Amid the turmoil over taking down Confederate monuments and others ranging from Christopher Columbus to Theodore Roosevelt, heres an idea that that almost everyone can get behind: How about erecting monuments that celebrate the Bill of Rights?

Yes, the Bill of Rights: 10 amendments to the Constitution, ratified in 1791, that spelled out the individual freedoms Americans have enjoyed ever since including the freedom to protest against things like monuments (thanks to the First Amendment.)

A campaign to place Bill of Rights monuments in state capitols in all 50 states is already underway, albeit moving slowly. Arizonas Bill of Rights monument was built in Phoenix in 2012, and plans for an OkIahoma monument in Oklahoma City are progressing. A smaller scale monument can be found in Montezuma, Iowa.

Its the brainchild of Chris Bliss, a comic by trade who has made the Bill of Rights his side project. Comics, after all, benefit greatly from the First Amendment. His campaign began nearly two decades ago, when there was controversy over monuments that celebrated the Ten Commandments, also often placed in state capitols.

Bliss envisioned erecting Bill of Rights monuments as a way to "comparison shop" with the Ten Commandments, he says whimsically. He also wants the monuments built near state capitols because "every kid goes to state capitols" on school field trips. He estimates that 40,000 students a year have visited the Arizona monument.

As he delved into the project, Bliss found that the Bill of Rights was something of a forgotten document, rarely taught in schools. People knew about a patients bill of rights or a bill of rights for airline passengers. But it was hard for people to grasp the abstract principles of the constitutional Bill of Rights, Bliss says, and therefore hard to turn those principles into marble or limestone.

Donations and support for Bliss Bill of Rights project have been sporadic over the years, with comedians like Lewis Black and the late Dick Gregory helping out. The Bill of Rights has "no preexisting constituency," Bliss says, unlike other organized groups that can lobby successfully for building monuments.

But in the aftermath of the recent protests nationwide that involve monuments and civil liberties, he hopes to jump-start his project and hasten the building of Bill of Rights monuments nationwide. "This is a very positive moment," Bliss says.

Amendments a safeguard for citizens

The relevance of the Bill of Rights to todays divisions is clear and deserves recognition. The Bill of Rights fosters freedom of expression, religion, due process, fair trials, protection against unreasonable government intrusion or excessive fines, among other important rights.

The 10 amendments are not without controversy. Interpreting the religion clauses of the First Amendment, the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, and the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Eighth Amendment has been a contentious task for centuries.

And there are parts of the Bill of Rights that are quirky, to say the least. The Third Amendment, for example, prohibits soldiers from being quartered in homes without the consent of owners. It was a big issue at the time of the founding, but not now.

Opportunity to celebrate liberty

Bliss says there is no better remedy for monument controversies than to commemorate the Bill of Rights, which he calls "the most powerful and successful assertion of individual rights and liberties ever written."

He adds, "The ideas were radical at the time, but now, people say, Of course. There is not an exclusionary phrase in the entire document. It is time for us to rediscover our own Bill of Rights and to elevate it to the position of public prominence it richly deserves."

Tony Mauro, a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors, covered the Supreme Court for USA TODAY from 1982 to 2000.

Go here to read the rest:

Opinion: Heres a monument all Americans can rally around: Lets celebrate the Bill of Rights - Pocono Record

The right to free speech in America needs to be protected, Princeton University jurisprudence professor Robert George stated Friday.

George's comments during an interview on "Fox News @ Night" came following a Michigan bed and breakfast's decision to remove their Norwegian flag after dozens wrongly accused the owners of flying a Confederate flag.

According to reporting from WLIX, when Greg and Kjersten Offbecker created the St. Johns inn -- named The Nordic Pineapple -- they installed the flag, hanging an American flag alongside it.

The pair then began to receive cruel emails and phone calls. Some were even convinced that the "B&B" was built by Confederate leaders when, in fact, union workers constructed the Civil War-era building for the daughter of the Saint Johns founder.

Kjersten Offbecker said the flag was hung as a way for her to represent her Scandinavian heritage. However, with the confusion, she took it down because she said it was not worth the frustration.

The Norwegian flag has the same colors as the Confederate flag, but the patterns and symbols are different. The Confederate flag is red with a blue X containing white stars.

"It's a combination of a very bad attitude and a great deal of ignorance," George remarked. "You would think that Americans would be able to tell what is and isn't a Confederate flag -- even if it's a flag that, in some ways, resembles a Confederate flag.

"But, look at how quickly people just turn to outrage and tried to shut these people down because they thought they had broken the rule against wrongthink..." he told host Shannon Bream. "So, the combination of malice and ignorance is really toxic."

George highlighted the importance of speaking up in defense of the free speech rights of those you strongly may disagree with.

"Temple University was under pressure to discipline [Professor] Marc Lamont Hill for some statements that I very strongly disagreed with. But I, nevertheless, threatened to myself lead a protest...in defense of the free speech rights of the very progressive Marc Lamont Hill," he explained. "Because he has every bit of [a right to] free speech as I have or as anybody else has.

"The First Amendment is for all of us," George pointed out.

"It's not the property of the left. It's not the property of the right. It's not the conservatives'; it's not the liberals' [property]. It's everybody's right..." he said.

"And so, we need to protect the free speech rights and stand up for the free speech rights of those we oppose," George urged.

The rest is here:

Princeton professor pushes back on cancel culture on campuses: 'First Amendment is for all of us' - FOX 32 Chicago

For 63 consecutive nights, deputies from the U.S. Marshals Service in Portland, Oregon, have stood their ground, carrying out their mission to protect and defend the federal courthouse from violent agitators.

In an exclusive interview with NBC News Correspondent Erin McLaughlin, people running the U.S. Marshals Service reflected on the Portland protests meant to shine a light on racial inequality and police use of force in the wake of George Floyd's death that take on a different tone after the sun goes down by groups intent on causing destruction and mayhem with seemingly little regard for justice.

I think that we're at a watershed moment in history in America, said Russel E. Burger, the U.S. Marshal for Oregon. What we're facing each night has been very difficult for our personnel to manage. We want to protect the first amendment right of people to express their views. But at the same time, we have to protect the federal judicial process, this facility and the people inside it.

The Marshals Service is tasked with securing the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse in downtown Portland, the interior as well as the judges and court personnel who work there. During the July 4th weekend, when federal agents arrived to protect the courthouse on a full time basis, it became ground zero for a nightly battle between protestors and law enforcement.

Burger said his deputies have taken a defensive posture from inside the building, only coming outside to respond to attempts to breach the entrance or when protestors have set fire to the building. And he says two months of demonstrations have taken its toll on the men and women who work for him.

They live in this community. They go to church here, all their friends and family are here. And so night after night to come under attack is, is very stressful for them, Burger said. In addition to that the people that have come in from around the country to augment our forces, they're away from their families.

After that July 4th weekend, the courthouse was boarded up, a fence built around the perimeter for extra reinforcements. Since then, the attacks from over the fence with projectiles have been relentless.

NBC News got a firsthand look at some of those weapons.

Bricks, batteries, frozen water bottles, sling shots with ball bearings, feces, urine, bleach and canned goods have been launched over the fence at deputies.

Professional fireworks and mortar rounds stuffed with nails are lit and fired at them, like IEDs in a war zone.

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

Hockey sticks embedded with nails have been placed under the tires of government vehicles.

At least 20 deputy marshals have been injured, which include lacerations, concussions, a dislocated shoulder, and one deputy attacked with a hammer. Three are still waiting to see if they have permanent eye damage from lasers pointed at them by protestors.

So far, more than 50 people face federal charges in connection with the riots.

The deployment of federal agents dressed in military fatigues seen on video detaining and transporting protestors in unmarked vans several weeks ago triggered even more social unrest in a city already at a heightened state of emergency. The Marshals Service maintains none of their personnel were out in the streets making random arrests, only dealing with incidents at the courthouse and on federal property.

Nonetheless, the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service, Donald W. Washington, says his agency has been caught in the middle, trying to deescalate the tension with peaceful protestors exercising their right to free speech while coming under attack by a smaller but more violent anti-police faction.

The last thing that that our officers want to do is to face off against an American citizen, Washington said. I don't think that the legitimate protesters, those who are freely complaining about and bringing their grievances about what has happened since George Floyd, I don't think it's them. I do not believe that that is the case. But there is an element there.

Burger says the attacks are coordinated, rioters using portable radios and communicating with encrypted messaging on cellphones. He says it usually begins around midnight with a hard corps group of 250 to 300 violent opportunists as he describes them, who have stayed behind after the peaceful protestors have gone home.

According to Burger, militant movements and groups with a strong presence in the Northwest, like Antifa and the Pacific Northwest Youth Liberation Front are behind the late night attacks.

Marshals and other law enforcement agencies have been criticized for their use of tear gas and other irritants on protestors, but say theyre left with little choice when they have to leave the courthouse to confront the rioters.

In order to address the problem that they're faced with while being under attack, they have to defend themselves and they can't do hand-to-hand combat, Burger said. They have to use the chemical munitions, and they don't use those unless they have to.

The Marshals Service has acknowledged at least two cases involving alleged excessive use of force by deputies during the last two months are under internal review by the agency.

On the night of July 12th, 26-year-old Donavan LaBella was shot in the head by a deputy marshal with a non-lethal munition and suffered severe head injuries.

A week later, a U.S. Navy veteran, Chris David, said he was beaten with a baton and had a chemical irritant sprayed in his face when he tried to approach deputy marshals outside the courthouse.

Both incidents are reportedly also under investigation by the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who announced he was launching a probe into use of force allegations by federal agents in Portland.

This week, Burger, Washington and other law enforcement officials met with community leaders to find solutions to the social unrest.

One of the things that we've learned is that to resolve this, it can't be a police response. It needs to be a community response, Burger said.

Washington says the irony is that the Marshals Service has a long history of preserving civil rights in this country. When riots broke out following the enrollment of James Meredith, a Black veteran, at the University of Mississippi in 1962, teams of deputies protected Meredith 24 hours a day for the next year.

The DNA of this agency is one of actually protecting civil rights, protecting this whole concept of civil justice as we go forward. And that's what we intend to continue to do, Washington said.

He said he agrees with the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court in Portland who recently expressed his view that people should be yelling and shouting their grievances from the courthouse steps, not shouting at it, trying to burn it down and injuring officers.

With calls to pull federal law enforcement out of Portland, the Oregon State Police has taken over the security outside the courthouse. But inside, the marshals say they will maintain a long tradition of holding down the fort.

With regards to our personnel inside, you know, we've been here as the director mentioned for 160 years, we're not going anywhere. Burger said. The people that live and work here stay, and the additional deputies that are here to augment us. They'll be leaving as soon as the violence stops, as soon as the attacks stop. And trust me, they're ready to go home.

Read the original here:

'They have to defend themselves': U.S. Marshals speak out on violent clashes with Portland protestors - NBC News

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said Friday that it has ordered agents to stop compiling and circulating intelligence reports on journalists.

The move came a day after The Washington Post reported that a DHS office had created three reports on two journalists covering demonstrations in Portland, Oregon, that were distributed to federal law enforcement agencies.

The reports, compiled by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, noted that the journalists had published leaked, unclassified documents about the deployment of federal agents to protests in Portland. The office is tasked with integrating DHS intelligence and distributing information to state and local authorities, as well as private partners.

In a statement, the Intelligence Office said that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf had suspended the collection of information on journalists and ordered an investigation.

In no way does the acting secretary condone this practice, said DHS spokesperson Alexei Woltornist. The acting secretary is committed to ensuring that all DHS personnel uphold the principles of professionalism, impartiality and respect for civil rights and civil liberties, particularly as it relates to the exercise of First Amendment rights.

Details of the intelligence reports came amid unrest in Portlandand New York City, where plainclothes law enforcement officers have been spotted pulling protesters into unmarked vans. Portland police have livestreamed protests, which the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon alleges violates state law blocking police from collecting information on law-abiding citizens.

The Post reported that the intelligence reports contained images and descriptions of tweets by Mike Baker, a journalist at The New York Times and Benjamin Wittes, editor-in-chief of Lawfare, a blog that focuses on national security and policy. The reports included the number of likes and retweets the social media posts received.

Baker had co-reported on two internal DHS memos related to protests and unrest in Portland: a July 18 article detailing a memo that warned federal agents in the city do not specifically have training in riot control or mass demonstrations. and a Tuesday article on a memo in which the department acknowledged it lacked insight into the motives for the most recent attacks in Portland. The Times published both memos in full.

Wittes, also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, tweeted images of internal Intelligence Office memos about leaks to Lawfare and Washington Post reporter Shane Harris, who later broke the news of the DHS reports. Wittes had reported that the DHS in mid-July authorized its personnel to monitor social media posts and collect information on people suspected of damaging public monuments.

In a Twitter thread about the intelligence reports, Wittes said that he was considering his legal options.

What is troubling about this story is that [the Office of Intelligence and Analysis] shared my tweets as intelligence reporting, wrote Wittes. I am not sure how my reporting of unclassified material constitutes any kind of homeland security threat that justifies the dissemination of intelligence reporting on a U.S. person, particularly not one exercising core First Amendment rights.

Analysts warned that the move appeared to threaten the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech in the U.S.

Even if individual reporters are not quivering in their boots, potentially, I think it does set a very troubling and potentially unconstitutional tone, said Nora Benavides, director of U.S. Free Expression Programs at Pen America, a nonprofit advocating for free expression and press freedom. Other reporters may think twice before engaging in these types of investigative and journalistic practices."

Benavides described the intelligence reports as a very serious threat to the First Amendment.

We should not be in a position, and journalists should not be in the position to question whether they should do their job at the risk of being added, potentially, to an intelligence report and being investigated as if they are committing some criminal act, Benavides told VOA. Journalism and a free press, those are not inherently criminal. Those are the types of tactics we see in undemocratic governments.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press condemned the intelligence gathering and called on the DHS to make public the findings of its investigation.

Federal law prohibits the creation of dossiers on journalists precisely because doing so can morph into investigations of journalists for news coverage that embarrasses the government, but that the public has a right to know, Gabe Rottman, director of the technology and press freedom project at the Reporters Committee, said in a statement.

The DHS reports on journalists are not an isolated incident, said Benavides. Multiple U.S. federal agencies collaborated last year to create a secret database of journalists, activists and attorneys covering a large migrant caravan.

NBC7 in San Diego, California, reported that the database listed 10 journalists and 48 others whom officials recommended be targeted for screening at the U.S.-Mexico border. Each entry contained a photo, data of birth, country of commencement, alleged tie to the caravan, and any alerts placed on a subjects passport.

Benavides said the reports on journalists appear to harken back to the types of chilling practices in which a federal agency is using its ability to investigate individuals, especially reporters, to try to chill them or prevent them from investigating.

Read more here:

US Homeland Security Created Files on Journalists - Voice of America

AUSTIN (KXAN) In anticipation of possible protests, the Austin Police Department and Texas Department of Public Safety are increasing staffing in Austin this weekend.

In a statement Friday, APD said it is aware of planned protest activity and concerns circulating online. To prepare, the department said it is bringing in other agencies to help.

We are bringing in the necessary staff, and have partnered with other local law enforcement agencies as we have done throughout the past few months, to allow for those peacefully and lawfully practicing their first amendment rights while also working to prevent any violence or destruction of property.

In another statement, DPS said it received reports of people planning to disrupt protests happening this weekend.

DPS supports the right of individuals to lawfully protest, and public safety is our top priority. Therefore, DPS will be increasing our presence this weekend, along with our local law enforcement partners, to ensure public safety needs are met and to combat any potential criminal activity.

DPS also said it will continue to work with APD and the National Guard, but did not say if the Guard would be present this weekend.

DPS said it wants to keep both people and property safe and protect those individuals who are exercising their constitutional right to assembly and free speech.

The department will adjust staffing and operations as needed if any threats unfold, according to the statement.

There have been dozens of protests in Austin since the end of May, which first sparked in response to the death of George Floyd. Protests since have called for reforms to the Austin Police Department and justice for Mike Ramos, who was shot and killed by an officer in April.

Read the original here:

Ahead of possible protests, APD and DPS increase presence in Austin this weekend - KXAN.com

War is not a game. But impressionable kids may not be able to tell the difference if the U.S. military continues its esports recruitment.

The U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force have all launched esports teams and have been using popular video game streaming websites, such as Twitch, to drum up recruitment. Active and reserve personnel have been hopping online to stream themselves playing video games and, in the process, talk with viewers about a range of topics, including the opportunities afforded by military service. Recruit numbers have been down, and the military is turning to modern platforms to expand its reach.

But the militarys esports teams quickly found themselves embroiled in controversy.

Automated links would drop into the armys Twitch chats that told viewers they could win a premium Xbox controller in a giveaway. But these links reportedly took viewers to a recruitment webpage with no reference to any contests or giveaways.

When one considers that a large portion of Twitch users are underage, primarily 13- to 17-year-old boys who may just want a nifty video game controller, and that military recruitment of people under 18 is illegal, what the military is doing raises numerous red flags.

Whats more, both the Army and Navy esports operations have been accused of violating some users freedom of speech rights after banning those who posted questions about war crimes committed by the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Knight First Amendment Institute have both stated that these bans likely violate the First Amendment and should be reversed immediately.

Due to the controversy, the Army unceremoniously suspended its efforts to recruit via Twitch. Meanwhile, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., recently introduced an amendment to a House Appropriations bill that would ban the military from using video game streaming sites for recruitment, calling the strategy irresponsible.

Whether the practice is ended voluntarily or by legislation, the militarys Twitch experiment should be shuttered for good. While military service is a noble and patriotic act, conflating that service with the bloody theatrics of violent video games is a recipe for disaster. Throw in phony giveaways, marketing to children and violations of the First Amendment, and it is clear the military should figure out a better way to modernize recruitment.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read the original post:

FROM THE OPINION PAGE War is not a game: Military's Twitch experiment a bad idea - Bluefield Daily Telegraph

Federal agents have begun to withdraw from Portland, Oregon, where they were stationed to protect federal property and personnel amid protests in the city, despite objection by local leaders. But, their authority to be there in the first place has deep roots.

Legislation passed just after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 designed to protect the U.S. from national security threats; and judicial expansion just after the Civil War designed to ensure southern states adhered to Reconstruction-era laws provide the framework for what we see today, says Northeastern law professor Michael Meltsner.

Michael Meltsner is the George J. and Kathleen Waters Matthews distinguished university professor of law in the Northeastern University School of Law. Photo by Matthew Modoono/Northeastern University

Federal presence in Portland is both authorized and problematic, says Meltsner, who is the George J. and Kathleen Waters Matthews Distinguished University Professor of Law.

Authorities in the Trump administration say that the federal agents, who were deployed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security earlier this month, are in Portland to protect federal property and personnel. The federal force is composed of officers from Customs and Border Protection, the Transportation Security Administration, the Coast Guard, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement who back up the Federal Protective Service, which is already responsible for protecting federal property, according to The New York Times.

On July 29, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown announced that the forces would begin withdrawing from the state beginning July 30.

The federal agents arrived after weeks of protests in the city against racial injusticeprotests that had already been met with aggressive tactics from local police that were criticized by local officials including the governor, speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, and some city councilors.

President Donald J. Trump has also threatened to send as many as 75,000 federal agents to other U.S. cities to quell protests there as well, even as local authorities in Portland, including Brown and Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, have implored the agency to stand down, and the Oregon attorney general and the American Civil Liberties Union, a civil rights group, have sued.

But federal officials say they have clear authority. Representatives from Customs and Border Protection cited a section of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, legislation passed after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

The act gives the U.S. secretary of Homeland Security the authority to protect the buildings, grounds, and property that are owned, occupied, or secured by the federal government and the persons on the property. The law was designed to protect the U.S. national security threats such as those perpetrated on 9/11, Meltsner says.

The agents in Oregon were there ostensibly, then, to protect federal propertyincluding the federal courthouse in downtown Portlandfrom protesters, he says.

To the extent that this is all they were doing, it would seem non-controversial, Meltsner says.

But news media reports from the city show what appear to be plain-clothes federal agents forcing protesters into unmarked vans.

If that were the case, Meltsner says, the agents would be in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects U.S. citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In that case, just because federal agents have nominal authority under a federal statute, it doesnt mean that they can violate peoples constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, Meltsner says. From what Ive read in the papers, it would appear that these federal agents are interfering with the liberty of the people without any cause.

A state official could decide to take a federal agent to court over an alleged violation. Often, however, such cases are not tried in a state courthouse, theyre removed to the federal court system to be triedor, as is often the case, dismissedthere, Meltsner says.

This act of removal is a judicial power that was created during the Reconstruction period in the U.S., roughly 1863 to 1875. During the years after the Civil War, progressive congressmen passed legislation that would ensure the rights of formerly enslaved people in the countryincluding the passage of the Fourteenth Amendmentand sent federal agents to various Southern states to enforce that legislation.

White officials in those Southern states, reluctant to apply the new legislation to formerly enslaved people in their states, tried to find ways to prosecute the federal agents enforcing the laws, Meltsner says. In order to protect the agents and the rights of Black people, Congress allowed cases that had begun in state courts to be taken out of them and tried in federal courts, where they were often dismissed, he says.

Now, Meltsner says, the same tactics may be used to protect the federal agents allegedly acting unlawfully in Oregon.

Basically, whats happening in Portland now could ultimately involve the same tactics used by the Justice Department to protect these federal agents during Reconstruction and the Civil Rights movement, Meltsner says.

And, he adds, although the focus on federal intervention in the city is warranted, its just as important to examine the behavior of the city and state police before federal agents arrived.

Based on the news reports, it would appear that there was an incredible amount of First Amendment and Fourth Amendment violation from the Portland Police Department, Meltsner says. This is certainly an evolving situation, with a lot of questions to be answered about what, exactly, is going on.

For media inquiries, please contact Jessica Hair at j.hair@northeastern.edu or 617-373-5718.

Read the rest here:

How 9/11 and the US Civil War provided the framework for federal agents in Portland - News@Northeastern

from the I-guess-a-law-is-good-if-it-makes-something-illegal dept

You can't always pick your fighter for Constitutional challenges. Sometimes you're handed an unsympathetic challenger, which makes defending everyone's rights a bit more difficult because a lot of people wouldn't mind too much if this particular person's rights are limited. But that's not how rights work.

A pretty lousy decision has been handed down by a Minnesota federal court. A challenge of two laws -- one city, one state -- has been met with a judicial shrug that says sometimes rights just aren't rights when there are children involved. (h/t Eric Goldman)

The plaintiff is Sally Ness, an "activist" who appears to be overly concerned with a local mosque and its attached school. Ness is discussed in this early reporting on her lawsuit, which shows her activism is pretty limited in scope. Her nemesis appears to be the Dar Al-Farooq Center and its school, Success Academy. Ness feels there's too much traffic and too much use of a local public park by the Center and the school.

Here's how she's fighting back against apparently city-approved use of Smith Park:

Ness has taken it upon herself to document activity at site. That includes maintaining a public blog and Facebook page all about the DAF/Success Academy controversy, complete with photos and video of street traffic, kids being dropped off at school, and people otherwise going about their business.

Her legal representation in this lawsuit isn't that sympathetic either.

The American Freedom Law Center, which claims that the battle for Americas soul is being waged in the courtrooms across America against secular progressives and Sharia-advocating Muslim Brotherhood interests, is co-counseling the case. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls that organizations co-founder David Yerushalmi an anti-Muslim activist and a leading proponent of the idea that the United States is threatened by the imposition of Muslim religious law, known as Shariah.

Her lawyer says this has nothing to do with the school's religious affiliation. Her co-counsel, David Yerushalmi, disagrees.

In a statement, he says Ness predicament is just another example of encroachment on our liberties when Islam is involved.

Ness became involved when the mosque opened its school and obtained a Conditional Use Permit for Smith Park that allowed students to use it during school days. Ness believes the permit is being violated on a daily basis by students' "excessive" use of park facilities that makes it "impossible" for nearby residents to use it at the same time.

To document these supposed violations, Ness has approached children in the park and parked across the street to take photographs/record DAF students using the park. She had two run-ins with local law enforcement before filing her lawsuit. After the most recent law enforcement encounter, Bloomington police attempted to charge Ness with felony harassment, but the Hennepin County Attorney's office declined to bring charges against her. Bloomington prosecutors also declined to prosecute Ness.

Ness sued, claiming the laws cited infringed on her Constitutional rights and that the ongoing threat of prosecution has resulted in her curtailing her documentation of park use by the school.

The problem is the laws. Ness' behavior is problematic but it shouldn't be criminally problematic. First, the state's harassment law -- as quoted in the court's opinion [PDF] -- does not require prosecutors to prove intent.

Subdivision 1. Definition. As used in this section, harass means to engage in conduct which the actor knows or has reason to know would cause the victim under the circumstances to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated, and causes this reaction on the part of the victim regardless of the relationship between the actor and victim.

Subd. 1a. No proof of specific intent required. In a prosecution under this section, the state is not required to prove that the actor intended to cause the victim to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated, or except as otherwise provided in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (4), or paragraph (b), that the actor intended to cause any other result.

Then there's an additional ordinance -- one put in place by the city of Bloomington after Ness' two run-ins with the local PD -- that criminalizes Ness' documentation of park activities.

(24) No person shall intentionally take a photograph or otherwise record a child without the consent of the child's parent or guardian.

This is amazingly broad. It criminalizes journalism and the recording of criminal acts by minors. This revision appears to have been crafted solely to target Ness and her activism. Ness was also a frequent commenter at Bloomington city council meetings until filing this lawsuit.

The court says Ness has no standing to challenge the laws. According to the judge, she does not face a credible threat of prosecution. The decision cites the two refusals to prosecute, as well as prosecutors' statements on the issue.

Ness claims she intends to monitor an issuethe non-compliant use of DAFs facilities and the use of Smith Parkby filming and photographing the activity in the physical vicinity of DAF, which may include filming and photographing people. Compl. 36, 47, 70, 71; Ness Decl. 6, 18, 28. Ness does not claim a desire to surveil individuals or track their location by filming or photographing them once they leave DAFs neighborhood. As Ness herself has stated, I try to make this as not about people . . . . Its not specifically about an individual. Its about the City collectively not doing their job. Jones Decl. Ex. 1 at 18:4918:53. Thus, as the County Attorney and the City both acknowledge, Ness intended conduct is not proscribed by the Harassment Statute because she is not tracking or monitoring a particular individual.

But then the court goes on to quote police officers' implicit threats of arrest as evidence Ness won't be subjected to further law enforcement scrutiny or prosecution.

Ness relies on the police report from the incident, which states that Officer Meyer asked [Ness] to stop filming, and that Ness was advised that she could be charged with harassment if the parents and principal felt intimidated by her actions. Compl. 54. However, the bodycam footage of the encounter establishes that Sgt. Roepke expressly told Ness this is a public place, . . . you have a right to . . . take pictures in a public place or video or, or anything like that. Theres not an issue with that. . . . [B]ut if youre doing it in a means to intimidate them or to harass them, then it becomes a problem. Jones Decl. Ex. 3 at 1:50. Sgt. Roepke also told Ness if you want to take some pictures, come and take some pictures and then move on. Id. at 7:50. When Ness described the August 2019 encounter to Detective Bloomer months later during her interview, Ness stated that Sgt. Roepke clarified Ness conduct was not harassing behavior, and told her to be careful and read the statute. Jones Decl. Ex. 5 at 36:2236:43. The police report of the August 2019 incident, particularly when viewed together with Sgt. Roepkes statements and Ness own recollection of the incident, does not rise to the level of a credible threat of prosecution. Ness decision to chill her speech, after being told by Sgt. Roepke that she had a right to take videos and that her conduct was not harassing behavior, was not based on an objectively reasonable fear of prosecution.

Unfortunately, this supposedly "unreasonable" fear of prosecution stems directly from the law, making it a lot more reasonable than the court says. Prosecutors do not have to prove intent. And, as the officer stated clearly, all it would take is for subjects of Ness' recordings to feel harassed. It doesn't matter whether or not Ness intended to harass anyone. That's pretty open-ended and that makes her fear of prosecution a lot more reasonable.

The court agrees Ness has standing to sue the city of Bloomington over its ban on filming children.

The City Defendants argue that [e]ven if Ness had standing to sue, her facial challenge to the ordinance under the first Amendment would fail. City Defs. Mem. Supp. Mot. Dism. [Docket No. 68] at 10 (emphasis added). However, the City Defendants briefing does not include an argument for why Ness might lack standing to challenge the City Ordinance. Ness intended conduct will include photographing and filming children in a City park without parental consent. This conduct is proscribed by the City Ordinance, and the City has not disavowed an intent to charge Ness with violating the City Ordinance if she were to engage in this conduct. Under these circumstances, Ness decision to chill her speech due to the existence of the City Ordinance is objectively reasonable. Ness has standing to challenge the City Ordinance.

But it says she has nothing to sue about because the ordinance does not affect her First Amendment rights.

Here, the City Ordinance makes no distinction based on who is the photographer or recorder, what use will be made of the photograph or recording, or what message will ultimately be conveyed. Because the limitation on its face does not draw distinctions based on a speakers message or viewpoint, it is content neutral.

Neutral, except as to the content of the recordings, which is what's targeted by the city's ban. But the court says the definition of "content" hinges on what the speech conveys, rather than what it contains.

Ness also points out the ordinance is unconstitutional because it fails to do what it purports to do: protect children from being recorded. The court disagrees, saying the ordinance is adequate enough to achieve its aims.

Ness argues that the City Ordinance is underinclusive because if a person takes a step outside a City park and films children from the street, the City Ordinance will not be violated. Ness contends this underinclusiveness undermines the Citys claimed interest in protecting childrens privacy and preventing them from being exploited or intimidated. However, requiring would-be recorders to collect images from a distance, rather from inside a City park, makes it less likely that a child in the park will feel frightened or that the childs identity will be ascertainable. Thus, the Citys important government interest in protecting children is not undermined by allowing a person to record children from just outside a City parks boundaries.

Finally, the judge says the ends justify the means. The judge appears to believe laws are "narrowly tailored" if they accomplish what they set out to do.

As discussed above, the City Ordinance promotes the important government interest in regulating the competing uses of City parks and protecting childrens privacy and sense of safety and freedom from intimidation while playing in a City park. This interest would be achieved less effectively without the City Ordinance. The City Ordinance is narrowly tailored.

Sure, and the city's attempts to achieve other interests would undoubtedly be more effective if the Constitution didn't exist. But it does. And the court is supposed to be a check against government overreach, not an enabler of government efficiency.

The lawsuit is dismissed. The court says Ness can film kids from outside of the park's boundaries without fear of prosecution. Of course, this is what Ness was doing when she was approached by officers who told her to "take her photos" and "move on." Even if Ness complies with the terms of the ordinance the city appears to have passed just to stop her from doing what she was doing, she still faces the possibility of being subjected to further police action. And even if prosecutors refuse to press charges, there's still the hassle of the arrest, and the loss of time and freedom during the detainment. These harms aren't imaginary. The law written to make it more difficult for one Bloomington resident to engage in documentation of perceived permit violations stays on the books.

Most people will probably be fine with this outcome. After all, it mainly affects someone whose interest in park usage seems to be primarily motivated by bigotry. This is all but confirmed by her choice (or acceptance) of the American Freedom Law Center's legal representation. But bad people can still raise legitimate Constitutional complaints. This isn't a victory for Bloomington. It's a loss for its residents who are subject to a badly written law. Even if they have no desire to violate the ordinance, the law can still be wielded against citizens engaged in legitimate activities (like news gathering), thanks to this court's support.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, activist, children, free speech, photography, privacy, sally ness

Read more from the original source:

Federal Court Can't See Any First Amendment Implications In Local Ordinance Blocking The Photography Of Children - Techdirt

Are you Impressed with American Marxism? We have had, over the past three months, a free trial: Seattle CHOP, Portland CLAT, D.C. CHAZ and U.S. cities. All demonstrated Marxist first principles targeting property and family.

Benefiting none, they destroyed private property and demonstrated the tyranny of a Centrally Controlled State. Other Marxist activism created burned out war zones in major U.S. cities worse than in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Where are the reasonable representatives of we the people?

Its who is leading this destruction, staying far away but fanning the flames! Opal Tometi, a Nigerian-born-U.S. educated activist; Patrisse Cullors with Alice Garza, both LGBTQ Activist a.k.a. Black Lives Matter founders. Who assists them? Eric Mann former 1960s Weather Underground/SDS leader who advocates violence having served prison time for violence.

They embody another Marxist philosophy.

From their website:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and villages that collectively care for one another, especially our children

We build a space that affirms Black women [not men] and is free from sexism, misogyny, and environments in which men are centered.

This is a rather contrary concept given Martin Luther Kings statement on family:

The group consisting of mother, father and child is the main educational agency of mankind.

When did family become the enemy? When Marx required child raising by the State to ensure compliance and obedience in the future. Not much different from 1935 Germanys absolute child control or current government calls to get children into pre-school before age three.

Tyranny uses many names; its goals never change from absolute power at any price or lie. Consider BLM Principle No. 3., Loving Engagement stating We are committed to embodying and practicing justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another.

There hasnt been much Loving Engagement in CHOP, CLAT, CHAZ or any major city by Black Lives Matter affirming. BLM is a ghost when help is needed. Remember your panic about no toilet paper? What happens when you cant find a cop? Need I say more?

Gary Smith

Lemoore

Read the rest here:

Hanford speaks up: Recently published Letters to the Editor - Hanford Sentinel

"Never once was her teaching called into question," U.S. District Court Chief Justice John J. McConnell Jr. said.

Amy Mullen has her job back with the Tiverton School Department.

U.S. District Court Chief Justice John J. McConnell Jr., ruling on a preliminary injunction Friday morning, said Mullens First Amendment rights were violated when she was terminated from her teaching job April 15 for speaking up about wanting to discuss distance learning as it pertained to her member teachers. Mullen is head of the teachers union.

In granting the preliminary injunction filed by attorney Elizabeth Wiens, the judge ordered that Mullen "be restored as a teacher until further notice. No doubt Ms. Mullen was retaliated against because of her First Amendment speech," McConnell said from the bench at the end of a virtual hearing.

"Never once was her teaching called into question" in the 25 years Mullen has worked for the district as a special education teacher, McConnell said, adding that she is considered "an exemplary teacher."

Four attorneys were representing the School Department two were from the Interlocal Trust, the insurance carrier for the town. There was no ruling on their motion to dismiss the case Mullen brought against the district.

McConnell said he would take the motion to dismiss under advisement "but at least part will be denied," he said. He said he was "bothered" by the individual suits against individual members of the School Committee who voted to terminate Mullen on the recommendation of Superintendent Peter Sanchioni.

"Shell be back on the payroll as of today," School Committee attorney Stephen Robinson said Friday afternoon. "We clearly will respect the courts orders," Robinson said, but added they "respectfully disagree with the judge in his findings of fact and conclusions of law. We will explore our options."

Wiens wrote in the motion for preliminary injunction that Mullen should be reinstated immediately, noting in the 15-page motion that less than two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "union speech is overwhelmingly of substantial public concern."

Wiens also wrote that "there can be no doubt that speech relating to public education, including the creation of a Distance Learning Plan for students during a global pandemic is a matter of public concern." Mullens speech, Wiens wrote, "was the sole factor" in her termination.

In providing background, Wiens said Sanchioni "repeatedly violated the collective bargaining agreement" between the School Department and NEA-Tiverton, and because of numerous grievances and unfair labor practice complaints filed by the union, there was "animus towards Mullen."

On March 12, 2020, Mullen attended a professional development committee meeting and communicated to the superintendent that online learning plans need to be negotiated with the union. She learned of a March 18 meeting for a distance learning plan and she arrived early to say the union should be part of the discussion.

"Sanchioni raised his voice, told Mullen she was not invited to the meeting and told her he would write her up for insubordination if she did not leave," according to the motion.

She was placed on paid administrative leave on March 21 and told to cease and desist all communications with parents, teachers and administrators, or there would be further discipline, Wiens wrote. An April 6 letter to Mullen from the superintendent notified her of his intent to recommend to the School Committee that she be suspended without pay for "her persistent disruption and insubordination." A Facebook post she made "violated the gag order," it was later charged.

The School Committee voted unanimously April 14 to terminate Mullen, but voted again at a meeting in May to suspend without pay and terminate her at the end of the 2020-2021 school year. That vote was 4-0, with committee member Sally Black abstaining. Voting in favor was Chairman Jerome Larkin, Vice Chairwoman Diane Farnworth, Deborah Pallasch and Elaine Pavao.

Mullen filed suit soon after her termination, saying she was retaliated against by the district for speaking on behalf of her union members. The district said she was terminated for "unprofessional and disruptive behavior."

In a June 17 email to Mullen, who wanted to be on the School Reopening Committee as a representative of the teachers union, she was advised by School Department legal counsel that she was not allowed on school property and not permitted to speak with school staff or administrators because of her suspension, Wiens wrote.

Much of the discussion at the hearing Friday morning centered on whether Mullen was speaking as an employee of the district, or as a private citizen at the distance learning meetings.

"The speech took place in the workplace. It had to do with work-related issues," said attorney Marc DeSisto, representing the Interlocal Trust. "When a union president speaks, that union official is speaking in a workplace official capacity and not as a private citizen," DeSisto argued, saying union and public employee "are symbiotic."

He said the court "was crossing out union and making it outside the employee realm. "It goes back to whether she spoke as a private citizen" and was protected by First Amendment speech, or spoke as an employee subject to disciplinary action.

Wiens told the judge that "every court has found that speech as a union representative is not speech as an employee. We allege Amy Mullen was terminated because of her association with the union. The reason for the termination was her status as union president."

Wiens also argued the Tiverton School Department and the individual members of the School Committee who voted to terminate her and thus violated her First Amendment rights, should be held liable for damages for violating the Constitution.

Read more:

Fired Tiverton teacher Amy Mullen gets her job back after judges ruling - newportri.com