Methods of addressing attorney discrimination already exist, rendering the proposed Rule not just unconstitutional, but wholly unnecessary.

Texas Insider Report: AUSTIN, Texas

In December 2016, Attorney General Paxtonissued an opiniondescribing the Rules glaring unlawfulness. And in 2018, the United States Supreme Court concluded that state restrictions on professional speech are presumptively unconstitutional because they are content-based restrictions on speech. Despite these rulings, the Texas Bar is set to consider on Thursday whether to refer Model Rule 8.4(g) to a committee for further consideration.

The proposed Rule is broad enough to extend beyond judicial proceedings to include participation in education panel discussions, authoring law review articles, or even informal conversations at a bar association event. It effectively suppresses honest and thoughtful exchanges about complex issues, said Attorney General Paxton. Methods of addressing attorney discrimination already exist, rendering the proposed Rule not just unconstitutional, but wholly unnecessary.

Follow this link:

AG Paxton Warns State Bar of Texas Against Adopting Rule that Would Trample Attorneys' First Amendment Rights | texasinsider - Texas Insider

Jeremy Dys, Opinion contributor Published 6:13 a.m. ET Sept. 10, 2020

When U.S. District Judge Gregory Tatenhove placed a temporary restraining order on Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshears unconstitutional attempt to halt in-person worship during the COVID-19 pandemic, he did so with the following moving language: The Constitution will endure. It would be easy to put it on the shelf in times like this, to be pulled down and dusted off when more convenient. But that is not our tradition. Its enduring quality requires that it be respected even when it is hard.

His decision in Tabernacle Baptist Church v. Beshear was a major win for religious liberty. But despite the clear victory in the Tabernacle case, religious liberty remains under threat in Kentucky and across the nation.Far too many governors and local elected officials continue to flex their power by restricting religious worship, including by preventing private, religious schools from opening.

Tabernacle Baptist Church(Photo: Tabernacle Baptist Church)

But Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron seems to respect the autonomy of these religious institutions.He recently issued a thorough opinion defending religious schools from state and local officials attempting to prevent them from reopening. Referencing Tatenhoves opinion and other precedents, Cameron argued that the law governing religious liberty prohibits the government from closing religious schools that choose to offer in-person instruction this fall.

Part of the freedom to practice ones faith is the freedom to be free from governmental interference in the internal governance of religious organizations, including schools. That is no less true in the midst of a pandemic.

After all, as the Supreme Court recently affirmed in Our Lady of Guadalupe Schoolv. Morrissey-Berru, faith-based schools exist primarily to communicate their faith to the young. For the government to interfere in how these schools carry out their central mission necessarily intrudes upon the First Amendments guarantee to the free exercise of religion.

You may like: Preaching 'Black Lives Matter': How Louisville's white churches are talking about racism

Camerons opinion is timely. Across the country, overzealous government officials are continuing to restrict the First Amendment rights of religious organizations, sometimes even in opposition to public health recommendations. In Montgomery County, Maryland, local officials initially issued a directive prohibiting private, religious schools from conducting on-campus learning until at least Oct. 1.Within days, Governor Larry Hogan issued an emergency order removing the authority of local health agencies to shut down private, religious schools.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sought to blunt attempts by local officials in his state to close private, religious schools by issuing clear guidance weeks before the start of school making it clear that local officials dont have the authority to do so.That did not stop them from trying.Local officials in Cameron County, Texas ignored the Attorney Generals guidance, dismissing it as nothing more than an opinion and ordering the closure of the countys religious schools until they declared they could open. First Liberty Institute stepped in to remind them of the law.

And, in Californias Santa Cruz County, local officials are preventing in-person instruction in schools despite allowing the schools to act as day camps and childcare centers. In fact, California allows small groups of children to gather for a variety of purposes, including for childcare, preschool, daycare, day camps, and recreation programs. Incredibly, for most of the state who live in counties on the COVID-19 monitoring list, children may still gather in these small groups as long as they arent learning.

All of us, including schools, should consider the advice of experts and their evidence-based health and safety guidance. We should all do what we can to promote a safe reopening. Nonetheless, a pandemic does not grant government officials the authority to ignore the Constitution and the freedoms it has guarded for 200-plusyears.

You may like: Make a joyful ... nothing. How a church choir director is coping without voices in pandemic

As Attorney General Cameron said, The law prohibits the state from mandating the closure of religiously affiliated schools that are complying with recommended health guidelines. Our courts have consistently held, throughout this pandemic, that religious entities are protected by our Constitution.

Lets hope the Governor and local officials in Kentucky and across the nation heed those words.

Jeremy Dys (@JeremyDys) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at FirstLiberty.org.

Read or Share this story: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2020/09/10/covid-19-kentucky-fight-religious-liberty-amid-coronavirus/5738826002/

More:

The continuing fight for religious liberty in the age of COVID-19 - Courier Journal

Over two years after it was issued, a grand jury report on the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority was released Friday afternoon.

An Escambia County grand jury completed its review into complaints and allegations involving ECUA in July 2018. But that report was never released due to appeals filed by ECUA seeking to block it from becoming public.

A grand jury was convened and tasked with review of the operations, policies, and procedures of ECUA, specifically the grand jury investigation related to eminent domain proceedings, Florida public records and sunshine law, ECUA Board supervision, and delegation of authority.

Following its investigation and witness testimony, the grand jury concluded that criminal charges were not appropriate and returned a no true bill. However, because the grand jury was deeply concerned by the testimony it received, it issued the report. Under Florida law, individuals named in the report were given the opportunity to move to repress or expunge improper unlawful portions of the report. The appeals were ultimately rejected by the First District Court of Appeal.

In reading the findings below and the linked report, keep in mind it was issued two years ago and several aspects have changed. For instance, former ECUA director Stephen Sorrell has since retired, and then board member Elvin McCorvey passed away in January 2019.

TO READ THE FULL REPORT, CLICK HERE (PDF).

In the report, the grand jury made the following recommendations:

We find that the Board has been grossly negligent in their supervision of the executive director, Stephen Sorrell. This is particularly true in the matter involving Bear Marcus Pointe and in their delegation to Sorrell of unlimited authority.

We believe that the absence of term limits on Board Members has created a sense of complacency and has fostered an overreliance on the executive director and attorneys. An amendment to the Special Act should be considered that would place term limits on Board Members.

A clear policy should be established regarding the signing of documents, particularly those involving real property. We believe that the Board Chair should sign such documents. Whenever the executive director is authorized to sign documents on behalf of the Board, there should be clear direction by way of resolution giving that authorization.

There should be a policy, with deadlines, to honor commitments so that builders and developers can properly plan future projects. ECUA should formalize the development process in order to provide cost predictability related to design standards, requirements, and timelines once initial plans have been submitted. The Board should hold a public forum to discuss the development process.

ECUA should develop an advisory board to review engineering manuals and standards to ensure that the manuals are consistent with other similar water and sewer agencies. Public stakeholders should be involved in this process.

We strongly recommend that the Board hire an in-house attorney and support staff who are paid by salary and not on an hourly basis. We believe this would reduce the incentive oflitigation and would foster good will with businesses and individuals that ECUA works with. We also recommend that ECUA maintain a relationship with an attorney who specializes in eminent domain cases.

Indemnity and hold harmless agreements should be in all easements unless specifically prohibited by law. This is standard practice for Gulf Power Company. ECUA has given such coverage to Gulf Power but refused the same request by the owner of the property.

There should be specific policies in place requiring ECUA attorneys to provide regular briefing on attorneys fees and litigation costs in pending cases.

We recommend that appraisal procedures be reviewed particularly as they relate to eminent domain cases. We have noticed appraisals that were considerably under value that resulted in potentially unnecessary litigation.

ODOM AND BARLOW (ECUAs attorneys)

We find that Odom and Barlow heavily misled the Board and failed to keep them informed regarding pending litigation. Information involving settlement offers and discovery sanctions were never presented to the Board. Odom and Barlow did not advise the Board in a timely manner regarding issues with their email system or the missed deadline for the filing of an appeal. This resulted in four years of additional litigation and more than $460,000 in cost to ECUA.

We recommend that ECUA continue to pursue possible legal malpractice claims against Odom and Barlow.

Board members have indicated that they have asked for documents regarding legal fees and expenses, but have not been provided that information. Information regarding attorney expenses should be available at all times. ECUA should establish accounting procedures to make this information readily available.

We find that Odom and Barlow were making policy decisions. This should not continue. We specifically find that they made policy decisions regarding indemnification and hold harmless agreements.In their testimony, Board members have been very supportive of Bradley Odom. Other witnesses did not share this opinion. In his testimony, we found Odom to be both unprofessional and unprepared. We make these findings because they are important and should be considered by the Board in future decisions.

STEPHEN SORRELL

We recommend that an independent review be conducted to determine if Stephen Sorrell should retain his position as executive director of ECUA. Of particular concern are his actions in the Bear Marcus Pointe case. We recommend that the employment contract for the executive director be renegotiated every two years with no automatic renewal provision. The current contract has been in place since 2004.

We recommend that the executive director be formally evaluated annually and that a public feedback component should be included.

SUNSHINE/PUBLIC RECORDS

We recommend ECUA contract with an outside agency to provide annual training for all employees on the requirements for both Sunshine and Public Records. Either the Attorney Generals Office or the First Amendment Foundation may be available to provide this training.

All employees, including Board members, should only use official e-mail accounts when conducting ECUA business. ECUA should establish an archiving system to maintain all e-mail in an offsite location.

ECUA should require that any outside agency that contracts with ECUA comply with all applicable laws regarding Public Records.

BOARD MEETING/SHAD MEETINGS

Board meetings are currently held on Thursday afternoon at 2:00 p.m. We recommend that the meetings be moved to the evening similar to the practices of both Escambia County and the City of Pensacola.

This should result in greater citizen attendance and input.

ECUA should explore broadcasting Board meetings live similar to that done by Escambia County. Meetings should be advertised in multiple ways.

Topics of shade meetings should be announced in public meetings. This procedure is used by Escambia County.

Transcripts of past shade meetings should be posted to the ECU A website as soon as they become a public record.

The Board should hold litigation or shade meetings in all pending cases. Shade meetings may be used to have strategy sessions regarding litigation expenditures. This may help avoid the costly litigation that we have reviewed.

Written by William Reynolds Filed Under TOP STORIES

Read the rest here:

2018 Grand Jury Report On ECUA Allegations Released With Critical Findings And Recommendations - NorthEscambia.com

By Kimberly Gasuras, CCN Reporter September 11, 2020 2:08 pm

BUCYRUSStealing political signs is a crime and several Bucyrus residents have reported signs stolen from their yards in the past few weeks.

Mayor Jeff Reser said he has received calls from citizens who have had their signs stolensome very unhappy folks.

I dont blame them for being unhappy. We have a long history in Bucyrus of getting along with our neighborsregardless of political affiliation. I believe that the thefts of political signs are the work of very few people who dont know that this is a serious issue, said Reser. We live in politically charged times and we need to redouble our efforts to respect those people (and their property) with whom we may not agree with politically. Stealing signs is no way to support your candidate.

Bucyrus resident Lisa Miller has had her Biden signs stolen twice in the past month.

Gary and I have had signs stolen twice this year and in past campaigns. We might disagree with a candidate, but we would not stoop to the level of thievery, said Miller.

Roger Groves, who lives a few blocks away from the Millers, had his Trump sign stolen about a month ago.

I think it was teenagers who did it. I did not replace it because I figure they will do it again, Groves said.

Neither Miller nor Groves made a police report regarding their stolen signs.

That is not a good use of our safety forces time. We just replace the signs. Gary also made one that says, Biden/Harris 2020. Thou shalt not steal, said Miller.

Lt. Tom Walker, public information officer for the Bucyrus Police Department, said there have only been two police reports made about stolen political signs.

According to our records, only two people have reported political signs stolen: one Trump and one Biden, said Walker.

He said that in Ohio, stealing a political sign is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

There are also civil implications, for which someone can be sued by the victim for violating his or her First Amendment rights which is freedom of speech. The penalty for a tort of that kind falls within the discretion of a judge or jury, Walker said.

Walker said there are no suspects yet in the incidents that are being investigated and anyone with information regarding the theft of political signs should contact the Bucyrus Police Department at 419-562-1006.

See the article here:

Political signs targeted by thieves - crawfordcountynow.com

On September 1, 2020, Singapores Ministry of Law introduced an International Arbitration (Amendment) Bill (the Bill) that proposes two changes to the International Arbitration Act (IAA), which governs the conduct of international arbitrations seated in Singapore. The first change is the addition of default processes and timeframes for appointing arbitrators in multi-party situations where the parties agreement does not specify an appointment procedure. The second change would explicitly recognize the powers of an arbitral tribunal and Singapores High Court to enforce confidentiality obligations. Singapore is a world class international commercial arbitration hub, and these changes aim to further enhance its legal framework for international arbitration.

The Bill is the culmination of a public consultation process that took place, and upon which we reported, last year. On June 26, 2019, Singapores Ministry of Law published a consultation paper seeking comments from the public on six proposals for amendments to the IAA. The proposed amendments included: (1) introduction of a default nomination procedure for arbitrators in multi-party arbitrations; (2) a requirement that arbitrators decide on jurisdiction at the preliminary stage if requested by all parties; (3) recognizing the power of an arbitral tribunal and Singapores High Court to enforce confidentiality obligations; (4) provision for parties to opt in to an appellate procedure on questions of law; (5) exclusion/limitation of set aside grounds under the Model Law and the IAA; and (6) empowerment of Singapore courts to order costs following set aside. We discussed these proposals in detail in our previous article. Ultimately, the Bill adopts two of the proposals made in the consultation paper.

The first amendment that the Bill proposes is the addition of a new section 9B of the IAA, setting out a default mode of appointment of arbitrators in multi-party situations where the parties agreement does not specify the procedure applicable where there are more than two parties.

At present, section 9A of the IAA sets out a default procedure for the appointment of three arbitrators: Each party appoints one co-arbitrator, and the parties appoint the third arbitrator by agreement or, if no agreement is reached in 30 days, the appointing authority appoints the third arbitrator. Section 9A closely follows Article 11(3)(a) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, with amendments as adopted in 2006). However, this default procedure applies only to situations involving a single claimant and a single respondent. No provision is made for the possibility of multiple claimants and/or multiple respondents who might not be able to agree among themselves on a single co-arbitrator.

This lacuna in the IAA contrasts with leading institutional rules, which have for several years stipulated default multi-party nomination procedures. In order to ensure the equality of the parties, the current versions of leading institutional rules typically provide that the relevant appointing authority shall select all three arbitrators where the parties on one side are unable to agree among themselves upon a co-arbitrator. See, e.g., SIAC Rules (2016), Rule12.2; HKIAC Rules (2018), Art. 8.2(c); ICC Rules (2017), Art. 12(8); LCIA Rules (2020), Art. 8.1 (except where separate sides have been agreed in writing).

The Bill proposes the following default mode of appointment of arbitrators in an arbitration with three or more parties and three arbitrators:

The addition of a procedure for appointing arbitrators in multi-party situations addresses an important deficiency in the Model Law and the current IAA and is a welcome development as arbitrations with three or more parties are common.

New Recognition of Tribunals and high Courts power to enforce confidentiality obligations

The IAA at present does not contain any express provision imposing a duty of confidentiality in relation to an arbitration or empowering the tribunal or the courts to enforce such obligations. However, under Singapore law, there is an implied common law duty on the parties to keep the arbitration and information surrounding the arbitration confidential, which operates as a default duty absent party agreement to the contrary in all Singapore-seated arbitrations. See, e.g., Myanma Yaung Chi Oo Co Ltd v Win Win Nu [2003] 2 SLR(R) 547; International Coal Pte Ltd v Kristle Trading Ltd [2009] 1 SLR(R) 945; AAY v AAZ [2011] 2 SLR 528.

Many institutional rules impose express confidentiality obligations on parties in relation to the arbitral proceedings and/or the award. See, e.g., SIAC Rules (2016), Rule 39; HKIAC Rules(2018), Art. 45; LCIA Rules (2020), Art. 30; but cf. ICC Rules (2017), Art. 22(3). Arbitration legislation rarely does so, though there are exceptions such as section 17 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance.

The proposed amendment would not itself impose a confidentiality obligation, but would rather by new section 12(1)(j) to the IAA expressly empower the tribunal to enforce any existing obligation of confidentiality (i) that the parties to an arbitration agreement have agreed to in writing, whether in the arbitration agreement or in any other document; (ii) under any written law or rule of law; or (iii)under the rules of arbitration (including the rules of arbitration of an institution or organisation) agreed to or adopted by the parties. This clarification is a welcome amendment and should give tribunals confidence to respond to breaches of confidentiality appropriately.

The Bill is the latest in a series of amendments to the IAA, which was also amended in 2001, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2012, 2016, and 2019. The regularity of the amendments highlights the fast pace of innovation in arbitration legislation in Asia, as well as Singapores initiative to ensure that its arbitration legislation remains cutting edge and responsive to the needs of users, and competitive with regional rivals. The latest proposed amendments demonstrate that Singapore remains intent on cementing its status as one of the premier seats of international arbitration. It is important for arbitration users to regularly update their arbitration clauses with the help of experienced counsel to ensure consistency with current procedures and to take advantage of recent innovations.

[View source.]

See the original post here:

Singapore Announces Amendments To Its International Arbitration Act - JD Supra

AUSTIN, Texas The School of Law at The University of Texas at Austin is opening the Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center, which will be dedicated to advancing the discussion, education and scholarship of the First Amendment.

Among the centers main projects will be a new experiential education opportunity, the Law and Religion Clinic. It is the first clinic at a university in the state dedicated to representing clients in cases that involve challenges to their religious liberty and will allow students to learn about the parallels between the First Amendment and religion.

We live in times when measured conversation between people with different viewpoints has often become difficult sometimes even scarce, said Ward Farnsworth, dean of the School of Law.As the flagship public law school in a diverse state, I believe its important for us to show commitment and leadership on this issue.

Students will serve as advocates for clients who would otherwise be unlikely to find representation.These include individuals denied benefits or opportunities because of their religious exercise or beliefs, religious institutions discriminated against in municipal land-use decisions, and individuals seeking to practice the tenets of their religion in restrictive environments, such as prison and educational settings.

At a moment where our nation is divided on so many issues, our constitutional right to free speech is one of the most important tools we have to facilitate needed discussions, find common ground and continue making progress, together, said UT Austin interim President Jay Hartzell. The First Amendment Center will provide incredible experiential learning opportunities for UT law students while helping serve Texans in need of legal counsel and representation.

The center opens immediately, and the clinic will be offered to students during the spring 2021 semester. The center is named for Doug Bech, J.D. 70, and Samuel Loughlin, J.D. 98, who have partnered to pledge an $8 million gift to endow the centers activities and staff.

Our First Freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly are central to human flourishing, liberty and a healthy society in America and across the earth, said Bech and Loughlin. It is best secured through a civil public square where all discussion is respected equally in accordance with our rule of law. We believe that this Center and Clinic will provide UTs law students with the educational foundation to protect and embrace these vital constitutional rights for all persons.

Original post:

New First Amendment Center to House Law and Religion Clinic - UT News - UT News | The University of Texas at Austin

More than four years ago, Oklahoma City made it a crime to stand, sit, or stay on roadway medians to exercise the right of free speech. As then City Councilmember Meg Salyer explained, the anti-panhandling law responded to rising complaints from motorists about their quality of life [being] destroyed by the unseemly sight of panhandlers. On Monday, a federal appeals court struck down the law for violating the First Amendment.

The court agreed with the lawsuit that I filed with the ACLU and Legal Aid of Oklahoma on behalf of panhandlers, political activists, the Oklahoma Libertarian Party, Red Dirt Report and ordinary citizens. Our victory reaffirms the vital constitutional principle that the government generally lacks the power to prevent citizens from peacefully and safely speaking to each other in the public square.

In recent weeks, mass protests for racial justice and equality have demonstrated the critical importance of respecting those First Amendment freedoms.

The city shamefully defended its anti-panhandling law for years, with taxpayers footing the bill. To cover up blatant discrimination against our poorest and least popular citizens, the city applied the law to everyone. It consequently inflicted widespread collateral damage on the free speech of activists campaigning for votes on election day, protesters rallying for political change, firefighters filling the boot for charity and panhandlers begging for dollars to survive.

In court, the city had the gall to contend that it adopted the law for no other purpose than traffic safety. Yet the city failed to find a single accident involving a pedestrian on a median in its decades of records. By contrast, hundreds of bicyclists, runners and lately scooters have gotten hit in active lanes of traffic. Tellingly, the city still permits those much more dangerous activities. As the appeals court concluded, the city utterly failed to justify its mass suppression of free speech as a purported traffic-safety measure.

The city has squandered four years of legal work defending its violation of the free speech rights of residents. Worse, as The Oklahoman has reported, the city has spent well over $100,000 paying a private law firm to assist its defense. And with our victory, federal civil rights law makes the city liable for our legal fees to deter it from violating the constitutional rights of citizens in the future.

This has been a costly and avoidable civics lesson. Hopefully next time our elected city leaders will heed calls not only to respect the rights of citizens, but also to devote limited public resources to rooting out poverty rather than sweeping the impoverished out of sight.

Thai is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Oklahoma.

Continue reading here:

Point of View: Federal court ruling in OKC case is a victory for the First Amendment - Oklahoman.com

'); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body #mrd-alert"+ alertCount).append(""+val.title+""); // if (window.location.hostname == "www.kmov.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.kctv5.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.azfamily.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.kptv.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.fox5vegas.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.wfsb.com") { if (val.poly != "" && val.polyimg != "") { $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body #mrd-alert"+ alertCount).append('"+val.ihtml+""); $("#expandable-weather-block .weather-index-alerts").show(); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body h2").css({"font-family":"'Fira Sans', sans-serif", "font-weight":"500", "padding-bottom":"10px"}); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body p").css({"font-size":"14px", "line-height":"24px"}); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body span.wxalertnum").css({"float":"left", "width":"40px", "height":"40px", "color":"#ffffff", "line-height":"40px", "background-color":"#888888", "border-radius":"40px", "text-align":"center", "margin-right":"12px"}); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body b").css("font-size", "18px"); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body li").css({"font-size":"14px", "line-height":"18px", "margin-bottom":"10px"}); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body ul").css({"margin-bottom":"24px"}); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body pre").css({"margin-bottom":"24px"}); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body img").css({"width":"100%", "margin-bottom":"20px", "borderWidth":"1px", "border-style":"solid", "border-color":"#aaaaaa"}); $("#expandable-weather-block .modal-body #mrd-alert"+ alertCount).css({"borderWidth":"0", "border-bottom-width":"1px", "border-style":"dashed", "border-color":"#aaaaaa", "padding-bottom":"10px", "margin-bottom":"40px"}); }); } function parseAlertJSON(json) { console.log(json); alertCount = 0; if (Object.keys(json.alerts).length > 0) { $("#mrd-wx-alerts .modal-body ").empty(); } $.each(json.alerts, function(key, val) { alertCount++; $("#mrd-wx-alerts .alert_count").text(alertCount); $("#mrd-wx-alerts .modal-body ").append(''); $("#mrd-wx-alerts .modal-body #mrd-alert"+ alertCount).append(""+val.title+""); // if (window.location.hostname == "www.kmov.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.kctv5.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.azfamily.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.kptv.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.fox5vegas.com" || window.location.hostname == "www.wfsb.com") { if (val.poly != "" && val.polyimg != "") { $("#mrd-wx-alerts .modal-body #mrd-alert"+ alertCount).append(''); } else if (val.fips != "" && val.fipsimg != "") { // $("#mrd-wx-alerts .modal-body #mrd-alert"+ alertCount).append(''); } // } //val.instr = val.instr.replace(/[W_]+/g," "); $("#mrd-wx-alerts .modal-body #mrd-alert"+ alertCount).append(val.dhtml+"

Instruction

Link:

Webster Groves neighbors mailed anonymous letter asking them to remove Black Lives Matter signs - KMOV.com

Enforcing of the law

Law and order should be enforced by uniformed police under the control of local civil authority, not by armed strangers who show up in monster trucks. Or would the police rather that those who disagree with the latter form their own militias to take back their streets?

Thus far, the actions of the president's armed supporters have been anything but "well-regulated." The self-serving words and subsequent self-preserving actions of the 17-year-old alleged shooter in Kenosha demonstrate that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Or perhaps his intentions were not so good to begin with?

I think our "exceptional" society has less to fear from the guys with umbrellas than the guys in love with firepower. In either case, if the police do not give priority to the practice of the First Amendment over the practice of the Second Amendment, we may bleed for it.

That's why I disagree with "defunding" the police: I want more money spent on the training of police to recognize and act as if unarmed people of color sleeping in a restaurant drive-through, or selling "hot" cigarettes on a street corner, or in possession of a "hot" $20 bill, or asleep in their own homes are not threats to American "exceptionalism."

GARY WEKKIN

Conway

On systemic racism

Until our Black and brown brothers and sisters are free from hatred and systemic racism in America, all lives do not matter.

By dismissing Black Lives Matter and replacing it with All Lives Matter, you are comfortable with your own privilege because police brutality does not personally affect you or your loved ones.

Until good cops stand up and report the bad ones, all lives do not matter.

Until police officers who blatantly abuse their authority are held accountable for their willful actions, all lives do not matter.

Until policies are changed to send a clear message that racism and the abuse of power will not be tolerated within the city, county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, all lives do not matter.

You see ... until Black Lives Truly Matter ... All Lives Matter is a false narrative used to justify the oppression and injustice of the most marginalized among us.

ANGELA STOUT-EVELD

Charleston

Misuse of the office

The newspaper recently reported that taxpayers have shelled out $900,000 to support the businesses of the current occupant of the White House since his term began. His supporters appear to disregard his constant lies, horrendous attacks on the environment, stoking of racism, and lack of common decency. Can they not at least take umbrage at this flagrant misuse of their own funds?

The recent traumatic arrival of Hurricane Laura underscores the importance of mobilizing to combat climate change. The craven inhabitant of the Oval Office continues to enable his cronies in the oil and gas industries and issues frequent executive orders which imperil our survival and the survival of our four-legged brothers and sisters. I will be sending out letters for the Sierra Club, and I will cast my proud vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

CATHERINE LAMB

Little Rock

Like electoral college

Question for John B.: You're playing a tennis match and in the first set you win six games at love, while your opponent wins six games which all go to deuce. A 7-point tie-break is played, which your opponent wins 7-5 to take the set. Then in the second set, the same thing occurs and he wins the match 7-6.

You've won a total of 94 points while your opponent has taken 74 points. Do you shake his hand (or in these covid-19 times do an elbow bump) and tell him he's the second-place winner?

TOM ZALOUDEK

Little Rock

In different realities

Over the years, I have tried to take the opinions of those with whom I disagree seriously, and to respond in a civil and thoughtful manner. Lately, this has gotten to be difficult.

I look at what is going on in the world and hear people saying things that I cannot believe any sane person could say. It appears that a number of people believe that their wanting something to be true makes it so. I watched much of the Republican convention and was amazed and appalled at the nonsense that was spewed. (Paul Krugman said the only words in Mike Pence's speech that weren't lies were "a," "and," and "the.")

Watching Donald Trump speak on any topic convinces me that he has no empathy, or any normal human emotions, and is concerned only with his own interests. Yet I hear people telling me he is warm and caring. (People need to read Mary Trump's book; some bad genes there?) I hear people discount anything in The New York Times, or other legitimate sources, as "fake news," and somehow, Joe Biden, who holds no office, is responsible for the disorder in our cities, while Trump, who has been president for almost four years, bears no responsibility.

I hear Trump taking credit for the best economy ever (it wasn't), while in fact he was simply there while the recovery that had begun under Obama continued, and his actions, e.g., tariffs and tax cuts, slowed growth, bankrupted a bunch of farmers, and generated a $1 trillion deficit. And that's all pre-virus.

How am I supposed to respond to people who choose to ignore objective reality or who are lying through their teeth? Respectful disagreement no longer seems appropriate.

ROGER WEBB

Little Rock

Rent a moving truck

John Brummett, do a majority of Arkansans a favor and move to another state.

MARK JOHNS

Hamburg

Read the original post:

OPINION | LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Enforcing of the law | On systemic racism | Misuse of the office - Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

So, you think the already harsh language in this years presidential campaign is the worst ever?

Probably not and additionally, political speech, vulgarities, mocking nicknames, claims of incompetence and criminal conduct and a host of personal attacks all are protected by the First Amendments guarantee of freedom of speech.

The high legal bar for public figures to successfully sue for defamation, combined with a historical judicial reluctance to intervene in political campaigns, allows candidates and their surrogates to sling the most vituperative verbal assaults.

And throughout our history, they have.

The first real presidential contest, in 1800, produced what many historians might rank as number one in personal attacks, as then-PresidentJohn Adamsfaced off against Vice PresidentThomas Jefferson.

From the president of Yale University, an Adams supporter, came the warning that if Jefferson won, We would see our wives and daughtersthe victims of legal prostitution. A newspaper in Connecticut declared that Jefferson would establish a nation where murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will openly be taught and practiced.

In response, Jeffersons advocates wrote that Adams was a liar, a would-be king, repulsive and a gross hypocrite who behaved neither like a man nor like a woman but instead possessed a hideous hermaphroditical character.

Adamss son,John Quincy Adams, was both target and attacker in the presidential elections of 1824 and 1828 when facing Andrew Jackson, who lost to Adams in the first contest and won four years later.

American President: A Reference Resourceby the Miller Center at the University of Virginia, notes that in those contests, Adams called Jackson a corruptionist, an aristocrat and a budding tyrant in the model of Caesar or Napoleon, whose election would mean the end of the new American nation.

Adamss opponents spread the unjustified charge that the president had arranged a sexual liaison between a young American girl and the Russian tsar during Adamss time as U.S. ambassador to Russia. On the lighter side, they also published reports that Adams did not wear underwear and went barefoot to church services.

Jackson suffered through attacks in the 1828 election on his wife, Rachel, who it was said apparently with some justification by historians had not yet divorced her first husband before marrying Jackson. She died of a heart attack after Election Day but before Jacksons inauguration, and at her funeral, the president-elect blamed his campaign opponents for her death.

President Trumphas said multiple times that he wants to open up libel laws, which could affect future campaigns by weakening free speech protections resting on a landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.It reinforced those protections when public officials (later expanded to include public figures) are involved.

JusticeWilliam Brennanwrote that the decision was rooted in a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open and that it may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.

Whether offended by Trumps impolitic use of derogatory nicknames for his opponents, or by Saturday Night Live Trump parodies on TV, that commitment to uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate on issues and even candidate personalities is a hallmark of American democracy even if, at times, we might cringe at how its carried out.

Politicians get their say during campaigns. Government stays out of the way. And we get to respond at the ballot box.

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.

Go here to see the original:

Harsh words: Protected, nothing new | Opinion | presspubs.com - White Bear Press