From Khan v. Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd., decided in 2018 but just posted on Westlaw (Judge Anthony C. Epstein, D.C. Super. Ct.) (affirmed as to other matters in a 2020 D.C. Ct. App. decision):

This case involves what has become known as the "Steele Dossier." The relatively small portion of the Steele Dossier at issue in this case discusses the relationship between plaintiffs German Khan, Mikhal Fridman, and Petr Aven and the Russian government, but it does not discuss specific information linking them to any Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election or to any specific American candidate.

The Court concludes that the Anti-SLAPP Act requires dismissal of this case because Defendants have made a prima facie case that the Act applies to their provision of this portion of the Steele Dossier to the media, and Plaintiffs have not submitted evidence that Defendants knew any of this information was false or acted with reckless disregard of its falsity.

On April 16, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants for defamation. Plaintiffs make the following allegations in their complaint. Plaintiffs are international businessmen who are the beneficial owners of Alfa-Bank (a.k.a. Alfa Group), which is based in Russia; Mr. Fridman and Mr. Khan are each citizens of both Russia and Israel, and Mr. Aven is a citizen of Russia. Mr. Steele is a U.K. citizen and a principal of Orbis, a U.K.-based company. Defendants were hired in June 2016 by Fusion GPS ("Fusion"), a Washington, D.C.-based firm that conducts political opposition research, to compile information about then-candidate Donald J. Trump's ties to Russia and Vladimir Putin. Fusion was originally hired during the primary phase of the 2016 election cycle by Republicans. After the Republican convention, Fusion was hired by the Democratic National Committee and the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

The Court assumes without deciding that the Anti-SLAPP Act applies only to conduct that is protected by the First Amendment. [But] Plaintiffs have not cited, and the Court is not aware of, any case holding that the defenses that a defendant in a defamation case may assert under D.C. law or the First Amendment depend on whether the defendant is a U.S. citizen or entity.

{It is ironic that Plaintiffs, who are non-resident aliens with Russian and/or Israeli citizenship, argue that non-resident aliens do not have rights that the First Amendment requires a U.S. court to respectwhile petitioning a U.S. court for a redress of their grievances and invoking a constitutional right to conduct discovery. Plaintiffs do not explain why non-resident aliens have the same rights as U.S. citizens to bring defamation actions, but non-resident aliens do not have the same rights as U.S. citizens to defend themselves.}

[A]dvocacy on issues of public interest has the capacity to inform public debate, and thereby furthers the purposes of the First Amendment, regardless of the citizenship or residency of the speaker. [T]he First Amendment "guarantees are not for the benefit of the press so much as for the benefit of all of us." "It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas." As a result, the interest of U.S. citizens in receiving information that the First Amendment protects does not depend on whether the speaker is a U.S. citizen or resident.

It is in this context that the Court evaluates Plaintiffs' argument that the First Amendment does not apply to Defendants' speech. It is well established that non-citizens "enjoy certain constitutional rights." United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) indicates that a non-citizen must have "substantial connections with the country" before he can "receive constitutional protections." See Johnson v. Eisentrager (1950) ("The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society.").

[T]he Court need not undertake to determine, as a general matter, how "substantial" a non-resident alien's connections with this country must be to merit the protections of the First Amendment for speech in the United States. The Court need not define the precise line because Mr. Steele and Orbis and their speech have ample connections with the United States that are clearly substantial enough to merit First Amendment protection.

According to Plaintiffs' own complaint, U.S. clients hired Mr. Steele and Orbis, and a U.S. presidential candidate was the subject of the investigation that they were hired to conduct. Furthermore, Mr. Steele was in the United States when he briefed U.S.-based media organizations about the results of his investigation, and Plaintiffs do not dispute that Mr. Steele was lawfully present in the United States when he provided his briefings. These U.S.-based media organizations reported on allegations in the Steele Dossier in the United States.

Plaintiffs themselves allege that the Court has jurisdiction because "Orbis and Steele transacted business in the District of Columbia." Plaintiffs' summary of their jurisdictional allegations is apt: "In sum, Steele, acting for himself and Orbis, has engaged in a persistent course of conduct, often with Fusion and Simpson, intended to have and which did have effects in the District, by meeting with District based media and government employees to bring his reports on 'Russia matters' to their attention."

{The Court does not suggest that aliens who are not legally present in the United States automatically lack First Amendment rights. This case does not present that issue.}

Moreover, Plaintiffs recognize that Mr. Steele had substantial ongoing connections with the United States even before U.S. clients hired him to gather information relating to the 2016 presidential election:

"Steele, on behalf of himself and Orbis, has engaged in other ongoing business relationships with entities located in the District. Steele and Orbis have been retained repeatedly by the District-based F.B.I. to assist in various investigations between 2009 and 2016, and, as alleged above, Steele and Orbis have had an ongoing professional relationship with Fusion for years. And as also noted above, according to Winer, during his 2013-2016 employment at the State Department in the District, Steele/Orbis provided over 100 intelligence reports, many of which Winer shared with other State Department officials."

Plaintiffs argue that "Defendants must show that they have, in some form, assumed the obligations of the people," and Defendants assumed at least one important "obligation" of "the people"by accepting the Court's jurisdiction, Defendants assumed the obligation to pay any judgment that might ultimately be entered against them in a U.S. court. By assuming this obligation, Defendants also assumed the concomitant right to raise the same defenses available to U.S. citizens and resident aliens who are sued for defamation.

Plaintiffs rely on Hoffman v. Bailey (E.D. La. 2014), which held that a British national could not invoke the Louisiana Anti-SLAPP Act because he did not have First Amendment protection. However, in Hoffman, the defendant's only contact with the United States was that he sent the email that formed the basis of the defamation claim to a Louisiana resident. Here, Defendants and their speech have far more substantial contacts with the United States.

Because Defendants have substantial and ongoing connections with the United States and their speech in the United States concerns matters of public concern in the United States, Defendants' speech is protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, even if the Anti-SLAPP Act protects only speech also protected by the First Amendment their speech is covered by the Act.

My view (short version), which is consistent with the result of this case but which would likely go a bit further: Speech by people who aren't U.S. citizens (or perhaps permanent residents) outside the U.S. is often unprotected by the First Amendment against various kinds of American government retaliation. "[I]t is long settled as a matter of American constitutional law that foreign citizens outside U.S. territory do not possess rights under the U.S. Constitution." But it seems to me that, when U.S. courts are asked in the U.S. to impose liability based on speech, they should be constrained by the First Amendment, whether the speakers are foreigners or Americans.

More here:

First Amendment Generally Protects Speech in the U.S. by Non-U.S.-Citizens/Residents - Reason

Q&A from our interview with TaJuan Wilson following release of Georgia Southerns Inclusive Excellence action plan

Following the release of Chief Diversity Officer TaJuan Wilsons Inclusive Excellence action plan, The George-Anne spoke with Wilson about the plan and other Inclusive Excellence-related topics.

This is a partial transcript from part of that conversation.

Andy Cole, Editor-in-Chief of The George-Anne: You said words matter. You know, a lot of students take issue with the words Georgia Southern usesthe First Amendment excuse. Weve got a kid, you know, two people over the summer that are in blackface. A lot of students feel that all Georgia Southern says is, Well, we respect the right to the First Amendment. And now you have this opportunity to say, really, this is whats up. Personally, when you see Logan Sierra, for exampleyou know, there was a similar incident like [Sierras] at The University of Florida. This person was a freshman, and they didnt expel him but they rescinded his application. And I told my friends, in just talking about the incident, You know, theyll lose in court. Theres no question about it, they will lose that court case. But, the message that it sends to the campus community is, Hey, we hate this so much that were willing to go to court for it.

So why not, if youre really about it and youre saying words matter, why not say, Lets commit to anti-racism. I think students will find it hard to believe that Georgia Southern is about it, but we dont really want to commit to anti-racism.

I agree with you 100-percentthe First Amendment excuse is out. Right?

TaJuan Wilson, chief diversity officer and associate vice president for inclusive excellence

TaJuan Wilson, Chief Diversity Officer and Associate Vice President of Inclusive Excellence: Yeah, I would say that were absolutely going to commit to anti racism. So I dont want people to get lost in the language as much as the work that theyre going to see coming out of the office. And I think that thats important. And I thinkI agree with you 100-percentthe I agree with you 100-percentthe First Amendment excuse is out. Right? First Amendment excuse is out. Right? Folks are sick of that. And thats fair, and its understandable. And I think what matters to me is not so much the First Amendment protections, because First Amendment protections are important and they protect folks on both sides of an issue and I know you get that, but its how we show up for our students in the moment and how we support them that Im most concerned about. That is what matters to me the most. And I will tell you in the case of Logan Sierra, Logan is not a student at Georgia Southern University. Right?

Cole: But thats not due to the universitys actions. He chose not to come here.

Wilson: He chose not to come here. He chose not to come after a series of meetings and interactions with leadership at the university where we had the opportunity to reach out to the family to connect, to talk about our institutional values, to talk about the impact to our students, to talk about the impact to his potential experience at the university. And it was ultimately decided100-percent by his familythat Georgia Southern University was not going to be the place that he attended. And we respect that decision wholeheartedly. And I agree, we see lots of other institutions and other states and other systems that take a different approach than what we take here in the great state of Georgia. And I wish that I had a better response for you. I will tell you that there are more examples of institutions not expelling students in these situations than examples of institutions who do expel students in these situations. And to your earlier point, they will lose in court, they will absolutely lose in court. And so I also think about what we hope is the transformative experience of higher education, as well.

I personally, you know, grew up in South Arkansas in a really small town, I wasnt a perfect person when I arrived at my undergraduate campus, and neither were any of my peers, as well. And I do think that there are things that we absolutely have to stand up for and call out in the moment. And I think that thats very real. But I also think of what a better person I was three and a half years later, when I graduated from undergrad, because of the experience. If Im a student, and Ive never been exposed to a person of color, if Ive lived in a town in Georgia, or anywhere in the country, or anywhere in the world, where Ive had the opportunity to never experience a different person, and then develop all of these, you know, preconceived notions, these thoughts, these perceptions of what that life must be like, or what that person must be like and then I show up in this space, or I made a mistake just before getting to this space and I never had the opportunity to actually enjoy this environment or get to know people who are different than me or get that level of exposure. Right? And I think thats a huge disservice. Right?

We are committed to anti racism it just didnt show up in the plan

TaJuan Wilson, chief diversity officer and associate vice president for inclusive excellence

Threats, harassment, discrimination, those are the three things that we can act on and act on all day, every single day. The rest of the situations get really complicated. As you know, as we witness time and time again, at the institution we will do more, and were committed to doing more, I want to be very clear about that. And so were going to stand up, were going to support our students, were going to stand in that moment with them. Were going to bridge that gap. That is our obligation as an institution. Im not an attorney. And I dont pretend to be an attorney. And so there are some things that, you know, I dont want students to conflate what my role is, with this notion that my job is to kick students out of school and to punish people.

Thats not what a chief diversity officer is. My job is to come in and build a comprehensive strategy that moves this institution forward. And sometimes that takes time, significant time, and work and effort. But thats what Im committed to. And I agree, First Amendment [excuse] is out. We have to do more, we have to stand in the gap we need to be in the moment with our students. We are committed to anti racism, I want to say that equivocally, we are, absolutely, as an institution. It just did not show up in the plan. But it does not mean that thats not the work that were engaged in at the institution. But our words matter. Calling people in, not calling people out, is absolutely critical.

Continued here:

The First Amendment excuse is out The George-Anne Media Group - The George-Anne

Two companies that run walking tours of Salem are suing the state over Covid-19 orders that effectively limit the size of their gatherings to just a dozen people, saying that's an impermissible violation of their free-speech rights under the First Amendment.

Why, Salem Ghosts and Zaal Ventures say, they've had to turn people away when they reached that limit, in an age when the state does nothing to stop far larger Black Lives Matter demonstrations and church services and are asking a judge in US District Court in Boston to issue an injunction to let them resume walking tours with up to 50 people at a time.

Even in the face of the Pandemic, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts cannot set unreasonably restrict and arbitrarily ignore the First Amendment rights of its citizens. ...

Walking tours inherently involve speech protected under the Free Speech Clauseof the First Amendmentas applied to the states and their political subdivision under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Also:

Other guided tours that use buses or some form of a motorized vehicle on public streets are permitted to operate at a 50% capacity. Therefore, a guided tour such as a Duck Tour which regularly hold 32 people at a time, is permitted to provide a guided tour to more than 10 to 12 people. ...

Although the governmental restrictions reduced Plaintiffs right to have 50 people participate in an outdoor guided walking tour on public streets and public sidewalks to only 10 to 12 people, an outdoor gathering on the same public streets and public sidewalks for political expression is not subject to any limitation while other outdoor gatherings on public streets and sidewalks allow more than 10 to 12 people at a time.

The Commonwealth's restrictions issued by Governor Baker and Secretary Keneally burden a substantial category of protected speech based on the content of the speechwalking tours.

The latest state Covid-19 statistics show Salem now has a test positivity rate of 4.1%, with an average count of new daily cases per 100,000 people of 41.6 - higher than Boston. Last month, the city ran an ad campaign urging people to stay away from Witch City for Halloween because of Covid-19.

View original post here:

Screw public health, the First Amendment demands the state allow large spooky walking tours through Salem, tour operators say - Universal Hub

Security researchers who reported observing Internet communications between the Russian financial firm Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization in 2016 can remain anonymous, an Indiana trial court ruled last week.

The ruling protects the First Amendment anonymous speech rights of the researchers, whose analysis prompted significant media attention and debate in 2016 about the meaning of digital records that reportedly showed computer servers linked to the Moscow-based bank and the Trump Organization in communication.

In response to these reports, Alfa Bank filed a lawsuit in Florida state court alleging that unidentified individuals illegally fabricated the connections between the servers. Importantly, Alfa Banks lawsuit asserts that the alleged bad actors who fabricated the servers communications are different people than the anonymous security researchers who discovered the servers communications and reported their observations to journalists and academics.

Yet that distinction did not stop Alfa Bank from seeking the security researchers identities through a subpoena issued to Indiana University Professor L. Jean Camp, who had contacts with at least one of the security researchers and helped make their findings public.

Prof. Camp filed a motion to quash the subpoena. EFF filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the motion to ensure the court understood that the security researchers had the right to speak anonymously under both the First Amendment and Indianas state constitution.

The brief argues:

By sharing their observations anonymously, the researchers were able to contribute to the electorates understanding of a matter of extraordinary public concern, while protecting their reputations, families, and livelihoods from potential retaliation. That is exactly the freedom that the First Amendment seeks to safeguard by protecting the right to anonymous speech.

Its not unusual for companies embarrassed by security researchers findings to attempt to retaliate against them, which is what Alfa Bank tried to do. Thats why EFFs brief also asked the court to recognize that Alfa Banks subpoena was a pretext:

[T]he true motive of the litigation and the instant subpoena is to retaliate against the anonymous computer security researchers for speaking out. In seeking to impose consequences on these speakers, Alfa Bank is violating their First Amendment rights to speak anonymously.

In rejecting Alfa Banks subpoena, the Indiana court ruled that the information Alfa Bank sought to identify the security researchers is protected speech under Indiana law and that the bank had failed to meet the high bar required to justify the disclosure of the individuals identities.

EFF is grateful that the court protected the identities of the anonymous researchers and rejected Alfa Banks subpoena. We would also like to thank our co-counsel Colleen M. Newbill, Joseph A. Tomain, and D. Michael Allen of Mallor Grodner LLP for their help on the brief.

Read more:

Victory! Court Protects Anonymity of Security Researchers Who Reported Apparent Communications Between Russian Bank and Trump Organization - EFF

Views expressed in community voicesdo not represent opinions of The Gazette-Virginian or staff members.

Writers need critics if for no other reason, to help us see when we have failed to communicate the main thing. The Nov. 11 and 18 editions of community voice, a response to my Nov. 4 piece on the Virginia Values Act titled Velvet covered tyranny, served that purpose for me.

So, allow me to be blunt. The Democrat-controlled legislature and Virginias executive branch are stripping your first amendment rights of free speech and religious liberty.

It does not matter if you consider yourself conservative or liberal, libertarian or progressive, or agree with me on same-sex marriage or anything else.

My critics and I are coming from such completely different worldviews that Im sure any topic I address, be it the right to life, legalized recreational marijuana, legalized gambling, etc., would provoke similar disagreement.

The point is that we have the constitutionally protected freedom not only to express those opinions in the public square but also do our jobs, run our businesses and churches, and non-profit ministries, all while following the dictates of our religiously informed consciences. The Virginia Values Act denies those rights.

Here is the second and equally important point. If a state government can strip my first amendment rights, it can strip yours. If it can deny our first amendment rights, it can revoke any of the others.

Those are the main things. But four other items need clarification.

First, I am a Christian and a pastor, not a therapist. My article, Im not gay and you probably arent either (seedaneskelton.comunder the LGBTQ category) is not an attempt at conversion therapy.

Instead, it is my testimony and invitation to any young person struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction to know that there is another way. They have the right to hear that. But if people like me are silenced, they will not hear it.

Other memoirs, like Rosaria Butterfields Secret thoughts of an unlikely convert and Dennis Jernigans Sing over me, tell similar stories and offer identical hope.

Second, regarding pushing my views and values on others, the shoe is on the other foot. I would not publicly address this issue except for two things. LGBTQ activists intend to deny all biblical Christians the rights mentioned above and have been for many years. Many sources validate that statement.

But for starters, look up Jonathon V. Lasts You Will Be Assimilated: The Same-Sex Marriage Bait and Switch, published in The Weekly Standard and Washington Examiner, June 22, 2015.

Or see lesbian conservative radio talk-show hostTammy Bruces responseto the 2014 Arizona Religious Freedom Bill, where she coined the phrase Gay Gestapo.

Third, I was happy to learn that Alliance Defending Freedom had $55M for their work. They earned Charity Navigators Platinum Seal of Transparency for 2020. I commend them to you. SeeADFLEGAL.ORG. For perspective, the ACLU, which usually argues opposite ADF, reported $202M in total assets for 2019 reporting.

Fourth, the Regnerus study I referenced has taken up too much time and was not the main point. As for its funding, You get what you pay for applies to all such research.

But it was not flawed or debunked. It was disputed and discredited by people who disagreed with the findings. But his sample size was larger than any other study of its kind at the time. Fifteen thousand people between ages 18-39. Only when the results were found politically incorrect did his department chair and others disavow it.

Heres what Regnerus said about the study in aninterview with Warren Smith. Its never been retracted. I havent retracted it. The journal hasnt retracted it. Its hard to debunk what is basically an overview snapshot of a fairly large, complex dataset. Other people analyze the data and say, Hey, Mark, its all about the instability in these families, which would be illuminating if I hadnt already said that. I said that years ago. Likely, the key variable here is the profound instability of the households in which the parents had same-sex relationships. People want to say, Oh, today its going to be Theres more of a gay or lesbian bourgeois family that will be much more stable. Its possible. I say, Show me the data. Some of this stuff well have to track for a decade or two before we get a good sense of it.

Evangelicals like me are the canary in the coalmine for America. Start paying attention to what your government is doing. Stand up for your constitutional rights. Do not stop when it gets hard and people insult you. If we fail, our freedoms are going to evaporate.

Skelton is the pastor at Faith Community Church in South Boston.

Read this article:

COMMUNITY VOICE: Of wrong horses and counterpoints | Community Voices - YourGV.com

8th Circuit upholds dismissal of lawsuit over change in University of Arkansas tenure policy - Arkansas Times

On

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals today affirmed without comment District Judge James Moodys dismissal earlier this year of a class-action lawsuit challenging changes in University of Arkansas personnel and tenure policy.

Faculty members from three campuses UAMS, Monticello and UA Little Rock had alleged changes in promotion, review and tenure policies limited academic freedom and put faculty members at greater risk of discipline, including termination, even for statements made outside the campus setting.

Moody dismissed the case in March. He said the university board of trustees was immune from some elements of the complaint. But his key ruling was that the case wasnt ripe. That is, the plaintiffs didnt allege that theyd suffered from the policy, only that they might.

In a one-paragraph unsigned opinion, the 8th Circuit panel said, Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal.

The plaintiffs had argued on appeal that they did have the standing to challenge the loss of vested contract rights. They also said the changes effectively violated due process and limited First Amendment freedom. Said the plaintiffs brief in response to the UA Board of Trustees argument on the free speech claim:

the Board laments and proclaims their disapproval of the Plaintiffs open discussion of this lawsuit with media outlets, serving as a prime example of the Boards belief that it can limit Plaintiffs First Amendment rights however it pleases with its policies. This belief ties into the Boards attempt to characterize the standing requirements for a First Amendment claim in a way that would make it an impossible burden to meet. Although the Board points to language in the Revised Policy to say it protects Plaintiffs rights, that summary assertion does not change the fact that it is simply not the case. The Board, through the Revised Policy, limits and infringes Plaintiffs First Amendment rights by protecting only those topics which the Board deems related to scholarship, the subject matter of their assigned teaching duties, and employment related service.

Here is the original post:

8th Circuit upholds dismissal of lawsuit over change in University of Arkansas tenure policy - Arkansas Times

A federal district court in Washington on Friday granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting officials from the U.S. Agency for Global Media, including its head, Michael Pack, from interfering with the editorial independence and First Amendment rights of the journalists at Voice of America and the other networks it oversees.

The ruling,issued by Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, ordered that a request for preliminary injunction by the plaintiffs be partially granted. The order was a stopgap measure to prevent further actions laid out in a complaint until a trial can be held.

The ruling relates to a complaint filed by five USAGM officials placed on administrative leave in August and VOA Program Director Kelu Chao, who argued actions taken by the new head of the USAGM were unlawful and violated the First Amendment and the statutory firewall set up to prevent outside interference.

Howells ruling marked a major setback for Pack, a former conservative documentary producer tapped by President Donald Trump to head the newly reconstituted USAGM. Since Pack was confirmed by the Senate in late June, the top leaders at VOA and other networks resigned or were removed, hiring and spending were frozen and Pack stopped approving visa renewals for the agencys foreign journalists.

Moreover, Packs political appointees conducted internal investigations of reporters and editors suspected of producing news stories unfavorable to Trump and the administration that had a chilling effect on the work of editors and reporters, according to the complaint.

Under the order, USAGM officials including Pack are prohibited from making or interfering with personnel decisions related to individual editorial staff at VOA and its sister networks; directly communicating with editors and journalists, with the exception of the heads of those networks, or unless they have a directors consent; and conducting investigations into content, journalists and alleged breaches of ethics at the networks.

Requests denied

The court denied requests for a preliminary injunction involving alleged violations of the International Broadcasting Act, Administrative Procedure Act and Packs fiduciary duties as head of USAGM and alleged activities in excess of his authority.

USAGM did not respond to VOAs email requesting comment.

Editorial independence and journalistic integrity free of political interference are the core elements that sustain VOA and make us Americas voice, VOA acting director Elez Biberaj said.

A steady 83% of VOAs audience finds our journalism trustworthy. There are few, if any, media organizations that can claim such trust, Biberaj added.

Attorneys for the Department of Justice argued in a filing last week that the free speech protections of the First Amendment do not apply to VOA journalists because they are federal government employees, but Howell strongly disagreed.

She said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving Pack and his aides violated and continue to violate the First Amendment rights of VOA journalists because, among other unconstitutional effects of their actions, they result in self-censorship and the chilling of First Amendment expression.

Howell cited an investigation into VOAs White House correspondent Steve Herman, saying it imposes an unconstitutional prior restraint not just on Hermans speech, but also on the speech of Chao and other editors and journalists at VOA and the networks.

The court will rule later on the full complaint filed against USAGM.

Lee Crain, the counsel for the plaintiffs, said, The court confirmed that the First Amendment forbids Mr. Pack and his team from attempting to take control of these journalistic outlets, from investigating their journalists for purported bias, and from attempting to influence or control their reporting content.

In a statement Friday, Crain said the opinion ensured journalists at VOA and the other networks can rest assured that the First Amendment protects them from government efforts to control editorial and journalistic content. They are free to do exactly what Congress intended: export independent, First Amendment-style journalism to the world.

Global audience

VOA and its sister networks have a vast global reach and have seen a surge in readership and viewership in the past year amid the coronavirus pandemic and the contested 2020 U.S. presidential campaign. In fiscal 2020, news and information programming of USAGMs five networks together reached a worldwide weekly audience of 354 million people in 62 languages, an increase of 4 million from last years record audience, according to USAGM figures.

In a 76-page memorandum opinion Howell said VOA and the other networks export the cardinal American values of free speech, freedom of the press and open debate to the dark corners of the world where independent, objective coverage of current events is otherwise unavailable.

These outlets are not intended to promote uncritically the political views and aspirations of a single U.S. official, even if that official is the U.S. president, Howell said.

Pack has allegedly taken a series of steps since his June 4, 2020, confirmation that undermine this mission.

Lawyers representing USAGM at the hearing on November 5 argued that Pack was using expanded powers granted to the CEO by Congress in legislation intended to improve the agencys management and efficiency.

The preliminary injunction found that the statutory firewall reflects that Congress determined this interest to be of greater public importance than the general government interest in efficiency. It added that the court recognized the networks have an interest in maintaining an appearance of the highest journalistic credibility.

Ann Cooper, professor emeritus of professional practice and international journalism at the Columbia School of Journalism in New York, said VOAs role as an independent network is crucial to its audiences.

Regulations to protect VOAs editorial independence are hugely important, said Cooper, who as a veteran foreign correspondent has worked and traveled to some of the worlds most repressive countries.

If you remove that safeguard and allow a leadership that begins to dictate the coverage, of course you are going to lose credibility. VOA is serving countries where people already see what it means to have a government mouthpiece as media. Thats not what they are turning to VOA for, Cooper said.

J-1 visa exemption

The court order prohibited interference in editorial staffing decisions, with the exception of J-1 visas permits for international journalists with exceptional skill.

In June, Pack announced a case by case review of the J-1 visas, citing national security concerns and referring to findings of an Office of Personnel Management report that criticized yearslong lapses in background checks for some staff.

Since June, VOA is aware of only one decision being made in a J-1 case. Packs office last month signed a memo rejecting a VOA Indonesian Service journalists request for a visa renewal and green card sponsorship.

The other visas have expired with no decision supporting or denying the renewal request.

In the memo, the judge said Packs decision to give greater scrutiny to J-1 visa applications fell within USAGMs evaluative and review responsibilities, and cited the defense argument that foreign staff are employed only if suitably qualified U.S. candidates are not available.

VOA journalists have said previously that J-1 colleagues bring valuable insight and skills beyond simple fluency in a language that help the network broaden its reach and engage with audiences.

J-1 visa holders whose visas expired told VOA the action felt discriminatory and they doubted that the reviews took place.

One of those, Serdar Cebe, an anchor who hosted two shows, including the Turkish divisions flagship, Studio VOA, was due to fly to Istanbul on Sunday after his grace period ended without a visa renewal.

Cebe was aware other colleagues at VOA had lost their J-1 visas but said he did not become worried until the end of August, when his service chief suggested the journalist prepare for bad news.

I was shocked as I did not see that coming. I thought that the U.S. was the champion of the world for the freedom of press and that I would never find myself in a situation where a journalist could be expelled from the VOA due to a visa issue, Cebe said in an email exchange.

Journalist sees bias

Grace Oyenubi, a Nigerian journalist who worked for VOAs Hausa Service, also said the lack of visa renewals seemed biased.

I just feel its discrimination. Its discriminatory, she said, adding that she passed vigorous security checks before being hired by VOA.

The loss of her visa has repercussions for Oyenubis family. Her husband, whose visa is tied to Oyenubis, had to leave his job and they could be forced to uproot their 7-year-old son, who has been to schools only in the U.S.

Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, in September proposed a bill to grant a temporary extension to journalists affected by the J-1 delays.

A spokesperson for Merkley told VOA the senator is continuing to push his Republican colleagues to stand up and support free, fair and independent journalism at USAGM.

The spokesperson added, Senator Merkley is hopeful that January will mark the beginning of a new chapter for USAGM, for the journalists wronged by USAGM, and for press freedom around the world, and he will continue to do all that he can to support those efforts from the Senate.

Read more here:

Court Injunction Bars USAGM From Editorial Interference - Voice of America

The COVID-19 pandemic and the historic 2020 presidential election have many in the JMU community. A nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, 1 for All, is dedicated to raising awareness about and promoting First Amendment rights.

On Nov. 12 and 13 from 12-1:30 p.m., 1 For All hosted events at Warner Commons where students were encouraged to share their opinions on the sidewalk.

Taylor DeRossett, a senior communication studies major, explained 1 For Alls mission, encouraging the free expression and exchange of ideas.

1 for All is a movement all across the country basically designed to elevate and promote First Amendment rights on college campuses, DeRossett said. What weve done here is we got a grant from the overall organization to promote it at JMU.

Carli Aldape, a junior media arts and design major, said that the group discovered the need to inform students on how they could practice their First Amendment rights.

We also did some research before our campaign and found that people knew about their first amendment rights but werent really sure on how to practice them on campus, Aldape said.

Guidelines at JMU limit the number of students that can assemble because of COVID-19. Aldape said that this event provided students with a way to share their voice with a large group of people in a safe manner.

Mary Comerford, a junior communication studies major, said that some of the topics students were encouraged to write about included post-election stress and the universitys response to COVID-19.

Students responded to a question regarding their anxieties about next semester, writing about asynchronous classes, not wanting to graduate or staying motivated. Participants also responded to a prompt about their thoughts on the spring break cancellation, writing that students should have a voice, and theyre a little upset but [they] understand.

Helen Nguyen, a junior communication studies major from Vietnam, said that she encourages students to use their voices to express their opinions on campus.

This kind of event is really eye-opening for me as I am an international student, Nguyen said. We dont really talk much about free speech in my country, so its kind of cool for me to [see this] and [you should] practice it if you have the chance.

Comerford said she recommends students attend events similar to Chalk It Up that focus on providing students with a way to freely express their opinions.

It can definitely be eye-opening for people and different ideas can come together to enlighten you on things you didnt notice before, Comerford said. It can also help promote diversity and inclusion on this campus.

While 1 For All gave away free masks to those who opted to participate, DeRossett said she noticed many students had motivations beyond the incentive in writing their thoughts.

Everyone seems really willing to do it, they dont even need the [free] masks, DeRossett said. All of these things are questions that people have on their mind that they really want to talk to someone about, so it's not hard to get someone to sit down and write it out.

Aldape said that the main goal of the event was to provide students with a platform to practice their First Amendment rights.

[We hope that people will] just come out and give us their opinions and express that freedom of speech, to show JMU that their students do have an opinion as well, Aldape said.

Contact Sydney Dudley at dudleysl@dukes.jmu.edu. For more coverage of JMU and Harrisonburg news, follow the news desk on Twitter @BreezeNewsJMU.

Go here to read the rest:

Chalk It Up to the 1st Amendment: Students Practice Free Speech - The Breeze

Friday, November 20, 2020

Do as adversaries do in law, strive mightily, but eat and drink as friends.

William Shakespeare,The Taming of the Shrew, Act I, sc. 2

In the aftermath of the historic and divisive election, many of us welcome an end to the besiegement of ads, media commentaries, Facebook and Twitter postings, etc. that are not only uncivil, but in many cases just plain nasty.

The political climate of brinkmanship, rudeness, and lack of cooperation (let alone collaboration) appears to be increasingly reflected in the workplace. Collectively these behaviors are called incivility, and have become so prevalent that many scholarly studies have been conducted on the topic. Google incivility in the workplace or visit the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) website and youll get the idea.

What is civil and uncivil behavior in the workplace, and what are the legal and other implications of uncivil behavior?

Civility is a collection of positive behaviors that promote courtesy and respect. The word has its origins in the Latin word civis, which in Latin means citizen. Keith Bybee, the author ofHow Civility Works, put it this way in a 2019 NPR interview: Civility is the baseline of respect that we owe one another in public life.

To paraphrase the old Irish proverb by substituting civility for diplomacy, Civility is telling someone to go to hell in such a way that they will look forward to the trip.

On the flipside, what is incivility? One study describes it as a low intensity deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm (Anderson and Pearson, 1999). Other studies define it more thoroughly as bad or rude behavior, with diminished use of basic courtesies such as please and thank you, abrupt and curt language, especially when using technological communication, a lack of respect for leaders and colleagues, with behaviors including belittling, interrupting or ignoring others, spreading rumors or gossip, and sending nasty grams to co-workers. (Akella and Johnson, 2018, citing many other studies.)

Many employees appear to be under the impression that they have an absolute First Amendment right to say or send whatever they want to in the workplace. This is simply not true, especially in the private sector. Employers have the right and under some circumstances the duty to expect their employees to act toward one another with basic respect and courtesy. Unfortunately, email and social media have removed many of the filters that were previously in place in terms of the lack of ability to make an immediate and often not thought-out response, and that unfortunately has bled over to in-person communications. There are now unlimited opportunities for knee-jerk reactions that are not thought through before hitting the SEND button.

SHRM and other reputable sources report that numerous studies show that incivility in the workplace leads to lower production, higher turnover, lower profitability, poorer customer service and decreased morale.

So how might employers rein in on such behavior in the interest of maintaining a desirable workplace culture and mitigating liability?Some employers have addressed the problem of incivility by instituting Codes of Conduct designed to advise employees what is expected of them in terms of their interactions with one another. Of course, such Codes are not worth the space they take up on a network unless they are accompanied by commitment from leadership to communicate, train and enforce the Codes, and truly reflect the mores and values of the organization. Ideally, supervisors, who after all are responsible for enforcing Codes of Conduct on the front lines, should be involved in their creation and in all cases should be thoroughly trained regarding their contents and what to do in the event of a violation.

Codes of Conduct sometimes include other matters such as conflict of interest, gifts and gratuities, and use of Company resource policies, and are generally enforced through the Companys disciplinary procedures.

From a legal standpoint, incivility is not generally regarded as in and of itself constituting illegal harassment or illegal conduct under discrimination laws, although it could and should be regarded as behavior which could easily escalate to that level if unchecked.

The coming days and weeks will tell us a lot about how people handle the inevitable fallout from the election, and of course a lot of that conversation will occur at the workplace. Its important, even vital, to workplace harmony and even more important, to the fiber of who we are as a civilized nation to have those conversations in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

2020 Davis|Kuelthau, s.c. All Rights ReservedNational Law Review, Volume X, Number 325

Read the original post:

A Divisive Election & First Amendment Rights in the Workplace - The National Law Review

(Sviatlana Lazarenka/Getty Images)New research illustrates how public opinion, often misinformed, has served as a basis for courts to bless the restriction of First Amendment liberties.

You may think the Bill of Rights safeguards our liberties from the whims of public opinion. After all, as Justice Robert Jackson observed in the 1943 case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, [t]he very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.

Well, youd be wrong, as were reminded by David M. Primo and Jeffrey D. Milyos latest work, Campaign Finance and American Democracy: What the Public Thinks and Why It Really Matters. In this welcome addition to the discourse on the countrys campaign-finance system, the authors research illustrates the ways in which public opinion, often misinformed, has served as a basis for courts to bless the restriction of First Amendment liberties.

The Constitution says: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. Yet the Supreme Court carved out an exception, allowing such a law if it deters the appearance of corruption spawned by the real or imagined coercive influence of large financial contributions. That exception comes from Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark 1976 case in which the Supreme Court struck down key provisions in the Federal Election Campaign Act while upholding others, including contribution limits.

Thus, the extent to which the First Amendment protects Americans ability to speak out about politics whether publicly or privately; whether singly, in groups, or through the corporate form is limited by the Courts deference to peoples views about campaign finance and American democracy.

Primo and Milyo, distinguished professors of political science and economics, respectively, have conducted what they rightly call a relentlessly empirical investigation of that public opinion. (Primo and Milyo are unpaid academic advisers of my employer, the Institute for Free Speech, but the IFS was not involved with this book.)

The book is straightforward even blunt and data-driven, enlightening readers about the publics views on corruption, campaigns, and money in politics. By avoiding the manifesto-style rhetoric that such books often employ, Primo and Milyo have not only taken the temperature of the public but cooled down a debate where there is often more heat than light.

It turns out that Americans do about as well in answering questions about campaign-finance law as a blindfolded monkey throwing darts at possible answers. While that finding may be as shocking as Captain Renaults discovering gambling in Ricks Caf, it is nevertheless alarming to learn just how misinformed the public is about this body of law, particularly as courts rely on public opinion to justify restrictions on core First Amendment rights.

Americans attitudes toward political expression change based on how it is described. They approve of political activity framed as speech, but they disapprove of the money that funds said speech. No doubt this discrepancy accounts for the common assertion that money isnt speech. Even more shocking: Primo and Milyos survey of campaign-finance experts in the academy reveals that they largely self-identify as liberal Democrats and believe that campaign-finance laws will work.

Other findings simply baffle. Over 20 percent of Americans believe an officeholder is acting corruptly when he takes an unpopular policy stand because it is morally right or in the best interest of the country. Its unclear if this means one-fifth of Americans are majoritarians or just nihilistic.

Still other results can only be described as disheartening. Americans are willing to sacrifice the speech rights of those they disagree with, and they think political activity is corrupting if done by an ideological opponent but not when the identical activity is done by an ally. Likewise, Americans generally support donor-disclosure requirements, but that support dramatically falls when they are asked if their own donations should be public.

In a particularly troubling finding, the authors report: No matter how we slice the data, we find a remarkably robust relationship: support for campaign-finance restrictions isincreasingin the belief that these laws are used by government officials to harass political opponents. That is to say, theres an unmistakable correlation between a persons support for campaign-finance reform and her belief that such laws are used for retribution. Primo and Milyo pose the inevitable question: Is it because, deep down, Americans are OK with using regulations to go after opponents?

Another of the authors findings is perhaps an illustration of this fear of abuse: The Federal Election Commissions requirement that donors report their address and employer information is incredibly unpopular. Just 8.1 percent of Americans approve of required disclosures of home address.

Primo and Milyos showstopper finding, however, based on a meticulous analysis of survey data over 30 years and in all 50 states, is that there is no scientific evidence that campaign-finance reforms actually increase public trust in government. Having conducted the largest and most comprehensive scientific study of the question to date, they found that campaign finance reforms do not increase public trust and confidence in government in any meaningful way.

In other words, campaign-finance laws do not reduce the appearance of corruption, the very concern stated in Buckley 44 years ago. More research is needed to confirm and expand on this finding, and in fact Primo and Milyo alert the reader that they are already on it. But for now, this book strongly suggests that the basis for over four decades of Supreme Court rulings on campaign-finance laws is fatally flawed.

Primo and Milyo appear to have found that, at least when it comes to our bloated and complicated political-speech laws, some Americans are confused, cynical, and, perhaps because of their confusion, willing to trade away the rights of others. And there is no upside: The promise of reforms ushering in a more trustworthy government is a false one.

Perhaps we should pay renewed attention to the words of Justice Jackson.

The rest is here:

Stunning Findings on Campaign-Finance Law - National Review