STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- A Meiers Corners woman charged with multiple counts of harassment as a hate crime was a burden and potential threat to several of her neighbors, including multiple children as young as 3 years old, authorities allege.

Lenore Arce, 70, faces charges that include five-counts of first-degree hate crime/harassment, three counts of endangering the welfare of a child, five counts of third-degree stalking and five-counts of fourth-degree stalking.

Racial epithets hurled at neighbors over the course of several months included white trash, n*****, and ch***, while in some cases she followed the victims around their property, the criminal complaint alleges.

Arce, whose first name is also spelled as Leonore in court documents, was arraigned on the charges Friday in Criminal Court in St. George, where a judge released her on her own recognizance.

A temporary order of protection was issued on behalf of the alleged victims, with a following court date scheduled for Nov. 6.

NEIGHBORS ALLEGEDLY BERATED, THREATENED

Arce continuously harassed five households on her Meiers Corners block from Jan. 1 to June 30, in some cases following neighbors around their properties and making remarks based on their race and sexual orientation, the complaint alleges.

One of her targets on multiple occasions was a grandparent and their grandchild, at one point issuing a threat: Im coming for you, you and your white trash family, authorities allege.

The complaint alleges Arce harassed another family, including two children ages 10 and 12, with verbal assaults including, F*** you, you illegal ch***.

Another neighbor was allegedly called a thief and a fa****.

The Advance/SILive.com first reported on the situation in July, publishing disturbing video where she could be heard uttering a stream of racial epithets at a neighbor.

Youre a f****** sick negro ... Put it up your f****** n****** a**, the woman can be heard saying in one video. Youre f****** black trash.

You dont run this f****** neighborhood, n*****, she said in another.

Arce has been a resident of the block for approximately 20 years, neighbors said.

Interviews with a half-dozen residents, some of whom requested anonymity for fear of retaliation from Arce, presented corroborating accounts of residents who said the womans constant harassment affects their everyday lives even causing her neighbors to change their daily routines to avoid coming into contact with her.

I got to look out my window before I come out, said one neighbor who wished to not be named. If I see her outside, I wont go out. But as soon as you step out of your house, she comes running out.

Joshua Benjamin, Arces defense attorney, described the case as a neighbor dispute and said it does not belong in Criminal Court.

Ms. Arce is 70 years old and on a fixed income, he said. She has never been in trouble with the law. She has the absolute legal right to speak her mind. Speech, even speech we dont like, is protected by both Article 1 Section 8 of the New York Constitution and by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

He continued: They can only make a hate speech charge if there is an underlying crime. There is no underlying crime. They are trying to penalize and criminalize a New Yorker for having a big mouth. That is against our laws and the beautiful New York value of speaking your mind.

DE BLASIO CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION

In late July, Mayor Bill de Blasio called a video documenting the racist tirades Arce hurled toward her neighbor shameful and disgusting and vowed an investigation would take place.

These are not New York values, and not what this city represents. Were investigating this, de Blasio said at the time.

See more here:

Temporary order of protection issued against Meiers Corners woman in hate-crimes case - SILive.com

German, who added that more than 800 acts of police violence against protesters nationwide have been captured on video since Floyds death on Memorial Day, made a compelling point about the questionable display of apparently undisciplined federal forces in Portland, noting that studies of civil disturbances in the 1960s and 70s showed that aggressive law enforcement tactics were often a determinant factor in instigating and escalating and spreading violence a point embraced by local police departments across the nation (including Wacos) who now coach their officers on how to de-escalate tense situations. Ironically, this point was lost in the parliamentary and partisan charade on ugly display during Tuesdays Senate subcommittee hearing.

Can we find a way forward?Is it too late for a do-over, maybe with a little more John Lewis and Mahatma Gandhi, a little less Sun Tzu and the Great Ahmed Khan? Probably, which makes the death of George Floyd even more tragic given the resulting legislative inaction (well, except for a stubborn effort to make Juneteenth a national holiday, as if this will atone for racial injustice). Perhaps its to be expected of any genuine grassroots movement. As some of us saw with the tea party a decade ago, little time passes before such movements are overtaken, whether by corporate interests, political manipulators or out-and-out renegades whose agendas and motives are never quite so pure. Perhaps, too, the young and idealistic souls who spilled out into Americas streets this summer succumbed to the same impulses seasoned voters do when we send one lawmaker after another to Washington and Austin to fight tooth and nail for us, and to never compromise, rather than pursuing real conciliation, lasting solutions and a dynamic way forward.

Bill Whitaker is Trib opinion editor.

Link:

Bill Whitaker: Protesters lost control of their message in summer of chaos - Waco Tribune-Herald

The US Army and Navy have agreed to unban Jordan Uhl, the activist who linked to a Wikipedia page listing US military war crimes in their Twitch chats. After the incident, Uhl wrote an article criticizing the military for using Twitch to scout for potential recruits, especially since recruiters can interact with kids as young as 13.

In a letter sent to Columbia Universitys Knight First Amendment Institute, which represented Uhl, the Navy justified his ban by pointing out that he violated the channels spam policy when he kept posting similar messages over a period of three days. The Navy agreed, however, that it needs to post comprehensive rules on its page to ensure its viewers are aware of them. It has already posted its policies under its About section and has unbanned Uhl and all other previously banned users as a gesture of good faith.

The Armys letter was much shorter, merely telling the Knight Institute that it has approved its request to unban Uhl. It previously told Vice, however, that its reinstating access for accounts previously banned for harassing and degrading behavior on its Twitch stream. The Army is also returning to the platform after pausing its streaming activities following Uhls ban, which generated a lot of criticism from First Amendment groups. It told Vice that its now reviewing and clarifying its policies and procedures for the stream.

While neither military branch mentioned the reason for the other users ban, the Knight Institute said in a statement that they were prohibited from posting in chat for engaging in core political speech. The institutes whole statement reads:

Were pleased that both the Army and Navy have agreed to unban users who were banned for engaging in core political speech. Its also good to see that the Navy is committing not to ban users on the basis of viewpoint. Of course, it matters how these new policies are applied. We will monitor the Navys practices closely to ensure that the new policies are enforced consistently and in a viewpoint-neutral manner. We look forward to reviewing the Armys policies once they are posted.

See the original post:

US Army and Navy unban Twitch commenter who criticized the military - Yahoo Tech

This issue became a flashpoint this week after sophomore Hannah Watters was disciplined for posting a photo on Twitter showing many of her fellow North Paulding High School classmates in Dallas, Georgia not wearing masks while walking down a crowded hallway. The photo was posted on Twitter at the end of dismissal, Hannah said.

"I took it mostly out of concern and nervousness after seeing the first days of school," she said. "I was concerned for the safety of everyone in that building and everyone in the county because precautions that the CDC and guidelines at the CDC has been telling us for months now weren't being followed."

"I've little doubt that these sorts of conflicts are going to dominate my life over the next many months," Hiestand told CNN. "People tend to assume that most censorship issues involving student journalists concern stories about sex, drugs and rock and roll sort of stuff. Not true. By far the most common targets for censorship are accurate, lawful stories that school officials believe cast the school in a negative light. Student stories showing their school's response to Covid has censorship written all over them."

There is no expectation of privacy in a crowded public school hallway, Hiestand said. As such, there's no reasonable claim that these sorts of photos are violating anyone's legal right to privacy, particularly now when the lead headline of many news organizations has to do with students returning to school during a global pandemic, he added.

Hannah's photo "is about as newsworthy -- and therefore, non-private -- as it gets," Hiestand said.

The First Amendment and what it means to students

The freedom of speech protection afforded by the First Amendment applies to people of any age and, thanks to the Supreme Court, that unequivocally includes students.

The court determined that school officials could not censor student expression unless they can reasonably predict that the expression would cause a substantial disruption of school activities, the center said.

When it comes to cell phones and whether they are a disruption, administrators can impose reasonable restrictions such as not using them during school hours but a principal cannot legally control what students post on social media off campus or after hours, though these attempts are seen from time to time, Gutterman said.

"It would be unreasonable to punish students who are exposing misbehavior or other problems during this public health crisis. If a student exposes something like this, the student is more akin to a whistleblower or public critic and should be praised rather than punished," Gutterman added.

The threat of Covid-19 infections in schools is real

Zach Parsons is a sophomore at North Paulding High School who said it's dangerous for schools to have in-person instruction. He's not wrong, particularly when it comes to students in Georgia.

Four students from three Georgia high schools who attended classes in person this week have tested positive for Covid-19, Columbia County School District Superintendent Sandra Carraway told CNN.

At North Paulding High School, following Hanna's photo, around 40% of students were seen wearing masks, Parsons, the student, said. In a letter to the community this week, Paulding County Superintendent Brian Otott said "Wearing a mask is a personal choice, and there is no practical way to enforce a mandate to wear them."

For any students concerned about their health and who are facing circumstances like in North Paulding High School, Hiestand of the Student Press center has two words of advice: be brave.

"Use the new speech tools that are available to say what you need to say," Hiestand added. "As John Lewis said a month before he died: 'And to see all of the young people...standing up, speaking up, being prepared to march. They are going to help redeem the soul of America and save our country and maybe help save the planet.'"

CNN's Madeline Holcombe, Jamiel Lynch, Maggie Fox and Shelby Lin Erdman contributed to this report

Read more here:

Free speech experts call on public schools to not penalize students for sharing images of maskless classmates - CNN

Appellate court decisions result in winners and losers in any specific case, but the issues involved often are worked through murky gray areas. Consider for example the July 30 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Little v. Reclaim Idaho.

The background is fairly well known in Idaho. The group Reclaim Idaho has been trying to promote an Invest in Idaho tax and schools initiative for the November election ballot. When the pandemic hit and Gov. Brad Littles stay at home order was issued, its petition-gathering which in the normal process has to be done face to face was blocked, which meant a part of Idahos election process also was blocked.

That point, essentially an argument over voting civil rights, went to federal court. Idaho U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill ordered that the state either simply place the proposed initiative on the ballot or allow the group to collect the signatures electronically. The state appealed, and the case with startling speed went to the U.S. Supreme Court. On a 4-2 decision, the court sided with the state, ordering a stay of the Winmill decision.

The Supreme Court, as often happens, didnt go to the center of the issue the voters-rights matter and it did not specifically reverse the Winmill decision, though it may have felt that way. But whats there is worth considering.

First, the majority decision (written by Chief Justice John Roberts) pointed out that, oddly enough, different federal courts have established different guidelines for what states can and cant do in initiative procedures (one reason the high court might have granted certiorari permission to bring this case to it). It said: The States depend on clear and administrable guidelines from the courts. Yet the Circuits diverge in fundamental respects when presented with challenges to the sort of state laws at issue here. According to the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, the First Amendment requires scrutiny of the interests of the State whenever a neutral, procedural regulation inhibits a persons ability to place an initiative on the ballot. ... Other Circuits, by contrast, have held that regulations that may make the initiative process more challenging do not implicate the First Amendment so long as the State does not restrict political discussion or petition circulation.

The Supreme Court didnt really land on this turf in its Idaho decision, but the majority did focus on the right of the state more than the right of the initiative proponent: The District Court did not accord sufficient weight to the States discretionary judgments about how to prioritize limited state resources across the election system as a whole.

Thats not an unreasonable point, but it leaves a massive gap in how to review something like this. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor zeroed in on balancing harms to stay applicant against harms to respondent in other words, balancing the interests of the state and the initiative backers, rather than simply disregarding the interests of the backers. She acknowledged that allowing the electronic signature would be a burden on the state and counties and it would be but she argued it should be considered in context.

Putting a still finer point on it: The stay granted today puts a halt to their signature-collection efforts, meaning that even if respondents ultimately prevail on appeal, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to collect enough qualifying signatures by any reasonable deadline for the November ballot. In other words, the delay occasioned by this Courts stay likely dooms to mootness respondents First Amendment claims before any appellate court has had the chance to consider their merits (and, indeed, before this Court has had the chance to consider any potential petition for certiorari).

So in balancing the rights of a state government against those of its voters, the Supreme Courts majority seems to be putting its thumb on the states side of the scale. That may be worth giving some careful thought when you look, as historically we long have, to the nations highest court as a protector of the rights of the American people.

Original post:

Commentary: Supreme Court placed its thumb on Idaho's side of the scale - Lewiston Morning Tribune

Lata Nott. Photo courtesy Freedom Forum.

By LATA NOTT

Last week, I spoke (virtually, of course) with agroup of journalism students about how the First Amendment relates to, and protects, the work theyll soon be doing. I walked them through the major legal doctrines that protect freedom of expression in this country:

The government cant create laws that censor or punish people for their speech, unless theres a compelling purpose behind them and those laws are the least restrictive way to achieve them;

It cant apply laws or take actionsin a manner thatdiscriminates against people based on the point of view theyre expressing;

It cant engage in prior restraint prevent something from being published unless it can prove that that publication would cause immediate and irreparable harm to the United States.

Its a lecture Ive given many times over the past few years, but afterwards, one of the students asked me a question Id never been asked before. Who makes sure the government isnt doing any of the things it cant be doing? Is there an agency that ensures compliance with the First Amendment?

For the most part, its just us, I replied and made some sort of expansive hand gesture in an effort to letthe studentknow that us encompassed her, me, the other 20 people on the Zoom call and the American people as a whole.

It was an off-the-cuff answer, and if Id had more time and my Wi-Fi connection had been less laggy, I might have said that its the courts that strike down unconstitutional laws and government actions, although executive agencies like the Department of Justice andlegislative bodies like Congress can certainly play a role by pushing for and implementing further safeguards for free expression. But my original answer still stands. Courts hear cases when lawsuits are brought by peoplewhose rights have been violated. The executive and legislative branches respond to demands from their constituents. And the public learns about the governments transgressionsthrough the press.

One of the most interesting things about the press is thatdespite being the only profession actually named in the Constitution, journalists themselves are not defined by any legal document or ordained by any government body.As my colleagueGene Policinskiwroteon World Press Freedom Day a few years back,Inthe larger sense, were all press every time we post, tweet or blog whether we want that title or not. Media critics and advocates alike are fond of noting the presshas no more and no less privilege under the First Amendment than any other U.S. citizen.

This is as true for theprofessional journalists who covered the recent Black Lives Matter protestsas it is for theMinneapolis teenager who recorded the killing ofGeorge Floyd, which sparked those protests in the first place. Anyone who cares enough to expose wrongdoingpeoplein power isserving as a watchdog. Anyone who wants to make truth known to the public at largewields the power of the press.

But the fact that anyone can do this doesnt detract from its significance, or the risks that it might entail.

Next week, it will have been eight years sinceAustin Ticewent missing. Austin was a Georgetown law student and former U.S. Marine Corps officer who went to Syria as a freelance journalist in 2012. He was also one of the only Western journalists on the ground while the Syrian conflict was unfolding and he made it his mission to report on the impact the conflict was having on civilians. On July 25, 2012,he posted this on his Facebook page, responding to those who told him he was crazy to try to report what was happening in Syria: We kill ourselves every day with McDonalds and alcohol and a thousand other drugs, but weve lost the sense that there actually are things out there worth dying for. Weve given away our freedoms piecemeal to robber barons, but were too complacent to do much but criticize those few who try to point out the obvious.

On Aug. 14, 2012, three days after his 31st birthday, Austin Tice was taken captive as he was preparing to travel from Daraya, near Damascus, Syria, to Beirut, Lebanon. Diverse credible sources report that he is still alive. Austinsparents, who have unrelentingly advocated for his return, recently published anopen letterinThe Washington PostsPress Freedom Partnership newsletter that included this heartbreaking message:

Each year around Austins birthday and the date of his capture, theres a brief moment of renewed attention and media coverage.Our son is imprisoned every single day.Every single day Austin needs his colleagues in journalism to ask questions about what is being done to bring him home, to dig for answers when they meet with obfuscation and to hold U.S. government officials accountable for their actions or lack thereof.

Advocating for Austin and other journalists who have been unjustlytargeted or detained is in our hands. So is safeguarding ourFirst Amendment freedoms. As Austin pointed out, we cant afford to be complacent.

. . .

Lata Nott is a Freedom Forum Fellow. Contact her via email at[emailprotected], or follow her on Twitter at@LataNott.

Read this article:

FIRST 5: Standing up for the First Amendment; and Austin Tice - Salina Post

By Todd DeFeoThe Center Squarehttps://www.thecentersquare.com/Staff attorneys with the National Right to Work Foundation have issued a legal notice to state employees, informing them of their right to end union dues deductions.

The notice, which includes sample resignation letters, comes after the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation helped four public employees in Ohio win a settlement in a federal class-action lawsuit challenging a so-called escape period.

Under Ohios previous maintenance of membership policy, an estimated 28,000 state workers in the state could only end union dues deductions during a period that opened roughly once every three years, according to the foundation.

The employees filed suit against Council 11 of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Gov. Mike DeWine and Matthew M. Damschroder, director of the Ohio Department of Administrative Services.

They argued limiting the window to decide to stop paying mandatory union dues was an illegal restriction on their First Amendment right. The United States Supreme Court recognized the right in a 2018 decision, Janus v. AFSCME, and ruled the government can only deduct union dues or fees with a workers affirmative consent.

All State of Ohio public workers must be aware that they cannot be forced into abandoning their First Amendment right to refrain from subsidizing an unwanted union hierarchy just to keep their jobs, National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said in a statement.

Any State of Ohio public servant who is falsely told that they must sign a union dues deduction form should contact the Foundation for free legal assistance in defending their Janus rights, he added.

The workers filed their lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. At least 150 people were refunded dues as a result of the settlement.

OCSEA intends to solicit employees to sign new membership and dues deduction cards that purport to restrict when employees can stop the deduction of union dues from their wages, the notice reads.

According to the National Right to Work Foundation, the most recent ruling is the fourth it has settled in the Buckeye State in favor of workers.

In January 2019, the organization won a settlement for seven Ohio public employees who filed a similar federal class-action lawsuit challenging AFSCME Council 8. The foundation subsequently helped two other Ohio public employees end escape period restrictions.

Go here to see the original:

National Right to Work informs state workers of their right to end union dues - The Highland County Press

Appellate court decisions result in winners and losers in any specific case, but the issues involved often are worked through murky gray areas. Consider for example the July 30 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Little v. Reclaim Idaho.

The background is fairly well known in Idaho. The group Reclaim Idaho has been trying to promote an Invest in Idaho tax and schools initiative for the November election ballot. When the pandemic hit and Gov. Brad Littles stay at home order was issued, its petition-gathering which in the normal process has to be done face to face was blocked, which meant a part of Idahos election process also was blocked.

That point, essentially an argument over voting civil rights, went to federal court. Idaho U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill ordered that the state either simply place the proposed initiative on the ballot or allow the group to collect the signatures electronically. The state appealed, and the case with startling speed went to the U.S. Supreme Court. On a 4-2 decision, the court sided with the state, ordering a stay of the Winmill decision.

The Supreme Court, as often happens, didnt go to the center of the issue the voters-rights matter and it did not specifically reverse the Winmill decision, though it may have felt that way. But whats there is worth considering.

First, the majority decision (written by Chief Justice John Roberts) pointed out that, oddly enough, different federal courts have established different guidelines for what states can and cant do in initiative procedures (one reason the high court might have granted certiorari permission to bring this case to it). It said: The States depend on clear and administrable guidelines from the courts. Yet the Circuits diverge in fundamental respects when presented with challenges to the sort of state laws at issue here. According to the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, the First Amendment requires scrutiny of the interests of the State whenever a neutral, procedural regulation inhibits a persons ability to place an initiative on the ballot. ... Other Circuits, by contrast, have held that regulations that may make the initiative process more challenging do not implicate the First Amendment so long as the State does not restrict political discussion or petition circulation.

The Supreme Court didnt really land on this turf in its Idaho decision, but the majority did focus on the right of the state more than the right of the initiative proponent: The District Court did not accord sufficient weight to the States discretionary judgments about how to prioritize limited state resources across the election system as a whole.

Thats not an unreasonable point, but it leaves a massive gap in how to review something like this. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor zeroed in on balancing harms to stay applicant against harms to respondent in other words, balancing the interests of the state and the initiative backers, rather than simply disregarding the interests of the backers. She acknowledged that allowing the electronic signature would be a burden on the state and counties and it would be but she argued it should be considered in context.

Putting a still finer point on it: The stay granted today puts a halt to their signature-collection efforts, meaning that even if respondents ultimately prevail on appeal, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to collect enough qualifying signatures by any reasonable deadline for the November ballot. In other words, the delay occasioned by this Courts stay likely dooms to mootness respondents First Amendment claims before any appellate court has had the chance to consider their merits (and, indeed, before this Court has had the chance to consider any potential petition for certiorari).

So in balancing the rights of a state government against those of its voters, the Supreme Courts majority seems to be putting its thumb on the states side of the scale. That may be worth giving some careful thought when you look, as historically we long have, to the nations highest court as a protector of the rights of the American people.

View original post here:

Supreme Court placed its thumb on Idaho's side of the scale - Lewiston Morning Tribune

Should the First Amendment really permit neo-Nazis to come to Williamsport and yell through a bullhorn F*** your n***** mayor? When I heard the words replayed on a Facebook post, I was more livid than if I read it in a magazine or newspaper. I had difficulty sleeping that night to appreciate that psychopaths abusing the First Amendment can be tolerated. Is such conduct speech at all? The devout purpose of the neo-Nazis who came to Williamsport on July 18 was to evoke violence, while carrying their AK-47s, so as to create another Charlottesville situation. We knew they would be armed because it is contained in their e-mails to City Hall revealed as a result of a Right-to-Know request.

Is there any limit to the First Amendment? The neo-Nazis who came to Williamsport were denied a permit and theoretically could have been arrested on the spot. The mayor correctly thought that protection from COVID-19 was more important at this juncture than the right of crazy people to scream unacceptable vulgar epithets at other people.

The neo-Nazis not only created a clear and present danger but violated Pennsylvanias laws on gathering as a militia, something outlawed when the National Guard was created.

All of the legal developments that we are now witnessing presage the question as to how far the First Amendment can go to protect religious and speech rights and whether there are any discernable limits.

The First Amendment has been turned into a sword as well as a shield in modern times. Three recent court opinions, albeit very different in certain respects, demonstrate the vitality that still defines the scope of First Amendment protections. The First Amendment, as most people fully appreciate, generally addresses religion and speech.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School vs. Morrissey-Berru, (July 8, 2020) written by Justice Alito required the court to determine whether the First Amendment permits courts to intervene in employment disputes involving teachers at religious schools who are entrusted with the responsibility of instructing their students in the faith of the school where they work.

The religious education and formation of students is the reason for the existence of most private religious schools. Some private religious schools are just a form of prep school. However, most religious schools select and supervise teachers who are consistent with the religious mission of the institution. Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities, wrote the court, would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.

The same day as Our Lady of Guadalupe School, Justice Thomas wrote the opinion in Little Sisters of the Poor vs. Pennsylvania, (July 8, 2020). The question in Little Sisters was whether the government created lawful exceptions from a regulatory requirement implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2020 (ACA), 124 Stat. 119. Certain employers are required to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees through group health plans. Although contraceptive coverage is not required or addressed in the Affordable Care Act provision reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the government mandated such coverage by promulgating interim final rules shortly after the ACAs passage. This is known as the contraceptive mandate.

The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the Department lacked statutory authority to promulgate these exceptions. The U.S. Supreme Court held this was erroneous. The departments had the authority to provide exceptions from the regulatory contraceptive requirements from employers with religious and conscientious objections. The 3rd Circuit was therefore reversed.

Another important First Amendment religious freedom case is Espinoza vs. Montana Department of Revenue, (June 30, 2020), written by Chief Justice Roberts. The Montana Legislature established a program to provide tuition assistance to parents who send their children to private schools. The program grants a tax credit to anyone who donates to certain organizations that in turn award scholarships to selected students attending such schools. When petitioners sought to use the scholarships at a religious school, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the program. The court relied on the no-aid provision of the state constitution, which prohibits any aid to a school controlled by a church, sect, or denomination. The question was whether the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution barred the application of the no-aid provision.

The provision, said the U.S. Supreme, was said to burden not only religious schools but also families whose children attend or hope to attend them. The court noted that it had previously recognized the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.

The decision in B.L. vs. Mahanoy Area School District, (June 30, 2020), is a bit more difficult to appreciate. The decision by the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals concerned a woman who did not make her high school varsity cheerleading team. In a weekend away from school, the student posted a picture of herself with the caption F*** Cheer to Snapchat. She was suspended from the junior varsity team for a year and sued her school in federal court. The District Court granted summary judgment in B.L.s favor, ruling that the school had violated her First Amendment rights. The 3rd Circuit Court agrees and affirmed that the suspension represented a violation of the students First Amendment rights.

The 3rd Circuit Court easily found that the snap fell outside the school context. This is not a case in which the relevant speech took place in a school-sponsored forum, Fraser, 478 U.S. at 677. Nor is this a case in which the school owns or operates an online platform. Instead, B.L. created the snap away from campus, over the weekend, and without school resources, and she shared it on a social media platform unaffiliated with the school. While the snap mentioned the school and reached 16 MAHS students and officials, J.S. and Layshock claim that those few points of contact are not enough. B.L.s snap, therefore, took place off campus.

Most citizens would find it difficult to understand how a student could post vulgarities on social media and not pay any consequence for it.

Cliff Rieders is a board-certified trial advocate in Williamsport.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Read the original here:

Exploring the reaches of the First Amendment | News, Sports, Jobs - Williamsport Sun-Gazette

Amicus brief filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and 12 media organizations

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Date Filed: August 7, 2020

Background: Representing several international travelers, including journalists, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued the heads of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, arguing that suspicionless searches of electronic devices at the U.S. border violated Fourth Amendment protections.

The district court agreed with the plaintiffs, but held that border agents needed to meet only the reasonable suspicion standard, rather than the more stringent probable cause standard, before searching a travelers devices. The government and the plaintiffs both appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Our Position: Border officials should be required to seek warrants based on the higher probable cause standard before they can search electronic devices.

Quote: Electronic device searches are highly invasive, especially for journalists. The contents of electronic devices can reveal the stories a journalist is developing, with whom she is communicating, and her specific travel plans. Disclosure of such information can expose sensitive newsgathering methods and deter potential sources from speaking to members of the media.

Related: This is the second friend-of-the-court brief that the Reporters Committee and the Knight First Amendment Institute have filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case. At the trial court level, when DHS, CBP, and ICE asked the district court to dismiss the case, the Reporters Committee and the Knight First Amendment Institute, represented pro bono by attorneys from Jenner & Block and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, filed a brief urging the court to deny the governments motion. The court allowed the case to continue.

According to a Reporters Committee analysis of U.S. Press Freedom Tracker data, journalists reported being subjected to secondary screenings, questionings, or searches by U.S. Customs and Border Protection 16 times in 2019, compared to 11 in 2018 and 16 in 2017. Seventy-five percent of the stops in 2019 occurred at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Read this article:

Reporters Committee amicus brief in Alasaad v. Wolf - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press