The National Right to Work Foundation-wonJanus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision allows public employees to stop paying dues or fees to a union at any time they choose. Janus affirmed that the First Amendment protects government workers from supporting a union against their wishes.

But ever since the Janusdecision in June 2018, many union bosses have refused to comply with the High Courts decision. So Foundation staff attorneys have filed dozens of cases across the country to enforce the Janusdecision and compel union bosses to respect the First Amendment rights of the workers they claim to represent.

Journalist Mark Tapscott recently reported on a number of these cases for The Epoch Times, including a newly filed case for a police officer serving on the front lines in Las Vegas:

Las Vegas Police Officer Melodie DePierro is the latest in a growing line of public sector employees suing in federal court to demand recognition of their rights under a 2018 Supreme Court decision.

DePierros action was filed in the U.S. District Court for Nevada against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) and the local Police Protective Association (PPA) union.

In Janus v American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) decided by a 5-4 vote in June 2018, the high court ruled that public sector employees cannot be forced to pay union dues in the form of agency fees without being given a chance to consent or refuse the deduction.

DePierro noted in her suit that the departments monopoly bargaining agreement with the union only allowed a 20-day window of opportunity to request agency fee refunds and that she had never agreed to the deduction in the first place.

Right-to-Work advocates cheered Janus as a landmark decision that would prompt millions of employees at all levels of government to demand an end to hundreds of millions of dollars in agency fees that helped fund partisan union political activities with which they disagreed.

Instead of respecting her First Amendment Janus rights, PPA union bosses have decided to keep imposing an unconstitutional policy on her just to keep her hard-earned money rolling into their coffers, NRTWLDF President Mark Mix said in a statement announcing the suit.

The High Court made perfectly clear in Janus that affirmative consent from employees is required for any dues deductions to occur. Yet PPA union bosses are clearly violating that standard here, Mix said.

A week before the DePierro filing, NRTWLDF attorneys issued a special notice to more than 28,000 Ohio state employees advising them of their right not to pay agency fees. The notice was part of a settlement of the foundations suit against the state government and the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association, AFSCME Local 11 (OCSEA).

Other Janus suits currently working their way through the courts include NRTWLDF actions against the Chicago Teachers Union, the Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA), the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA), California Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE) union and the University of California, and the Township of Ocean Education Association (TOEA), New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) and the National Education Association (NEA) unions. The latter suit has reached a federal appeals court.

Read the entire article online at The Epoch Timeshere.

Continue reading here:

In the News: "Foundation Sues to Give Public Employees Their Right Not to Pay Union Dues" - National Right to Work Foundation

A 75-year-old man suffered a head injury and is in 'stable but serious condition' after he was shoved by police during a protest in Buffalo, New York. Storyful

It was his name that gave him away.

Hey, are you the 75-year-old guy who was hit in Buffalo? a post office worker asked.

Martin Gugino, 75, of Amherst, wasnt expecting to be recognized in public, especially wearing a face mask.

But the videos that captured the moment when Buffalo Police officers shoved Gugino backward in front of Buffalos City Hall in June during a protest over the death of George Floyd, causing him to fall and crack his skull on the pavement, had been seen around the world.

Gugino, speaking to the USA TODAYNetwork's New York State Team last week in his first extended interview, was reluctant to go into detail about the incident, which sent him to the hospital for a month to recoverfrom a brain injury and a fractured skull.

That's because he doesnt remember the moment he was shoved, and he has flashes of memory in the minutes before or after. Video recordings helped him fill in the blank spots of what happened that evening.

He is seemingly uninterested in becoming a symbol of a trend or a movement, or drawing attention to himself.

When asked about the context surrounding his fall and injuries, he noted that a lot of people are injured, and a lot of people are killed, and often, nothing is done about those incidents, especially if there was no record of it on video.

Still, he called the incident a turning point for him.

He will continue to participate in grassroots activism around the First Amendment, as he has done for decades. Hell continue to publish writingsabout climate change and injustices at Guantanamo Bay on the internet.

My life is headed in a new direction, Gugino said. How is it different? Im not really sure yet.

Martin Gugino, 75, was pushed by Buffalo Police officers in the aftermath of a rally in Buffalo on June 4. He went to the hospital with a fractured skull and brain injury. He has since recovered, and is hoping to move back to Buffalo in the fall.(Photo: Provided)

Gugino showed up at a Black Lives Matter rally in downtown Buffalo on June 4 at around 7:45 p.m., 15 minutes before the city-imposed curfew went into effect.

The night prior, a number of Buffalo police officers tooka knee with community members in solidarity with the protests around the murder of Floyd by police in Minneapolis on May 25.

Just minutes before police began moving toward the crowd, Gugino noticed they were outfitted with helmets, vests and batons:I thought, Why are they carrying batons?'"

Earlier in the evening, he had approached several police officers to ask whether they thought the Mayor Byron Browns curfew order could legitimately make an assembly illegal.

They didnt respond, other than to offer to read the mayors statements to him.

Gugino also had a conversation with several bystanders, which was caught on video and appeared to show at least one person expressing anger toward him.

Gugino said one individual thought he was an undercover cop, which Gugino denies.

At around 8:10 p.m., as seen in several videos of the incident, a group of officers began walking toward a few dozen rally attendees who were still in the downtown area after curfew.

Video footage shows a tall, white-haired Gugino approaching the officers head on.

Gugino said he remembers alarmed thoughts flashing through his head when he saw officers moving toward the demonstrators, but has no idea what he said to police in that moment.

I thought, Oh my God and thats all I can remember, he said.

In the seconds following, two officers in the advancing group shoved Gugino away from them and he stumbled and fell backward, his head audibly cracking against the pavement.

Emergency personnel arrived soon after, and Gugino was whisked to the Erie County Medical Center.

The two officers involved, Robert McCabe and Aaron Torgalski, were suspended without pay and later charged with second-degree assault.

They pleaded not guilty, and are currently suspended with pay, as officers cannot be suspended without pay for more than 30 days, according to a city spokesperson.

The City of Buffalo and the Buffalo Police Department declined to comment further on the incident.

More: Buffalo police officers seen pushing man to ground charged with assault

More: New York signs sweeping police reforms into law after George Floyd death. What they will do

Martin Gugino shown in June 2019 at at Buffalo Youth Climate Strike rally.(Photo: Provided)

What followed for Gugino werean avalanche of tests, scans and physical therapy for the hospital.

After weeks in bed, standing or walking became a challenge, and he had vivid nightmares.

Every time youd sit up, you would get dizzy, he said. It was like you were on a boat all the time.

His pain was manageable with Tylenol, which he said he rarely used for minor aches and pains, even at 75.

He was monitored by medical staff day and night, and couldnt get out of bed or go to the bathroom without their help.

On the positive side, hed be offered cookies in the middle of the night. His flavor of choice? Coconut.

Meanwhile, cards, letters and other well wishes poured in. He slept for hours in the days after the incident, disconnected from the whirlwind of global internet commentary around his actions and the police response.

He has since seen and heard snippets of strangers accusations that he was a leftist provocateur, that his fall was a hoax or that he was wearing a pack of fake blood under his mask.

President Donald Trump publicly considered the validity of such theories about Gugino on Twitter the following week, saying that Gugino could be an antifa provocateur and that he was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment.

Guginos lawyers got angry emails questioning why theyd defend a faker, he said. But Gugino is unfazed by the accusations.

I was like, Go ahead, take your best shot, he said.

The incident didnt cloud his view of police; he still regards them as regular citizens who work within a system he believes is broken.

I come from the suburbs, and theres no problem with police in a white neighborhood, he said. Im not scared of the policemen, but the system is screwed up.

After about a month, Gugino was released from the hospital and was able to walk out using a cane.

Hes living with family outside of New York and plans to close on a new home in Buffalo in September.

'Black Lives Matter': Amherst man pushed by police responds after Trump tweet

Martin Gugino's lawyer: He has brain injury, fractured skull after being pushed by police

Martin Gugino, left, listens at a talk by West Cosgrove, of Rural & Migrant Ministry in Feb. 2019.(Photo: Provided)

When it comes to justice, Gugino is interested in so many causes that hell start talking about a new one before hes finished discussing the first.

He retired in 2003 after decades of working at FirstEnergy Corp. in Cleveland, Ohio. Aftera stint living in California, he eventually moved back to Buffalo to care for his ailing mother, who died six years ago. He has no spouse or children.

Even after a brain injury, he has split-second recall for specific details about years-old court cases, such as the Benny Warr case in Rochester, in which a black man in a wheelchair alleged that he was unlawfully arrested and beaten by police.

Guginos values rest solidly on the rights enshrined in the Constitutions First Amendment, which reads that Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

But he believes these values are often lost on modern government and law enforcement officials.

He used the example of a 2010 Veterans for Peace rally in front of the White House, which protested the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and other conflicts. More than 130 attendees were arrested.

Youre going to the White House and youre saying, Stop the war. That means the United States should come out and say, Thank you so much, and were writing down all your complaints, Gugino said.

Given the countrys foundation, those involved in more recent protests and rallies should be treated with personal and ideological respect, and law enforcement officials should know whether the laws they protect are themselves legal, he said.

Still, he has hope, because of his countrys democratic roots.

He pointed to Mao Zedongs Hundred Flowers campaign in Communist China in the 1950s, where Zedongs solicitation of feedback on his government from the intellectual community quickly turned into a crackdown on ideological critics.

In America, we decided to let a hundred flowers bloom, Gugino said.

And you know what that means? People are going to get together and start complaining, and realizing how theyre being treated. Are you going to invite them in? Are you going to understand what theyre up to? Thats what democracy does. Thats the difference between Mao Zedong and George Washington.

More: Buffalo protester Martin Gugino released from hospital and 'looks great'

More: Its time has come and gone; lets retire the word 'elderly'

Sarah Taddeo is the consumer watchdog reporter for USA Today Network's New York State Team.She investigates stories about your consumer rights, including scams, negligent landlords, safety issues and wayward businesses.

Got a story tip or comment? ContactSarahat STADDEO@Gannett.com or (585) 258-2774. Follow heronTwitter @Sjtaddeo.This coverage is only possible with support from our readers.Sign up today for a digital subscription.

Read or Share this story: https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2020/08/31/buffalo-man-shoved-police-speaks-incident-and-recovery/5644209002/

See the article here:

Buffalo man shoved by police speaks on incident, his recovery and the First Amendment - Democrat & Chronicle

A Senior Fellow on the First Amendment with the Freedom Forum said it's complicated, and will ultimately be up to courts to decide.

WASHINGTON DC Police confirmed they used tear gas and sting balls against protesters at Black Lives Matter Plaza Saturday and Sunday night. But, emergency police reform legislation signed into law prohibits those tactics against First Amendment protesters.

WUSA 9 spoke with Gene Policinski, Senior Fellow on the First Amendment with the Freedom Forum, for insight on the legality of police using those tactics.

I dont think you can craft an ordinance that would say according to this set of acts at this given moment, that was illegal," Poilcinski said. "Thats really why we have courts.

Policinski said the courts would look at the ordinance language and the evidence available, like videos from demonstrators or body camera footage from police, to determine if using the chemical irritant, in this case, was legal.

Those representing police would say the ordinance allows police to use chemical irritants and other non-lethal force if they are in fear of bodily injury," Policinski said. "Probably a reasonable person, the standard, will say if its dark and theres a huge crowd of people and things are being thrown the standard I think were going to hold police based on what the courts have done in the past is tilted to some degree in their favor, because they recognize how difficult it is to be a police officer.

DC Police Chief Peter Newsham said his officers were only responding to objects being thrown at them when they deployed tear gas and OC spray.

Police officers are humans, too," Chief Newsham said. "When you throw bricks and rocks and bottles and urine, and you set fires, there is going to be a police reaction. So folks who want to suggest or paint a picture that this was somehow peaceful and the police indiscriminately used munitions against them, theyre not being honest.

Some people who were out protesting over the weekend, like Arianna Evans with Freedom Fighters DC, denied the assertion that they used violence against police.

Were absolutely not going to go out with the intention of harming police officers," Evans said. "We absolutely understand that right now we have to live under this system of law and that its not going to be productive for what we want. And what we want is real structural changefor the officers to comply with the rules that are put on them.

She is left wondering if the ordinance holds any power to protect people protesting like she said she was.

I think a good way to look at the ordinance is that its a part of a series of actions, so theres an ordinance on the books that make it clear what police should do, and makes clear that they should not use these non-lethal weapons or chemical irritants to break up an assembly that is simply peaceful, that is First Amendment," Policinski said. "And remember the First Amendment does not protect violent conduct. It protects peaceably assemblingI think these are all part of a step by step process by which we try to provide greater protection.

He said for anyone who feels like their First Amendment rights were violated in instances like this, there are a few steps they can take to give themselves the best chance of winning their legal argument.

These cases almost always depended on the exact facts rather than saying having a broad policy that you can have under any circumstance, so again preserving the facts through video and eyewitness testimony is very important," he said.

The author of the original reform bill, Councilmember Charles Allen, sent the following statement in response to this weekend's events:

Everyone is welcome in the District to peacefully protest, and I expect the Metropolitan Police Department and other law enforcement agencies to hold that right sacred, especially when the message is in support of police accountability for racism and brutality. Dialogue, passion, outrage they are all healthy and necessary to weave a new fabric to our country that disavows white supremacy. That said, I do not condone violence violence by or against government; is it not the path to change. It will only further divide us and close off opportunities for accountability and healing. My focus is to ensure we act together to make change by reimagining public safety.

To that end, we have a hearing set on police reform legislation on October 15. This will hearing will include my own bill on updating the Districts rioting laws and legislation to restrict the use of riot gear and chemical irritants by police. I was hesitant to include the banning of chemical irritants in the original bill in June (youll recall they were added by amendment) because we needed more time to properly craft the law to be responsive to all of the complexities of protests.

Read this article:

Was it legal for police to use tear gas against protesters with emergency reform legislation in place? - WUSA9.com

SPARTA, NJ- Some members of the Sparta Board of Education are seeking to have a policy to address board member attire at board meetings. It appears board member Kurt Morris choice of wearing a Make America Great Again hat to the July board of education meeting has spurred the issue.

At the August meeting in Mohawk Avenue School, board member Kylen Anderson asked to have a policy addressing political attire at the board table.

I would like to propose that the board institute a policy that board members should refrain from wearing anything with political commentary at the board table, Anderson said. I think it is distracting. I think it is in poor taste. I think it takes away from the reason we are here.

Sign Up for Sparta Newsletter

Our newsletter delivers the local news that you can trust.

You have successfully signed up for the TAPinto Sparta Newsletter.

Initially board of education president Kim Bragg said it would be referred to the Policy and Personnel committee but on advice of board counsel Mark Zitomer, she polled board members first to determine whether or not a majority wished to do so.

Board member Kate Matteson asked if board policy had been reviewed since the July meeting to see if it addresses wearing political attire at the dais. Bragg said it had not been discussed in committee because she was waiting to get advice from the boards attorney.

Anderson, Jen Grana, Niamh Grano, Matteson and Jay Ventresca all said they would like to discuss having policy governing board member attire at the next committee meeting.

In the straw poll, Grana and Grano proposed a policy that took a broader look at proposing appropriate attire in general taking into consideration the first amendment and all that stuff.

Board member Robert Zywicki said he thought the board of education should be focused on getting the kids back in school as safely and as swiftly as possible with the teachers. Anything else is a distraction from that right now.

Bragg said she also felt this is something that could wait, but the vote supported the topic being discussed in committee.

Board of education members received a letter from 36 people that said a photo and several corroborating eyewitnesses documented a board member wore at TRUMP [sic] hat. They said they were beyond disappointed to learn this, acknowledging they were not at the meeting.

The letter refers to Morris as the accused board member and said while he has been reasonably identified, they asked the board member himself and the board of education president both respond publicly with acknowledgement and ownership.

Further, this group said they want the board members to adhere to stricter standards and procedures in the future.

In an emailed response to the community members who sent the letter regarding Morris hat, Bragg said, Mr. Morris choice is protected under the First Amendment. As such I have no authority over what he or any board member wears. Sparta Board of Education policy regarding dress code only applies to staff and students because students are considered to be a captive audience when in school. This is very different than a public board meeting which is a forum that is open to everyone.

The letter from community members accuses Morris of having violated New Jersey Code of Ethics for school board members. They said they had discussed filing a complaint but decided to wait for the board of education to address it.

Morris, speaking as an individual not representing the board of education, said he was advised by Zitomer that there was no ethics violation, nor was there a policy violation because there is no policy that discusses what board members wear.

After conferring with our attorney, I wish to explain that wearing a hat which supports the President or any political party is not an ethics violation, Bragg said. The Code of Ethics prohibits members from surrendering their independent judgement to partisan political groups. Wearing the hat of a political party is very different than surrendering ones independent judgement. Rather, it is protected speech under the First Amendment.

a public board of education meeting is no place for personal, political statements, motivations or gains, the letter from community members said. While we may debate whether there are negative implications that apply far beyond the scope of politics with this particular choice of garb, we ask that ALL [emphasis included] political symbols and logos are banned from any future BOE meetings going forward.

The people who signed the letter include: Kaitlin and Aaron Gagnon, Robert and Suz Stone, Erin Moore, Ellie Hartranft, Anne ODair, Heather Scott-Mason, Kimberly and Kevin Barresi, Kate Saelma, Victoria Bustamante, Kailee Gori, Fallon Villamor, Dorota Ellington, Jessica LaGrave, Emily Shuss, Erin Lambert, Kelly and Chris Lapp, Amy and George Ryan, Amy Henrie, Julie Knapp, Dana Gulino, Kate and DJ Fresso, Julia and Jim Kelly, Joanne Stott-Derby, Kimberly Noel, Vanessa Walsh, Beth and Paul Hughes, Pat Schutz and Michele Van Allen (BOE of Hardyston)

Kaitlin Gagnon said in an interview with TAPinto Sparta they "would hope the same standards apply for the other end of the political spectrum." She said the purpose of their letter was that they did not want ahat or any political attire to be a distraction and this was explained in subsequentemails to the board of education members.

"Humbly, we hope a new standard can be developed," Gagnon said. "We hope it can be resolved quickly."

Morris personally received an additional email from Henrie, sent to his personal email address. Also speaking as an individual and not representing the board of education, Morris said in his response to her, I have never, nor would I ever surrender my independent judgement to partisan political groups. He concluded his response by asking that you judge my performance as a Sparta Board of Education member based on the votes I have made and the questions I have asked at the board table, not on the hat I wear.

Morris did not share the email from Henrie with TAPinto Sparta.

Get your local news delivered to yourinbox for FREEeach day.Subscribe to TAPinto Newton or Spartaor Like us onTAPinto Newton facebookandTAPinto Sparta facebook

Read the original:

Sparta Board of Education to Discuss Dress Code for Members Following MAGA Hat Controversy UPDATED - TAPinto.net

Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley and police Chief Eliot Isaac held a press conference Thursday to address police reform in the city.The conference comes amid protests across the country, most recently over the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin.Cranely released the U.S. Conference of Mayors Police Reform and Racial Justice report this week, which he worked on with fellow mayors in Chicago, Tampa and Baltimore. The report, which was sent out this week, addresses the "urgent need to reset the relationship between our police and our residents" by focusing on sustainable recommendations. It comes in the wake of the recent killing of George Floyd and concerns about policing and calls for reform. "The job of a police officer is often dangerous and difficult, and the vast majority perform to the best of their ability and in good faith. But the improper use of force can affect the perceptions of police everywhere. The wrongful actions of individual officers should not blight the entire profession. However, we cannot ignore that there are police departments with systemic problems and that reform, transparency, and accountability have too often been elusive," the report states.The recommendations in the report include funding core policing while considering providing funds to other social services that complement the polices public safety mission.It also addresses use-of-force policies, and asks departments to have policies where officers use minimal amount of force necessary by continuously reassessing the situation to make an appropriate response. It also recommends not using chokeholds, not shooting at moving cars unless in extreme situations and not using deadly force on a fleeing person unless they pose a threat to others.The report also recommends increasing engagement with police and the community through programs and other services. Addressing protests, the report recommends more training on mass gatherings and First Amendment rights. It also recommends departments have designated staff who are trained to respond to mass gatherings. The report also addresses police accountability, recommending initiatives similar to Cincinnati's Citizen Complaint Authority.The CCA takes complaints against the Cincinnati Police Department and uses independent investigators and panels to determine recommendations for the Cincinnati Police Department. Cranley said the city has received money from the state and will use $1 million toward police efforts and reducing gun violence. Isaac said he hopes to increase police presence in hot spot areas, including Over-the-Rhine, where 10 people were shot a few weeks ago."Right now we have to stop the bleeding, when we know violence is taking place in a certain area, we have to respond," Isaac said.The chief said he wants to implement "community safety organizers" in the future to engage and communicate with residents. Isaac said he wants to hear from residents on ways they can improve."I want the input, I want the involvement of the community at large," Isaac said. Cranley said he is going to give the report to Isaac and let the department look it over and respond.

Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley and police Chief Eliot Isaac held a press conference Thursday to address police reform in the city.

The conference comes amid protests across the country, most recently over the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Cranely released the U.S. Conference of Mayors Police Reform and Racial Justice report this week, which he worked on with fellow mayors in Chicago, Tampa and Baltimore.

The report, which was sent out this week, addresses the "urgent need to reset the relationship between our police and our residents" by focusing on sustainable recommendations.

It comes in the wake of the recent killing of George Floyd and concerns about policing and calls for reform.

"The job of a police officer is often dangerous and difficult, and the vast majority perform to the best of their ability and in good faith. But the improper use of force can affect the perceptions of police everywhere. The wrongful actions of individual officers should not blight the entire profession. However, we cannot ignore that there are police departments with systemic problems and that reform, transparency, and accountability have too often been elusive," the report states.

The recommendations in the report include funding core policing while considering providing funds to other social services that complement the polices public safety mission.

It also addresses use-of-force policies, and asks departments to have policies where officers use minimal amount of force necessary by continuously reassessing the situation to make an appropriate response. It also recommends not using chokeholds, not shooting at moving cars unless in extreme situations and not using deadly force on a fleeing person unless they pose a threat to others.

The report also recommends increasing engagement with police and the community through programs and other services.

Addressing protests, the report recommends more training on mass gatherings and First Amendment rights. It also recommends departments have designated staff who are trained to respond to mass gatherings.

The report also addresses police accountability, recommending initiatives similar to Cincinnati's Citizen Complaint Authority.

The CCA takes complaints against the Cincinnati Police Department and uses independent investigators and panels to determine recommendations for the Cincinnati Police Department.

Cranley said the city has received money from the state and will use $1 million toward police efforts and reducing gun violence.

Isaac said he hopes to increase police presence in hot spot areas, including Over-the-Rhine, where 10 people were shot a few weeks ago.

"Right now we have to stop the bleeding, when we know violence is taking place in a certain area, we have to respond," Isaac said.

The chief said he wants to implement "community safety organizers" in the future to engage and communicate with residents.

Isaac said he wants to hear from residents on ways they can improve.

"I want the input, I want the involvement of the community at large," Isaac said.

Cranley said he is going to give the report to Isaac and let the department look it over and respond.

Read the original post:

Cincinnati leaders address police reform, efforts to reduce gun violence in the city - WLWT Cincinnati

The man who pulled the gun on Black Lives Matter protesters in front of the Historic Capitol Saturday evening will not face charges. Tallahassee Democrat

Tallahassee Police have signaled a shift in tactics to keep order during protests as tensions in the city boil after an altercation at a demonstration on Saturday.

Responding to a series of questions by City Commissioner Jeremy Matlow, TPD said it intends to step up enforcement at protests, particularly ones that don't have proper permits.

"The citys position is that it cannot adequately maintain public safety during unpermitted road closure events," TPD officials said in the meeting."TPD intends to enforce traffic laws and unlawful and unpermitted protests moving forward."

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

As a Leon County grand jury meets, and aruling on whether TPD officers were justified in their shooting of murder suspect Tony McDade in May appears imminent, a countywide curfew has been enacted in part to try and stem any late-night demonstrations that could become violent.

Back story:

In an interview with local CBS affiliate WCTV, Leon County Sheriff Walt McNeil said the pending grand jury presentments were partially behind his asking for a curfew from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. through next Tuesday.

In an interview with the Tallahassee Democrat,Police Chief Lawrence Revell said people are free to demonstrate wherever they like in public as long as traffic is not impeded.

The department has provided leeway for protests that have not secured permits, he said, but it often creates a staffing issue where officers are left scrambling to provide a safe environment.

A counter protester fights a protester and pulls out a handgun. Tallahassee Democrat

In protests past, officers have preemptively closed roads anddirected trafficso protesters can safely march. Stretches of many downtown roads and even Apalachee Parkway and Thomasville Road have been closed during protests that have swept the nation and capital citysince the May 25 death of George Floyd at the hands of Milwaukee police.

Were not trying to squelch peoples First Amendment right, Revell said. These protests that are unplanned, violence has shown up at them. And Im not in any way, shape or form condoning anyone walking up or doing anything, but when those are unplanned, we are behind the curve when we are trying to react to those.

A fight broke out Saturday in front of the Florida Capitol in which a man pulled a handgun and was subdued by TPD officers during an unpermitted demonstration that blocked the intersection of Monroe Street and Apalachee Parkway.

A screenshot of the fistfight between a Black Lives Matter protester and a counter-protester that broke out in front of the Capitol.(Photo: Special to the Democrat)

Although TPD issued a statement the following day saying based on the evidence at hand no charges were filed, the State Attorneys Office has confirmed it is still reviewing statements and any available video of the altercation and charges could still be filed.

Back story:Charges could still be filed after incident outside Capitol, state attorney's office says

Contact Karl Etters at ketters@tallahassee.com or @KarlEtters on Twitter.

Never miss a story: Subscribe to the Tallahassee Democrat.

Read or Share this story: https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2020/09/03/tpd-signals-shift-enforcing-unpermitted-protests-block-traffic/5702448002/

More:

Tallahassee Police shifting tactics and will 'enforce traffic laws' at unpermitted protests - Tallahassee Democrat

I had never heard of Ambazonia before Friday, but I now see that it is a breakaway part of Cameroon, in an area also known as the South Cameroons, though it's actually northwest of much of Cameroon. Here's the opinion that enlightened me on the subject, decided Feb. 6, but just added to Westlaw; it's by Judge Percy Anderson (C.D. Cal.), Cameroon Ass'n of Victims of Ambazonia Terrorism Inc. v. Ambazonia Foundation Inc.:

According to the Complaint, defendants Ambazonia Foundation Inc. ("AFI"), Ambazonia Interim Government ("AIG"), Ambazonia Governing Council ("AGC"), Ambazonia Defense Forces ("ADF"), Tapang Ivo Tanku ("Tanku"), and Christopher Anu Fobeneh ("Fobeneh") (collectively "Defendants"), are associated with and control an armed militia group seeking to overthrow the government in the Northwest and Southwest ("NOSO") region of Cameroon. [Some of the defendants allegedly live in the U.S. or are organized here. -EV] The Complaint alleges that Defendants announced on January 7, 2020, that there will be a "total lockdown of NOSO during the periods of February 6, 2020 through February 12, 2020" and instructed fighters associated with the militia "that anyone who steps out of their homes during that lockdown, or operates any business, will be abducted, or killed." These allegations are similar to allegations contained in the prior actions filed by Plaintiff's counsel, in which the plaintiffs in those prior action alleged that the militia's leaders announced lockdowns for other periods of time. CAVAT asserts that the lockdown threats, as well as abductions and killings in Cameroon, harm CAVAT's efforts to provide humanitarian services in the region.

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges claims against Defendants for: (1) conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons or damage property in a foreign county in violation of 18 U.S.C. 956; (2) providing material support to terrorists in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2339A; (3) expedition against a friendly country in violation of the Neutrality Act, 18 U.S.C. 960; and (4) financing of terrorism in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2339C. The Ex Parte TRO seeks to temporarily restrain Defendants from:

"1. Engaging in conduct or actions, or conspire to engage in such conducts or actions, including actions such as abductions, arson, arrests, killings, kidnappings, human rights violations, war crimes, assault, battery, harass, intimidate, molest, attack, strike, stalk, threaten, hit, abuse, or disturb the peace of plaintiff, its members, its victims, or those similarly situated.

"2. Providing any assistance like money, logistics, expert advise or assistance, personnel, weapons, bullets, to the armed non-state groups in Cameroon.

"3. Providing or preparing for, or furnishing the money for, any military expedition or enterprise to be carried out against the Republic of Cameroon.

"4. Collecting funds, directly or indirectly, with the intention that such funds be used, or knowledge that the funds will be used, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such an act is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

"5. Ordered to declare, by spokesman and de facto leader, Ivo Tanku Tapang for AGC defendants, and Communications Secretary Christoperh Anu Fobeneh a.k.a. Chris Anu for AIG defendants, and post on their social media forums on Facebook and YouTube that: 'Any civilians who do not obey their 'total lockdown' orders on February 6, 2020 through February 12, 2020, will not be harmed and they will not agree or provide funding to the armed groups to commit any acts of killings, abductions, destruction of property, torture, maiming of anyone.'"

Trying to stop an alleged civil war / revolution / reprisal against civilians in Cameroon via a civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court seems like a tall order, and Judge Anderson doesn't go for it. He rejects the demand on procedural grounds (such as failure to adequately explain why notice wasn't given to the defendants), but adds:

The Court additionally concludes that CAVAT has not satisfied its burden to satisfy the requirements for injunctive relief or to establish that the injunction it seeks would prevent the irreparable harm it claims it will suffer as a result of the most recent lockdown threats.

Unfortunately, it is not clear that any injunction the Court could issue would provide Plaintiff with the relief it seeks. The criminal statutes on which CAVAT bases its civil claims already prohibit the activities CAVAT seeks to prevent Defendants from conducting, and at least two of those statutes do not appear to create a private right of action. "It would be doubly difficult to find a private damage action within the Neutrality Act, since this would have the practical effect of eliminating prosecutorial discretion in an area where the normal desirability of such discretion is vastly augmented by the broad leeway traditionally accorded the Executive in matters of foreign affairs."

Additionally, although the Antiterrorism Act ("ATA") authorizes a civil remedy for nationals of the United States to sue for injuries they have suffered "by reason of an act of international terrorism" and recover treble damages, the statute does not expressly provide for injunctive relief. Plaintiff cites to no authority applying the ATA in which a court has granted injunctive relief like that sought here. Instead, the injunctive relief Plaintiff seeks appears to be designed more to trigger future contempt proceedings than to prevent Plaintiff's irreparable harm.

The Court additionally notes that by seeking an order requiring Defendants to make certain statements disavowing a lockdown, CAVAT asks this Court to compel Defendants to make certain statements. That type of relief raises significant First Amendment considerations. See Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of Blind, Inc. (1988). The First Amendment protects not only "the right to speak freely," but also "the right to refrain from speaking at all." Wooley v. Maynard (1977); see also Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston (1995) ("[O]ne important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide what not to say.").

Read more:

Ambazonia, Remedies, and the First Amendment Reason.com - Reason

Although online platforms have existed for decades, their potentially counterproductive influence on electoral integrity has given rise to an impasse. Tech stars, like Facebook, Twitter, and Google, and state bodies are seldom on the same page when it comes to managing the power of technology services, promoting freedom of speech, and protecting First Amendment rights. Actors on each side have actively debated whether global technology firms threaten free expression, and how this can be regulated to preserve Americans (and other international users) rights. Moreover, the two parties represent differing goals and constituents. Whereas legislative bodies operate within government structures and are beholden to the electorate, tech giants must maintain a business model that drives profits for shareholders. As such, both governmental intervention and civil action are required to overcome challenges that powerful tech firms pose to society.

Tech executives argue that their role extends beyond their services, as they empower social mediators across all segments of contemporary society. Anyone with the privilege of internet access can speak to a global audience with greater ease than ever before. Under current legislation, companies can freely interpret the bounds of good faith content moderation, meaning they claim to be maintaining a healthy level of oversight on harmful content like hate speech, terrorist propaganda, and other forms of objectionable expression.

Tech companies efforts to justify their intentions would not be needed in the absence of doubters. For example, in 2018, YouTube evaded a lawsuit in which Prager University accused the company of censoring conservative content and having a political identity and viewpoint. Ultimately, the case was dismissed because YouTube does not qualify as a state actor. In other words, private entities have the same First Amendment rights as individuals, allowing them to make their own decisions about the content on their platforms. This case illustrates how online service providers do not have to be neutral or fact check. Even if they exhibit a strong desire to be neutral, this would be impossible, considering the subjective nature of objectionable content, wherein definitions vary based a countrys free speech laws.

Widespread concern regarding the political and social consequences of tech giants unfettered freedom has prompted legal investigations led by the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and state-level prosecutors. However, many challenges stand in legislators way when deciding on the best legal course of action to govern online service providers.

For one, lawmakers usually struggle to penetrate the digital bubble of software and algorithms that are incomprehensible to most outsiders. Senators often display frustration when trying to get a straight answer from the executives being questioned in congressional hearings. Even if being vague allows these executives to protect their private intellectual property during public hearings, it is unlikely that lawmakers know enough about these companies behind-the-scenes content regulation procedures. Capitol Hill recently expressed concern over the spread of misinformation about COVID-19 and climate change on Facebook, subsequently demanding greater information about how the platform handles fact-checking, and if its size impedes this process. However, previous attempts suggest that many lawmakers are technologically inept.

Evelyn Doueks essay, The Rise of Content Cartels, poses a question that encapsulates the two main options considered by government bodies in response to internet giants power over free speech standards. Douek asks: Should platforms work together to ensure that the online ecosystem as a whole realizes these standards, or would society benefit more if it is every platform for itself?

Doueks every platform for itself option implies enacting stricter antitrust enforcement on these technology companies and promoting healthy competition levels. For instance, Facebook already differs from other social media platforms, like Twitter, due to its less aggressive approach for policing inflammatory comments and fact-checking. By increasing the number of players in the market, the industry may align itself with the type of moderation that is most palatable to consumers. However, this approach has numerous flaws. Considering no ideal moderation method has surfaced as of 2020, it is uncertain whether this is possible. Also, if online platforms have not broken any legitimate laws, then arbitrary exercise of antitrust enforcement can be seen as an abuse of power by the government, something the First Amendment is intended to protect private entities from.

The other option entails shared standards, which is arguably harder to put in place, as it requires amending or re-writing current communication and media laws. Mark Zuckerberg expressed his feeling of being caught in the polarity of the American political system, saying: The Trump administration has said we have censored too much content and Democrats and civil rights groups are saying that we arent taking down enough. The challenge lies in Facebooks and the governments ability to find a middle ground between protecting the First Amendment rights of citizens and policing disinformation. Still, whoever defines this middle ground may be subject to ideological bias themselves.

Mark Zuckerberg should listen to his employees and explain what the company will do if Donald Trump uses its platform to try to undermine the results of the presidential election. https://t.co/QfUAmdTL3t

Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) August 9, 2020

Aside from the government and other actors in positions of power, it is important to remember that members of the public also play an important role by engaging informed discussions about the influence of technology. More individuals need to consider exercising their freedom responsibly. People often view technology companies executives as genius figures because of their contributions to human society. However, such successes do not mean these individuals are messiahs, holding the answers to all of societys problems. Thus, the public needs to be critical of their actions and claims, and how they affect politics, the law, and free speech.

Whether there will soon be an overarching set of regulations to govern the technology sector remains uncertain, as industry players and legislative bodies have been unable to converge their respective expertise to tackle the current issues of content regulation. In the meantime, it is crucial to be critical of the way the internet currently functions, because each individual is inevitably part of the vision that tech giants set for the future.

Featured image: Youve Been Zucked by Annie Spratt, viaUnsplash.

Edited by Asher Laws

Continue reading here:

Online Platforms and the First Amendment Problem - The McGill International Review

Jake Warner Published 11:00 p.m. ET Aug. 24, 2020

An LGBT cake artist in Detroitwas recently asked to create a custom cake with a religious message criticizing same-sex marriage. After she declined to express that message, the customer alleged she had illegally discriminated against him based on his religion.

The situation presents an interesting reversal of roles to those faced by Christian cake artist Jack Phillips, and as we search for peace in our diverse and polarized nation, it also presents a perfect opportunity for us to ask: How do public accommodation laws interact with the First Amendment? And how should government apply those laws to protect the rights of all Americans?

After his greatly publicized victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018, Phillips was immediately targeted by two more hostile legal actions. Both those actions spurred from a call that Phillipsshop had received on the same day that the Supreme Court decided to hear Phillipsfirst case.

April Anderson deserves the constitutional protections for creative designs for her cakes, Warner writes.(Photo: Courtesy of Good Cakes and Bakes)

Knowing that Phillips was a devout Christian, a local attorney and activist asked Masterpiece Cakeshop to create a custom blue and pink cake celebrating a gender transition. Turns out that this attorney had targeted Phillips before, sending him hurtful emails back in 2012 calling him a bigot and a hypocrite, and continued that harassment afterward, requesting a different custom cake depicting Satan smoking marijuana, Phillips believes.

When this activist asked for those custom cakes, Phillips respectfully declined because those cakes expressed messages Phillips disagreed with, and the attorney sued, alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity, which is included within a protected status under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

As we look at the situation in Michigan, the parallels are remarkable. April Anderson is known in her local community for being an LGBT cake artist, and the customer was well aware of that when he targeted her with his request for a cake not just any cake, but a cake with a message that almost certainly would offend Andersons deepest beliefs. And like the Colorado attorney, when Anderson declined to create the Michigan customers requested cake, he alleged discrimination on the basis of a protected status (religion), tweeting, No more anti-Catholic discrimination. See you in court.

But neither April Anderson nor Jack Phillips engaged in illegal discrimination.

Phillips happily serves all people, and it appears Anderson does the same. They simply cannot create custom cake art celebrating messages that violate their core beliefs. Their decisions to not create these cakes were not based on who the customer was, but on what message the cakes expressed. And those message-based decisions are protected by the First Amendment.

Yet those who have opposed Phillips, like the American Civil Liberties Union, freely admit that Anderson was within the law. When you are asked to do a particular message, you might be crossing the line of what could be compelled speech, especially if its offensive, said Jay Kaplan, from the ACLU of Michigan.Indeed. And that same principle protects Phillips; the Constitution does not play favorites when it comes to speech.

As legal scholar Ryan T. Anderson has noted, public accommodation laws were created to protect ethnic and ideological minorities. These laws are supposed to be shields, not swords. And from a legal context, no state law can be used to undermine the fundamental rights of people like Phillips and Andersonthat are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Interestingly, the Constitution has become common discussion in pop culture since the Broadway spectacle Hamilton hit Disney+ last month. And the 10-dollar Founding Father has some wisdom that we would do well to remember when addressing this subject before us today.

In Federalist No. 1, the very first of his most prolific series of essays, Alexander Hamilton wrote, [W]e, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword.

Hamilton had it right. Its time to put down the swords, respect each other despite our differencesand let creative professionals pursue their passions in peace. We dont have to choose between Jack Phillips and April Anderson.

The world is wide enough for both of them.

Jake Warner is legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop. Follow ADF on Twitter:@AllianceDefends.

Read or Share this story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2020/08/25/opinion-all-cake-designers-deserve-same-first-amendment-freedoms/5622022002/

More here:

Opinion: All cake designers deserve the same First Amendment freedoms - The Detroit News

It was his name that gave him away.

"Hey, are you the 75-year-old guy who was hit in Buffalo?" a post office worker asked.

Martin Gugino, 75, of Amherst, wasnt expecting to be recognized in public, especially wearing a face mask.

But the videos that captured the moment when Buffalo Police officers shoved Gugino backward in front of Buffalos City Hall in June during a protest over the death of George Floyd, causing him to fall and crack his skull on the pavement, had been seen around the world.

Gugino, speaking to the USA TODAYNetwork's New York State Team last week in his first extended interview, was reluctant to go into detail about the incident, which sent him to the hospital for a month to recover from a brain injury and a fractured skull.

That's because he doesnt remember the moment he was shoved, and he has flashes of memory in the minutes before or after. Video recordings helped him fill in the blank spots of what happened that evening.

He is seemingly uninterested in becoming a symbol of a trend or a movement, or drawing attention to himself.

When asked about the context surrounding his fall and injuries, he noted that "a lot of people are injured, and a lot of people are killed," and often, nothing is done about those incidents, especially if there was no record of it on video.

Still, he called the incident a "turning point" for him.

He will continue to participate in grassroots activism around the First Amendment, as he has done for decades. Hell continue to write about climate change and injustices at Guantanamo Bay on his blog and on Twitter.

"My life is headed in a new direction," Gugino said. "How is it different? Im not really sure yet."

Why are they carrying batons?

Gugino showed up at a Black Lives Matter rally in downtown Buffalo on June 4 at around 7:45 p.m., 15 minutes before the city-imposed curfew went into effect.

The night prior, a number of Buffalo police officers tooka knee with community members in solidarity with the protests around the murder of Floyd by police in Minneapolis on May 25.

Just minutes before police began moving toward the crowd, Gugino noticed they were outfitted with helmets, vests and batons:"I thought, Why are they carrying batons?'"

Earlier in the evening, he had approached several police officers to ask whether they thought the Mayor Byron Browns curfew order could legitimately make an assembly illegal.

They didnt respond, other than to offer to read the mayors statements to him.

Gugino also had a conversation with several bystanders, which was caught on video and appeared to show at least one person expressing anger toward him.

Gugino said one individual thought he was an undercover cop, which Gugino denies.

At around 8:10 p.m., as seen in several videos of the incident, a group of officers began walking toward a few dozen rally attendees who were still in the downtown area after curfew.

Video footage shows a tall, white-haired Gugino approaching the officers head on.

Gugino said he remembers alarmed thoughts flashing through his head when he saw officers moving toward the demonstrators, but "has no idea" what he said to police in that moment.

"I thought, Oh my God and thats all I can remember," he said.

In the seconds following, two officers in the advancing group shoved Gugino away from them and he stumbled and fell backward, his head audibly cracking against the pavement.

Emergency personnel arrived soon after, and Gugino was whisked to the Erie County Medical Center.

The two officers involved, Robert McCabe and Aaron Torgalski, were suspended without pay and later charged with second-degree assault.

They pleaded not guilty, and are currently suspended with pay, as officers cannot be suspended without pay for more than 30 days, according to a city spokesperson.

The City of Buffalo and the Buffalo Police Department declined to comment further on the incident.

More: Buffalo police officers seen pushing man to ground charged with assault

More: New York signs sweeping police reforms into law after George Floyd death. What they will do

Take your best shot

What followed for Gugino werean avalanche of tests, scans and physical therapy for the hospital. After weeks in bed, standing or walking became a challenge, and he had vivid nightmares.

"Every time youd sit up, you would get dizzy," he said. "It was like you were on a boat all the time."

His pain was manageable with Tylenol, which he said he rarely used for minor aches and pains, even at 75.

He was monitored by medical staff day and night, and couldnt get out of bed or go to the bathroom without their help.

On the positive side, hed be offered cookies in the middle of the night. His flavor of choice? Coconut.

Meanwhile, cards, letters and other well wishes poured in. He slept for hours in the days after the incident, disconnected from the whirlwind of global internet commentary around his actions and the police response.

He has since seen and heard snippets of strangers accusations that he was a "leftist provocateur," that his fall was a hoax or that he was wearing a pack of fake blood under his mask.

President Donald Trump publicly considered the validity of such theories about Gugino on Twitter the following week, saying that Gugino "could be an antifa provocateur" and that he "was pushed away after appearing to scan police communications in order to black out the equipment."

Guginos lawyers got angry emails questioning why theyd defend "a faker," he said. But Gugino is unfazed by the accusations.

"I was like, Go ahead, take your best shot," he said.

The incident didnt cloud his view of police; he still regards them as regular citizens who work within a system he believes is broken.

"I come from the suburbs, and theres no problem with police in a white neighborhood," he said. "Im not scared of the policemen, but the system is screwed up."

After about a month, Gugino was released from the hospital and was able to walk out using a cane.

Hes living with family outside of New York and plans to close on a new home in Buffalo in September.

'Black Lives Matter': Amherst man pushed by police responds after Trump tweet

Martin Gugino's lawyer: He has brain injury, fractured skull after being pushed by police

When it comes to justice, Gugino is interested in so many causes that hell start talking about a new one before hes finished discussing the first.

He retired in 2003 after decades of working at FirstEnergy Corp. in Cleveland, Ohio, and a stint living in California. He eventually moved back to Buffalo to care for his ailing mother, who died six years ago. He has no spouse or children.

Even after a brain injury, he has split-second recall for specific details about years-old court cases, such as the Benny Warr case in Rochester, in which a black man in a wheelchair alleged that he was unlawfully arrested and beaten by police.

Guginos values rest solidly on the rights enshrined in the Constitutions First Amendment, which reads that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

But he believes these values are often lost on modern government and law enforcement officials.

He used the example of a 2010 Veterans for Peace rally in front of the White House, which protested the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and other conflicts. More than 130 attendees were arrested.

"Youre going to the White House and youre saying, Stop the war. That means the United States should come out and say, Thank you so much, and were writing down all your complaints," Gugino said.

Given the countrys foundation, those involved in more recent protests and rallies should be treated with personal and ideological respect, and law enforcement officials should know whether the laws they protect are themselves legal, he said.

Still, he has hope, because of his countrys democratic roots.

He pointed to Mao Zedongs Hundred Flowers campaign in Communist China in the 1950s, where Zedongs solicitation of feedback on his government from the intellectual community quickly turned into a crackdown on ideological critics.

"In America, we decided to let a hundred flowers bloom," Gugino said.

"And you know what that means? People are going to get together and start complaining, and realizing how theyre being treated. Are you going to invite them in? Are you going to understand what theyre up to? Thats what democracy does. Thats the difference between Mao Zedong and George Washington."

More: Buffalo protester Martin Gugino released from hospital and 'looks great'

More: Its time has come and gone; lets retire the word 'elderly'

Sarah Taddeo is the consumer watchdog reporter for USA Today Network's New York State Team.She investigates stories about your consumer rights, including scams, negligent landlords, safety issues and wayward businesses.

View original post here:

Buffalo man shoved by police speaks on incident, his recovery and the First Amendment - The Times Telegram