 'only to particular judicial records and documents." In their discussion of the common law right of access, those courts describe what constitutes a judicial record to which the common law right of access applies. "[N]ot all documents filed with courts are judicial records. whether something is a judicial record depends on the role it plays in the adjudicatory process."

The audio recordings of court proceedings are not "judicial records" to which the common law right of access attaches. The audio recordings of court proceedings are not documents or other materials that played any role in the adjudicative process. The audio recordings are not motions or briefs filed by the parties nor are they court opinions or orders. The audio recordings are not exhibits or other information relied upon by the parties to advance their claims and defenses.

Some courts have applied the "experience and logic" test from [the Supreme Court access-to-criminal-hearings precedents] to requests for access to judicial or court records. The Court is unaware of any tradition of public access to the court stenographer's or court reporter's notes regardless of the type of court proceeding. And, audio recording devices had not yet been invented when this country adopted the First Amendment.

For the second prong, public access to an audio recording of a court proceeding does not play a significant positive role in the actual functioning of the court proceeding. Public access to the proceeding itself plays a significant positive role. Access to audio recordings of the proceeding would be largely redundant.

Nor can Plaintiffs prevail using the Second Circuit's approach[, which considers whether the documents are derived from or are a necessary corollary of the capacity to attend the proceedings, applying the principle that "[o]nly those documents necessary to understand the merits of a civil . . . proceeding are covered by the First Amendment's presumptive right of access"]. Even if the state court set forth the merits determination from the bench and did not reduce the resolution of the issues to paper, Plaintiffs have a transcript of the proceeding.

The audio recordings are not records to which the First Amendment provides a right of access. Plaintiffs' concerns about transcript errors are addressed by the credentials and other professional requirements of court reporters who prepare the transcripts from recordings. To the extent that Plaintiffs maintain an error occurred in the preparation of their transcripts, they can have another transcript prepared by a different court reporter.

Finally, a number of courts have considered media requests for access to and copies of recordings played at a criminal proceedings. Overwhelmingly, the courts have rejected the requests and have frequently found that the First Amendment right of access does not extend to requests for copies of recordings played at the proceedings. The reasoning used in these opinions consistently reflect the conclusion that the moving parties have not been denied access. Attendance as access effectively undermines the risks and dangers associated with secret proceedings.

In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) the Court considered the scope and circumstances of "a common law right of access to judicial records[.]" The respondent, the media, sought copies of the Nixon tapes that were admitted into evidence at the trial of President Nixon's former advisors. Approximately 22 hours of recorded conversations were played at the trial and the reels of tape were admitted into evidence. "The District Court furnished the jurors, reporters, and members of the public in attendance with earphones and with transcripts prepared by the Special Prosecutor." Several media companies later filed a motion with the district judge seeking permission to copy, broadcast and sell the recordings played at the trial. The court denied immediate release of the tapes. The Court explained that the Presidential Recording Act created an administrative procedure for processing and releasing presidential materials of historic interest, which would include the recordings. For this portion of the opinion, the Court emphasized that it addressed only the application of the common law right to access judicial records. Turning to the First Amendment, the Court found that the situation did not implicate any constitutional right to access. The press was not prevented from publishing the testimony and those in attendance were allowed to listen to the tapes and report what they heard. Reporters were also provided transcripts of the tapes. Neither the media nor the public ever had physical access to the recordings.

In United States v. Beckham, 789 F.2d 401 (6th Cir. 1986) the media sought permission to make copies of audio recordings that were admitted as evidence and played in the criminal trial, as well as transcripts of the recordings. The district court denied the request and the media appealed. The Sixth Circuit found that the district court's denial did not violate the media's constitutional right of access. The court distinguished the opportunity to hear the audio recordings at trial from access to the recordings themselves. See Putnam Pit, Inc. v. City of Cookeville, Tennessee, 221 F.3d 834, 841 (6th Cir. 2000) (involving a tabloid and internet journalist who had access to hard copies of parking tickets and wanted the same information in electronic form and finding that "Davidian has no First Amendment right to government information in a particular form, as long as the information sought was made available as required by the First Amendment."). The court concluded, because the public and the media had the opportunity to attend the trial and could report what they observed, including what they heard when the tapes were played, "if a right to copy the tapes and transcripts in this case exists, it must come from a source other than the constitution."

At least four other circuit courts have declined to find the First Amendment right of access attaches to audio and video recordings played at a criminal trial. In re Providence Journal Co., Inc., 293 F.3d 1, (1st Cir. 2002) (involving a political corruption criminal case where excerpts of video and audio recordings were played at the trial, denying a newspaper's request for copies of the recordings, applying Nixon, and explaining that the "district court has not restricted media access to, or the publication of, any information in the public domain. Indeed, the district court has gone to great lengths to facilitate access to the trial proceedings . . . By affording interested members of the media ample opportunity to see and hear the tapes as they are played for the jury, the court has fulfilled its pertinent First Amendment obligations."); Fisher v. King, 232 F.3d 391, 396-97 (4th Cir. 2000) ("The precise question presented by Fisher's as-applied challenge, however, is whether the First Amendment provides him, as a member of the general public, a right to physical access to an audio tape that was played in open court in a criminal trial, admitted into evidence, and for which he possesses a complete verbatim transcript. Under the Supreme Court's decision in Nixon . . . , the answer to this question is no."); United States v. McDougal, 103 F.3d 651, 659 (8th Cir. 1996) (relying on Nixon, denying media organizations' physical access to and copies of a video recording of President Clinton used at the trial in the underlying criminal case and holding that "the First Amendment right of access to public information does not extend to the videotape of President Clinton's deposition testimony" where an edited version of the video was played at the trial which was open to the public, the transcript was admitted into evidence and made part of the record, and copies of the transcript were released to the public); Belo Broad. Corp. v. Clark, 654 F.2d 423, 426 (5th Cir. 1981) (involving audio recordings of discussions between criminal defendants and FBI operatives that were admitted into evidence at trial, applying Nixon, and holding the no First Amendment right of access to the tapes existed for the media).

The Court finds the reasoning in these opinions persuasive. Certainly, a difference arises between recordings presented as evidence at a trial and recordings of the proceedings themselves. For Plaintiffs' First Amendment right of access claim, however, that difference lacks significance. Plaintiffs were present for and participated in the proceedings. And, Plaintiffs were able to obtain a transcript of the proceedings. Those two facts satisfy the First Amendment's right of access. As the Sixth Circuit reasoned in Putman Pit, the right guarantees access to information, it does not guarantee the information be provided in a particular form. In the Court's view, the parties had access to the information contained in the recordings. The parties continue to have access to the information though the employment of a certified court reporter who could prepare a new transcript.

The Court concludes that Defendants did not deny Plaintiffs' First Amendment right of access [which sometimes provides protection beyond the common-law right]. While the Michigan Rules of Court might consider the audio recordings to be court records, the First Amendment does not consider those same recordings to be judicial records to which the public or press must have some access. And, even if the recordings are so protected, Plaintiffs were not denied access because they were present during the proceedings, have a transcript of the proceedings, and likely could pay for the preparation of another transcript of the proceedings.

The Court reaches no conclusion about whether the Local Administrative Order is a good idea. That concern is not before the Court. The privacy concerns that attend some family court and probate court proceedings likely would not apply herethe request for access was made by the parties themselves.

Frankly, the Court has difficulty finding a justification for denying the parties a copy of the audio recording. Although the First Amendment might not require the courts to permit access to audio recordings of proceedings, the amendment does not prohibit courts from making copies available. Even our United States Supreme Court, which has historically resisted cameras in the courtroom, makes audio recordings of its proceedings available through its website. The Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court both have YouTube channels and both archive audio recordings of proceedings, which are available on through their websites. In the wake of COVID-19 and the attendant health concerns, many local courts followed suit and established their own YouTube channels, including both Antrim and Bay counties (the links can be found at the Michigan Virtual Courtroom Director on the Michigan Supreme Court's webpage).

Excerpt from:

No First Amendment Right of Access to Court Recordings When Transcripts Are Available - Reason

A Nashville-based civic engagement group will host a panel discussion on Thursday to probe the line between First Amendment rights and tensions arising from disinformation, called Protected Speech and Fear in America.

As part of its Conversationalist Series, Millions of Conversations will share information from global conflict mediation expert Andrew Ladley and Deborah Fisher, director of the John Seigenthaler Chair of Excellence in First Amendment Studies at Middle Tennessee State University. Fisher is also executive director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government.

Samar Ali, president of Millions of Conversations, will moderate the event.

From main street to the halls of Washington D.C. our country is grappling with an unprecedented flow of information on social media and online that includes disinformation and language designed to incite fear and suspicion of our neighbors, Ali said. How we reconcile our First Amendment rights with these powerful communication tools is one of the greatest challenges of our generation.

Registration is required for the virtual event, which is scheduled for noon.

Millions of Conversations is a nonprofit organization that seeks to unite Americans around common values for a shared future through productive dialogue. The organization seeks to change existing narratives that marginalize and politicize the other. Starting with the predominating narrative about Muslim-Americans, its focus is on eliminating stigma in all its forms. By transcending divides, Millions of Conversations disrupts cycles of hate, combats misinformation, and challenges harmful stereotypes. The organization engages energetic voices at the grassroots level to reach people across America.

More:

Group hosts discussion on the First Amendment and disinformation Tennessee Lookout - Tennessee Lookout

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

Dear Editor,

I am responding to Rolland Myers letter to theeditor dated November 3rd. Mr. Myers contends that it is unlawful todisplay a flag that contains words that he finds offensive. He stateshis only interest is for our community not to be bombarded with vulgarlanguage, but privately you can curse like a sailor.

Unfortunately,in our society some curse words are used too often. Even if the areabbreviated the meaning is still understood. If you use Rolland Myersinterpretation of what he thinks is some court mandate as a guide tofree speech. I contend that Mr. Myers letter to the editor was equallyoffensive as the flag he complaints about. I counted twelveabbreviations to the word that offends him. Isnt the abbreviationsequally understood by the community and isnt the newspaper a publicforum? So, by Rolland Myers own standard he has broken the law bywriting a letter containing curse words, or is it okay to useabbreviated curse words?

Would the flag be tolerated if the curseword wasnt entirely spelled out? Is Mr. Myers and the newspaper bothguilty of contributing to the decline of our community through theprinting of such vulgar language.

If you think the sing should betaken down then you must also find equal fault with Rollands use ofthee the same words and the newspaper for printing Rollands letter. Ipersonally dont believe the words on the flag are the issue, especiallysince the same words (even though they are abbreviated) flow so easilyand profusely from Rollands finger tips.

So, what is the realissue about the flag? Maybe its the color, maybe the flag is just areason to write a letter and try to degrade someone with a differentpolitical point of view. Tucked away in all of Rolland Myers curse wordabbreviations is this phrase: this petty display of Trumptemperament.

The agenda of radical liberals is always the same,degrade everyone who doesnt agree with them and to use any method toaccomplish that goal.

Rolland (stop embarrassing yourself) if yourfree speech right can contain abbreviations of vulgar language - yourneighbors have the same right to their free speech. You seem to believeyour right is protected, but your neighbors isnt (typical liberal).

Keith Myers

Oakwood, Ohio

419-594-2485

Read more here:

A rebuttal to the argument on the First Amendment - The Paulding County Progress

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

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

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

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

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...