PHILADELPHIA (AP) The police commissioner in Philadelphia said Wednesday that her department will release 911 tapes and footage from police body cameras in the near future in the shooting death of a Black man following two nights of protests that set off clashes with police and break-ins of stores on the other side of the city.

The death of Walter Wallace Jr., who was fatally shot by police Monday after authorities say he ignored orders to drop a knife, came amid already heightened tensions in the battleground state just days before the election.

City officials announced Wednesday they would enact a curfew in the city from 9 p.m. until 6 a.m.

Mayor Jim Kenney told reporters the Pennsylvania National Guard would also be deployed to help protect property and assist the police. The first troops were expected Friday and Saturday.

Kenney, a Democrat, said 23 officers were treated and released for injuries, often bruises, after objects were thrown at them during Tuesdays clashes.

Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said officials would release the body cam footage and 911 tapes after talking with Wallaces family members. She also said the police department should move as soon as possible to integrate with mental health services.

Outlaw said the police department was caught off guard by looting in the citys Port Richmond neighborhood, far from the protests near the shooting scene in West Philadelphia.

The clashes erupted after about 500 people gathered in a West Philadelphia park Tuesday evening, marching to the nearby police headquarters where officers were stationed with riot shields. Some of the demonstrators threw debris at officers, according to police.

Business owners were cleaning up damage and boarding up windows and doors Wednesday after video showed people streaming into stores and stealing goods on the opposite side of the city from where Wallace was shot.

The clashes come as Pennsylvania emerges as a key focus of the contentious 2020 election, with President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, a native son, locked in a battle for the states 20 electoral votes. Both candidates have made frequent campaign stops in the state.

More than 9 million Pennsylvanians have registered to vote, and many in Philadelphia waited in line for hours this week to request a mail-in ballot by Tuesdays deadline, as news of the police shooting spread.

The unrest started Monday evening, shortly after Wallace, 27, was killed, and set off protests elsewhere, including in Washington, D.C., the Brooklyn borough of New York City and Portland, Oregon, where demonstrators held their hands in the shape of a W in his honor.

Police said Wallace was wielding a knife and ignored orders to drop the weapon before officers fired shots Monday afternoon. But his familys lawyer said the family had called for an ambulance to get him help with a mental health crisis. His parents said Tuesday that officers knew their son was in a mental health crisis because they had been to the familys house three times on Monday.

Wallaces wife, Dominique, is pregnant and was scheduled to be induced Wednesday, according to the familys attorney, Shaka Johnson. Johnson said Wallace had nine children, two of whom briefly spoke at a news conference late Tuesday, along with Wallaces mother and father.

When you come to a scene where somebody is in a mental crisis, and the only tool you have to deal with it is a gun ... where are the proper tools for the job? Johnson said, arguing that Philadelphia police officers are not properly trained to handle mental health crises. Johnson said Wallaces brother had called 911 to request medical assistance and an ambulance.

Police officials said they could not confirm what information had been given to the responding officers, whether they were told about a possible mental illness or how many calls they had received for help at Wallaces address Monday. Chief Police Inspector Frank Vanore confirmed that police had received a call before the fatal encounter Monday about a man screaming and saying that he was armed with a knife.

Outlaw said earlier the officers involved in the shooting were taken off street duty as they investigate. Outlaw said the officers names and other identifying information, including their race, would be withheld until the department could be sure releasing the information would not pose a threat to their safety.

Neither had a Taser or similar device at the time of the shooting, Outlaw said, noting the department had previously asked for funding to equip more officers with those devices.

The two officers each fired at least seven rounds at least 14 total shots but Vanore could not say how many times Wallace was struck.

Wallaces father, Walter Wallace Sr. said Tuesday night that he is haunted by the way his son was butchered.

Its in my mind. I cant even sleep at night. I cant even close my eyes, he said.

In video filmed by a bystander and posted on social media, officers could be seen yelling for Wallace to drop a knife. In the video, Wallaces mother and at least one man followed Wallace, trying to get him to listen to officers, as he briskly walked across the street and between cars.

Wallace advanced toward the officers, who then fired several times, said police spokesperson Officer Tanya Little. Wallaces mother could be seen screaming and throwing something at an officer after her son was shot and fell to the ground.

The video does not make it clear whether he was in fact holding a knife, but witnesses said he was. Police would not confirm any details about the weapon Wallace was alleged to be holding Tuesday, saying it is still part of the open investigation.

Wallace was hit in the shoulder and chest, Little said. One officer drove him to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead a short time later, she said.

Lawyer Robert Trimble represented Wallace in a 2016 robbery case that led him to spend about a year in jail. His sentence, according to court records, included six years of probation and mental health supervision. He had new charge pending at the time of his death.

I ran into him about a year ago by City Hall. He stopped me on the street and thanked me for helping him, Trimble said. I remember him being a decent guy.

Wallaces death set off demonstrations Monday night, leading to the arrest of more than 90 people. Police said 30 officers were injured Monday, most of them hit with objects like bricks.

Associated Press writer Maryclaire Dale contributed to this report from Philadelphia.

See the original post:

Body cam, 911 tapes in Walter Wallace killing to be released - The Associated Press

On Wednesday, Omaha Police Chief Chief Todd Schmaderer outlined what his department needs to do better when it comes to responding to protests and civil unrest.Schmaderer went over a review of the the department's response to more than 60 different events in Omaha this summer.Click here to read the full reportOverall, the chief said OPD operated with patience to provide the opportunity for free speech.He said officers dealt with being spit on, screamed at and having objects thrown at them.He said despite difficulties, command and control improved each day and the department gained valuable experience."Because if we can't learn they were destined to repeat the failures that we had on the first go round and we don't want that to occur," he said. Schmaderer said there were 123 use-of-force incidents and three were not within policy.One officer was fired and is appealing that termination.He said area's for improvement included training, equipment and bringing policies and procedures up to speed.He said training would include areas of de-escalation and on the First Amendment. The department plans to make changes in handling mass arrests.

On Wednesday, Omaha Police Chief Chief Todd Schmaderer outlined what his department needs to do better when it comes to responding to protests and civil unrest.

Schmaderer went over a review of the the department's response to more than 60 different events in Omaha this summer.

Click here to read the full report

Overall, the chief said OPD operated with patience to provide the opportunity for free speech.

He said officers dealt with being spit on, screamed at and having objects thrown at them.

He said despite difficulties, command and control improved each day and the department gained valuable experience.

"Because if we can't learn they were destined to repeat the failures that we had on the first go round and we don't want that to occur," he said.

Schmaderer said there were 123 use-of-force incidents and three were not within policy.

One officer was fired and is appealing that termination.

He said area's for improvement included training, equipment and bringing policies and procedures up to speed.

He said training would include areas of de-escalation and on the First Amendment. The department plans to make changes in handling mass arrests.

See the original post:

Omaha police chief details changes to be made in officers' responding to protests and civil unrest - KETV Omaha

The term 1st Amendment is the term used to identify Amendment I to the United States Constitution. Also, a part of the Bill of Rights, the 1st Amendment spells out several basic rights granted to U.S. citizens. It guaranteesfreedom of worship, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble peacefully. To explore this concept, consider the following 1st Amendment definition.

Noun

Origin

Late-18th century Old French (Amender)

Congress passed the First Amendment on September 25, 1789, and the states ratified it on December 15, 1791. As one of the original amendments to constitute the Bill of Rights, it protects fundamental rights for Americans. The amendment, sometimes referred to as freedom of expression, reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Initially, First Amendment rights only applied to laws at the federal level. However, in 1925, the Supreme Court began applying it to the states through a process known as incorporation. Since the this amendment is rather vague, the Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection that it offers.

Religion has played a large role in United States politics since the colonial era. After suffering religious persecution in England, the Puritans and Pilgrims fled to New England in the 1600s. The Puritans did not tolerate opposing religious views and banned Catholics, Quakers, and other non-Puritan groups. A banned Puritan, Roger Williams, founded Rhode Island and granted religious freedom to everyone.

In 1779, Thomas Jefferson drafted a bill to guarantees all Virginians religious freedom, but the bill failed. In 1785, when James Madison drafted the First Amendment, which included constitutional protection for freedom of religion. The First Amendment addressed the subject of religion with two provisions: the and the Establishment Clause.

The Free Exercise clause grants citizens the right to accept and practice any religious belief, and attend the houses of worship, of their choice. It also protects actions made on behalf of those beliefs unless those actions harm others. The clause also prohibits the government from making laws that specifically target religious groups or practices. One example is Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944). In this case, the Supreme Court held that states could force inoculation of children, even if it contradicted religious beliefs.

The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment protects freedom of religion by prohibiting the government from establishing a religion. The clause also prevents the government from supporting, endorsing, or becoming too involved in religious activities of any one sect or another. In most Establishment clause cases, the Supreme Court applies the Lemon Test. This test derived from the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, and now referred to as the Lemon Test, uses three requirements that state law must meet:

Both clauses protect freedom of religion, and commonly a violation of one results in a violation of the other. For example, mandatory prayers in public schools violates the establishment clause since public schools are considered government spaces. It also violates the free exercise clause of students who may not believe in prayer. It does not, however, prevent those who wish to pray in public schools from doing so, as long as they do not try to coerce others to follow suit.

When it comes to the government however, protecting one clause risks violating the other. For instance, allowing student-led prayer on school property may violate the Establishment Clause. But, if it prohibits all school prayer on school property, it violates the Free Exercise Clause.

The First Amendment guarantees citizens the right to express information, opinions, and ideas without fear of government censorship. On the most basic level, it grants people the right to express their opinions without fear of censorship by the government, even if the opinion is unpopular. It also protects all forms of communications including printed materials.

Freedom of speech does not mean people can say anything they want, however. For example, the First Amendment does not apply to speech that incites violence, or which causes severe distress to others. It also does not protect speech that incites illegal actions or solicits other people to commit crimes. Other forms of speech not protected include:

The Supreme Court has also addressed the issue of freedom of expression, also known as artistic freedom. Freedom of expression is only subject to restriction if it will cause direct and imminent harm. The Supreme Court uses a principle known as content neutrality to make decisions regarding artistic freedom. This means that the government cannot censor artistic expression just because part of the population finds it offensive.

The 1st Amendment also protects the right of peaceful assembly and petition. The right to assemble ensures that the citizens can have public meetings without fear of government interference. It also allows people to form associations. However, these rights are not absolute. The government can restrict the time and place of assembly. These restrictions are permissible if the assembly interferes with the rights of others, or encourages or involves criminal activity.

The Right to Petition gives people the right to petition and lobby government officials. It also allows one to make a complaint against the government or ask for assistance without fear of punishment.

Freedom of the press is crucial to democracy since it encourages the free exchange of ideas. This section of the 1st Amendment gives citizens the right to circulate opinions in print without government censorship. Like the other freedoms granted in the amendment, freedom of the press has limitations. Citizens can seek redress if false statements damage their reputations. It also does not protect the leaking of government documents that pose an immediate threat to military forces.

One notable case example on the 1st Amendment is that of Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). A New Jersey school authorized reimbursement by school boards for transportation to and from school, including private schools. Over 95% of the schools benefitting were parochial Catholic schools. A taxpayer in Ewing Township, Arch R. Everson, filed a lawsuit claiming the indirect aid to religion violated the First Amendment and the state constitution. The lower courts ruled against Everson, and he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts decision. It ruled that the law did not violate the U.S. Constitution since it did not directly support the Catholic schools. Rather, the law helped parents of all religions transport their children to and from school.

Read more:

1st Amendment - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

Freedom of and from religion are equally important in our culture and under our constitution to secure the blessings of liberty for all of our citizens.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett needs to be questioned extensively at her confirmation hearings about her legal views on the relationship of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. Will she continue the dangerous trend the Supreme Court has exhibited recently?

This past term, in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, the court held that the Little Sisters could not be compelled to provide employees with insurance coverage for contraceptives, on the ground that doing so would infringe upon the Little Sisters right to practice its religious beliefs free from state interference.

Fulfilling a legal obligation to provide contraceptive insurance coverage is not practicing religion. It does not compel anyone to buy and use contraceptives. Nor does it imply approval of contraceptive use. Taking the coverage away from employees does do one thing for certain: It penalizes them financially if they decide to exercise their liberty interest and legal right to obtain and use contraceptives.

Also this past term, the court held in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berry that the government may not interfere with religious schools decisions to hire or fire their lay teachers, that the schools decisions are outside of the protections afforded by fair employment laws, even though these laws are designed to protect the liberty interests of the public-at-large regardless of their religious beliefs.

Read more:

Another Voice: Coney Barrett should explain First Amendment views - Buffalo News

From yesterday's Pennsylvania appellate decision in In re Y.W.-B., by Judge Carolyn Nichols, joined by Judges Mary Murray and James Gardner Colins:

Mother and Father are the parents of Y.W.-B., born in June 2012, and N.W.-B., born in January 2015 (collectively, Children). On May 31, 2019, DHS filed the instant petitions to compel Mother's cooperation with a home visit.

In its petitions, DHS [Department of Human Services] alleged, in part, that on May 22, 2019, it received a report that three weeks earlier, the family slept outside a Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) office, and that on May 21, 2019, Mother was outside the PHA office from 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. with a child. The petitions further stated that Mother told a Project Home outreach worker that she was not homeless, but that her previous residence was burned down. According to the petition, it was "unknown if [Mother] was feeding [Children while] she stood outside of the PHA office for extended periods of time." According to the petitions to compel, DHS workers attempted to assess the family's home on the same day it received the GPS report, but Mother and Father refused them entry to the home or access to Children.

The appellate court held that "DHS presented the trial court with probable cause to search Mother's home in support of its petitions to compel cooperation," but vacated a trial court order that "Mother is NOT to record or video" the visit. The court quoted Fields v. City of Philadephia (3d Cir. 2017), which had said:

The First Amendment protects the public's right of access to information about their officials' public activities. It goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw. Access to information regarding public police activity is particularly important because it leads to citizen discourse on public issues, the highest rung of the hierarchy of the First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection. That information is the wellspring of our debates; if the latter are to be uninhibited, robust, and wideopen, the more credible the information the more credible are the debates.

To record what there is the right for the eye to see or the ear to hear corroborates or lays aside subjective impressions for objective facts. Hence to record is to see and hear more accurately. Recordings also facilitate discussion because of the ease in which they can be widely distributed via different forms of media. Accordingly, recording police activity in public falls squarely within the First Amendment right of access to information. As no doubt the press has this right, so does the public.

The court went on to note, relying on Commonwealth v. Bradley (Pa. Super. Ct. May 5, 2020):

"The Third Circuit [in Fields], however, cautioned that all recording was not protected or desirable. 'The right to record police is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.' The court, however, did not address the constitutional limits of this important First Amendment right because the defendants offered no justification for the action. Accordingly, the court noted that no 'countervailing concerns' existed to justify a departure from the general right to free speech under the First Amendment."

In Bradley, this Court addressed such "countervailing concerns" in a case in which the defendant challenged his conviction for defiant trespass for recording in the lobby of a police station in which there was a "no-filming" policy in place. The Bradley Court specifically concluded that the no-filming condition in the lobby passed constitutional muster, reasoning:

"The Commonwealth presents several countervailing concerns to [the a]ppellant's argument that he had an absolute right under the First Amendment to videotape in the Lobby. Principally, the Commonwealth highlights Corporal McGee's testimony that the police department's no-filming condition in the Lobby was based on several reasons: (1) preventing the disclosure of confidential information relating to ongoing investigations discussed within secure areas of the police department; (2) safeguarding the identity of confidential informants and undercover officers; (3) ensuring their safety by preventing the risk of retaliation against them; and (4) ensuring and preserving the privacy of crime victims. Indeed, the trial court found 'Corporal [ ] McGee testified with regard to numerous grounds upon which the no[-]filming policy was based, citing confidentiality and victim safety as fundamental components.' Thus, the restriction or condition at issue is reasonable.

"The no-filming condition applies to all members of the public who visit the Lobby. In other words, members of the public are granted a license to enter and remain in the Lobby, provided that they abide by the condition. Among other things, the no-filming condition ensures the integrity of police investigations and activity. The condition applies only to the Lobby and the interior of the police station, and not to areas outside of the police station, such as steps or entrances. Admittedly, it prohibits only the recording, taping, and photographing within the Lobby. The condition does not bar the use of parchment and quill in the Lobby. It, therefore, is a reasonable restriction under the First Amendment because it is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, i.e., to ensure the safety, security and privacy of officers, informants and victims. Moreover, it prevents interferences with police activity. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the recording or filming in the Lobby by members of the public is not a protected activity under the First Amendment."

Fields recognized that "[a]ccess to information regarding public police activity is particularly important because it leads to citizen discourse on public issues, the highest rung of the hierarchy of the First Amendment values, and is entitled to special protection." Although this case involves DHS officials rather than police, and official actions within Mother's home rather than in public, we conclude that First Amendment protections extend to restrictions on "the stock of information from which members of the public may draw" when discussing public issues. Therefore, we conclude that Mother's claim that the trial court improperly curtailed her right to record the DHS officials conducting a home visit is subject to intermediate scrutiny.

In the instant case, there was no evidence of any countervailing interests to support DHS's request for a no-recording provision. See [Transcript] (indicating that the trial court denied DHS's request to recall Ms. Richardson and granted DHS's request for a no-recording provision based on DHS's counsel's assertion that there were "videos, photography taken, posted on social media that made her feel intimidated").

[W]e acknowledge the trial court's concerns regarding the privacy interests of Children. However, our review is necessarily limited to the issue raised in this appeal, specifically, the right to record, under the First Amendment, DHS employees conducting an assessment of a home, and not Mother's posting of such videos on social media. {We add that there were no indications that Mother took videos containing images of Children or DHS employees interacting with the Children during her previous interactions with DHS.}

Therefore, under the specific circumstances of this case, and in light of Mother's and DHS's arguments, we conclude that DHS failed to establish that its request for a no-recording provision was reasonable. We emphasize that our holding does not make the right to record absolute, consistent with established case law, it is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

Read more:

First Amendment Right to Record Child-Protection Visit to Your Home - Reason

Gene Policinski. Photo courtesy Freedom Forum

By GENE POLICINSKI

Just how free should a free press be to report on the illness and condition of a sitting president during a national health emergency?

And how free are we to publicly offer our thoughts on the matter?

Both questions have the same legal answer: The First Amendment places no limits on what journalists, bloggers or others might report, and what we might say or speculate about the health of the president.

So, whats left are the First Amendment-ish concerns for reporters from longstanding national security concerns to a possible zone of personal privacy.

And given our fractured, polarized and politically divided society, the rise of social media puts all of us in that kind of -ish situation balancing our right to speak out in any way we choose against the social norms we should consider and the fact that theres no First Amendment insulation for us from the reaction to what we say.

The news that President Trump was infected with the COVID-19 virus came first in his own tweet, not through the news media, just after midnight on Oct. 2. Within minutes, news organizations relayed that dramatic news. Social media began firing up, with comments, forecasts and to put it gently sharp examples of the nations political divide.

To top it all off, a whirlwind of announcements, reports and commentary some contradictory on Trumps illness, brief hospitalization and now his ongoing treatment at the White House is unfolding in the midst of the final weeks of the 2020 presidential campaign.

For the record, U.S. history offers any number of examples of non-disclosure, image manipulation, complaints about White House transparency and press coverage of presidential health and public debate over the public comments about it all.

AfterPresident James Garfieldwas shot in 1881 at a Washington D.C., railroad station, official statements reported his condition as good or stable despite the reality that he suffered for two months from a bullet that could not be removed, before dying. With the bulletins distributed nationwide by telegraph, published in the nations newspapers and followed closely by the public, the story of Garfields fight to survive could be considered Americas first live media event, historianRobert Mitchellwrites inThe Washington Post.

President Woodrow Wilsoncollapsed from exhaustion in 1919 during a national speaking tour, and we now know he suffered a stroke a month later that left him partially paralyzed. Americans didnt learn even basic facts about Wilsons health until he left office.

Not only were there no White House announcements, some historians now dub his wife Edith as the first female president given the 17-month stint in which she consulted with him on virtually all presidential business and screened all contacts and correspondence.

As USA TODAY noted in a story this week, in 1944 a similar scene played out whenPresident Franklin Delano Rooseveltwas diagnosed with acute congestive heart failurethat forced him into seclusion for months. The report noted that the country was in the midst of World War II and the U.S. military was in the final stages of preparing for the D-Day invasion that opened the second front in the war.

Similar national security concerns have been raised about press reports of the details on Trumps condition. Would terrorists or hostile nations seek advantage or perhaps plan an attack in the U.S. or abroad knowing the commander-in-chief of U.S. forces remained on the job even as we learned from journalists that he was hospitalized, or facing medication and treatment for high fever and low blood oxygen levels that could have reduced his ability to converse or process information?

There are two unique circumstances with Trumps illness that werent present even as recently as when President Ronald Reagan was wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt, or underwent colon surgery: A global, instantaneous, 24/7 news environment, coupled with todays pervasive social media.

Beyond the national security concerns, are there some health matters that should remain private and not placed openly before the planet either out of personal consideration or to avoid becoming distorted as election-year fodder?

And there is the often-harsh tenor and frequently unsourced/unverified content of social media. Even a brief sampling showed posts ranging from conservative speakers making unsupported claims that journalists were hoping Trump would die, to Trump opponents posting images comparing Trumps balcony salute as he returned from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center to similar poses struck by dictators such as Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Juan Peron. To be fair, there also were great numbers of well wishes, too.

Again, while the First Amendment save for actual physical threats protects what we could say online, even as it provides no limits or advice on what we should say.

A free-press issue of a different sort has erupted. On Monday, White House Press SecretaryKayleigh McEnanyrevealed she had tested positive for the virus. Various press reports said correspondents were angry they had been exposed during briefings and other meetings with her and other officials over the previous few days.

An unnamed reporter wasquoted inVanity Faironline saying, People are livid. There are a lot of us, like dozens of reporters, who feel its unsafe to be doing it the way its being done. CBS News Ben Tracy commented on Twitter: I felt safer reporting in North Korea than I currently do reporting at The White House. This is just crazy.

As of Tuesday, three journalists in the White House press pool had tested positive. In theVanity Fairreport, White House Correspondents Association PresidentZeke Miller, a reporter for The Associated Press, said that journalists at the White House have been mindful of these risks for months. At the end of the day, were there to keep the American people informed and to be their eyes and ears. That job needs to get done. Were assuming some of these risks, were there to do the job.

In the final analysis, performing that First Amendment job of being a watchdog on government even during a pandemic by reporting the facts, fairly and accurately, as they can be found, is the best medicine for a health democracy.

. . .

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.

Read the original post:

FIRST 5: Trump and COVID-19 -- How 'free' are/should we be? - Salina Post

As bars and restaurants began to reopen this summer, so did religious institutions. The operation of churches posed the issue of remaining in close quarters for extended periods of time in the midst of a pandemic. Last month, Opinion Writer Nicole Chebili argued that the University should cease unconstitutional exemptions for religious gatherings. However, the United States Constitution enshrines the right to free speech, press, assembly, petition and religion. Supreme Court precedent has clearly established that public universities have no exception to these fundamental freedoms.

The freedom of religion has an essential role in United States history, given that the country was founded on that very ideal. This underscores why its so important for the government to uphold religious freedom, especially in times of political unrest and uncertainty. Universities serve to educate the next generation of leaders and must act to protect rather than restrict these freedoms. The First Amendment is often referred to as the first liberty because freedom of thought and belief is thought to be of utmost importance. Diversity of thought and belief should be at the forefront of the learning community at the University.

In this column, Chebili claims that the University should continue to restrict students from going to religious services in Charlottesville. It is important to note that as long as they are not directly affiliated with the University, religious institutions must already follow city ordinances, which require gatherings to remain under 50 people. It is not the Universitys job nor is it the Universitys right to interfere with students' ability to worship. It sets a dangerous precedent to restrict the freedom of religion by any means. The freedom of religion was a founding pillar of our American Democracy and it must be upheld.

Chebili also mentions that online services provide the same quality sermons, community building and worship. This statement lies in direct contradiction to the religious beliefs of many Christians, for example, who place a great importance on worshiping in person. It is indeed not the same to worship online, as in-person fellowship is essential to Christian life, as well as many other religions. Furthermore, it is not the governments right to dictate the means by which its citizens practice religion.

Next, the column claims that protesting is essential and protected under the Constitution, but religious gatherings are not. The right to assemble dually covers protests and gathering for religious reasons. Under her own line of reasoning, religious gatherings are in fact equally essential, and should be regarded as such by the University. Calling for the University to restrict student attendance of any religious service without applying the same standards to protests is blatantly hypocritical.

Recently, students and the University alike have repeatedly called for restrictions to the religious clause of the First Amendment. In another article, students called for the Fellowship of Chiristian Athletes to be disbanded at the University. This is based on the fact that the Fellowship requires students who wish to hold a leadership position to sign a statement of faith that includes the traditional definition of marriage. No matter how some students feel, the University should not restrict religious freedoms and should reject calls to do so. Disagreement with the beliefs of a particular religion does not suddenly grant the University the power to restrict its practice.

Religion is critical to many students on Grounds. There is great diversity in religious organizations, and they provide an essential space for students to practice their religious beliefs. For many, religion is sacred and the opportunity to practice that religion on Grounds is paramount.

It can be difficult to see CIOs promote ideals that one disagrees with. There exist groups like the College Republicans or the University Democrats who highly encourage their members to affiliate with the party. The University is supposed to be a place for intellectual growth and discovery, groups with different opinions on Grounds contribute to and diversify the learning community. The University must not shut down an individual or groups ability to speak or assemble simply because others dont agree with them, on any matter from political speech to religious expression.

Historically, the University has protected and upheld the First Amendment, while other schools have fallen behind the curve, restricting speech with free speech zones. U.Va must continue to lead in this area. It is fitting that the University was founded by Thomas Jefferson, the very man who inspired the Bill of Rights, drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and led the charge against the restriction of the church by the state. In keeping with the ideals set forth by Thomas Jefferson, the University must reject calls to restrict the freedom of religion.

Devan Coombes is a Viewpoint Writer for The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at opinion@cavalierdaily.com.

The opinions expressed in this column are not necessarily those of The Cavalier Daily. Columns represent the views of the authors alone.

Read this article:

COOMBES: Put the First Amendment first - University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily

The nomination of fellow Notre Dame Law alum Judge Amy Coney Barrett has generated considerable controversy. Some of that is related to the process. There are those who feel that the winner of November 3ds Presidential election should make the nomination. That appeared to be the unwritten rule in 2106 when President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, only to see the Senate sit on their collective hands and not conduct a hearing, given the (sort of) pending 2016 election. Apparently, at some point between 2016 and 2020, there was an unwritten amendment to the unwritten rule, such that it is all of a sudden vitally important to confirm Judge Barrett ASAP.

And aside from the procedural controversy, progressives are concerned with Judge Barretts expressed views on abortion and gun control. Given that her appointment will leave the court in a 6-3 conservative versus progressive split, one can understand the concern coming from that side of the aisle.

But Ive been wondering about how Judge Barrett might view the First Amendment and other matters that might affect the journalists I work with. So I was pretty excited when I saw this headline: Would Justice Amy Coney Respect Press Freedom? I was hoping it would shed light on the subject. Unfortunately, it really didnt. The premise is essentially that President Trump appointed her, and President Trump hates the press, so look for anti-press rulings.

A more accurate assessment comes from The Institute for Free Speech. And their report is that she is really a blank slate. Shes been a Judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals since 2017, and in that time has apparently not written on the issue. It appears that she didnt weigh in as an academic either.

I do think there are some pressing issues in the First Amendment world, not the least of which is the future of New York Times v. Sullivan the 56 year old precedent that is the foundation for First Amendment jurisprudence in the world of journalism. Judge Barretts former boss, Justice Antonin Scalia was not a fan of the holding, nor is Justice Thomas.

So, it might be nice to ask Judge Barrett in her confirmation hearing just what she thinks about the holding in that case. Was it correctly decided? If not, why not? And what should the court have done?

If a future court were to overrule Sullivan, the fallout would be tremendous. We have a right to know where she stands on this.

See the article here:

Judge amy coney barrett and the First Amendment - Lexology

Randy Brockway, Guest Columnist Published 4:00 p.m. CT Oct. 8, 2020

As Tennesseans who believe in truth, equality, and liberty, we cannot allow this Senate Bill 8005 to continue existing in its current form.

Randy Brockway(Photo: Submitted)

On Aug.20 Gov. Bill Lee quietly signed Senate Bill 8005 into law.

There was no public announcement, not even a tweet.

The lack of announcement signals that Gov. Lee knows this is a bad bill aimed at stifling Tennesseans First Amendment rights by enforcing unnecessarily harsh sentencing for protesters.

To understand the silence, the bill itself needs a bit of unpacking. At a high level, the bill calls for harsh sentencing for what are essentially acts that are protected by the First Amendment.

For example, an individual who is caught camping on state property can now be charged with a Class E felony which includes up to sixyearsin prison and loss of voting rights.

Hear more Tennessee Voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought provoking columns.

Due to the vagueness of this statute, in addition to preventing individuals from camping during a peaceful protest, a homeless person caught sleeping in a park, or a family setting up an evening or early morning picnic could potentially be charged in the same fashion.

In contrast, an individual would be charged with a Class A misdemeanor for simple assault on a first responder.

This bill implies it is a more heinous crime to camp on state property than it is to spit on, or physically push a first responder. Does that seem just? Do we truly value state property more than our first responders? One could assume so with the consequences as defined in this bill.

To add to the general vagueness of the bills intent, individuals or groups could be charged and handed a mandatory sentence for disturbing public meetings. This disturbance could be interpreted many ways, however the most obvious would involve being too loud.

For example, those who were peacefully assembling outside of the state capitol and requesting an audience with Gov. Lee, could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor.

The bill does call for harsher penalties for property damageas a result ofaggravated rioting and aggravated assault on a first responder. Rightfully so, the state is calling for this harsher sentencingin an attempt todeter these acts that would move a peaceful assembly or protest to an escalated situation, where bodily harm and property damage could be realized.

Despite the necessary components of this bill, the bill has very severe and questionable unintended consequences for individuals or groups that are exercising their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Does the majority Republican legislature recognize the potential unintended consequences of the bill? Are our elected officials intentionally trying to curb any sort of gathering that would be considered protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?

It is likely we will never know the exact motivations of our elected officials and Gov. Lee with respect to Senate Bill 8005.However, it is clear that this bill needs to be repealed or amended, atminimum.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

As Tennesseans who believe in truth, equality, and liberty, we cannot allow this bill to continue existing in its current form.

Please write your district legislator urging them to raise a bill at the next General Assembly, which convenes in January of 2021, to repeal Senate Bill 8005 or, at a minimum, amend it.

Randy Brockway isDirector ofHuman Resources at ServiceSource and State Leader for Stand Up Republic Tennessee,residing in Franklin, TN.

Read or Share this story: https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2020/10/08/tennessee-protester-law-must-repealed/5923364002/

Read the original post:

Tennessee voting rights law needs to be repealed for the sake of civil liberty | Opinion - Tennessean

Just how free should a free press be to report on the illness and condition of a sitting president during a national health emergency?

And how free are we to publicly offer our thoughts on the matter?

Both questions have the same legal answer: The First Amendment places no limits on what journalists, bloggers or others might report, and what we might say or speculate about the health of the president.

So, whats left are the First Amendment-ish concerns for reporters from longstanding national security concerns to a possible zone of personal privacy.

And given our fractured, polarized and politically divided society, the rise of social media puts all of us in that kind of -ish situation balancing our right to speak out in any way we choose against the social norms we should consider and the fact that theres no First Amendment insulation for us from the reaction to what we say.

The news that President Trump was infected with the COVID-19 virus came first in his own tweet, not through the news media, just after midnight on Friday, Oct. 2. Within minutes, news organizations relayed that dramatic news. Social media began firing up, with comments, forecasts and to put it gently sharp examples of the nations political divide.

To top it all off, a whirlwind of announcements, reports and commentary some contradictory on Trumps illness, brief hospitalization and now his ongoing treatment at the White House is unfolding in the midst of the final weeks of the 2020 presidential campaign.

For the record, U.S. history offers any number of examples of non-disclosure, image manipulation, complaints about White House transparency and press coverage of presidential health and public debate over the public comments about it all.

After President James Garfield was shot in 1881 at a Washington, D.C., railroad station, official statements reported his condition as good or stable despite the reality that he suffered for two months from a bullet that could not be removed, before dying. With the bulletins distributed nationwide by telegraph, published in the nations newspapers and followed closely by the public, the story of Garfields fight to survive could be considered Americas first live media event, historian Robert Mitchell writes in The Washington Post.

President Woodrow Wilson collapsed from exhaustion in 1919 during a national speaking tour, and we now know he suffered a stroke a month later that left him partially paralyzed. Americans didnt learn even basic facts about Wilsons health until he left office.

Not only were there no White House announcements, some historians now dub his wife Edith as the first female president given the 17-month stint in which she consulted with him on virtually all presidential business and screened all contacts and correspondence.

As USA TODAY noted in a story this week, in 1944 a similar scene played out when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was diagnosed with acute congestive heart failure that forced him into seclusion for months. The report noted that the country was in the midst of World War II and the U.S. military was in the final stages of preparing for the D-Day invasion that opened the second front in the war.

Similar national security concerns have been raised about press reports of the details on Trumps condition. Would terrorists or hostile nations seek advantage or perhaps plan an attack in the U.S. or abroad knowing the commander-in-chief of U.S. forces remained on the job even as we learned from journalists that he was hospitalized, or facing medication and treatment for high fever and low blood oxygen levels that could have reduced his ability to converse or process information?

There are two unique circumstances with Trumps illness that werent present even as recently as when President Ronald Reagan was wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt, or underwent colon surgery: A global, instantaneous, 24/7 news environment, coupled with todays pervasive social media.

Beyond the national security concerns, are there some health matters that should remain private and not placed openly before the planet either out of personal consideration or to avoid becoming distorted as election-year fodder?

And there is the often-harsh tenor and frequently unsourced/unverified content of social media. Even a brief sampling showed posts ranging from conservative speakers making unsupported claims that journalists were hoping Trump would die, to Trump opponents posting images comparing Trumps balcony salute as he returned from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center to similar poses struck by dictators such as Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Juan Peron. To be fair, there also were great numbers of well wishes, too.

Again, while the First Amendment save for actual physical threats protects what we could say online, even as it provides no limits or advice on what we should say.

A free-press issue of a different sort has erupted. On Monday, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany revealed she had tested positive for the virus. Various press reports said correspondents were angry they had been exposed during briefings and other meetings with her and other officials over the previous few days.

An unnamed reporter was quoted in Vanity Fair online saying, People are livid. There are a lot of us, like dozens of reporters, who feel its unsafe to be doing it the way its being done. CBS News Ben Tracy commented on Twitter: I felt safer reporting in North Korea than I currently do reporting at The White House. This is just crazy.

As of Tuesday, three journalists in the White House press pool had tested positive. In the Vanity Fair report, White House Correspondents Association President Zeke Miller, a reporter for The Associated Press, said that journalists at the White House have been mindful of these risks for months. At the end of the day, were there to keep the American people informed and to be their eyes and ears. That job needs to get done. Were assuming some of these risks, were there to do the job.

In the final analysis, performing that First Amendment job of being a watchdog on government even during a pandemic by reporting the facts, fairly and accurately, as they can be found, is the best medicine for a healthy democracy.

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 gpolicinski@freedomforum.org.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

See the original post here:

Facts reported accurately best health news medicine | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item