Image Courtesy of Civics-Online

By Franchetta Groves

A recent study from the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) at the University of Pennsylvania found that American citizens are becoming more knowledgeable of their First Amendment rights and civics of the American government. The APPC puts out this survey every year on September 17 for Constitution Day as a way to increase civics education. The study found that American citizens are more aware of all five rights protected by the First Amendment as well as the three branches of government.

A promising fact from the data was the increase in American citizens who were able to correctly name freedom of speech as one of the rights protected by the First Amendment. Along with this over half of the 1,109 participants were able to accurately name all three branches of government, which is up from 39% last year. It has been a positive trend that over the years more American citizens have been able to correctly name the five rights of the First Amendment since the Annenberg Public Policy last asked the question in 2017.

The study points to the trend that American citizens are also becoming more aware and knowledgeable about the three branches of government and their ability to name all three branches of government. When questioned in this survey 51% of participants could name all three branches as compared to 39% when last questioned in the 2019 survey. Interestingly the APPC survey also found that 56% of respondents believed that Supreme Court Justices should rule by setting aside personal opinions and instead should make rulings based on the Constitution, the law, and the facts of the case. As the country approaches the possible appointment of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who would fill the seat of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, this data could indicate the publics reaction.

The survey also looked at if the participants could correctly answer that the Supreme Court has a final say when deciding if an action of a president is constitutional or not. Only 51% of the respondents were able to answer correctly that the Supreme Court has the final say as opposed to the 61% who responded correctly to this question in 2019.

The final question of the survey asked the respondents what percent of a majority is required in both the House and the Senate to overturn a presidential veto. Only 47% of participants were able to answer this question correctly which is the lowest it has been since 2007. An interesting correlation is that there have been no attempts to override the veto this year.

Im really pleased with the results and hopeful for the future. It is often said, and the evidence now demonstrates, that the 2016 election and the Trump administration have had a unique effect on American political life and civic engagement, said sophomore Blayne Clegg-Swann. Regardless of political affiliation, a reverence for the founding documents and an understanding of the freedoms they bestow us with are critical to our continued success as a country.

Continue reading here:

Do Americans Know More about Their Rights in 2020? - Catholic University of America The Tower

Attorneys for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and representatives of Fundamedios, as well as U.S. government officials, condemned the press freedom violations committed by law enforcement at nationwide protests during a hearing on Wednesday before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The commission, which is part of the Organization of American States and promotes the observance and protection of human rights in the Western hemisphere, heard testimony from Reporters Committee attorneys Sarah Matthews and Gabe Rottman, as well as Frank LaRue, advocacy and legal director for Fundamedios and former U.N. special rapporteur for the promotion and protection of the right to the freedom of opinion and expression, about the dramatic increase in arrests of and the use of force against journalists sparked by the protests against police brutality and systemic racism. Representatives of both the U.S. Mission to the Organization of American States and the U.S. State Department also addressed the IACHR.

Matthews, who serves on the advisory board for the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, which documents aggressions against members of the U.S. news media, testified that while protests are historically some of the most dangerous places for journalists, the number of attacks and arrests against journalists at protests has increased markedly compared to previous years.

She reported that, since a Minneapolis, Minnesota, police officer killed George Floyd on May 25, sparking a wave of protests across the United States, journalists have reported more than 850 total press freedom incidents to the Press Freedom Tracker. In 2019, the Tracker documented 152 total press freedom violations.

Attacking and arresting journalists simply for reporting the news is not acceptable in a free society, Matthews told the commission.

In his testimony, LaRue expressed concern that these persistent attacks on journalists at protests in the United States have been encouraged by rhetoric from President Donald Trump. By repeatedly denouncing the news media, he testified, Trump has created an atmosphere in which law enforcement may feel emboldened to use excessive force against the press at protests.

Gustavo Martnez, a reporter for the Asbury Park Press in New Jersey, shared details of his own arrest during a recent protest. Martnez described how police officers tackled him to the ground, knocked his phone out of his hand and detained him in a van with other people even though he said he repeatedly identified himself as a member of the press and wore his press badge around his neck.

A press badge should not be a bulls-eye, Martnez said. Charges against Martnez were later dropped.

Rottman, director of the Reporters Committees Technology and Press Freedom Project, mentioned in his testimony that federal courts in the United States have recognized a First Amendment right to document police activity in public, and about half of the federal appeals courts have found that the right to record is clearly established.

He also offered recommendations for reform for law enforcement at all levels of government in the United States that would help deter future press freedom violations, including increased police training, transparency and discipline.

To be clear, Rottman testified, while we understand the challenges that officers face in policing during protests challenges that journalists face as well in covering public demonstrations the bedrock American ideal of a free press demands that we protect First Amendments rights even more zealously in times of challenge.

Bradley Freden and Andrew Stevenson, representatives of the Organization of American States, and U.S. State Department attorney Thomas Weatherall each condemned violence against journalists as an infringement on their First Amendment rights.

When asked by the Commission about investigations into the attacks and arrests of journalists at recent protests, Freden responded that, while they would not address specific incidents, they will be investigating and seeking accountability when law enforcement violates the law.

Weatherall similarly declined to talk about what law enforcement is currently doing to address press freedom violations during protests.

Watch the full IACHR hearing.

The Reporters Committee regularly files friend-of-the-court briefs and represents journalists and news organizations pro bono in court cases that involve First Amendment freedoms, the newsgathering rights of journalists and access to public information. Stay up-to-date on our work by signing up for our monthly newsletter and following us on Twitter or Instagram.

Read more:

RCFP, Fundamedios testify before Inter-American Commission on Human Rights - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Charter Communications may have just helped literally thousands of TCPA defendants snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

As our regular readers know, the Supreme Court recently held in Barr v. AAPC that a recent addition to the TCPAspecifically, an exemption for calls to collect federal debtswas a content-based regulation of speech that violated the First Amendment. It then severed that exception from the rest of the statute, and in doing so dashed the hopes of defendants that had advocated for invalidating all of the statutes restrictions on automated telephone equipment.

Many quickly turned their attention to Facebook v. Duguid, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear just a few days later. And understandably so, as the Facebook case has the potential to provide much-needed and long-overdue clarity on the interpretation of the TCPAs autodialer definition.

But the Barr decision all but ignored the practical consequence of its holdingthat is, can there be liability for calls that were made before the Supreme Court remedied the statutes constitutional defect? Put differently, can there be liability for calls made between November 2, 2015 (when the exception took effect and the statute become unconstitutional) and July 6, 2020 (when the exception was severed and the statute became constitutional again)?

Incredibly, only two of the Courts four opinions even acknowledged that this might be an issue. Making matters worse, neither of them agreed with the other or commanded a majority of the Court. Justice Kavanaugh relegated the issue to a footnote. In his view, while no one should be penalized or held liable for trying to collect a federal debt while the debt-collection exception was on the books, the Court could not negate the liability that would arise from other kinds of calls that were covered by the robocall restriction. But the irony of that was not lost on Justice Gorsuch. A holding that shields only government-debt collection callers from past liability under an admittedly unconstitutional law would, he wrote, wind up endorsing the very same kind of content discrimination we say we are seeking to eliminate.

Enter Judge Feldman of the Eastern District of Louisiana. In what appears to be the first decision of its kind, Judge Feldman found that there can be no liability for calls that were made while the TCPA was unconstitutionali.e., between the time the debt-collection exception took effect and was later stricken.

Judge Feldman began by reviewing the various opinions in Barr and finding nothing on this point other than the few lines of nonbinding dicta that are quoted above. [C]onfronted with genuine issue of first impression, and with little more to guide it than passing Supreme Court dicta of no precedential force, he then concluded that Justice Gorsuchs is the better argument as a matter of law and logic.

Judge Feldman cited several decisions that stand for the timeless principle that [a]n unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. He then reasoned that, in the years in which 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) permitted robocalls of one category of content (government-debt collection) while prohibiting robocalls of all other categories of content, the entirety of the provision was, indeed, unconstitutional. Because the plaintiff was asking the court to enforce the unconstitutional amended version of 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), and because courts may not enforce such laws, Judge Feldman found that the Barr decision necessarily compels dismissal of such claims.

It remains to be seen whether the plaintiffs will try to take an appeal from this ruling, or whether other courts will follow Judge Feldmans lead. For the time being, however, TCPA defendants now have another arrow in their quivers. And that is always a welcome development.

Visit link:

First-of-its-Kind Decision Rejects Liability for Calls Made Before Supreme Court Cured TCPA's Unconstitutionality by Invalidating Debt-Collection...

This op-ed is part of a series exploring the writings and jurisprudence of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the presidents nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now that President Donald Trump has nominated 7th Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, the Senate must assess her qualifications, including her legal experience and judicial philosophy.

Want better access to more videos from The Daily Signal? Subscribe to our YouTube channel! Just go here: youtube.com/dailysignal

Although experience can be summarized on a resume, a Supreme Court nominees understanding of the power and proper role of judges can be harder to describe.

Justice Clarence Thomas described the modest judicial task as interpreting and applying written law to the facts of particular cases. Barretts judicial philosophy is how she approaches that task in all of her cases.

Here, we look for clues in her cases and scholarship involving the First Amendment.

The Senate should consider a judicial nominees record on its own merits, and in the proper context. Though common, evaluating judicial decisions by which party to a case wins or loses, or by the political interests that might be furthered, is fundamentally misguided.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said during her Senate confirmation hearing in 1993, Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues.

Although a few issues seem to attract most media or political attention, judging is about the process one uses to reach results, not the results themselves. Americans, therefore, need to know the process that a judicial nominee will use in all of her cases, whatever the issue and whoever the parties.

Most cases in the U.S. Court of Appeals are first considered by a panel of three judges. Their judgment answers the legal questions posed by a case and, most of the time, a written opinion explains that judgment. Some of these written opinions, called per curiam opinion, are not attributed to a particular judge, but rather to all of the judges as a whole.

More typically, one judge writes the majority opinion; the other two judges on the panel may join that opinion or write their own, explaining why they agree or disagree.

Barrett has written roughly 100 opinions that may provide more insight than the opinions she joined, although information about someones judicial philosophy may be gleaned from those too.

These opinions must be read with the understanding that three-judge appeals court panels are bound by precedents of both the circuit and the Supreme Court.

With that in mind, Barrett herself made a strong statement about her judicial philosophy during the Rose Garden ceremony where Trump announced her nomination.

She said: I clerked for Justice [Antonin] Scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons I learned still resonate.His judicial philosophy is mine too: A judge must apply the law as written.Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.

Barrett joined the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, on Nov. 2, 2017. Before taking the bench, Barrett had written about the role that a courts past decisions play in its current decisions.

In one Notre Dame Law Review article, she explained how Scalia distinguished between two kinds of precedent when interpreting and applying the First Amendment.

Regarding the freedom of speech and religion clauses (especially when the core offense of suppressing particular political speech is not at issue), Scalia relied on the accepted practices of the American people over the Supreme Courts own past decisions.

Although we cant know definitely how Barrett will decide certain issues if confirmed to the Supreme Court, heres a look at several opinions she authored or joined that address First Amendment issues.

The case of Acevedo v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board (2019) involved a challenge to the requirement by Cook County, Illinois, that to appear on the ballot, a candidate for local office must collect signatures equal to 0.5% of the qualified voters of the candidates party who voted in the most recent general election in Cook County.

The plaintiff argued that this threshold violated the First Amendment because it was higher than the signature requirement to run for statewide office. Barrett wrote the opinion for the court, which found no First Amendment violation.

Barrett wrote that the tough legal standard under the First Amendment is triggered when the challenged regulation imposes a severe burden, not by the existence of a less burdensome restriction. Because Cook Countys signature requirement was not severe, it did not run afoul of the First Amendment.

In another case, Lett v. City of Chicago (2020), the plaintiff, an investigator for the office handling complaints of police misconduct in Chicago, claimed retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights in refusing to write one of his reports in a particular way.

The court disagreed that his First Amendment rights had been violated, with Barrett writing that because the investigator spoke pursuant to his official duties and not as a private citizen when he refused to alter the report, the First Amendment does not apply.

Grussgott v. Milwaukee Jewish Day School Inc. (2018) was an employment dispute in which a teacher sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Barrett joined a per curiam (unsigned) opinion holding that the First Amendment allowed the Milwaukee Jewish Day School to make such personnel decisions without interference.

The court applied the Supreme Courts Hosanna-Tabor decision, which recognized a ministerial exception to employment discrimination suits against religious institutions. The 7th Circuit panel read the Supreme Courts decisions as requiring, in essence, a totality-of-the-circumstances test to determine whether the ministerial exception applies.

As Barrett noted in her recently submitted Senate Judiciary Questionnaire: The Supreme Court later vindicated our approach in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 140 S. Ct. 2049 (2020).

In Smadi v. True, federal prison inmate Hosam Smadi sought an injunction and damages, alleging that prison officials violated the First Amendment by interfering in his communications with various parties and refusing him religious meals. The district court had dismissed the first claim, severing it from the second.

Barrett joined the opinion concluding that the record was insufficient to dismiss the claim of interference. Although a recent Supreme Court decision limited the kind of relief sought in this case, the 7th Circuit said that the best approach is for the district court to recruit counsel for Smadi and receive adversarial briefs on the First Amendment claims.

In Adams v. Board of Education, a school board declined to extend the school superintendents employment contract and, during her final year, blocked her email and tried to pretend that she did not exist.

This treatment followed the superintendents demands for an audit of the school districts finances and negative interactions with individual board members, one of which resulted in her contacting the police.

The superintendent took medical leave and sued for damages. A jury awarded her $400,000 after concluding that the school board had violated her First Amendment rights.

The board argued that the First Amendment did not apply because the police report involved a private or personal grievance rather than expression involving a matter of public concern.

Barrett joined Judge Frank Easterbrooks opinion concluding that the incidents reported to the police involved public officials and their official duties.

The suggestion that an audit was necessary, questions about the superintendents tenure, and the school districts treatment of her before her tenure ended are all subjects of public interest, the opinion said. Rejecting the boards other feeble arguments, the court affirmed the award in the superintendents favor.

In Republican Party of Illinois v. Pritzker, the Illinois Republican Party challenged one of Gov. J.B. Pritzkers executive orders issued to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

Executive Order 43, issued June 26, exempted religious organizations and houses of worship from a 50-person cap on in-person gatherings, encouraging them to follow the recommended practices and guidelines from the Illinois Department of Public Health.

The states Republican Party argued that the Democratic governors exemption violated the First Amendment because more than 50 people could gather in a church to worship but the same number could not gather elsewhere to discuss politics.

Barrett joined the opinion by Judge Diane Wood concluding that the speech that accompanies religious exercise has a privileged position under the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has upheld legislation that gives religions a preferred position and held that the Establishment Clause permits accommodations designed to allow free exercise of religion. In this case, all that the Governor did was to limit to a certain degree the burden on religious exercise imposed by the limitation on gatherings.

These decisions paid close attention to the facts of each case, consistently followed precedent, and avoided unnecessarily addressing constitutional issues. By properly framing the issue in light of the facts in both Acevedo and Pritzker, for example, the 7th Circuit was able to decide the cases without unnecessarily opining about plaintiffs First Amendment interests.

In each of these cases, Barrett gave a glimpse of the thoughtful, serious way she would address her modest judicial task as an associate justice on the United States Supreme Court.

Follow this link:

Amy Coney Barrett on the First Amendment - Daily Signal

Law360 (October 7, 2020, 6:37 PM EDT) -- The U.S. government should be able to limit any service that poses a threat to the country's national security, whether or not that company facilitates communications, the Trump administration has argued in its bid to ban WeChat in the U.S.

In a Tuesday court filing, the administration told a California federal judge that the simple fact that Tencent-owned WeChat is a mobile communications app doesn't entitle the company to First Amendment protection orpreclude the government from cracking down on it for national security purposes.

"Were Tencent to sell electricity to U.S. consumers and, in so doing, systematically collect and send payment...

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know whats happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Originally posted here:

Trump Admin. Says First Amendment Is Moot In WeChat Case - Law360

Audrey Greene recently rejoined the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press as the Inasmuch Foundation Legal Fellow, a role focused on First Amendment issues, including libel and protection of confidential sources.

Audrey fields calls to the Reporters Committee legal hotline, drafts amicus briefs and helps provide pre-publication legal review for investigative stories produced by journalists, including documentary filmmakers.

Journalists experience a number of barriers [to press freedom], and I feel the work that the Reporters Committee is doing is increasingly essential, she said.

Audrey said she hopes to gain a deeper understanding of media law and First Amendment issues through her work with the Reporters Committee.

Audreys interest in First Amendment law blossomed in her undergraduate career at Barnard College, a private liberal arts college in New York City, where she worked on the Columbia Daily Spectator, the schools weekly student newspaper, and took courses on the First Amendment.

By the time I graduated, Audrey said, I really had a sense that I wanted to focus on media law and eventually go to law school.

Audrey graduated from Barnard College in 2015 with a bachelors degree in political science and a minor in religion. She then worked as a paralegal on Googles ads legal team before going to law school.

In 2017, she enrolled at The George Washington University Law School, where she wrote for The Federal Communications Law Journal, focusing on telecommunications law, and mentored younger students as part of the mock trial board. Audrey also worked as an intern for the Knight First Amendment Institute and as a legal intern for the Reporters Committee.

She recalled that it was Adam Marshall, a Reporters Committee staff attorney and alumni of GW law school, who inspired her to apply for the internship and, later, the fellowship position.

I came away from those conversations [with Adam] having a great impression of the organization and thinking this would be a cool place to spend some time during or after law school, she said.

Audrey received her J.D. earlier this year.

Audrey Greene is not admitted to practice law.

The Reporters Committee regularly files friend-of-the-court briefs and its attorneys represent journalists and news organizations pro bono in court cases that involve First Amendment freedoms, the newsgathering rights of journalists and access to public information. Stay up-to-date on our work by signing up for our monthly newsletter and following us on Twitter or Instagram.

More here:

Reporters Committee welcomes Inasmuch Foundation Legal Fellow - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

The President of the United States our role model, our leader, the most powerful man in the world stood in front of a throng of people on a recent September evening in Minnesota, riffing like a comedian.

Wasnt it a beautiful sight, he said.

Donald John Trump was describing the fact that police officers at a demonstration protesting the killing of George Floyd had fired into the crowd and unknowingly hit prominent MSNBC broadcaster Ali Veshi in the knee with a rubber bullet. Veshi was covering the rally, a protected freedom of assembly event, and was retreating from police and the front lines when he was shot.It is why we have journalists: they go where we cannot sometimes dangerous places and report back to us.

Beautiful, the President said. It's called law and order."

And the crowd cheered his remarks.They cheered the shooting of an American journalist. A few days later at another rally, he repeated the refrain: Seeing the reporter thrown aside. like he was a little bag of popcornits a beautiful sight.

President Donald Trump speaks to supporters during a rally.(Photo: [Lucy Schaly/for BCT])

Protecting the First Amendment would be this President's priority

Amid clash with Trump, Facebook should follow Twitter and protect freedom: Opinion

Coronavirus: Trump covering eyes, quieting critics won't stop virus' deadly impact

No wonder that at Trump rallies his minions can be seen wearing no masks but t-shirts emblazoned with, Rope, tree, journalist. Some assembly required. He eggs them on. He exhorts them to taunt and threaten the fake news purveyors.

Of course, to Trump fake news is simply anything that is critical, that puts him in a bad light or doesnt agree with whatever lies he floats from a disappearing virus to the myth of his business acumen. It is the hallmark of authoritarians, dating back to the Kings of Europe who would cut off the hands of disliked writers.

When allowed, I wrote in this space in September 2018, the authoritarians, the unscrupulous in power, will try to meddle, control, block and suffocate dissent and disagreement.When you expose or criticize or give space to the opposition, you must be the enemy.

The President of the United States, running for re-election on Nov. 3, was in quarantine this week, and we wish him and his family well.But the fact of the matter still remains: He is the worst and most dangerous First Amendment President America has ever seen. He has offered a treasure trove of material for people like me who write about freedom of speech.

But for the Constitution and democracy he is a menace, failing to understand why the Framers put these protections in writing in 1791, four years after actually adopting a constitution.They knew autocrats, like Trump, would try to drown out opposition parties and shut down anyone who got in the way of their holding power. Lock up those pesky reporters and broadcasters!

As the election nears Ive looked back over the 45 free speech columns I have written since Trump was elected, and they document a growing menace, a brooding and petulant man who, as Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bernard Stein told me, doesnt seem to have any grasp of the prohibitions (on his power). He just chafes against them. It is not a good thing to have authoritarian impulses. If your reaction is to put your fingers in your ears, you are missing something valuable.

What he is missing is the heartbeat of democracy: a civil debate on the problems that confront us and discussion of how to deal with them.

The first maxim of the First Amendment is that people can peaceably gather.Its their chance to yell at City Hall, to protest police practices, to complain they dont like to be told to wear masks or squawk that the Presidents maskless rallies are spreading the virus. Take to the public square and vent your spleen!And the government cannot stop you based for dislike of your speech.

Pulitzer Prize-winning editor Geneva Overholser told me the Presidents attitude toward free speech and press was truly scary.And she is right because as I wrote in July 2019, When the First Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1791, one of the major concerns was to find a way to stop the central governmental authorities from controlling our speech, in essence, from trying to control our thoughts.Think it, say it, publish it and you are protected. No Big Brother can stop you.

But Big Brother Trump doesnt get it. This President will kick you out of the square if you dissent from his view of the world, like the football players who kneeled in silent protest at police brutality.He doffed his presidential cap to the white nationalists but declined to support peaceful protests of racism.Until a federal judge reminded him that the First Amendment doesnt allow censorship of critics, he tried to block opponents on his Twitter page.

And dont you dare let him hear about his mistakes, if youre a reporter.The Saudis can assassinate Washington Posts Jamal Khashoggi, but dont dare ask an impudent question at a press conference, especially if you are woman.Off to the Gulag!

The atmosphere of hate against the press has been caused by Trump.When you repeatedly call a treasured, protected institution an enemy of the people, you lay the seeds for attacks on the press. When you constantly demean reporters, impugn their integrity, point at them at rallies so they can be jeered and go to war with them beyond the expected adversarial relationship you invite violence.

Trump just has never gotten it that the press was never meant to be his arm; it is the peoples arm.

And dont get me wrong, as I wrote in July 2018: The Fourth Branch of government needs to be held accountable, as do all American institutions. A little tongue-lashing is a good thing.But when it comes from the President, when it refuses to recognize the role the press plays as glue and lubricant in democracy and when it seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the institution of journalism, it is beyond worrisome it reeks of dangerous authoritarianism.

But that is what we have: a dangerous authoritarian who seeks to stifle dissenting voices, intimidate critics, discredit the press, hide his personal and governmental activities even during his health crisis and ignore that the Constitutions First Amendment insures that a democratic society have uncensored debate and discussion in order to be self-governing.

When you use the bully pulpit to promote a climate of violence against one of the most vital institutions protecting our liberties, you need to be held accountable. And you need to be denied that bully pulpit.I wrote those words in July of 2018. Now the time has come:Throw the bully, Donald John Trump, out of the pulpit.

Rob Miraldis writings on the First Amendment have won numerous state and national awards.He teaches journalism at SUNY New Paltz. Twitter @miral98 and e-mail miral98@aol.com.

Read or Share this story: https://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/opinion/2020/10/07/vote-trump-vote-against-first-amendment/5905998002/

Excerpt from:

A vote for Trump is a vote against the First Amendment - Poughkeepsie Journal

Editor,

I find myself writing another letter to our community newspaper. No, Im not mad, angry, nor riding a high horse pushing a candidate for elective public office. Believe it or not, it is because of a small, square white sticker tag attached to front of my Saturday newspaper.

For simplicity, Ill refer to it as the civility tag. Yes, a call for civility in the wild, one could say. That being wilderness of discontent we find ourselves in today, I presume. Asking for or suggesting the signing of a civility pledge of a local group promoting civility.

Yes, I believe the tag, as well as the group, are well intentioned.

Freedom of speech, as granted in our Constitution with few if any restrictions on ways of expression, does not include civility as a stipulation or requirement. Civility is an ambiguous term anyway. Meaningful in different ways to different folks.

Speaking for myself, I found it to be a Trojan horse of censorship.

This time of discontent we find ourselves in a period of history in the making and, I believe, most exercises of our inherited freedoms have been reasonably presented.

I understand others may disagree, but there is the value in freedom of speech, discussion and debate.

Thomas Strang

Coupeville

Read more from the original source:

Letter: 'Civility' is not mentioned in the First Amendment - Whidbey News-Times

In September, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press welcomed Emily Brown as a litigation fellow. In her new role, Emily conducts legal research, drafts friend-of-the-court briefs and completes other assignments to support the Reporters Committees litigation efforts.

I went to law school because I was interested in First Amendment issues and free speech issues, Emily said. Its been my prevailing area of interest my whole life, so this is really a manifestation of all of that ambition.

Emily said she decided she wanted to become a lawyer when she was in middle school when she joined the debate team, winning a competition argument that the school newspaper should not be censored by the principal.

For her undergraduate degree, Emily attended Haverford College, a private liberal arts college in Pennsylvania, and majored in political science, with a minor in music. After graduating in 2013, Emily worked at a clean energy start-up before joining the Peace Corps in Lesotho, a country in Southern Africa, for three years.

In 2017, after returning from the Peace Corps, Emily attended the University of Virginia School of Law. During law school, Emily completed internships with a federal magistrate judge in the Eastern District of New York and the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. She also did pro bono work for Mobilization for Justice, a legal services organization in New York City. During her final fall semester, she completed a full-time externship with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund in Washington, D.C.

Emily graduated from law school in May 2020 and spent the summer studying for the bar exam before joining the Reporters Committee.

Emily Brown is not admitted to practice law.

The Reporters Committee regularly files friend-of-the-court briefs and its attorneys represent journalists and news organizations pro bono in court cases that involve First Amendment freedoms, the newsgathering rights of journalists and access to public information. Stay up-to-date on our work by signing up for our monthly newsletter and following us on Twitter or Instagram.

The rest is here:

Litigation fellow joins - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

The film, which won an award at the Sundance Film Festival, is about an 11-year-old Senegalese immigrant who joins a dance group. The films writer and director, Mamouna Doucour, has said Cuties is a critique of the hypersexualization of young girls.

Tyler County District Attorney Lucas Babin, said in a Tuesday press release that the county opted to indict Netflix for promoting the film there. Texas Rangers served a summons to Netflix last week, he added.

Lucas Babin is the son of U.S. Rep. Brian Babin, who has called the film child pornography.

After hearing about the movie Cuties and watching it, I knew there was probable cause to believe it was criminal, Lucas Babin said in the release. If such material is distributed on a grand scale, isnt the need to prosecute more, not less?

Thomas Leatherbury, director of the First Amendment clinic at Southern Methodist University, called the indictment an unusual test case and said its troubling when there is a criminal charge related to First Amendment activity, particularly expressive activity, like a movie.

In Texas, a company convicted of a felony can be fined up to $20,000, according to the penal code. If the court finds that the company benefited financially from a crime, penalties can increase to twice the amount earned.

Excerpt from:

Texas grand jury indicts Netflix for promotion of 'Cuties' - Martinsville Bulletin