That 1964 ruling created a higher bar for public figures to claim libel and has been a bedrock of US media law, but the two conservative justices said it's time to take another look.

He added that "thanks to the revolutions in technology, today virtually anyone in this county can publish virtually anything for immediate consumption virtually anywhere in the world."

Gorsuch and Thomas wrote as they dissented when the court declined to take up a case from the son of a former prime minister of Albania who claimed several statements were defamatory in a book that was later turned into the Hollywood film, "War Dogs."

"Not only has the doctrine evolved into a subsidy for published falsehoods on a scale no one could have foreseen, it has come to leave far more people without redress than anyone could have predicted," Gorsuch said.

He added that previous tests courts have used "seem increasingly malleable and even archaic when almost anyone can attract some degree of public notoriety in some media segment."

Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said Gorsuch's public move "is a pretty big deal."

"Sullivan provides crucial protection of the independence of news outlets, whose reporting might otherwise be chilled, even for accurate stories, if it were easier to sue them for defamation," Vladeck said. "The more justices who look poised to potentially revisit that precedent in the coming years, the more alarming Justice Thomas's previously idiosyncratic critiques become."

Thomas said that the court's earlier pronouncements that the First Amendment "required public figures to establish actual malice bears no relation to the text, history or structure of the Constitution."

"The proliferation of falsehoods is, and always has been, a serious matter. Instead of continuing to insulate those who perpetrate lies from traditional remedies like libel suits, we should give them only the protection the First Amendment requires," he wrote.

Thomas often plants seeds on issues he thinks should attract more attention from his colleagues.

In 2019 he, alone, urged the court to take another look at New York Times v. Sullivan calling it a policy-driven decision "masquerading as constitutional law." He has also suggested that Congress should consider whether laws should be updated to regulate social media platforms that he said have come to have "unbridled control" over speech.

Albanian brought First Amendment challenge

The case the court rejected Friday was brought by Shkelzen Berisha, a resident of Albania and son of a former prime minister. He sought to challenge several statements that he said are defamatory in a book called "Arms and the Dudes: How Three Stoners from Miami Beach Became the Most Unlikely Gunrunners in History." It was later turned into the Hollywood feature film "War Dogs" starring Jonah Hill and Miles Teller.

The book says that Berisha met with "dudes" in Albania to arrange the delivery and repackaging of munitions.

In court papers, a lawyer for Berisha argues that the " petition presents an important constitutional question: should the First Amendment continue to shield from liability publishers of false defamatory statements merely because the subject of these statements is deemed a 'public figure' and cannot show that they were made with actual malice."

Lawyers for the authors and their publishers say that Berisha has "100% name recognition" in his country.

"In 2008, it was widely reported that he was part of an arms dealing cabal within the Albanian government involving state-owned weapons" they said and added that the "same cabal reportedly defrauded the U.S. government by setting up a kickback scheme through which Petitioner and others profited from the sale of Albanian ammunition stockpiles needed to equip the Afghan security forces."

They said that there is "no question" that Berisha is a public figure under current law and that he cannot establish actual malice "because the book's reporting was informed by voluminous news reports" about his "corrupt activities."

A district court ruled against Berisha holding that he is a "limited public figure" and that he had to demonstrate actual malice to prevail in his claim.

CNN's Veronica Stracqualursi contributed to this report.

Read more:

Justices Gorsuch and Thomas call to revisit landmark First Amendment case New York Times v. Sullivan - CNN

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged a new Tennessee law that requires businesses to post a sign alerting customers if they allow people to use restrooms that dont match their biological sex. The ACLU says the state is unconstitutionally compelling speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed HB 1182into law on May 17, and it is set to take effect on July 1. Unlike other restroom bills, Tennessees does not dictate who can use a facility or target transgender individuals. Under the law, public or private entities or businesses open to the public that dont restrict restroom access by biological sex must post a boldface notice: This facility maintains a policy of allowing the use of restrooms by either biological sex, regardless of the designation on the restroom.

The Friday complaint slams the new law as anti-transgender in its use of the phrase biological sex and contends it is aimed at transgender individuals even if it doesnt mention them. It also argues the state is unconstitutionally forcing businesses to endorse an anti-transgender message.

Republican Rep. Tim Rudd, who sponsored the bill, said it is not discriminatory because it does not limit who can use a restroom, but protects the privacy of those who prefer not to share a facility with someone of the opposite biological sex. Whether youre a man or woman, dont you want to know who might be waiting on the other side of a bathroom door when you go in? Rudd said. Everyone has a reasonable expectation to the right of privacy and dignity when using the restroom.

But Regent Law School professor Brad Jacob said the case is not so simple: As unsympathetic as I am with the idea that you can just declare yourself to be the opposite sex and then that makes it reality, I think this is a classic First Amendment compelled speech case.

He noted the cases similarity with the Supreme Courts 2018 rulingin NIFLA v. Becerra. The justices struck down a law in California requiring crisis pregnancy centers to post a notice that the state provides free or low-cost services, including abortions, and provide a phone number. They found such a requirement unduly burdened the centers free speech.

States are flushwith legislation related to the transgender issue, including regulating access to single-gender facilities, defending female athletes from having to compete against men who identify as women, and protecting minors from gender transition treatments.

But the Supreme Court does not appear poised to enter the fray. The justices on Monday let stand an August 2020 appeals court rulingagainst a Virginia school boards policy limiting restroom use to members of the same biological sex. Gavin Grimm, a female student who identified as male, sued after the Gloucester County high school denied access to the boys restroom in 2017. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas indicated they would have taken the casefour are required to put a case on the docket.

Conflict between LGBT activists and religious liberty advocates will likely continue, Jacob said, since neither side will go away. We have to find a way of letting each side live their own convictions without trying to beat down the other, he said. Unfortunately, thats not where we seem to be going at the present.

Read more:

Restroom wars and the First Amendment | WORLD - WORLD News Group

A new memorial that honors five slain Capital Gazette staff members was unveiled in a public ceremony in Annapolis on Monday, the third anniversary of a mass shooting in the papers newsroom.

The Guardians of the First Amendment memorial honors Wendi Winters, John McNamara, Gerald Fischman, Rebecca Smith and Rob Hiaasen. The memorial, designed by Moody Graham, features an engraving of the newspapers stark front page the day after the attack: 5 shot dead at The Capital. The victims are represented by five granite towers that stand in front of a brick wall engraved with the amendment that established the freedom of the press.

I want Wendy, Rob, Gerald, Rebecca and John to be remembered with words like guardians. It will give their names weight, the weight they deserve, Phil Davis, a survivor of the shooting, said at the ceremony in Newman Park, joined by victims family members and politicians.

But I also knew these five as people, he said.

Davis called Wendi Winters the center of every conversation who offered unique insight into Annapolis and depicted the city as it truly was. He remembered John McNamara as a reporter whose passion for local sports was infectious, who delighted in sharing basketball history. Gerald Fischman was a stoic yet thorough editor with a command on language; Rebecca Smith was a collaborative, engaged sales assistant who helped out with stories when she could. Davis described Rob Hiaasen as a passionate editor who inspired reporters to take creative risks and focus on the people behind the stories so we can tell stories that will stick with people long after they put the newspaper down.

These are people with families, interests and desires that were all unique and very much in line with furthering the communities that they serve, he said.

Davis noted also that time and corporate interests did not stand still after tragedy. Earlier this year, Tribune Publishing shareholders voted to sell the Capital, the Baltimore Sun and several other Sun-affiliated papers to the hedge fund Alden Global Capital, despite offers from Maryland hotel executive Stewart Bainum Jr.

Alden representatives have said the hedge fund seeks to carve a sustainable path for local news, but its better known for slashing newsrooms throughout the country by selling assets and laying off newsroom staffers. Former Capital journalists Rick Hutzell, Danielle Ohl and Chase Cook took a buyout from Alden this month.

I want a future where there's also a freedom for the people of the press, where humanity takes precedence, Davis, who now works at the Sun, said.

Anne Arundel County Executive Steuart Pittman joined Davis in sharing remembrances and said he sent Alden a letter about the value of journalism.

I hope that they will visit this community soon. I hope that their stockholders hear our story, and work with us to grow, rather than shrink, our newspaper. And if they dont, I hope that we can find a way to recreate what they take away from us, he said.

David Simon, creator of HBOs The Wire and a former Sun journalist who was friends with some of the victims, delivered an address titled The Death of Truth.

I come to you as an emissary from a time when good newspapers were not pitied or mourned by the governing powers but were considered with ruthful wariness and even feared at moments by those in authority, he said.

Jarrod Ramos, 41, pleaded guilty but not criminally responsible by reason of insanity to 23 counts tied to the killings in October 2019. A trial to determine his sanity is set to begin this week. If the gunman is found not criminally responsible, he will be committed to a maximum-security psychiatric hospital rather than a prison.

WAMUs Dominique Maria Bonessi contributed to this report.

Continue reading here:

'Guardians of the First Amendment' Memorial Unveiled In Annapolis - WYPR

I have long been a critic of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g). This regime would empower the state to regulate an attorney's speech that is not connected to any judicial forum. Specifically, the Bar could discipline a lawyer for dinner-time conversation at a bar function, or potentially impose liability for a contentious debate topic. Much of my argument is grounded in the First Amendment. This rule imposes an overt form of viewpoint discrimination. Moreover, phrases like "demeaning" are unconstitutionally vague. However, I have also advanced a parallel argument: the Bar lacks the authority to regulate all facets of an attorney's existence. These state agencies are chartered for specific purposes: the regulation of the practice of the law. The Bar is not roving a commission to impose some progressive sense of civility.

This background brings me to the situation affecting Rudy Giuliani. Recently, the Appellate Division (First Judicial Department) temporarily suspended Rudy's license to practice law. The per curiam decision offered this summary:

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that there is uncontroverted evidence that respondent communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump's failed effort at reelection in 2020. These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent's narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client. We conclude that respondent's conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law, pending further proceedings before the Attorney Grievance Committee (sometimes AGC or Committee).

I understand that schadenfreude is enticing. People enjoy seeing misfortunes fall on Rudy, Sidney Powell, and the rest of the Krakenbrigade. I get it. Still, we all have the responsibility to defend the rights of those we vigorously disagree witheven Rudy.

Here, I write to praise an Op-Ed by Professors Bruce Green and Rebecca Roiphe in the Washington Post. They are not MAGAphiles. To the contrary, they call out Rudy's lies about the election. But they recognize the dangerous, and chilling precedent the New York courts have set. Kudos to Green and Roiphe.

The opinion states:

This disciplinary proceeding concerns the professional restrictions imposed on respondent as an attorney to not knowingly misrepresent facts and make false statements in connection with his representation of a client.

This category resembles the catchall in ABA Model Rule 8.4(g): conduct related to the practice of law. You now see what this expansion of authority is so pernicious.

Green and Roiphe explain that the gravamen of the suspension was based not on statements in court, but statements to the press.

Except for one assertion about the status of a complaint, which he later corrected, Giuliani is not accused of improprieties in court proceedings where he functioned as an advocate. For the most part, the court focused on Giuliani's public statements and justified its interim suspension by citing the risk that Giuliani would continue disseminating "false statements in the media" while the disciplinary process ran its course.

And lawyers retain their First Amendment rights when speaking to the press:

In Giuliani's case, the court gave the First Amendment concerns short shrift, because the case was about his professional improprieties "in connection with his representation of a client." We agree that courts have the right to enforce rules requiring lawyers to be truthful to protect the integrity of a court proceeding or the wellbeing of a client. But it is hard to see how either of those are at issue here . . . .

And that right includes the right to lie about the government:

Lawyers have the right as private citizens to engage in political debate. This includes a right to lie about the government not because lies are desirable, but because it is too dangerous to give the state the power to determine which statements are true or false when it comes to political speech. Robust political debate would be chilled because people would fear misspeaking. Efforts to expose government wrongdoing would be abandoned out of concern about retribution.

To encourage criticism of the government, the First Amendment gives the public breathing room. Lawyers need it too. They should not have to choose between a law license and the license to engage in the same vigorous political speech as other citizens. It is true that lawyers are officers of the court, but they have also historically played an important part in holding government to account. It would be a shame to strip them of this powerful role.

Well said. Here, the courts did not rely on potentially defamatory statements--an issue that is currently being litigated in other courts.

If the ACLU or the NYCLU has said anything about this issue, please tell me; I haven't seen a peep.

On a personal note, it is still difficult for me to fathom Rudy's fall from grace. I grew up in the 1990s on Staten Islandthe borough that helped put the Republican into office. Rudy was a giant. He was well-respected by everyone I knew. He made cameos in movie and TV shows. He was an icon! I still remember when Rudy visited my 4th grade class with his then-wife, Donna Hannover. After September 11, Rudy became a titan of a leader. His regular press conferences brought calm and stability during a hectic time. The sky was the limit for him. Alas, over the past two decades, things have changed.

Update: An earlier version of the post stated that Rudy was not disciplined for anything he did in court. There is one allegation concerning his statements made to a Philadelphia federal court, detailed on pages 11-14, that I had missed.

View original post here:

Rudy's First Amendment Right to Lie to the Press - Reason

(The Center Square) The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa calls Iowas new law that increases penalties for unlawful protest an intimidation tactic.

Gov. Kim Reynolds signed SF 342, known as the Back the Blue Act, into law on June 17. It makes rioting a felony offense, increases penalties on other destructive behaviors, establishes qualified immunity, and increases due process protections for law enforcement, the Governors officesaid.

A lot of our concern about this particular law comes into play is in the ways that we think that it will inhibit people from exercising their First Amendment rights through enhanced penalties through new offenses. And through this, this notion that police cant be held accountable if they abused their power, ACLU of Iowa Executive Director Mark Stringer told The Center Square.

Examples of the enhanced penalties include upping the penalty for unlawful assembly from a simple to an aggravated misdemeanor, he said. That takes it from punishable to up to 30 days in jail to punishable for up to two years.

The law also creates another way to commit this kind of offense. A protester who joins a lawful assembly but then remains after the person knows that it has become an unlawful assembly could face those charges, which Stringer said isnt on its face unconstitutional.

Another ACLU concern is the provision that grants civil liability immunity for drivers who exercise due care and injure a person participating in a protest even if its a lawful protest. That gives immunity if a driver hits a protestor, he said.

Why are we creating a law that basically gives special treatment to a driver who happens to be interacting with a protest as opposed to any other gathering? The whole thing is odd, frankly, Stringer said.

The ACLU of Iowa will wait and see how the law is enforced to determine its next steps, he said.

Our kind of approach is always you have to wait and see how this unfolds. We are not hopeful that it wont impact peoples protesting rights, Stringer said.

On its face, the plain text of the law doesnt criminalize lawful protest, he said.

But we also know just from last summer, that police sometimes respond to lawful protest by arresting protesters with little or no basis, Stringer said.

That happened with several Black Lives Matter protestors and some journalists. The criminal charges were later dropped by prosecutors, or their cases ended in acquittals because there was no evidence against them, he said.

The state has enhanced penalties for protestors and given police less accountability by codifying broad immunity from state law claims brought by people who are harmed by police action, he said.

It comes directly in response to thousands of protesters, most of whom were peaceful, law-abiding, Stringer said.

See the rest here:

ACLU of Iowa Says 'Back the Blue Act' Could Inhibit First Amendment Rights - The Iowa Torch

News Photo by Steve SchulwitzA beret hangs on a white cross at Little Flanders Field in Alpena on Friday. The cross in the cemetery honors a local hero who died while serving our country. On Sunday, our nation celebrates Independence Day and the freedoms made possible from our fallen heroes.

ALPENA The word freedom can mean many different things to people.

Freedom to some is defined as the principles listed in the Bill of Rights. For others it is an idea or wish that never fully holds up to its definition.

In Alpena, a person doesnt have to travel far to see an American flag waving from someones porch or proudly displayed at a business. Red, white, and blue merchandise is widely available at many stores year-round. It is not uncommon to see people wearing apparel with stars and stripes, showing their patriotism.

The News recently talked to residents about what freedom means to them and how it impacts their lives.

Trevor Tagallini, of Hubbard Lake, said freedom is taken for granted because Americans are born with it and know no other way of life without it. He said without the assurances granted to citizens of the United States, life for many would look a lot different.

There are a lot of people that take our freedom for granted, Tagallini said. Were pretty lucky when you think about it. Why do you think people want to come to America from other countries? Its because they dont have the freedoms and rights that we have.

When thinking about rights and freedom, some people think of the First Amendment and Second Amendment.

The First Amendment protects the freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and the right to petition, while the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

Mark Gross, of Alpena, said simple things like owning property, choosing your own partner to marry, the right to a fair trial, and being able to vote are rights that are often taken for granted.

I hear an awful lot of complaining about what we cant do or what we dont have, and very little about what we can do or do have, Gross said. People in other countries would never be able to get away with the crap we do. Is our system perfect? No its not. Are we lucky to have the rights we do have? Yes.

Not everyone agrees that citizens are as free as they believe. Mitch Templeton said peoples right to free speech is being violated daily, especially on social media, and other rights, such as the right to bear arms, are also under attack.

We are told how to behave at every level of our lives by our government and if we question things we are silenced or threatened, Templeton said. I thought a democracy gave everyone an even say in decisions. I think the people need to have more control over their own lives and the lives of their families. Government has too much power and is crooked. We arent free.

Joanne Swift said she is going to enjoy all of the events in Alpena to celebrate the Fourth of July and enjoy time with her family. She said during that time, her mind will also reflect on the men and women who sacrificed their lives to earn and preserve the freedom she now has.

Our independence didnt come without a cost, she said. Im always reminded of that on the Fourth, and every time I say the Pledge of Allegiance, or hear the National Anthem. I think, for the most part, most people do.

Tim Kuehnlein is an instructor of political science and history at Alpena Community College. He said freedom is cherished by Americans, but it also changes with the times.

Freedom, or liberty, is something Americans clearly hold dear. It is a moral imperative of the American creed, Kuehnlein said. Freedom is often illusive, in constant flux, and often with lots of pretense. Freedom is something we strive for in perpetual motion as we push its limits throughout the ages. For freedom to truly exist for anyone for any sustainable length of time requires that the parameters of freedom be respected by everyone relative to one another.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the original post here:

Local residents reflect on what freedom means to them - Alpena News

The Supreme Court just completed its first term with former President TrumpDonald TrumpGarland imposes moratorium on federal executions White House releases staff salaries showing narrowed gender pay gap Los Angeles Dodgers to visit the White House on Friday MOREs nominees accounting for a third of the justices.

The dozens of cases decided this term, which included landmark rulings on voting rights and the First Amendment, provided the clearest indication yet of the 6-3 conservative courts increasingly rightward tilt.

Here are five takeaways.

The court is shifting to the right

Many on the right had hoped, and liberals feared, that the 6-3 conservative court would veer sharply to the right.

On Thursday, the final day of the term, those expectations were borne out. With a pair of 6-3 votes that broke along ideological lines, the conservative majority upheld two GOP-backed Arizona voting restrictions and struck down a California law requiring charities to disclose their major donors.

These rulings represent exactly that sharp-right turn that so many expected, said Steve Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Before Thursday, the justices had charted a more incremental rightward shift.

For instance, in one high-profile case this term the court ruled unanimously for a Catholic charity over same-sex couples seeking adoptions but only on relatively narrow grounds.

The justices also spared ObamaCare from its third major Republican challenge in roughly a decade, rebuffing the 18 GOP-led states that sought to invalidate a core piece of the 2010 health care law or see it struck down entirely.

Both of those closely watched cases fizzled out, Schwinn said.

The justices this term also largely maintained continuity in their approach to search-and-seizure cases. The same goes for their First Amendment jurisprudence in a ruling that favored students off-campus speech rights, said Schwinn, noting that those decisions were fairly consistent with the courts past rulings.

Still some room for consensus

The court managed to reach consensus in several hot-button cases despite its rightward lean.

Some experts attributed this to Chief Justice John Robertss judicial minimalism.

Roberts is a champion of this notion of minimalism, which is that the court should decide cases on the narrowest possible grounds, David Cole, the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said in a briefing last week. One of the things about deciding cases on the narrowest possible grounds is it makes it easier for more people to agree who have different worldviews.

Cole successfully argued the student speech rights case this term, which garnered an 8-1 victory, with Justice Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasSupreme Court strikes down California donor disclosure rule Supreme Court leaves CDC eviction moratorium intact The Hill's Morning Report - McConnell pressures Dem leaders to follow Biden's infrastructure lead MORE as the lone dissenter.

Overall, the chief justices skill for bridging the ideological divide was still visible this term, some experts said.

The Chief Justice remains successful at pushing for broader unanimity and narrower opinions than people expect, as Fulton (the LGBT adoption case) and the health care case show, said Jonathan Adler, a law professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, in an email to The Hill.

Religious rights groups extend winning streak

The court continued its practice of issuing favorable rulings for religious interests.

In the biggest religion case on the docket, Fulton v. Philadelphia, the justices ruled on narrow grounds that Philadelphia had run afoul of religious protections when it cut ties with a Catholic adoption agency over its refusal to work with same-sex couples seeking adoptions.

The three most conservative justices were prepared to go even further, indicating they would have replaced the courts landmark 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith with a more robust approach to religious liberty claims. Three other justices expressed an openness to doing so in the future, signaling that the 30-year-old precedent set by Smith may be on shaky ground.

The court also sided with religious groups in cases that reached the court through emergency applications, on what is sometimes referred to as its shadow docket, including clashes between houses of worship and public health restrictions put in place amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Some court watchers have expressed concern that the conservative-majority court has become so sympathetic to religious claims that it has effectively elevated those interests above other constitutional protections.

What we've seen over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic is that the Supreme Court has now created a new constitutional test for the protection of free exercise of religion that is more robust than its standard for basically any other fundamental constitutional right, said Elizabeth Reiner Platt, director of the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia University Law School.

Losing streak continues for voting rights

The court delivered another blow to the 1965 Voting Rights Act by ruling that a pair of Arizona voting restrictions did not run afoul of protections for minority groups.

The 6-3 decision came eight years after the court gutted a separate provision of the landmark law that had effectively given the Justice Department veto power over racially suspect changes to voting procedures in places with a history of discrimination.

The conservative Supreme Court has taken away all the major available tools for going after voting restrictions, said election law expert Rick Hasen, referring to the string of recent voting rights decisions. This at a time when some Republican states are passing new restrictive voting laws.

One Arizona policy that came before the court required provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct to be discarded. The second measure considered in the case made it illegal for most third parties to deliver ballots for others, a practice critics refer to as ballot harvesting.

Thursdays decision reversed a federal appeals court ruling last year that found the Arizona policies violated the Voting Rights Act because they disproportionately affected minority groups.

The Supreme Court ruling comes as a raft of restrictive GOP-crafted voting limits are introduced and passed across the country, and the high courts decision could make it harder for Democrats and civil rights groups to win court challenges on the grounds that the new measures are racially discriminatory.

A warm-up act?

Court watchers are wondering if this terms trajectory, in which the conservative majority showed a degree of restraint, will give way to an even sharper rightward turn.

Some say its simply too soon to tell. Given the generally slow-moving pace of the law, a single term is a tiny sample size, and this latest term may not have reflected the most illuminating of test cases.

It was not a docket this year with that many cases defined by ideology, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.

By contrast, he said, the courts next term could prove more revealing, and more politically influential given the 2022 midterms on the horizon.

The next term, which starts in October, already features cases with greater potential for the kind of explosive ideological clashes that the court managed to side-step several times in its latest term.

I think this term will be regarded in hindsight as the warm-up act for next years docket, which will have abortion, gun rights and maybe affirmative action, Chemerinsky said.

See the original post:

Five takeaways from the Supreme Court's term | TheHill - The Hill

Prof. Richard Pelz-Steele at UMass Law (Dartmouth) has the details; an excerpt:

UMass Lowell seems, so far, to be taking a principled position in a controversy over a neo-Nazi student.

According toPatch, the University of Massachusetts Lowell sent a letter to students and faculty last week saying that it could not suspend a student tied to a neo-Nazi, hate group simply because of the association. At the same time, the university pledged to investigate specific threats, alleged crimes, or incidents of hate speech, and to enforce theStudent Code of Conduct.

The student in question appeared on a live-stream posted on Telegram, and re-posted to Twitter by a watch group, with the founder of "NSC-131," an organization founded in opposition to Black Lives Matter and identified as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League,Patchreportedearlier this month.

A Change.orgpetition, with more than 11,000 signatures at the time of this writing, accuses UMass Lowell of being "blatantly permissive of not only racism and hate speech (which they state is protected under Freedom of Speech) but outright criminal activity and Neo-Nazism" in protecting the student. The petition accuses the student, by name, of having violated already the Student Code of Conduct and, through alleged participation in the January 6 Capitol riot, the statevandalism law.Patch reported the appearance of NSC-131 at the Capitol riot, but no personal involvement by the student.

Looks like the petitioners are partying like it's 1949, but the university is correctly resisting.

Read the original here:

"UMass Lowell Stands with First Amendment, for Now, in Row over Student Tied to Neo-Nazi Hate Group" - Reason

Stephen Davis: Eye on Education

Two hot-button issues have recently emerged in the ongoing debate surrounding academic freedom and free speech in public schools.

One issue centers on concerns related to the inclusion of critical race theory in American school curricula (e.g., systemic racial discrimination in society). The other centers on the U.S. Supreme Courts recent ruling in favor of a former high school cheerleader who was punished by her school for posting profane comments about the school on Snapchat while she was off school grounds.

Both examples contain important implications for how public schools manage controversial issues.

Before addressing the merits of each, it is important to note that academic freedom and free speech are closely related legal concepts that have somewhat different implications for universities and public schools. The modern concept of academic freedom which emerged from 19th century German universities rests upon a broad intellectual landscape of ideas unconstrained by narrow partisan or political interests.

The U.S. Supreme Court stated, Our nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendental value to us all and not merely to the teachers concerned. . . . The First Amendment does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom.

However, the application of academic freedom in public schools is less clear and continues to be a topic of debate practically, politically and in the courts. While the U.S. Supreme Court has largely avoided ruling on academic freedom cases in public schools, lower courts have provided considerable guidance. In general, lower courts have protected local school boards and their authority to make curricular decisions influenced by community values and needs.

Moreover, courts have ruled that public schools are subject to state legislative authority and must conform to the education laws and regulations enacted by the state.

Importantly, while cases relating to academic freedom typically focus on the behaviors and practices of professional educators, cases relating to freedom of speech (more generally) have rendered important implications for both educators and students. In recent years, court cases related to freedom of speech in public schools have leaned in favor of more student expression rather than less.

Nevertheless, this distinction is not razor-sharp, and the rights of public school students are not unlimited.

In the Supreme Court case involving the high school cheerleader, the content of the students speech was profane and objectionable. However, it did not rise to the level of a material disruption to the school. No one was threatened or slandered. Moreover, the student posted her comments from home on her personal computer on a widely used social network.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, . . . sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary. Breyers comment echoed the courts earlier ruling that, students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

The debate over critical race theory, also tethered to the First Amendment, is amplified most by differing political perspectives. Importantly, state legislatures and local school boards possess sole authority to determine what is taught and how. Individual schools, teachers, administrators and labor unions have no independent authority to ignore or modify state laws and local board policies.

The ideas that define critical race theory are not new. To varying degrees, states and local school districts have been addressing elements of the theory for nearly 50 years. There are important arguments made by advocates and opponents of the theory that ultimately must be processed through rigorous public debate and policy-making processes.

While I believe that to the extent possible, public schools ought to be included in the open marketplace of ideas, it is particularly important that students are not sheltered from controversial ideas that are based upon thoughtful arguments and alternative interpretations.

After all, a central mission of public education is to help students become independent, open-minded, ethical and creative thinkers.

Stephen Davis is a career educator who writes a column that publishes every other Wednesday in the Daily Republic. Reach him by email at[emailprotected].

Related

Read more from the original source:

Eye on Education: Addressing First Amendment controversies in public schools - Fairfield Daily Republic

We are well into the season of summertime celebrations, community get-togethers that occur over the weekends in big cities and small towns across Minnesota. If you havent enjoyed one, especially some of the adorable small-town celebrations, I highly encourage a road trip. Explore Minnesota has a full rundown of festivals and events across Minnesota all summer long.

Sadly, theres another unfortunate tradition that will occur across the state this Independence Day weekend and throughout the summer. While the United States Stars and Stripes is by far the most common flag you will see across the state, occasionally youll witness the flying of the Confederate flag as well, the flag of the enemy of the United States, an insurrectionist army that attacked the United States in an effort to continue slavery as a way of life.

Let me be very clear. As a veteran of the U.S. Army, I do understand the First Amendment, and if you so choose to express your freedom of speech by flying that flag, thats your right. I wont respect you, but I do respect your right to display the flag of an enemy of the United States (fact). Ill proudly be flying the Stars and Stripes. The point of this essay is to express my concern over official vehicles (fire trucks, police cars, vehicles carrying local elected officials) that seem to pop up in some of these community celebrations/parades, proudly displaying the flag of the Confederacy.

In Minnesota, this is especially a heinous act when you look back at the bravery and sacrifice of the 1st Minnesota Infantry Regiment at Gettysburg on July 2, 1863.

Article continues after advertisement

Although this essay is about to become a history lesson, this isnt about debating critical race theory, or whether we should even mention the traditional Native American name for Fort Snelling (Bdote, which is cool!). This isnt about revisiting a white-centric cultural hero, like Christopher Columbus, whose undeniable negative checklist far outweighs his contributions. This is about whether the same people who claim to be proud Minnesotans can claim to be so if they embrace the flag of the Confederacy, and in turn ignore the near immeasurable sacrifice of the 1st Minnesota.

In the late afternoon of July 2, 1863, little more than five years after Minnesota had become a state, the Union had a major hole in its line on Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg. The second day of fighting had been brutal, with the Confederacy looking to end the war once and for all by overrunning the Union line. As the Union troops were trying desperately to hold the hill, a major hole opened up and nearly 1,200 Confederate troops marched forward. The only unit that could stop them was the grossly outnumbered 1st Minnesota. They had 262 men.

They never hesitated. The 1st Minnesota charged into the fray. The chaos and insanity that unfolded in the next few minutes is hard to comprehend. Within five minutes, 215 of the 262 men of the 1st Minnesota fell. When the soldier carrying the Minnesota colors was killed, another dropped their weapon and grabbed the flag. Five times that happened IN FIVE MINUTES. Minnesotas brave, courageous and desperate sacrifice held until reinforcements arrived. The 82% casualty rate still stands as the U.S. Armys largest loss of life of any unit which still stood at the end of the battle. Minnesotas colors never were captured, and are on display at the Capitol in the rotunda. Most important, the Union line held for the day.

In case Im burying the lead, Minnesota saved the Union from the traitorous Confederates on July 2, 1863. Thats not just an opinion. Maj. General Hancock, who had ordered the 1st Minnesota into the Confederate line, considered them to be entitled to the rank of saviors of their country. Minnesota has a large memorial in Gettysburg describing their sacrifice. I wept openly in its shadow.

Matthew McNeil

When Ive seen a Confederate flag on an official vehicle or on an official display at a Minnesota festival, I dont go and try to rip in down. I dont scream about how the people who put it up are racist. I simply ask if the people flying the flag know anything about the 1st Minnesota. They always say no. I then inform them of whose side they are taking by flying the Confederate flag, usually as they clearly get more and more uncomfortable with their decisions.

Now that you know about the 1st Minnesotas history, its up to Minnesotans to determine if flying the Confederate flag is appropriate (although I can argue flying it around the United States Independence Day seems misguided). If you do fly a Confederate Flag in an official capacity in Minnesota, then do not tell me youre a proud Minnesotan. A proud Minnesotan would know their history and would always put the 1st Minnesota First, well ahead of the enemies of Minnesota and the United States.

MatthewMcNeilis the host oftheMattMcNeilshow, weekdays, 4 to 6 p.m., on AM950, KTNF.

If youre interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below or consider writinga letteror a longer-formCommunity Voicescommentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see ourSubmission Guidelines.)

More here:

Remember the 1st Minnesota Infantry Regiment, and what it did at Gettysburg - MinnPost