INDIANAPOLIS (AP) An Indiana man, allegedly angered by the removal of a tree, is charged with a hate crime for attempting to intimidate an African American neighbor because of his race, the U.S. Justice Department announced Thursday.

Shephard Hoehn, 50, became angry when a construction crew began removing a tree from the neighbors property on June 18, according to the Justice Department. Hoehn allegedly burned a cross next to a fence near the neighbors property; displayed a swastika and displayed a large sign containing a variety of anti-Black racial slurs. Hoehn also allegedly threw eggs at the neighbor's home and played the song ``Dixie repeatedly.

Although the First Amendment protects hateful, ignorant and morally repugnant beliefs and speech, it does not protect those who choose to take criminal actions based on those beliefs, said U.S. Attorney Josh Minkler. This office will continue to prosecute federal hate crimes to the fullest extent of the law.

Efforts to reach Hoehn were unsuccessful because a telephone number couldn't be found. It wasnt immediately known if Hoehn had a lawyer to speak on his behalf.

According to the criminal complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Hoehn admitted to actions listed in the court document during interviews with FBI agents. He allegedly said he knew the racial connotations of his actions, that he knew his actions would be disturbing to his neighbor because he is Black, and that he took such actions because he knew they would evoke an emotional response in his neighbor. However, Hoehn asserted he wasn't a racist and he was exercising his First Amendment rights.

View original post here:

Man accused of targeting Black neighbor with swastika, slurs - STLtoday.com

Chicagos first jury trial since the start of the coronavirus pandemic ended Thursday when federal jurors, clad in face masks, convicted an Ottawa man of threatening an FBI task force officer and others.

That trial played out amid the new normal that also includes hand sanitizer and constant social distancing, though. So after the trial ended, a few jurors offered their own verdict on the new safety protocols for jury trials at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse.

I felt like they were extremely thorough, Elizabeth Reihl said. I think they walked through the juror experience from the very beginning from where you park. I can tell that they looked through the full process and did every checkpoint.

Under the new jury trial plan at Dirksen, jurors have been spread out beyond the traditional jury box, and theyve been allowed to take breaks and deliberate in a separate courtroom. Public seating has been limited, and witnesses have been asked to wipe down the witness stand when their testimony ends. Jurors have also been given plastic bags filled with supplies.

Theyve got a little hand sanitizer in there and sanitizing wipes, said Elizabeth Boyd, who said she also had a positive experience serving as a juror this week.

Reihl said jury service is a chance to see democracy up close. Having served on two state court juries previously, she called it a beautiful, beautiful thing, and its nothing to get out of or try to avoid.

U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang acknowledged the jurors unusual service following the verdict that found Robert Haas, 40, guilty on 13 criminal counts.

This was the first jury trial that has been held in this courthouse since early March, Chang said. Youve shown extraordinary dedication to serving your community. It makes me proud to be an American.

Earlier Thursday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Barry Jonas delivered his closing argument while masked and seated at the government table. He still moved around in his chair and gestured with his hands for effect, telling jurors that Haas was an angry person with anti-Semitic beliefs. He said that wasnt why Haas was on trial, though.

This case is not about his beliefs, Jonas said. Its not about his anger. Its not about his hatred. This case is about the threats.

Prosecutors said Haas crossed a legal line when he leveled several threats toward an FBI task force officer and others through text messages, voicemails and online social media posts, as well as in recorded comments following his arrest in June 2019.

I dont care if its a cop, prosecutor, judge, politician or elite, Haas allegedly wrote in one online post. You try to stop me from telling the truth I will cut every throat in your home. Try me!

Haas represented himself and testified Wednesday with help of a stand-by attorney appointed by the judge. During his cross-examination, he admitted making several of the comments at issue. Assistant U.S. Attorney Erin Kelly even asked him whether he believed the FBI task force officer should be killed.

In a way, yes, I do, Haas said.

During his closing argument Thursday, Haas said he was goaded into making the comments by federal agents who tried to chill his First Amendment rights. He previously told the jurors he lived in Moscow for a year and found a lot of things that the federal government and the people who provide our media to us are hiding from us.

They dont want you to see the real threat because its so disgusting that it will change your opinion, Haas said Thursday.

More:

Chicagos first trial of pandemic ends with conviction, juror praise - Chicago Sun-Times

from the not-how-this-works dept

There's this dumb but persistent meme in American culture that somehow the First Amendment simply doesn't exist within the walls of a public school district. This is patently false. What is true is that there have been very famous court cases that have determined that speech rights for students at school may be slightly curtailed and must face tests over "substantial disruption" of the speech in question in order to have it limited. Named after the plaintiff in that cited case, the "Tinker test" essentially demands that schools not simply dislike a student's speech or the discomfort that comes from it, but instead must be able to demonstrate that such speech is disruptive to the school and students broadly. The facts of that case, for instance, dealt with students being suspended for wearing anti-war armbands. Those suspensions were seen as a violation of the students' First Amendment rights, because obviously.

Subsequent cases, such as Morse v. Frederick, have very slightly and narrowly expanded the limitations on speech within schools. In this case, for instance, a student's speech encouraging the use of illegal drugs was found to be a valid target for school punishment. But, narrow or not, some analysis has worried that cases like this could be used to expand the curtailing of student speech:

By contrast, the Eleventh Circuit extended Morse's rationale about illegal drugs to the context of student speech that is "construed as a threat of school violence". Boim, 494 F.3d at 984 (upholding the suspension of a high school student for a story labeled as a "dream" in which she described shooting her math teacher). Moreover, the court concluded that Morse supports the idea that student speech can be regulated where "[in] a school administrator's professional observation ... certain expressions [of student speech] have led to, and therefore could lead to, an unhealthy and potentially unsafe learning environment".

Disallowing student speech that amounts to threats of violence indeed seems to make sense. That being said, speaking of "an unhealthy and potentially unsafe learning environment":

You'd be forgiven if you thought that picture was taken from the Paulding County high school six months ago, with so few masks. But it wasn't. Instead, it was taken on August 4th, the first day back to school for Paulding County. Whatever your thoughts on whether and how schools should be opening, you really need to go read that entire article from BuzzFeed. The overwhelming impression left is that Paulding County appears to have reopened its schools in as callous and cavalier manner possible while still staying just inside government guidelines. Masks? Sure, if you want, but they're optional. Distancing? Of course, but we can't really enforce it in any meaningful way. And overall safety?

North Paulding teachers said they too felt they had no choice but to show up to work, even after a staff member texted colleagues saying she had tested positive for the virus. The staffer had attended planning sessions while exhibiting symptoms, one teacher said.

She did not attend school after testing positive. But teachers have heard nothing from the school, they said, which wont confirm that staff members have tested positive, citing privacy concerns.

The Paulding County School Superintendent, Brian Otott, began reaching out to parents to reassure them that what they saw in the viral photo going around Twitter was fine, just fine. It lacked context, you see. Context, one presumes, is another word for safety. Or, if we are to believe Otott, the context is essentially: yes, this is totally happening, but the state said we can operate this way.

Otott claimed in his letter that the pictures were taken out of context to criticize the schools reopening, saying that the school of more than 2,000 students will look like the images that circulated for brief periods during the day. The conditions were permissible under the Georgia Department of Educations health recommendations, he said.

This from the same state that has the 6th highest number of total COVID-19 cases, the 11th most total cases per capita, the 4th most total new cases in the last week, and the 6th most new cases per capita in the last week. So, you know, not the state doing the best job in the country by a long shot at containing outbreaks of this virus.

Which perhaps makes sense, actually, since Otott seems chiefly interested in containing not the virus in his school halls, but rather any criticism of his district. Remember that viral photo that kicked off this discussion? Well...

At least two students say they have been suspended at North Paulding High School in Georgia for posting photos of crowded hallways that went viral on Twitter.

The photos show students packed into hallways between classes, not appearing to practice social distancing and with few masks visible, amid the coronavirus panic. They went viral after being shared by the account @Freeyourmindkid.

Those suspensions being handed out are five day suspensions and are being levied at violations of school rules around using cell phone cameras without permission. A couple of things to say about that.

First, the removal of a student from a School-sanctioned petri dish of a novel coronavirus feels odd as a punishment. Were it not for the intentions of the Superintendent, it would be damn near heroic as an attempt to save these kids from getting sick.

Second, refer back to my two paragraph throat-clearing above. This isn't constitutional. Nothing about the students sharing their concerns amounts to a disruption of school, or anything else that would qualify this protected speech for scholastic punishment. Taking a fearful 15 year old student and punishing him or her for their fear is beyond reproach. And, about those school rules for cell phones:

On Wednesday, an intercom announcement at the school from principal Gabe Carmona said any student found criticizing the school on social media could face discipline.

Again, plainly unconstitutional. One wonders why anyone should have faith in a school administration that isn't even educated enough on the rights of its own students to keep from ignorantly broadcasting its idiocy over school intercoms. Why are these people even allowed to teach children in the best of times, never mind during a pandemic as these kids get herded like cattle to the slaughter through school halls?

While I guess we'll all get to see what happens in this idiotic school district now, and maybe even learn some lessons from what occurs, I'm generally not of the opinion that we should treat our own children like they were the subjects of some kind of bizarre modern-day Tuskegee test.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, free speech, georgia, paulding county, photos, school reopenings, students, suspensionsCompanies: north paulding hs

View original post here:

Georgia School District Inadvertently Begins Teaching Lessons In First Amendment Protections After Viral Photo - Techdirt

Amicus brief filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 16 media organizations

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Date Filed: Aug. 6, 2020

Background: In June, Jessica Denson, a former staffer for Donald J. Trumps 2016 presidential campaign, filed a class-action lawsuit against the campaign to nullify the nondisclosure agreement each staffer was required to sign.

Densons attorneys argue that the nondisclosure agreement is overly broad and indefinite, running contrary to established New York public policy. They also claim it violates the First Amendment by requiring a waiver of the right to engage in political speech.

In a motion for summary judgment, Densons attorneys asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to declare the Trump campaigns form nondisclosure agreement void and unenforceable.

Our Position: The district court should grant summary judgment to the current and former Trump campaign staffers who have signed the challenged nondisclosure agreement and hold that the nondisclosure agreement is void and unenforceable.

Quote: When political campaigns require campaign staff to sign NDAs, they chill staff members speech and prevent the public from learning vital information about candidates for political office.

Related: Earlier this year, the Reporters Committee filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Mary Trumps efforts to publish a book about her uncle, President Donald Trump. The brief argued that a confidentiality agreement Mary Trump had signed 19 years earlier is unenforceable because it runs contrary to established public policy and the First Amendment.

In 2019, a federal appeals court ruled that Baltimores practice of forcing victims in police misconduct cases to sign nondisclosure agreements in order to settle is unconstitutional. The Reporters Committee and 19 media organizations had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, arguing that the routine practice of using nondisclosure agreements silences the victims in these cases, restricting the news medias ability to report on police misconduct allegations.

Read more:

RCFP: Trump campaign's nondisclosure agreements are unenforceable - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Federal workers lost a court challenge to a government rule banning them from having conversations about opposing President TrumpDonald John TrumpLincoln Project ad dubs Jared Kushner the 'Secretary of Failure' Pence: Chief Justice Roberts 'has been a disappointment to conservatives' Twitter bans Trump campaign until it deletes tweet with COVID-19 misinformation MORE or impeaching him.

U.S. District CourtJudge Paula Xinis in Maryland ruled this week that the union representing the workers did not sufficiently demonstrate that the rule violated their First Amendment rights.

Xinis, who wasappointed by former President Obama, wrote in her ruling that the plaintiffs did not provide any specific allegation as to how the Advisory Opinion interferes with their First Amendment rights.

She added that the plaintiffs argued simply that their members speech is chilled if the Advisory Opinion is allowed to stand, but provide little reason as to why.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed both to aver claims fit for judicial review and to convince this Court that the balance of hardships weighs in their favor. Because Plaintiffs claims are not ripe, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear them, she ruled.

The Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency, first warned in 2018 before Trumps impeachment that it would deem statements on resistance and impeachment to violate a federal law prohibiting federal workers from supporting or opposing political candidates in their official capacities.

"To the extent that the statement relates to resistance to President Donald J Trump, usage of the terms 'resistance,' '#resist,' and derivatives thereof is political activity," the office wrote in a memo.

The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) had argued that the guidelines expanded beyond the laws bounds and infringed on its members' freedom of speech and said the ruling was "still evaluating the courts opinion."

"[T]he decision is an obvious disappointment. The courts opinion does not give sufficient consideration to the profound chilling effect that OSCs guidance has on the First Amendment rights of federal employees. We look forward to providing a more comprehensive statement once we have completed our evaluation," saidAFGE National President Everett Kelley.

The Office of Special Counsel celebrated the ruling this week, saying it preserves the offices important advisory role.

This is a good outcome, and I appreciate the Court's thoughtful opinion, said Special Counsel Henry Kerner.

See more here:

Federal workers lose challenge to ban on discussing Trump impeachment | TheHill - The Hill

Notice explains that workers under OCSEA union power can freely cut off union dues deductions, warns employees against signing away their rights

Columbus, OH (August 6, 2020) National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys today issued a special legal notice to State of Ohio employees regarding their First Amendment rights under the Janus v. AFSCME US Supreme Court case. The notice comes after an estimated 28,000 State of Ohio workers were freed of restrictions in exercising those rights as a result of a lawsuit against the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (OCSEA, AFSCME Council 11) union brought by a group of State of Ohio employees with free legal representation from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

The class-action lawsuit Allen v. AFSCME challenged OCSEAs maintenance of membership policy that blocked workers from exercising their right to end union dues deductions except for a brief escape period once every three years at the expiration of the union monopoly bargaining contract.

Right to Work attorneys argued that the restriction was unconstitutional under the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME Supreme Court decision, which was argued and won by Foundation staff attorneys. In Janus, the Court struck down mandatory union fees for public sector workers as an infringement of their First Amendment rights. It also ruled that the government can only deduct union dues or fees with an individuals affirmative consent, including a knowing waiver of their First Amendment right not to fund union activities.

As a result of this lawsuits settlement, union officials have given up their attempts to enforce the coercive policy based on union-designed dues deduction cards, which Foundation staff attorneys argued failed to meet the standard laid out in Janus. This means approximately 28,000 workers are now free to stop dues at any time.

The full notice is available at https://www.nrtw.org/ohio-janus/.

The notice explains the simple process by which state employees can exercise their right to end dues deductions, complete with sample resignation letters. It also warns employees that OCSEA union bosses may solicit them to sign new dues deduction forms which are not covered by the terms of the settlement. In light of that, the notice reminds workers that under Janus no State of Ohio worker can be forced to sign a union dues deduction form as a condition of employment, no matter what union agents may tell them.

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.

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, commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. 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.

The recent settlement is not the only time Ohio public employees have with National Right to Work Foundation legal aid successfully challenged union boss attempts to limit their rights.

Seven other Ohio public employees won the first-in-the-nation victory against unconstitutional escape periods with Foundation aid in January 2019, after they filed a class-action federal lawsuit challenging a similar policy created by AFSCME Council 8 bosses. They won a settlement ending the restrictions for themselves and their coworkers. That win was followed by two other Ohio public workers, Connie Pennington and Donna Fizer, successfully ending escape period restrictions with Foundation assistance in 2019.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in more than 250 cases nationwide per year.

The rest is here:

National Right to Work Foundation National Right to Work Foundation Issues Special Legal Notice for State of Ohio Employees Freed from Illegal OCSEA...

Amicus brief filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 16 media organizations

Court: U.S. District Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division

Date Filed: Aug. 5, 2020

Background: In June, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of journalists targeted by law enforcement while covering Black Lives Matter protests in Portland, Oregon.

A month later, a federal district judge temporarily blocked law enforcement from arresting, assaulting, threatening, or dispersing journalists and legal observers during demonstrations, and said that police could not search or seize journalists equipment. After the government asked the court to modify the temporary restraining order, the judge asked the parties whether the court should restrict the protections to professional or authorized journalists who would be clearly identifiable by wearing vests provided by the ACLU.

Our Position: The district court should not require journalists covering protests to register or obtain a license with the government, ACLU, or any other organization.

Quote: The First Amendment bars any system that would require journalists to be licensed by the government, third party, or otherwise to gather and report the news. Such a system would constitute both an unconstitutional prior restraint and an unacceptable impediment to the publics right to know.

Related: The Reporters Committee has urged public officials in California, New York, Minnesota, and Colorado to immediately stop attacking and arresting journalists covering the Black Lives Matter protests, and to train police officers about First Amendment protections for reporters.

Original post:

RCFP: Journalists covering Portland protests should not be required to obtain a license - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

August 5, 2020

Posted: August 5, 2020

Updated: 1:15 PM

KUSI Newsroom

SAN DIEGO (KUSI) San Diego County health officials have reported 290 new COVID-19 cases and three additional deaths, among the lowest numbers in the past month, although recent days have seen over 500 positive cases.

USC Professor of Pharmaceutical and Health Economics, Joel Hay, joined Good Morning San Diego to explain his frustration with how our public health officials are responding to the coronavirus pandemic.

As you know, Public Health Officials here in San Diego and across the country have relied on shutting down businesses in order to slow the spread of coronavirus in the community. Many Americans have been forced to permanently close their businesses because of this, and cases dont seem to be decreased at all.

Professor Hay believes shutting down the economy is the wrong approach to combat the virus. Hay told KUSIs Jason Austell, this virus is everywhere, it has been everywhere since at least March 2019. It spreads so rapidly, that its been in every community of the world for months and months and months.

Hay pointed to Sweden as proof that there are better ways to combat the virus. Sweden didnt shut down their economy, and Hay says they are only seeing 1 case per day. For a country with over 10 million people, Hay believes their response was a major success.

Furthermore, Hay explained he is not an advocate of wearing masks because they have little to no effect on stopping the spread of coronavirus.

Not only am I not an advocate of wearing masks, I consider them unconstitutional, they violate the First Amendment. By the way, do you know what the First Amendment says? It says Congress shall pass no law, not a little law, not Faucis opinion, Congress shall pass no law abridging the right of the people to freely assemble and freely express their opinion. My opinion is masks are an emasculation, and they are a violation of my free speech rights, which under the First Amendment, no law shall limit my First Amendment rights to free speech and free expression and not wearing masks he explained.

Read more here:

USC Professor Joel Hay says we should not be shutting down the economy to fight COVID-19 - - KUSI

Boulder City did not vindictively prosecute a former resident, according to a new order issued by a judge in Nevadas Eighth District Court.

The order stems from a case involving the June 8, 2016 arrest of John Hunt, who lived in Boulder City at the time.

On Friday, July 31, Judge Richard Scotti issued a minute order in an appeal filed by Hunt saying that City Attorney Steve Morris, former City Attorney Davis Olsen and the city did not vindictively prosecute him or violate his First Amendment rights. He also wrote that the reputations of Olsen and Morris should not be tarnished.

In October 2018, Scotti ruled the opposite way and dismissed the case, saying it violated Hunts First Amendment rights.

Unfortunately, the damage to my reputation has already occurred and continues to occur through bigotry, discrimination, slander, libel, bullying and harassment, Morris said. These efforts have not only adversely impacted me and my family but the dedicated staff and employees of Boulder City and their families. I can only hope that this decision may pave the way to greater unity and the eradication of the cancel culture that remains a cancer to our city and society.

Hunts former attorney, Stephen Stubbs, filed a motion for final judgment in January, asking for payment for attorneys fees and litigation expenses. Morris filed a motion opposing it and asking for a hearing to present new evidence. Scotti allowed for the hearing, which was held July 23.

According to the order from the hearing, Scotti wrote he believed the city presented evidence that the Federal District Court said the city had probable cause to arrest Hunt. He also wrote that the citys new charges filed against Hunt almost a year after the incident were a reaction to his federal complaint but not a retaliatory reaction.

He (Olsen) was winding down his affairs due to the anticipated retirement, Scotti wrote in the order. He had been without a paralegal for part of that time period. He had forgotten about the Hunt matter. And Hunt jogged his memory by filing his Federal Court action.

Scotti ordered the citys attorney, Cynthia Alexander, to prepare a final order that reflects his minute one.

There will be no further hearings on Hunts efforts to dismiss the case on motion practice, Morris said.

Stubbs represented Hunt through the July 23 hearing. On Friday, July 31, Stubbs said he was no longer on the case and did not want to give an official statement about why he left.

In 2016, BCPD (Boulder City Police Department) gave me a dash-cam video that I thought was fake, Hunt said. I tried to tell the press and was repeatedly ignored. I hired experts to verify what I was saying. They agreed. I was still ignored. Feeling I had no options left, I sued the city in an attempt to get the real video. Why are people upset that I took these steps? They should be happy that I tried to inform others of an important discovery. I believe many people who receive fake videos dont survive their encounter with police. I did this on their behalf.

Hunt said he currently did not have an attorney.

Olsen said he was deeply appreciative of Scottis statements about him and his actions.

I think its all turning out the way its supposed to, he said.

He also said the case may have been able to be resolved sooner if the city had asked him earlier to testify about what happened with the charges against Hunt.

Bridgford 7-31-20 by Boulder City Review on Scribd

Contact reporter Celia Shortt Goodyear at cgoodyear@bouldercityreview.com or at 702-586-9401. Follow her on Twitter @csgoodyear.

Read the original:

Vindictive prosecution ruling in crosswalk case overturned - Bouldercityreview

While some vilify, target and attack our men and women in uniform for personal or political gain, this legislation is a clear reminder that Georgia is a state that unapologetically backs the blue, Kemp said.

With that statement, Georgia Governor Brian P. Kemp signed House Bill 838 into law Wednesday afternoon, ensuring first responders receive protection from any job-related litigation. HB838 was a form of compromise for many Georgia Republicans after the Legislature passed the Hate Crimes Bill earlier this year.

This legislative action in this moment pours salt in the wounds of the Georgians of all races and backgrounds who are participating daily in protests calling for the reform of policing and expressing their support for black lives, said Andrea Young, executive director of the ACLU of Georgia. Additionally, this provision undermines the officers who strive to obey their oath of office and uphold high standards in their interactions with the public. We oppose HB 838 in its current form and will explore all options to protect the First Amendment rights of Georgians.

HB 838 was loosely-titled, The Police Bill of Rights. It contains the following:

so as to enact a bill of rights for peace officers under investigation; to provide for interrogation procedures; to provide for compliance review panels; to provide for the right to bring suit; to provide for the right of notice of disciplinary action; to provide for limitations of disciplinary actions; to provide for bias-motivated behavior with the intent to intimidate(s), harass(es), or terrorize(s) another person because of that persons actual or perceived employment as a first responder.

State Rep. Bee Nguyen said via social media, the passage of the Hate Crimes bill has been tainted by the passage of the Police Bill of Rights Bill. Law enforcement will now be considered a protected class under HB 838. Georgia Republicans knew exactly what they were doing.

Governor Kemp remained steadfast after signing the legislation.

During my time as Governor, I have attended the funerals of far too many law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty. Its absolutely heartbreaking, and we must act, Kemp said.

The NAACP and Fair Fight Action argued the bill makes police a protected group.

Though we stand in full support of all law enforcement, we believe that HB838 is more dangerous to our community than HB426 is good. To see the legislature prioritize HB 838 instead of repealing citizens arrest is heartbreaking and does not do justice for my son, says Wanda Cooper-Jones, the mother of Ahmaud Arbery.

Persons violating the law can be sentenced to 1-5 years in prison, as well as fined up to $5,000.

This compromise in the political process will forever ring throughout history as a signal that Black lives are a bargaining chip toward a political end and dead, black bodies are a expendable commodity in the halls of legislative power, adds Rev James Woodall, State President of the Georgia NAACP.

Read the rest here:

Governor Kemp signs "Police Bill of Rights" into law - The Atlanta Voice