The First Amendment is the first amendment to the Bill of Rights, which includes the original 10 amendments drafted immediately after the Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1788. Here, amendments are changes or additions to the Constitution that arent part of the original document.

In 1787, members of the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia to revise the founding document of the country, the Articles of Confederation. They decided to create a new one instead, and by September, theyd drafted the Constitution. Getting the new document approved, however, was another story. Many opposed this new Constitution because it didnt specify the rights of the people. The Constitution was only passed after Congress promised to add a list of rights afterwards.

Its this proposed list of rightsthe Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791that yielded the First Amendment. Compared to some other amendments, its quite short. The full text reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The freedoms this amendment protectsreligion, speech and the press, assembly, and petitionare called the First Amendment freedoms or rights, both officially and colloquially invoked in the US.

Due to its brevity and ambiguity, issues regarding the interpretation of the First Amendment have been perennial points of debate throughout American history. The specific application of these rights, like other rights, has been a matter often judged by the Supreme Court. For instance, cases have determined that the First Amendments free speech clause doesnt protect fighting words, which is defined as speech intended to cause injury or breach of the peace, and that school libraries cant remove books because school officials disagree with their content.

Visit link:

First amendment | Definition of First amendment at ...

You don't have to be Nostradamus to realize that Michael Sexton isn't a favorite among authorities in Colorado Springs.

For the second time this year, Sexton has sued the city and its police department for violating his constitutional rights. The first complaint, filed in January, was prompted by an incident in which he flipped off an officer. The second, put forward last week, involves Sexton's arrest over his use of the word "fuck" in phrases such as "fuck the police."

The latter exchange was captured in a video (below). At one point, an officer says, "I'm more than happy to have you stand there and yell. However, yelling the word 'fuck' like that is coarse or offensive language."

In response, Sexton asks: "Do you want to lose in court? Do you really want to take that to court and lose in court?... That will not stand up in federal court. The Supreme Court will slap that in your face. Thank you!"

The city's response to the new lawsuit, delivered via email, reads: "The Colorado Springs Police Department appreciates Westword reaching out to our organization to discuss this incident, but we are unable to speak on any matter that is under litigation."

Attorney Andrew McNulty of Denver-based Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP, who represents Sexton in both cases against Colorado Springs, describes the arrest as "an obvious free speech violation. And it is not the first time Colorado Springs officials have arrested and maliciously prosecuted Mr. Sexton, and others, for simply criticizing them."

Sexton's YouTube channel is called Pikes Peak Auditors, and it's dominated by videos in which he records police interactions in ways that can be provocative. But as indicated by his remarks, he has a keen understanding of free speech law, which the most recent lawsuit underscores by way of an introductory passage that references 1971's Cohen v. California, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Paul Robert Cohen wasn't guilty of disturbing the peace simply for arriving at a courthouse wearing a jacket emblazoned with the phrase "Fuck the Draft."

One passage reads: "Plaintiff Michael Sexton was subjected to a humiliating arrest for simply saying the four-letter word that the Supreme Court of the United Stated held, over fifty years ago in Cohen, is protected by the First Amendment: fuck."

Also shared in the document is this excerpt from the Cohen v. California majority decision: "[T]he State has no right to cleanse public debate to the point where it is grammatically palatable to the most squeamish among us.... For, while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric. Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual."

Here's the video that's key to the second lawsuit. The main action begins at the 18:40 mark and escalates over the next five-to-ten minutes.

McNulty is a veteran of unusual First Amendment challenges. He was among the attorneys who defended Free the Nipple Fort Collins in a landmark case that toppled a city ordinance that made female toplessness a crime, and last year, he took on a charge stemming from a topless Frisbee game that eventually cost Loveland $50,000.

More recently, McNulty and fellow lawyer Mari Newman sued the City of Aurora over an attack on a violin vigil in honor of the late Elijah McClain that made international headlines after police broke up the crowd using chemical agents.

Of the latest Sexton case, McNulty contends that "there is little separating authoritarian regimes and Colorado Springs when it comes to censoring individuals for criticizing the government. The First Amendment is under attack in Colorado Springs and citizens, like Mr. Sexton, who are willing to stand up for their rights are the only bulwark against Colorado Springs' repeated tyranny."

Click to read Michael Sexton v. the City of Colorado Springs complaint from July and a similarly titled document filed in January.

Michael Roberts has written for Westword since October 1990, serving stints as music editor and media columnist. He currently covers everything from breaking news and politics to sports and stories that defy categorization.

See more here:

Colorado Springs Sued Over F the Police Arrest | Westword - Westword

(Metro Creative Graphics/File Photo)

(Metro Creative Graphics/File Photo)

Photo: (Metro Creative Graphics/File Photo)

(Metro Creative Graphics/File Photo)

(Metro Creative Graphics/File Photo)

Letter:A sad sign of the times

To the Editor:

Recently, there has been a widespread movement in several counties in the Thumb where political candidate yard signs affiliated with the Democratic Party have been taken from private properties. According to many residents, the Port Austin area has been targeted. And to be fair, I have heard from Republicans that their signs are being stolen too in the Elkton area. This is unacceptable behavior by anyone involved in this taking of personal property.

These antics have been going on for years from all parties. That does not make it right. In todays political climate, where we are in serious need for more civility and courtesy, our patience and tolerance is waning.

Political signage, and in a broader sense our First Amendment right, affords all of us, right and left, freedom of speech and expression. I ask that you please be vigilant and watch out for the theft of political signs. Some property owners have gone to extreme measures to protect their signs: trail-cams, locks on flagpoles, and bringing signs in at night.

There is an all too common perception that removing a political sign from someone's private property is a matter of no legal concern. On the contrary, it is a theft. Its stealing, plain and simple. Our local peace officers have better things to do than chasing down sign thieves.

The right to endorse and promote our candidates is a large part of election campaigns. A hallmark of our rural communities is yard signs. So stop the nonsense, Huron County.

Respect your neighbors and their right to free speech. Speak up when violated and by any means necessary, vote.

Charles Henry

Caseville

Originally posted here:

Letter: A sad sign of the times - Huron Daily Tribune

False or misleading information in the media is not a new phenomenon but during the coronavirus pandemic, governments around the world have sought to enact new laws and regulations, or to strengthen existing rules, in order to address it. Here, we compare the rules governing print and broadcast news media (as distinct from social media) in the United States of America and Australia (the jurisdiction in which the authors write). Although laws and regulations often aim to strike a fair balance between upholding a right to communicate ideas[1] and a right to make informed decisions based on fact,[2] regulation and freedom of speech are uneasy bedfellows. Lawmakers must be ever mindful to ensure that intervention is reasonably adapted to achieving its stated aims.

The United States of America: First Amendment protects false speech in marketplace of ideas

In the United States, any attempt to govern the information marketplace will inevitably come up against First Amendment protections and a relatively weak regulatory framework. Despite concerns over false information arising out of the coronavirus pandemic, content-based speech regulation that survives the scrutiny of judicial review remains thin on the ground.

FOX News early downplaying of COVID-19 sparked debate in the United States. FOX presenters Sean Hannity and Trish Regan claimed the danger posed by the coronavirus was being overblown by critics of the Trump administration. On April 2, a not-for-profit organization called the Washington League for Increased Transparency and Ethics (WASHLITE) sued FOX News Media in Washington State Court.

WASHLITE argued that FOX News Channel, FOX Business, and other cable television companies were liable under state consumer protection legislation and had committed the tort of outrage by intentionally and recklessly inflicting emotional distress. WASHLITE also sought an injunction to prohibit FOX from interfering with reasonable and necessary measures to contain the virus by publishing further false and deceptive content.

FOX News General Counsel Lily Fu Clafee was quoted in the Times of San Diego as saying [w]rong on the facts, frivolous on the law. We will defend vigorously and seek sanctions as appropriate.[3] FOX News was supported by an amicus brief filed by the Internet and Television Association, an organization that represents cable programmers and distributors including their rivals, along with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. WASHLITE made the radical argument that First Amendment protections didnt extend to FOX News because they were a cable television channel. Georgetown Professor of Law Erin Carroll wrote in Just Security that despite any visceral appeal to this suit (or the others that could follow), it is unlikely to be legally successful.

As predicted, the claim against FOX News ran up against the gold standard of positive free speech protection. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bars liability against publishers even if it was foreseeable that the information they disseminated might be used in a negligent or dangerous manner. Superior Court Judge Brian McDonald labelled the lawsuit laudable but ultimately struck out WASHLITES claim, noting that:

if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

Free speech protections are not the only thing standing in the way of the success of claims like WASHLITEs. These claims will also fail in tort where they seek to establish a duty of care to the public at large or fail to make out the requirement of causation.[4] Other regulations in the United States would also be of little use in similar circumstances. The Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) broadcast hoax rule and a news distortion policy may be used to target broadcasting false information in a pandemic. In adopting the broadcast hoax rule in 1992, the agency noted that the First Amendment does not preclude civil liability for broadcasts that create a foreseeable risk of personal injury.[5] However, in practice, the context or disclaimers suggested by the broadcast hoax rule are rarely followed and the FCC has been criticised for its inaction relative to other regulators. In her piece for Just Security, Carroll notes that:[6]

[T]he FCC has no direct authority over network news providers like FOX, ABC, NBC, or CBS. Any legal action under the broadcast hoax rule would need to be taken against the stations that carry FOX News, making such an action more difficult. The news distortion policy is just that, a policy, and while violation of it can inform the FCCs licensing decisions, it otherwise has limited bite.

Australia: Self and co-regulation without equivalent free speech protection

Australia is different to the United States as we lack constitutional protection for free speech that is equivalent to a positive personal right. Although we also have a regulatory framework that is not overly interventionist, future attempts to govern the field of false information may have the potential to alter the delicate relationship between the press and the State.

Similar claims to the FOX News suit would also fail in the current legal and regulatory landscape in Australia. This is true in tort law for the same reasons explained above, and also in consumer law. Although we have a robust consumer protection framework, practically speaking, unless false or misleading representations were made in advertisements or self-promotions, the media would be able to defend such claims.

The U.S. Constitution was referred to by the framers of the Australian Constitution, and our High Court has been influenced by American constitutional jurisprudence and free speech tradition.[7] Our system of law and regulation has evolved without a personal right of free speech equivalent to the First Amendment but the High Court has recognised that an implied freedom of communication exists under the Australian Constitution in relation to political and government matters.[8] The lack of personal free speech protection has generally allowed firmer constraints on speech and freedom of the press than in the United States, but the accuracy of print and broadcast reporting has not been heavily regulated.

The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliances (MEAA) Journalist Code of Ethics is an instrument which informs journalists ethical practice and more formal accountability schemes are found in the codes of practice of the Australian Press Council (APC) and the Independent Media Council (IMC) for print and online publishers, and in the broadcasting codes of practice registered with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Television and radio broadcasting have historically been burdened with more regulation than the publishing sectors.[9] Insofar as false or misleading information is concerned, reporting errors of news publishers are generally self-regulated by the APC and complaints about news broadcasts on television and radio are subject to co-regulation through an industry code overseen by ACMA. Neither the APC nor ACMA have the power to order compensation, fines or other financial sanctions for false or misleading statements in the news.

The kinds of actions taken by regulators are minimal and center mainly on the compliance pull of censuring media organizations. For instance, in March 2020 ACMA ruled that Seven News in Queensland misled viewers when it said a local council member was cleared of allegations made against him when in actual fact the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission decided not to investigate the council member.[10] Seven will circulate a copy of ACMAs investigation report to its Queensland editorial staff and include the decision in future training sessions to ensure compliance.[11] In-house counsel at media companies view these rulings as a form of moral or reputational hazard, rather than legal hazard.

ACMAs website claims that accuracy and accessibility of news and other critical information broadcast on commercial and national broadcasters remains essential during the pandemic and promises to prioritise investigating allegations of inaccuracy of news content that directly relate to COVID-19 during this time.[12] Despite ACMAs undoubted readiness to look into the problem of false information during the pandemic, the outcomes of their accuracy and impartiality investigations into television[13] and radio broadcasting[14] have not yet cited any COVID-19 related content. Australian Press Council adjudications in 2020 have similarly not cited any COVID-19 related content.[15] It must be noted regarding ACMA that complaints may only be made after first complaining to the broadcaster and either not receiving a satisfactory response or not receiving a response within 60 days.[16] With respect to the APC, complaints may be made directly to the Council but in some circumstances, the Council may ask the complainant to raise the complaint directly with the publication and then come back to the Council if its further involvement is sought.[17] Plainly, it does not necessarily follow that a lack of adjudications on COVID-19 means there has been no misleading or inaccurate reportage of the pandemic in Australia. However, grievances that are in the public domain (whether the subject of an adjudication or not) appear to be on the lower end of the scale of severity or unrelated to public health.[18] That very few complaints have attracted regulatory or public attention would seem to suggest that Australian media (like the government on which it reports) have largely avoided disseminating false information that would attract citation.

Self-regulation has historically been the object of some derision in Australia as a toothless tiger beholden to industry. The APC was first established in 1976 on a purely voluntary basis and is funded by its members. The media mogul Kerry Packer said before the House of Representatives Committee into the Print Media in 1991 that the APC was a complete and absolute piece of window-dressing. It has, however, in recent years greatly strengthened its capacity and independence by increasing its funding and membership, requiring members to enter into contracts which require commitment and funding for three years, and requiring members to prominently advertise APC complaints procedures and publish APC adjudication decisions that exactly conform to required words and placement.[19]

Like other governments, Australia has undertaken a number of reviews into media regulation in recent years. In 2012, the Finkelstein Review called for a government funded super regulator, the News Media Council, to be created in order to set and enforce journalistic standards across all media.[20] In 2013, then Communications Minster Steven Conroy attempted unsuccessfully to establish more government control over independent bodies regulating the media, including through the introduction of a Public Interest Media Advocate that would have been responsible for overseeing self-regulatory bodies.[21] More recently, the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) examined digital platforms and their impact on the supply of news and journalistic content and recommended that digital platforms with more than 1 million monthly active users in Australia should implement an industry code of conduct to govern the handling of complaints about disinformation in relation to news and journalism.[22]

Calls for more regulation will continue to surface but the model for print and broadcast regulation has thus far endured due to concern over government interference or oversight. Recent legislative attention has focused not on print or broadcast media but on ensuring greater transparency about who is behind a political message[23] and on the vexed issue of false information on social media,[24] including that disseminated by foreign actors.[25] In a recent position paper, ACMA supported an industry code to govern online misinformation on the basis that false and misleading information has been shown to have real-world consequences, including personal illness and damage to property.[26] This is true as a general statement about attendant harm, but this position paper, like many other writings on the subject, appears to conflate the potential harm of misinformation with its mooted impact on the broader Australian community.[27] Surveys, examples of fertile circumstances for the spread of misinformation, and the language of an infodemic may not be sufficient to convince Australians of the acute and chronic harms that require a particular remedy.[28]

Of course, we should avoid complacency on false information, most notably on digital platforms due to their distributed and networked nature, and their inherent vulnerability to foreign actors who may seek to disrupt Australias democracy and values. We should not, however, imagine that the potential harm of false information is exactly the same the world over, or forget that Australia has, by global standards, an educated and engaged population and a less partisan print and broadcast media than other countries.

Judges and bureaucrats are not experts at the difficult fact finding mission that may be required under more expansive regulatory frameworks, and while nobody is suggesting that we would follow countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, Russia and Fiji and enact fake news legislation that could be used to severely curtail free speech, Australia is not immune to restrictive laws. This is evidenced by a raft of legislation introduced in recent years which undermines protections for journalists, whistle-blowers and confidential sources. We must be aware of the possibility that intervention with noble intentions may have unintended consequences. For instance, in Germany, fake news laws implemented in 2018 led to difficulties with enforcement and unintentionally targeted legitimate content, prompting a government review and complaints from the German Federation of Journalists.[29] Unlike in the United States, the impact of any regulatory encroachment on freedom of speech could be magnified in Australia in the absence of comparable constitutional safeguards.

The regulation of our media has always been an intensely political question on which reasonable minds may differ. It is the authors view that a multifaceted approach that supports existing self and co-regulatory schemes, education and independent fact checking organizations can help to ensure that we are all able to make informed decisions in the marketplace of ideas. Whatever the threat, we must not trespass on the more sensitive aspects of relations between the press and the State without first examining whether the cure may be worse than the disease.

***

[1] Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green, 1869.

[2] Kant, Immanuel, James W. Ellington, and Immanuel Kant. Grounding for the metaphysics of morals ; with, On a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1993.

[3] See https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2020/04/02/washington-state-group-is-1st-to-sue-FOX-news-for-calling-coronavirus-a-hoax/.

[4] See Carroll, Erin. Lawsuit against FOX News over Coronavirus Coverage: Can it succeed? Should it?, Just Security 10 April 2020. Available at https://www.justsecurity.org/69556/lawsuit-against-FOX-news-over-coronavirus-coverage-can-it-succeed-should-it/.

[5] Amendment of Part 73 Regarding Broadcast Hoaxes, MM Docket No. 91-314, Report and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 4106, 10 11 (1992), Available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-92-208A1.pdf.

[6] See Carroll, Erin. Lawsuit against FOX News over Coronavirus Coverage: Can it succeed? Should it?, Just Security 10 April 2020. Available at https://www.justsecurity.org/69556/lawsuit-against-FOX-news-over-coronavirus-coverage-can-it-succeed-should-it/.

[7] For a detailed exposition, see Stone, Adrienne. Freedom of Political Communication, the Constitution and the Common Law [1998] UMelbLRS 1. Available at http://138.25.65.17/au/journals/UMelbLRS/1998/1.html#fn3.

[8] Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1. See also see Stone, Adrienne. Freedom of Political Communication, the Constitution and the Common Law [1998] UMelbLRS 1. Available at http://138.25.65.17/au/journals/UMelbLRS/1998/1.html#fn3.

[9] ACMAs industry responsibilities in television and radio are governed respectively by the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 (Cth). This more extensive regulation was formerly justified on the basis of the airwaves being a scarce public resource and due to the special power of broadcast media to influence public attitudes, but this distinction is becoming less relevant over time. Broadcasters must obtain licences and comply with complex, sector-specific rules under a co-regulatory regime.

For more information, see Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Digital Platforms Inquiry, Final Report, June 2019. Available at https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries/digital-platforms-inquiry/final-report-executive-summary.

[10] Investigation Report no. BI-521 5 March 2020, the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Available at https://www.acma.gov.au/publications/2020-03/report/bi-521-investigation-report.

[11] See https://mumbrella.com.au/acma-rules-seven-news-queensland-misled-viewers-620009.

[12] See Investigations into TV broadcasters, Australian Communications and Media Authority, accessed 15 June 2020. Available at https://www.acma.gov.au/investigations-tv-broadcasters.

[13] Investigations into TV broadcasters, Australian Communications and Media Authority, accessed 15 June 2020. Available at https://www.acma.gov.au/investigations-tv-broadcasters.

[14] Investigations into radio broadcasters, Australian Communications and Media Authority, accessed 15 June 2020. Available at https://www.acma.gov.au/investigations-radio-broadcasters.

[15] Adjudications and other outcomes, Australian Press Council, accessed 15 June 2020. Available at https://www.presscouncil.org.au/adjudications-other-outcomes/.

[16] See https://www.acma.gov.au/complain-about-program-tv-or-radio.

[17] See https://www.presscouncil.org.au/making-a-complaint/.

[18] See e.g. this post about a Sky News Headline https://twitter.com/beneltham/status/1248423674987679745. The Sky News headline discussed was promoting the following story https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6148457238001. See also the Murray Darling Basin Authority have written to Nine Entertainment complaining about alleged factual errors in reportage about water management in the pandemic, Available at https://www.mdba.gov.au/media/mr/complaint-60-minutes-coronavirus-growing-pain.

[19] Podger, Andrew. Fake News: Could Self-Regulation of Media Help to Protect the Public? The Experience of the Australian Press Council. Public Integrity Volume 21, 2019. Available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10999922.2018.1549341.

[20] Finkelstein, Ray. Report to Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation, 28 February 2012.

[21] See https://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-12/conroy-announces-media-reforms/4567550?nw=0.

[22] See Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Digital Platforms Inquiry, Final Report, June 2019. Available at https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries/digital-platforms-inquiry/final-report-executive-summary. Recommendation 15

suggests that such codes should be registered with and enforced by an independent regulator, such as the

Australian Communications and Media Authority.

[23] For example, under the Commonwealth Electoral (Authorisation of Voter Communication) Determination 2018 (Cth), all online advertisements that deal with electoral matters must include the name and address of a person responsible for the advertisement.

[24] See Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Digital Platforms Inquiry, Final Report, June 2019. Available at https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/inquiries/digital-platforms-inquiry/final-report-executive-summary. See also the Australian Governments response to the Digital Platforms Inquiry at https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2019-41708.

[25] See https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jun/11/home-affairs-flags-steps-to-help-australians-identify-fake-news-by-foreign-powers. See also https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/alarm-sounds-over-foreign-social-media-platforms-20200318-p54b78.

[26] Misinformation and news quality on digital platforms in Australia A position paper to guide code development, Australian Communications and Media Authority, June 2020. Available at https://www.acma.gov.au/australian-voluntary-codes-practice-online-misinformation.

[27] Misinformation and news quality on digital platforms in Australia A position paper to guide code development, Australian Communications and Media Authority, June 2020. Available at https://www.acma.gov.au/australian-voluntary-codes-practice-online-misinformation.

[28] Misinformation and news quality on digital platforms in Australia A position paper to guide code development, Australian Communications and Media Authority, June 2020. Available at https://www.acma.gov.au/australian-voluntary-codes-practice-online-misinformation.

[29] See https://www.djv.de/startseite/profil/der-djv/information-in-english.html.

Originally posted here:

False Information in the Time of Coronavirus: Law and Regulation in the U.S. and Australia - Just Security

Have you no sense of decency, sir? So asked Joseph Welch, the attorney who stood up to the bullying by Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.) during a 1954 Senate hearing. And once he said it, the nightmare that was McCarthyism was over.

Who will be the Joseph Welch who wakes us up from this new wave of reverse McCarthyism? Today, you are blacklisted if you dont support a far-left agenda.

Its time that a Democrat crossed the invisible picket line to condemn both the cancel culture and the mindless violence in our cities. Its time that a Democrat stood up for the First Amendment in this country and the need for an open political debate. And it is time that a Democrat exploded the nonsense that what is going on in Portland and Seattle is just protest and not destructive anti-police, anti-American violence that needs to be stopped, not coddled.

Unfortunately, todays Joe BidenJoe Biden2020 Democratic Party platform endorses Trump's NASA moon program Don't let Trump distract us from the real threat of his presidency Abrams: Trump 'doing his best to undermine our confidence' in voting system MORE is not that Democrat. He is too concerned with courting left-wing voters to call out these destructive currents in America. Biden is signing pacts with Sens. Bernie SandersBernie SandersGOP lawmaker: Democratic Party 'used to be more moderate' 4 reasons why Trump can't be written off yet Progressives lost the battle for the Democratic Party's soul MORE (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Warren4 reasons why Trump can't be written off yet Here are top contenders to be Biden's VP Kamala Harris to young Black women at conference: 'I want you to be ambitious' MORE (D-Mass.). He could be courageous and stand up for the country he is seeking to lead, and he could outline a program for ending the Black-on-Black crime that kills thousands of African American kids every year. He proudly supported the Clinton anti-crime bill, back in the day when he was for law and order in this country. Back then he believed in the effectiveness of tough measures to reduce crime and to save lives by taking violent criminals off the streets. Today, he is MIA when it comes to stopping the waves of violence sweeping our cities. Why has he not called out Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler for the outrageous position that it is the defenders of federal property who are to blame?

House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiGOP lawmaker: Democratic Party 'used to be more moderate' White House not optimistic on near-term stimulus deal Sunday shows - Stimulus debate dominates MORE (D-Calif.) is not that Democrat, either. She is busy describing federal agents defending a courthouse as stormtroopers and is concerned about the constitutional rights of those committing violent acts. Polls show that 80 percent of Americans think things are out of control, and a majority of Americans want to see those who commit acts of violence prosecuted. There is a national consensus that violence is rising as a result of the protests that are undermining the rule of law in the country.

And Rep. Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerBy questioning Barr, Democrats unmasked their policy of betrayal Chris Wallace: Barr hearing 'an embarrassment' for Democrats: 'Just wanted to excoriate him' Apple posts blowout third quarter MORE (D-N.Y.), fresh from his impeachment run, is certainly not going to condemn violence that he dismissed as a myth. He has perpetuated support for attacks on federal property, and it is those attacks that endanger federal law enforcement officials who are simply trying to do their jobs. Is it not clear that the government puts up a fence and that the violent offenders try to tear down the fence and launch fireworks and deploy destructive lasers against federal officers?

It is no different when it comes to the cancel culture. Not a single major Democrat has stood up and roundly condemned the idea that people should be fired or lose their tenure just for questioning the Black Lives Matter organization, despite making clear that they are not questioning racial justice and equality. In the rush to take advantage of every action that hurts Trump, these Democrats make the mistake that the views of the elite left are similar to the members of their own party.

So far, the person who came closest to speaking out, and who is not a Republican or a conservative, is journalist Bari Weiss. She effectively exposed and denounced the culture at the New York Times as being far removed from a tolerant, open environment envisioned by the protections of the First Amendment. Instead, the journalists at the Times turned being even a moderate into something uncomfortable, let alone someone who supports the state of Israel. She called out the bullying she endured, being called a Nazi and a racist, and called out the newspapers unlawful discrimination and hostile environment. The cancel culture continues unabated, however; Weiss quit her job, having had enough of the abuse.

Even as a political strategy, this silence by Democrats on these issues is a huge tactical mistake, creating the potential of a backlash for so clearly trying to deny obvious reality. Joining together with Republicans against violence and in defense of the First Amendment is a far smarter position, because these radicals who are fomenting violence wont really be supporting any party. These are not election issues they are basic American issues, and Attorney General William BarrBill BarrTrump prizes loyalty over competence we are seeing the results Rep. Ral Grijalva tests positive for COVID-19 'Unmasking' Steele dossier source: Was confidentiality ever part of the deal? MORE was entirely right in his testimony last week before Congress that one of our political parties should never turn a blind eye toward violence against our nation. It has been this way for more than 200 years, since the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791-1794 -- because destruction of federal property, like our courthouses, is not an action against one party but an action against all parties.

Andrew Stein is the former Democratic president of the New York City Council and founder and chairman of Democrats for Trump. He is the brother of The Hills chairman.

Read this article:

Democrats' silence on our summer of violence is a tactical blunder | TheHill - The Hill

Stop blaming Trump for COVID-19

Lets get some things straight about Trump and COVID-19. The virus originated in China. They covered it up and allowed it to spread internationally. In January, Donald Trump issued a travel ban on China and declared a public emergency, followed by travel bans on Europe, Mexico, and Canada.

In March he declared the virus a pandemic and a National Emergency. Yes, Trump initially down played the severity of the virus, but so did illustrious Dr. Anthony Fauci and others. Trump initiated historic public and government actions to acquire and manufacture millions of masks, gowns, face shields and thousands of ventilators.

According to a GAO report, COVID-19 required many more PPEs than the national stockpile could store. Trump got big health care insurers to waive testing costs and deductibles for COVID care. Trump launched the Operation Warp Speed vaccine program.

The White House and the CDC set guidelines for states to reopen. Some governors ignored them.

Employers have responsibilities, too

I understand that a national liability bill is being or will be proposed to protect an employer from frivolous lawsuits. However, the employer must first provide a safe work environment in this COVID-19 time: requiring or providing masks, protective barriers or adequate space between workers, keeping the work area and restrooms clean and sanitized. Whatever is needed to protect employees from catching or giving COVID-19 to one another.

More:

Letters to the Editor - Arizona Daily Star

We are a nation in crisis. The coronavirus is killing so many of us, so cruelly. Our economy is failing as the virus prevents the recovery of our jobs and our hopes.

We are once again challenged to lift ourselves up as a people to fulfill the promise of equality for all promised by our founders.

Yet, in the face of all these challenges, we are reminded of our greatness, of our goodness, by Americans who offer themselves in service to us all. And we can still see the potential of our future in the eyes of our youth.

This week Lillian Petersen, 17, a New Mexico 2020 high school graduate, won the oldest STEM competition in America, the Regeneron Science Talent Search, with a $250,000 research grant.

Her work? Helping others.

You may not know that the strain the coronavirus has placed on the worlds economies will ultimately fall hardest on the poorest of us all.

Nations and peoples already struggling with food security will face more difficult challenges now and in the near future as a direct result of the virus.

Lillian Petersen designed and created satellite software used to predict crop harvest yields in the most desperate locations in the African continent.

Her results were accurate and helped plan how to mitigate and manage the food crisis.

Then there is the inspiration of John Lewis, who died last week. Lewis was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, but he was so much more. He was, every day of his life, a preacher a preacher whose sermons were always about peaceful persistence towards our better selves and the promise of equality for all.

Lewis knew his work was incomplete, that equality remained elusive as his days ran short. But he left a new wave of Americans, Black, white and brown, dedicated to achieving that elusive equality in the days before us.

Lillian and John lift us up, give us hope that commitment to living lives of service to others still shapes our nation, still guides us to a better future.

But there is reason for anger, too anger at the cynics who ignore peaceful protesters across the nation, marching in the streets to seek better, fairer policing and a broader equality before the law. Cynics who call these Americans exercising their First Amendment rights, mobs. Cynics who ignore the need for a more complete form of justice for all, who look away from discrimination and bigotry with not just blindness, but distaste.

Anger at leaders who ignored the very real threat of the coronavirus, who downplayed or ignored what was necessary to avoid the deaths now logged in our losses in 2020. Anger at the silencing of the experts who warned us of its toll, anger at the refusal to lead the fight against the pandemic from the federal level to every state, every county, every town.

And angry that the disaster that has damaged our economy, risked so many lives of those who had no choice but to work and risk exposure, when their safety called them to stay home. An economy that has never had a chance for recovery so long as the virus attacks us at every corner. And still, it is true, our economy remains subject to the killer in our streets, the coronavirus.

Our nation cries for true leadership, leadership that values each and every life more than re-election, more than profits, more than cynical ignorance.

As John Lewis good friend, Elijah Cummings so often said, We are better than this.

Read the rest here:

Jim Crawford: Inspiration and anger - The Tribune | The Tribune - Ironton Tribune

Protesters in Gotham and other cities around the nation are so used to getting their way, theyve been spoiled. Their illegal occupation of our streets and parks has become so routine that the protesting class throws tantrums when it faces consequences, however rarely that happens.

Last weeks arrest of Nikki Stone, wanted for alleged serial vandalism of police cameras, was a case in point. The 18-year-old homeless woman was marching in a peaceful, though non-permitted, march down Second Avenue when plainclothes NYPD officers arrested her and put her in an unmarked van.

Stonehad been filmed on multiple occasions painting over NYPD security cameras around City Hall Park during the last months occupation. Her alleged actions suggest a flagrant lawlessness and enmity against the public good.

Yet Stone became a cause celebre, with supporters claiming she had been disappeared, as if by a right-wing regime in Latin America circa 1982. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted: There is no excuse for snatching women off the street and throwing them into unmarked vans. Cable host Chris Hayescalled it kidnapping.

The City Councils Progressive Caucus claimed that this arrest was a tactic meant to intimidate protesters and discourage civil disobedience. Lawmakers accused Mayor Bill de Blasio of failing to hold the NYPD accountable for the brutality unleashed on those exercising fundamental rights.

Back in the real world, plainclothes officers with unmarked cars arrest wanted suspects like Stoneevery day, because it is the most effective way to approach them without tipping them off and letting them escape. It is only kidnapping if one believes that law enforcement, operating with judicial warrants, has no authority to bring criminals to court.

Moreover, the progressive councilmembers radically confuse civil disobedience and First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment protects the right peaceably to assemble, but that doesnt mean you can block traffic any time you want to. Ask Chris Hayes if you can sit in his MSNBC office or studio for a week in the name of your favorite cause.

Civil disobedience means intentionally breaking the law to draw attention to the (alleged) unfairness of the law. But de Blasio has been so spinelessly indulgent of anti-cop protests, allowing wildcat marches to take place every day, all over the city, that the protesters have come to believe that they have the right to break the law. When confronted, they exhibit the outrage of a pampered toddler denied a toy at nap-time.

Similarly petulant, VOCAL-NY, a government-funded nonprofit, is stamping its feet because the city is no longer planning to pay for the construction of its new headquarters. VOCAL-NY was the prime mover behind the Defund the Police encampment, marches and protests that dominated downtown in the run-up to the city budget deal. The groups chief organizer, Jawanza James Williams, proudly declared: We will occupy. We will not leave here until the mayor listens to us!!!

VOCAL-NY receives about $500,000 from the city each year, mostly for drug-abuse-prevention and other health programs.Taxpayers didnt allocatemoney to the group so it could establish an illegal campsite, stage marches across the Brooklyn Bridge,harass and attack law enforcers, destroy public property or demand abolition of the police. Members of the group went to the homes of local politicians, and even the home of Speaker Corey Johnsons boyfriend, screaming at them.

When Johnson removed several million dollars in capital spending that had been earmarked for VOCAL-NY to build a new headquarters, the group shrieked that he was being spiteful and violating their constitutional rights: There can be no place in New York Citys politics for this kind of attack on our First Amendment rights. Yeah, cry more.

VOCAL-NY, like many other ostensible charities, is used to taking millions of dollars in taxpayer funding for explicitly political activity. Theyve gotten used to it because no one in charge says no.

Johnson insists that the money was removed as a fiscal measure and had nothing to do with the way that VOCAL-NY portrayed him as a cop-loving bootlicker during the budget process, embarrassing him ahead of a possible mayoral run, or that they threw paint at his boyfriends front door. But VOCAL-NY, and the protesters who want to dictate the time and manner of their arrests and the clothing of their arresting agents, need to relearn a key lesson of toddlerhood: Actions have consequences.

Seth Barron is associate editor of City Journal.

Twitter: @SethBarronNYC

Read this article:

People do not have the right to riot - New York Post

President Trump is being sued for blocking people on Twitter. A free-speech organization, The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, followed up with an additional lawsuit on Friday arguing that President Donald Trumps actions of blocking people on Twitter are in violation of the First Amendment.

The lawsuit claims that the Presidents Twitter account should be treated as a public forum run by a government executive that shouldnt block free speech or expression of opinions. Donald Trumps legal team appealed the lawsuit, claiming that Trump can do as he wishes with his private account. However, the circuit court declined to review the decision in March, Forbes reports.

Since then, the plaintiffs have been unblocked from Trumps Twitter account. However, Trumps legal team also said that people who cant specify the tweet that provoked the president to block them and people who were blocked before the president took office were not intended to be blocked by the president.

Read Also: Are you a TikTok creator? TikTok is paying creators $2 billion for content

The lawsuit claims that the blocking unconstitutionally restricts individuals in participating in a public forum (Trumps Twitter account), access public statements, and petition the government for redress of grievances. Though the president has a separate Twitter account (@potus), the @readDonaldTrump is more frequently used by President Trump to announce political news and updates.

U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Barrington D. Parker writes in an opinion, Since he took office, the President has consistently used the Account as an important tool of governance and executive outreach. He also adds that government officials cant block people from an otherwise open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees.

What do you think? Should the presidents personal Twitter account be considered a public forum as it is widely used as a presidential account? Or should the lawsuit be dismissed? Let us know in the comments below!

Do you want to publish on Apple News, Google News, and more? Join our writing community, improve your writing skills, and be read by hundreds of thousands around the world!

+ Apple gave Amazon a special discount for App Store tax, documents reveal+ Facebook says iOS 14 changes could hurt its ad system

+ Consistent teams gain an advantage with ODI Super League+ Johnson & Johnsons Covid-19 vaccine protected macaques in a single shot

The rest is here:

President Trump blocking people on Twitter in violation of First Amendment, lawsuit claims - News Landed

President Trump continues to block critics on social media, despite judicial rulings that doing so violates the First Amendment, a watchdog alleged in a new lawsuit filed Friday.

This case is made necessary because defendants continue to unconstitutionally block ... individuals from the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account, the Knight First Amendment Institute atColumbia University alleges on behalf of five individual Twitter users in a complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan. Trump and social media director Daniel Scavino are named as defendants.

Two users -- including Georgetown professor of public policy Donald Moynihan -- say they were blocked during his presidency, but don't know what specific tweet provoked the block. The other threesay they were blocked before Trump was inaugurated.

The Knight Institute has sent multiple letters and emails to defendants explaining that the continued blocking of these individualsfrom the @realDonaldTrump account violates the First Amendment, and asking defendants to unblock these individuals accounts, but defendants have expressly refused, the complaintalleges.

In 2017, the Knight Institute initially sued the White House on behalf of seven Twitter users who had been blocked after criticizing Trump. They argued the White House violated freespeech principles by blocking people based on their political views.

The following year, U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in New York sided against the White House and issued adeclaratory judgment that the blocks were unconstitutional.

The U.S. Department of Justice appealed to the 2nd Circuit, arguing that Trump acts in a personal capacity, as opposedto an official one, when he blocks people on Twitter.

A three-judge panel of that court upheld Buchwald's decision, ruling that evidence of the account's official nature wasoverwhelming.

The Justice Department then urged the 2nd Circuit to order a new hearing in front of all or most of the circuit's judges. The appellate court rejected that request in March, with two judges dissenting.

The WhiteHouse hasn't yet said whether it will seek review by the Supreme Court.

The Knight Center says that the administration unblocked the original plaintiffs in 2018, as well as others who had beenblocked over critical comments.

But the organization says the administration has refused to unblock people who fall into two categories -- those who can't specify the tweet that led to theblock, and those who were blocked before Trump took office.

The Knight Institute is seeking a declaratory judgment that the continued blocks violate the First Amendment, and an injunctionrequiring the White House to unblock all accounts unless it can justify the blocking on an individualized basis.

See more here:

Trump Still Blocking Critics On Twitter, Watchdog Says In New Lawsuit 08/03/2020 - MediaPost Communications