Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Wauwatosa police have arrested a 15-year-old Milwaukee boy who theybelieve opened fire at Mayfair mall Friday afternoon, sending eight to the hospital.

Police Chief Barry Weber said the suspectwas arrested Saturday night and that the shooting was the result of an altercation between two groups of people at the mall.

"We do know there was some sort of altercation, and that's when the bullets started flying," Weber said during a Sunday news conference.

Police had said Friday that witnesses described the shooter as a white man in his 20s or 30s. But Weber described the suspect as a 15-year-oldHispanic boy. His firearm was recovered during the arrest.

Four innocent bystanders were among those who received non-life-threatening injuries during the shooting.

"There were several members of those groups that were injured during this altercation," Wauwatosa Police Public Information Officer Abby Pavlik said of the two groups involved in the altercation.

The teen left the mall as other patrons were running out, according to Wauwatosa police.

Weber said officersarrived within 30 seconds of the first call to police at 2:49 p.m. The shooting occurred near Macy's on the lower level of the mall.

Officers were unaware that theshooter had left the mall when they entered. The shooterleft the property on foot, based on video surveillance.

Police said severalother arrests have been made relatedto the shooting.

Weber said the initial information that was put out on the suspect was "erroneous." Hesaid that later Friday evening police started to develop leads that led them to believe the shooter was younger than first thought.

Weber said heviewed surveillance video and that helped find the shooter. The Police Departmentdid not release surveillance to the public when they suspected the shooter was a minor.

Witness Jill Whitfield-Wooley, who was inside Mayfair mall, recounts shooting Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Witnesses inside the mall Friday reported hearing multiple gunshots about 3 p.m. that sent people fleeing for the exits or to other locations where they could safely shelter in place. Reporters at the scene and news helicopters captured video of at least four people being loaded into ambulances in the parking lot.

The mall was closed Saturday but reopened at 11 a.m. Sunday.

A rally for President Donald Trump was held outside Mayfair mall while it was closedSaturday. Some of those at the rally were carrying guns.

Mayor Dennis McBride said he wished they would not have held the rally there so close to the shooting.

"That rally, as I understand it,was planned a week ahead of time. I think it was unfortunate they decided to come with what happened theday before," McBride said.

"I dont think people should come to political rallies with guns," he said. "I respect the First Amendment rights of everybody for political rallies and protests. If it were up to me, I would have said, please do not come, do not bring guns, honor the fact that our community is suffering right now."

Wauwatosa Mayor Dennis McBride addresses the media during a news conference at the Wauwatosa Police Department on Sunday after Police Chief Barry Weber announced a 15-year-old male has been arrested in connection to the shooting Friday at Mayfair mall. McBride encouraged residents to continue shopping at the mall, saying "it's a safe place."(Photo: Mike De Sisti / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

McBride encouraged residents to continue shopping at Mayfair mall.

As soon as I leave here, Im off to Mayfair, McBride said at the news conference. I have no problems whatsoever shopping at Mayfair. I never have and I never will. Its a safe place. The holidays are here and I hope to see you all shopping at Mayfair.

The mayor said he plans to speak with Mayfairs general manager Monday. He was not sure if all the stores were back open.

Evan Casey can be reached at evan.casey@jrn.com. Follow him on Twitter @ecaseymedia.

Our subscribers make this reporting possible. Please consider supporting local journalism by subscribing to the Journal Sentinel at jsonline.com/deal.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.jsonline.com/story/communities/west/news/wauwatosa/2020/11/22/mayfair-mall-shooting-15-year-old-arrested/6384531002/

Original post:

A 15-year-old boy has been arrested in connection with the Mayfair mall shooting - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Sharon Myers|The Dispatch

Davidson County is proposing a new law to regulate gatherings on public property on the heels of months of protest and counter-protest in uptown Lexington surrounding the Confederate memorial.

We have to have something in place, right now we dont have anything, said Davidson County Manager Casey Smith. It is not the intent to infringe with anyones First Amendment rights, but in the times we are living in we need a better way to deal with things like access to public property, signage, and flags.

On Nov. 10, the Davidson County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing to receive input on an ordinance to address assemblieson public property to define how and where people can assemble, as well as, what they are allowed to carry or display.

The first amendment of the U.S Constitution gives citizens the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging thefreedomof speech, or of the press, or therightof the people.

Government officials cannot prohibit any public assembly on public property, but it can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met.

We cant infringe on anyones right to protest. This is a tool for our law officers; it will give them a law to be able to deal with enforcement. Right now we dont have an ordinance that allows them, for example, to tell anyone to remove a flag or sign from a government building or from putting flags on county property, said Smith.

The proposed ordinance follows months of protest and counter-protest focused on the Confederate monument in uptown Lexington, which was removed on Oct. 20. Two groups of protesters were located on county-owned property in front of the historical Davidson County Courthouse and at the square across the street.

Under the proposed ordinance, protestors or assemblies cannot obstruct, interfere or block people entering or exiting vehicles; public buildings; crossing the street or deny the use of any other public areas.

Also, assemblies shall not be conducted on any public roadway used primarily for vehicular traffic, nor interfere with the business of the county or state.

The proposed ordinance limits signs or flags to less than 36 inches and cannot use words that would incite violence. The staff or pole for any sign, flag or banner cannot be made of metal and must be continuously held by a protestor.

If the ordinance is passed it will be unlawful to hang, fasten, or attach banners, flags or electrical devices to any county property including buildings, handrails, fences, bridges, memorials, landscaping, and trees. It also would prohibit the placement of poles, posts, pins, or pegs in the ground on government property.

The ordinance also states that law enforcement is allowed to assign different groups a place to assemble in order to preserve the public peace and that members of a group are not allowed to enter the assigned area of another group. The priority of location would be based upon which group arrived first and is at the discretion of law enforcement.

Also, spectators are not allowed to physically interfere with individuals or groups who are protesting and will not speak fighting words or threats that would tend to provoke a reasonable person to a breach of the peace.

Law enforcement will still be allowed to issue a command to disperse if a threat to the public peace is determined. Officers are also allowed to establish barricades to preserve public peace and it would be unlawful for anyone to intentionally cross over a law enforcement line or barricade.

Under the proposed ordinance, it will be unlawful for anyone to camp or light a bonfire on any public property owned by the county, including public rights-of-way and sidewalks. The county retains the right to remove a temporary shelter, bedding or personal belongings deemed a public nuisance.

If the ordinance is approved, it will be unlawful for any person to use objects to obstruct a public road, sidewalk, right-of-way or any entrance or exit to private property or any other area open to the public. This also includes attaching themselves to another person, building, or vehicle.

The ordinance states anyone who fails or refuses to abide by or violates these rules shall be subject to penalties and arrest.

Smith said after the months of protest and counter-protest, government officials became aware of the impact that not having a set ordinance has had on the public peace. He said the ordinance isto bring a little bit of clarity about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable when protesting.

We need to have a tool for our law enforcement officers to have clear cut rules and regulations, Smith said. Given the world we live in, we need some regulationin case something like this ever happens again. We are not regulating the right to free speech or right to assemble, we are just making the rules realclear.

Go here to read the rest:

New county ordinance to regulate protest and public gatherings - Lexington Dispatch

By Elizabeth Giuliano| Bucks County Courier Times

On Thursday (Oct. 23), you published a guest opinion in support of President Donald Trumps reelection. The author wrote, And how can anyone not notice his fierce stance for the sanctity of life? I have never seen such enthusiasm around the issue of life by any president in my lifetime.

This opinion is contradicted by the Trump administration's policies and decisions over the past four years. Based on the presidents record, it is hard to understand how any person who truly cares for the sanctity of life could support his reelection.

Children, including infants, fleeing devastating violence and poverty have been needlessly separated from their families at our southern border, sometimes for months, sometimes never to be reunited. At least seven migrant children have died in U.S. confinement.

Pregnant women seeking safety in our country have been detained and denied access to prenatal care. At least 28 pregnant women have miscarried their babies in U.S. detention centers.

The U.S. betrayed and abandoned our allies, the Kurds, on the presidents order leading to more people killed and more families placed in danger. Our country has seen increased violence against racial, ethnic and religious minorities fueled by the presidents hateful rhetoric.

He has failed to take action to reduce gun violence and instead supports gun extremists. He used the military to attack peaceful protesters exercising their First Amendment rights in our nations capital.

He has praised and defended his friends, associates and employees when they have been accused of child sexual abuse and family violence. He has failed to confront Russia for placing bounties on the lives of our troops abroad.

Over 200,000 Americans are dead because of the Trump administrations incompetent response to COVID-19. And hundreds are still dying every day, months after most of the rest of the world acted to control the spread.

He stated, It is what it is, about the preventable deaths of thousands of our neighbors, friends and family members.

President Trump has proven again and again that he cares nothing for the poor and vulnerable and cares nothing for the dignity of each human life.

Elizabeth Giuliano is a resident of New Hope.

See the article here:

Trump cares nothing for the poor - Bucks County Courier Times

A large group of individuals recently staged a protest in front of my neighbors home. This neighbor is a public official, and they disagreed with his policies. They lined the street and sidewalk, holding signs and shouting as their cars drove up and down the street honking. They came and went, within an hour. No property was damaged and no violence occurred, but the aggressive nature of the event left our quiet community shaken.

While this might seem a small occurrence compared to the national scene, it caused a great deal of excitement in my neighborhood. Outsiders of any kind coming in a large group to incite unrest and make known their views hasnt happened in my quiet neighborhood, perhaps ever. The protesters claimed, accurately, that they were exercising their First Amendment rights. They disagreed with this officials policies, and were coming here to let him know.

They had already protested at the Capitol and Governors Mansion. They claimed they were being ignored at those places, and would only be heard by coming straight to a man in charge. Some of these points are valid; the justification for much unscrupulous behavior from protesters this year has been in the name of being heard. Simply peaceful protesting might fall through the cracks nowadays. The news cycle is wild and hard to break into.

Yet, this does not justify the protesters actions. While it is legal to demonstrate on the sidewalk, public property, that doesnt change the fact that the protesters methodology was just plain mean, intended to terrorize this family. Going to a public officials offices to protest policy is one thing. That is what protesting is all about. Going to a public officials private residence to protest them, is another. This is not protesting policy. Its intimidation. Legal? Yes. But good? No.

Not only this, but protesting at public officials homes accomplishes none of the objectives of a peaceful protest. A peaceful protest objects to actions taken by a government. Its intended to raise awareness, to get passers-by to notice and give their support. It strives to get the government to change its ways.

Protesting at a public officials home does not effectively protest government policy. At that point, you are protesting a particular individual rather than policy. It does raise awareness, but does not gain you popular sympathy. If anything, it reduces your support, especially among the local population.

Much of my neighborhood might normally lean toward these protesters politically. But as soon as these outsiders showed up to protest our dear neighbor, almost every neighbor was against them. I know him as a good man first, and a public official second. Any hostilities against him are taken personally. The protesters also brought unrest to our quiet neighborhoods streets. The protesters in my neighborhood reduced local support for their movement. It was not about the ideas being espoused; it was about the methods being employed.

Protesting at a private residence does not gain support for your cause, no matter who, what, when and why. It alienates not just the official, but local residents as well. Nothing positive can be accomplished through this method of protest.

Take it back to the public square. Take it back to the State Capitol. But dont protest at public officials private homes.

Wesley D. Mangum is a senior at Springville High School. High School.

See the original post here:

Letter: Take protests back to the public square - Daily Herald

Jannette Pippin|The Daily News

The votes have not yet been certified in Onslow County but efforts have already begun by community members hoping to stop a controversial candidate newly elected to the Board of Education from serving on the board.

Eric Whitfield, who faced allegations of racism early in his campaign and was denounced by the Onslow County GOP, was elected on Nov. 3 in a Republican sweep of the four open seats that upset three long-time members of the board who chose to run as unaffiliated candidates in the partisan race.

As news of the Election Night results spread Wednesday, two efforts quickly emerged on social media by residents concerned about Whitfield sittingon the school board.

While Whitfield would have to resign his newly elected seat, since there is no recall function, those concerned say action is needed.

An online petition has been started on ipetitions.com entitled Recall/Remove Eric Whitfield for Board of Education.

Eric Whitfield does not represent the students, staff, stakeholders, or citizens of Onslow County and should not represent a school district in which he has absolutely no invested interests. His beliefs and views are racially charged and individualistically motivated. We want him out! the petition states.

Nefatina Everhart, an Onslow County educator and parent with children in Onslow County Schools, created the petition due to concerns within the community, which she said have come from both sides of the political spectrum.

There are concerns from citizens on both sides, Democrat and Republican. It is not a partisan effort, Everhart said. Many people feel the Board of Education should be nonpartisan. That is why we are here where we are; education has become partisan.

Everhart plans to present the petition to the Board of Education at the Nov. 10 meeting.

Everhart said Whitfield has made highly publicized comments on social media that she said are not only racially charged but show a lack of interest in serving on the school board or acting in the interest of the students.

His main objective is to put taxpayers in front of students, Everhart said.

Serving the taxpayers is a goal he has not denied.

I have never once said that I represent the children. Not one single child voted for me. I have chosen to give representation to other stakeholders that are never represented on the School Board. I represent the taxpayers. There are already plenty of board members to look out for the children, Whitfield said in comments responding to questions from The Daily News.

Whitfield was elected to the school board along with Republican incumbent Ken Reddic and Republican newcomers Melissa Oakley and Joseph Speranza.

After winning the partys nomination in March, Whitfield was fired from his job at Jacksonville Christian Academy and received backlash for a comment posted on Facebook that used the term ignorant darkies in reference to Black people.

Whitfield has called the petition silly and said his comments are protected by the First Amendment.

The petition is silly. Free speech is a real thing. The first amendment really does exist. The signers of the petition are being dishonest. They know people cannot be punished in our country for the things that they say. I'm not getting removed from office. They have no legal grounds at all. There really is a first amendment, he stated.

Whitfield said he only plans to resign if the Onslow County Board of Commissioners lowers the countys property tax rate, which is his goal.

My platform was to improve race relations and reduce the property tax rate by 3.5 cents. If Robin Knapp and the Board of Commissioners will reduce the property tax rate by 3.5 cents in June 2021 then I will resign at that time, he wrote in his statement . I don't expect that to happen but it is a solution that would be mutually beneficial to everyone involved. The GOP needs to work with Robin Knapp to pursue that avenue.

Al Burgess, a former president of the local NAACP chapter, has been the target of comments by Whitfield and said he is disappointed by Whitfields election to the board but not necessarily surprised with an 18,000 disparity in Onslow County between Republican and Democratic Party voters.

Burgess has been behind efforts to have the Confederate monument relocated from in front of the Onslow County Courthouse that have to-date seen resistance, with only one county commissioner on the all-Republican Board of Commissioners publicly supporting the move, which would require the boards support.

That monument was a referendum within itself on whether or not racism or a symbol of racism in Onslow County is still possible, Burgess said.

Kristin Greer, a parent with concerns about Whitfield serving on the Board of Education because of the comments hes made on social media, started a Recall Eric Whitfield page on Facebook to organize others who may have concerns.

Greer said they are still researching to see if there are any official steps that can be taken but regardless she and Everhart agree that it is important to show the communitys concerns.

We want to show the board members how we feel; we want to have a voice, Everhart said.

Reporter Jannette Pippin can be reached at 910-382-2557 or Jannette.Pippin@JDNews.com.

View original post here:

Petition started to protest newly elected Whitfield service on Onslow school board - Jacksonville Daily News

This week, the Ninth Circuit examines how the loss-causation requirement of a securities-fraud claim may be satisfied in cases involving FOIA disclosures, and considers the application of Younger v. Harris to a State civil-enforcement action pressed by private counsel.

DAVID GRIGSBY v. BOFI HOLDING, INC.The Court holds that information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act can constitute a corrective disclosure for purposes of alleging loss causation in a securities-fraud action.

Panel: Judges Murguia, Christen, and Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.), with Judge Christen writing the opinion.

Key highlight: Plaintiffs may rely on a corrective disclosure derived from a FOIA response by plausibly alleging that the FOIA information had not been previously disclosed. If a plaintiff relies on information obtained via a FOIA request, the pleading burden to allege loss causation is no different from the pleading burden for other types of corrective disclosures.

Background: Plaintiffs filed a putative class action on behalf of shareholders alleging that BofI Holding, Inc. and its executives violated securities law by, among other things, denying that the company was being investigated for money laundering. To prove loss causation, plaintiffs pointed to a news article that revealed the existence of an SEC investigation through a FOIA request and that immediately preceded a drop in the companys stock price. The district court dismissed the suit on the ground that information obtained under FOIA was, as a matter of law, publicly available prior to its disclosure, and thus could not be a corrective disclosure of a misrepresentation.

Result: The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court began by explaining that a securities fraud plaintiff can satisfy the loss-causation pleading burden by alleging that a corrective disclosure revealed the truth of a defendants misrepresentation and thereby caused the companys stock price to drop and investors to lose money. In general, the Court continued, a disclosure is not corrective if it contains information derived entirely from public filings and other publicly available sources of which the stock market was presumed to be aware. BofI had argued that the investigation was already reflected in its stock price before the article was published because the information was discoverable through FOIA. The Court rejected that approach for two reasons: First, FOIA information is not generally available, but must be specifically requested. And second, because the government may invoke exceptions to FOIA, certain information may never come to light. At a minimum, the Court said, there must be some indication that the relevant information was requested and produced before the information contained in a FOIA response can be considered publicly available for purposes of loss causation.

The Court went on to conclude that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the investigation into BofI had not been publicly disclosed prior to publication of the news article. It was enough that the plaintiffs had alleged that the [news] article disclosed BofI had been the subject of a formal SEC investigation, that the article revealed the falsity of BofIs prior statement, and that the revelation caused BofIs stock price to drop. Plaintiffs were not required to make an additional showing that no one else had obtained the same information through FOIA before the articles publication, and documents showing five other BofI-related FOIA requests did not render the initial allegations implausible.

The Court also concluded that the news article was corrective of BofIs allegedly false statement, rejecting BofIs argument that the article did not establish that it knew about the investigation. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district courts separate conclusion that a different news article was not a corrective disclosure with respect to another allegedly false statement because the article contained only public information, and did not require any expertise or specialized skills beyond what a typical market participant would possess. Finally, the Court declined to consider whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded scienter because the district court did not reach that issue.

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY v. CONNORSThe Court holds that Younger v. Harris precludes a federal-court challenge to a state-court civil enforcement proceeding, even where that state-court prosecution is led by private counsel and allegedly profit-driven.

The panel: Judges Watford, Friedland, and Miller, with Judge Miller writing the opinion.

Key highlight:"Conducting litigation on behalf of a State is a core sovereign function, and the people of each State, through their elected representatives, have the right to decide whether that function should be carried out by full-time government employees or, as here, by outside counsel retained for a particular case."

Background: The State of Hawaii filed suit in Hawaii state court against a variety of pharmaceutical companies. The State asserted that the defendants advertising of the drug Plavix had been misleading given the drugs allegedly reduced effectiveness in people with a genetic variation particularly prevalent among those of Asian or Pacific Islander descent. The State retained two private law firms on a contingency-fee basis in bringing this suit.

The pharmaceutical companies then sued the State in federal court, seeking an injunction against the state-court proceedings, which the companies claimed violated their First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed, invoking Younger abstention.

Result: The Ninth Circuit affirmed. As the Court explained, while federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation to hear all cases within their jurisdiction, Younger establishes an exception to that obligation when the federal-court plaintiff seeks to enjoin certain types of civil enforcement proceedings that are akin to criminal prosecutions. The Court dismissed the companies arguments that this exception was not applicable here.

First, the Court rejected the contention that the state-court action was not in fact brought by the State because the State was relying on private counsel. As the Court explained, it is up to the State to decide who will represent it in court (or elsewhere), and thus the Court saw no reason why the application of Younger should turn on the States choice of lawyers. Rather, what mattered was that the Attorney General of Hawaii made the decision to bring the action, and the people of Hawaii may hold her accountable for that decision.

Next, the Court rejected the contention that the case was not a civil enforcement action because private counsel had conducted most of the underlying investigation, and the State was purportedly motivated by profit rather than any desire to punish wrongdoing. The Court concluded that what was relevant, for Younger purposes, was not the States interest in any particular case, but rather its interest in a given class of proceedings. After all, [a] federal-court inquiry into why a state attorney general chose to pursue a particular case, or into the thoroughness of the States pre-filing investigation, would be entirely at odds with Youngers purpose of leaving state governments free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways. And here, the Court held, the State sought to recover civil penalties for an alleged violation of a statute punishing deception, bring the proceeding comfortably within the general class of proceedings to which Younger applies.

Finally, the Court rejected the argument that because the companies First Amendment rights were at issue, the Court should apply special scrutiny, reasoning that Younger abstention routinely applies even when important rights are at stake. Because the companies claim did not fall within the narrow exception for cases of proven harassment . . . by state officials in bad faith, it was properly dismissed.

[View source.]

Continue reading here:

This Week at The Ninth: Public Knowledge and Private Counsel - JD Supra

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum, and president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute.

Dear Mr. President: Congratulations on your election victory.

Thats a non-partisan congratulations. The First Amendment, with its 45 words encompassing our core freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition, doesnt take political sides.

The year 2020 has seen a dramatic increase in the ways our fellow citizens are using the First Amendment. Theres every reason to believe 2021 will be more of the same.

By this Election Day, a record number of us exercised our right to vote, the ultimate expression of our rights to petition the government.

Years of simmering injury, insult and resentment over blatant and hidden racism have boiled over into a wave of public protests, prompted by the repeated deaths of Black men and women at the hands of police officers, and rooted in economic and social systems that people of color see as tilted against them

The national crisis that is COVID-19 is tearing at the very fabric of daily life and even as it hammers everything from employment numbers to how we sometimes can say farewell to the dying, the pandemic is sparking street demonstrations for and against health measures like masks and business shutdowns.

I write to ask that as you consider your election victory, you keep these First Amendment considerations in mind using the order of the five freedoms, to help organize your thoughts.

Religion in the U.S. today covers a remarkably diverse form of beliefs and practices, unique in the world. Understandably, that creates ongoing conflict as overall social values and individual matters of conscience collide. Some call this a culture war. I hope you will think of it as does my Freedom Forum colleague, Dr. Charles Haynes: An opportunity to find common ground focusing on those places where we do agree, even as we recognize and celebrate our differences.

What of free speech? For nearly a century, most battles around this freedom focused on whether or not government could restrict or punish individuals for their speech. In this next presidential term, the focus will be on relatively new ideas: There are ideas, words or symbolic actions that are too dangerous to be heard, or that the right to speak includes a right not to listen or to be protected from even hearing.

Please keep in mind that ideas are not eliminated by silencing those who give voice to them. More speech, in more ways, is the better path. It is a proper government role to find ways to encourage diversity of thought, but not to become a national nanny or worse, an autocratic censor deciding what we should see, read and hear.

The next generation will be ill-served to face an assuredly contentious world if they arent aware of a range of ideas, concepts and creeds. A need to reinforce the key positive ideals of our society for the future must include free discussion of where we have fallen short in word, actions or law in the past.

A free press is being challenged by the triple tag team of economic loss, public mistrust and new competition. An attendant casualty has been our collective belief in truth or at least accepted facts based on solid journalism, not punditry across a myriad of new information sources.

You dont have direct responsibility to make journalism better, but things are so dire you and Congress may be needed to help ensure we have any effective journalism at all.

The number of local news outlets is plunging and news deserts in which no local news media exists are growing. The watchdog-on-government role of a free press so vital to the informed citizenry needed by a democracy cannot be allowed to simply evaporate.

The unthinkable for free press advocates of not long ago tax breaks, operating subsidies, support for public journalism as we have seen for public television and radio may well become over the next four years unavoidable.

What we do know, based on annual surveys the Freedom Forum has done since 1997, is that most of us support that watchdog duty. Work with that consensus.

Assembly and petition have had rebirths. When frustrated, Americans always protested, on our streets and now online. Your responsibility here starts with listening even when others are shouting.

Yes, you must respond to those who go outside First Amendment protections into violence. But those responses must be tempered by the recognition that peaceful dissent is democracy, not disloyalty.

I write knowing you and the nation face many challenges. But I also write with the profound hope that this letter will be a reminder that these core freedoms empower all of us to freely talk with each other in many different ways, with a goal of determining the best possible solutions for the greatest number of people, in the shortest amount of time. The First Amendment doesnt require or provide for perfection, but it fuels democracy.

With that spirit in mind, good fortune in the next four years.

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum, and president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at [emailprotected], or follow him on Twitter at@genefac.

See the rest here:

FIRST FIVE: On behalf of the First Amendment 'Dear Mr. President' - hays Post

Plaintiffs CDK Global LLC and Reynolds and Reynolds Company develop, own, and operate proprietary computer systems known as dealer management systems ("DMSs") that process vast amounts of data sourced from various parties. Automotive dealerships hold licenses to DMSs to help manage their business operations, including handling confidential consumer and proprietary data, processing transactions, and managing data communications between dealers, customers, car manufacturers, credit bureaus, and other third parties. Plaintiffs contractually prohibit dealers from granting third parties access to their DMSs without Plaintiffs' authorization.

In March 2019, the Arizona Legislature passed the Dealer Data Security Law . The Dealer Law regulates the relationship between DMS licensers like Plaintiffs and the dealerships they serve. Under the Dealer Law, DMS providers may no longer "[p]rohibit[] a third party [that has been authorized by the Dealer and] that has satisfied or is compliant with current, applicable security standards published by the standards for technology in automotive retail [ (STAR standards)] from integrating into the dealer's [DMS] or plac[e] an unreasonable restriction on integration."

The Dealer Law also requires that DMS providers "[a]dopt and make available a standardized framework for the exchange, integration and sharing of data from [a DMS]" that is compatible with STAR standards and that they "[p]rovide access to open application programming interfaces to authorized integrators." Finally, a DMS provider may only use data to the extent permitted in the DMS provider's agreement with the dealer, must permit dealer termination of such agreement, and "must work to ensure a secure transition of all protected dealer data to a successor dealer data vendor or authorized integrator" upon termination.

Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the Dealer Law abridges their freedom of speech by requiring that Plaintiffs draft code to facilitate disclosure . It is well-established that "computer code, and computer programs constructed from code can merit First Amendment protection." Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley (2d Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Elcom Ltd. (N.D. Cal. 2002) ("[c]omputer software is speech that is protected at some level by the First Amendment").

However, not all code rises to the level of protected speech under the First Amendment. Rather, there are "two ways in which a programmer might be said to communicate through code: to the user of the program (not necessarily protected) and to the computer (never protected)." Further, even where code communicates to the user of a program, it still may not constitute protected speech under the First Amendment if it "commands 'mechanically' and 'without the intercession of the mind or the will of the recipient.'"

Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the code they must draft to comply with the Dealer Law communicates substantively with the user of the program. The Amended Complaint alleges "Plaintiffs must draft code to receive and respond to requests from 'authorized integrators' who will interact with the code by commanding it to communicate the information they choose to request." It also states that the code will express the creative choices of the software developers and communicate those choices "to those who would access the Plaintiff's DMSs, as well as to other third-party programmers." Taken as true, these allegations sufficiently allege a protected interest in the content of the code.

Defendants argue the Dealer Law cannot compel speech because it does not dictate what Plaintiffs' code must say, only that dealers must adopt a framework to share data from their DMSs. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 28-4654 (requiring that Dealers "[a]dopt and make available a standardized framework for the exchange, integration and sharing of data from dealer data systems with authorized integrators and the retrieval of data by authorized integrators using the star standards or a standard that is compatible with the star standards."). They contend that, by mandating only access, the Dealer Law regulates Plaintiffs' conduct, not speech.

Corley acknowledged this possibility, clarifying that the mere "functional capability" of a code did not implicate First Amendment Protection. But Plaintiffs' allegations go beyond the functional capability of their code because they claim users will interact with their program in a substantive way. Defendants' arguments that the Dealer Law is more properly considered a regulation on conduct therefore amount to disagreements about the factual consequences of the law and the drafted code. Such a contention cannot be resolved at the Motion to Dismiss stage.

{Moreover, the mere assertion that the law regulates conduct does not establish failure to state a claim under the First Amendment. Even where a law is aimed only at conduct, an incidental burden on speech triggers scrutinyit must be "no greater than essential." Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Institutional Rights, Inc. (2006) (finding that a burden is no greater than essential when "neutral regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.").}

I'm not sure what I think about this, but I thought some of our readers would find it interesting.

See the article here:

The First Amendment and Mandated Creation of Computer Code - Reason

Two men, one armed, who filmed voters dropping off ballots in Littleton on Nov. 2 were first amendment auditors and not cited by police, city and county officials said.

The men, whose names were not immediately available, drew the attention of county staff as they filmed voters dropping off ballots outside the Arapahoe County administration building on South Prince Street, said county spokesperson Luc Hatlestad. One of the men was carrying a holstered handgun and wearing a tactical vest, Hatlestad said.

Our staff asked them what was going on, and someone inside the building called police, Hatlestad said.

Responding officers determined the men were first amendment auditors, said Cmdr. Trent Cooper, Littleton Police Department spokesman.

First amendment auditors are activists who film encounters with public officials, according to the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency, or CIRSA.

If the encounter results in an actual or perceived violation of the auditor's First Amendment or other protected rights, then the video likely will be posted on social media and/or serve as the basis for a claim or suit, a CIRSA memo on the phenomenon reads in part. A violation may come about if the auditor is denied the right to take photos or videos in a public place, or is detained for `suspicious' activity or other reasons.

Cooper said the men appeared to clearly understand the limits of their legal rights, and that it's not against the law to open carry guns or film people outside a government building.

Colorado law makes it illegal to impede, prevent, or otherwise interfere with the free exercise of the elective franchise of any elector.

Hatlestad said three voters came inside the building to report the men outside, but he was not aware of any voters who were intimidated out of dropping off ballots.

Police are not aware of the men speaking to any voters or stopping any voters from dropping off their ballots, Cooper said.

The goal of these guys is to get people to violate their rights, Cooper said. This guy's carrying a gun, wearing tactical gear he knows that's going to make people uncomfortable. It's an attempt to elicit a confrontation. If nobody takes the bait, eventually they get bored and leave, which is essentially what happened here.

Police did not ask the men to leave, Cooper said, though they eventually left on their own after about an hour.

A spokesman for Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said the incident is under investigation.

The Colorado Secretary of State's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

First amendment auditors have made headlines many times in Colorado in recent years, including for disrupting city council meetings, winning settlements for wrongful detention, and in one instance, allegedly threatening to kill a judge.

Hatlestad said anyone who sees anything suspicious at a ballot drop box or polling place should report it to elections officials on site or call the voter hotline at 303-795-4511.

Here is the original post:

Men filming voters in Littleton were 'first amendment auditors,' police say - Englewood Herald

From MPD:

On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 and Wednesday, November 4, 2020, multiple First Amendment demonstrations are scheduled to occur in the District of Columbia. In conjunction with this event, there will be parking restriction and potential street closures that motorists should take into consideration:

The following streets will be posted as Emergency No Parking on Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 12:00 a.m. to Wednesday, November 4, 2020 11:59 p.m:

Constitution Avenue, NW from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue, NW from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWConnecticut Avenue, NW from H Street, NW to L Street, NWVermont Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NWF Street from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWG Street from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWI Street from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWH Street from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWK Street from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWNew York Avenue, NW from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NW17th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW

(to include both sides of Farragut Square)

16th Street From H Street, NW to L Street, NW15th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW

(to include both sides of McPherson Square)

14th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW13th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to L Street, NW12th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW11th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW10th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NWC Street, NW from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWD Street, NW from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NW

While the Metropolitan Police Department does not anticipate street closures, there is the potential for intermittent closures in the downtown area of the District of Columbia. Any decision to close a street will be based upon public safety.

Originally posted here:

"On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 and Wednesday, November 4, 2020, multiple First Amendment demonstrations are scheduled to occur in the District of...