The Senate Commerce Committees Tuesday hearing on the PACT Act and Section 230 was a refreshingly substantive bipartisan discussion about the thorny issues related to how online platforms moderate user content, and to what extent these companies should be held liable for harmful user content.

The hearing brought into focus several real and significant problems that Congress should continue to consider. It also showed that, whatever its good intentions, the PACT Act in its current form does not address those problems, much less deal with how to lessen the power of the handful of major online services we all rely on to connect with each other.

As we recently wrote, the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency (PACT) Act, introduced last month by Senators Brian Schatz (D-HI) and John Thune (R-SD), is a serious effort to tackle a serious problem: that a handful of large online platforms dominate users ability to speak online. The bill builds on good ideas, such as requiring greater transparency around platforms decisions to moderate their users contentsomething EFF has championed as a voluntary effort as part of the Santa Clara Principles.

However, we are ultimately opposed to the bill, because weakening Section 230 (47 U.S.C. 230) would lead to more illegitimate censorship of user content. The bill would also threaten small platforms and would-be competitors to the current dominant players, and the bill has First Amendment problems.

One important issue that came up during the hearing is to what extent online platforms should be required to take down user content that a court has determined is illegal. The PACT Act provides that platforms would lose Section 230 immunity for user content if the companies failed to remove material after receiving notice that a court has declared that material illegal. Its not unreasonable to question whether Section 230 should protect platforms for hosting content after a court has found the material to be illegal or unprotected by the First Amendment.

However, we remain concerned about whether any legislative proposal, including the PACT Act, can provide sufficient guardrails to prevent abuse and to ensure that user content is not unnecessarily censored. Courts often issue non-final judgments, opining on the legality of content in a motion to dismiss opinion, for example, before getting to the merits stage of a case. Some court decisions are default judgments because the defendant does not show up to defend herself for whatever reason, making any determination about the illegality of the content the defendant posted suspect because the question was not subject to a robust adversarial process. And even when there is a final order from a trial court, that decision is often appealed and sometimes reversed by a higher court.

Additionally, some lawsuits against user content are harassing suits that might be dismissed under anti-SLAPP laws, but not all states have them and there isnt one that consistently applies in federal court. Finally, some documents that appear to be final court judgments may be falsified, which would lead to the illegitimate censorship of user speech, if platforms dont spend considerable resources investigating each takedown request.

We were pleased to see that many of these concerns were discussed at the hearing, even if a consensus wasnt reached. Its refreshing to see elected leaders trying to balance competing interests, including how to protect Internet users who are victims of illegal activity while avoiding the creation of broad legal tools that can censor speech that others do not like. But as weve said previously, the PACT Act, as currently written, doesnt attempt to balance these or other concerns. Rather, by requiring the removal of any material that someone claims a court has declared illegal, it tips the balance toward broad censorship.

Another thorny but important issue is the question of competition among online platforms. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) expressed his preference for finding market solutions to the problems associated with the dominant platforms and how they moderate user content. EFF has urged the government to consider a more robust use of antitrust law in the Internet space. One thing is certain, though: weakening Section 230 protections will only entrench the major players, as small companies dont have the financial resources and personnel to shoulder increased liability for user content.

Unfortunately, the PACT Acts requirements that platforms put in place content moderation and response services will only further cement the dominance of services such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, which already employ vast numbers of employees to moderate users content. Small competitors, on the other hand, lack the resources to comply with the PACT Act.

The hearing also touched upon understandably concerning content categories including political and other misinformation, hate speech, terrorism content, and child sexual abuse material (CSAM). However, by and large, these categories of content (except for CSAM) are protected by the First Amendment, meaning that the government cant mandate that such content be taken down.

To be clear, Congress can and should be talking about harmful online content and ways to address it, particularly when harassment and threats drive Internet users offline. But if the conversation focuses on Section 230, rather than grappling with the First Amendment issues at play, then it is missing the forest for the trees.

Moreover, any legislative effort aimed at removing harmful, but not illegal, content online has to recognize that platforms that host user-generated content have their own First Amendment rights to manage that content. The PACT Act intrudes on these services editorial discretion by requiring that they take certain steps in response to complaints about content.

Amidst a series of bad-faith attacks on Internet users speech and efforts to weaken Section 230 protections, it was refreshing to see Senators hold a substantive public discussion about what changes should be made to U.S. law governing Internet users online speech. We hope that it can serve as the beginning of a good-faith effort to grapple with real problems and to identify workable solutions that balance the many competing interests while ensuring that Internet users continue to enjoy the diverse forums for speech and community online.

Read more here:

The PACT Act Is Not The Solution To The Problem Of Harmful Online Content - EFF

TOPLINE

The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday blocked an amendment to its Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal 2021 that would have barred the U.S. military from recruiting on video game streaming sites like Amazon's Twitch, with the amendment's author Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) saying on the floor, "War is not a game."

NEW YORK, NY - APRIL 14: Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) speaks at a press conference ... [+] at Corona Plaza in Queens on April 14, 2020 in New York City. Ocasio-Cortez was joined by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at the conference, where both called for the Federal Emergency Management Administration to fund funeral costs in low-income communities of color during the ongoing amid the coronavirus pandemic. (Photo by Scott Heins/Getty Images)

"This amendment is specifically to block recruitment practices and funding for recruitment practices on platforms such as Twitch.tv, which are live-streaming platforms which are largely populated by children well under the age of military recruitment rules," Ocasio-Cortez said.

While Republicans unanimously opposed the measure, Democrats were split, with Ocasio-Cortez taking to Twitter during the vote to say, "Imagine trying to explain to your colleagues who are members of Congress what Twitch is."

The U.S. Airforce, Army and Navy all sponsor esports teams with members streaming to Twitch, but recent controversies prompted concerns over the recruitment practice.

Twitch stepped in to stop the Army from using a faux giveaway to redirect viewers to a recruitment form, and lawyers from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University demanded that the Army and Navy reverse bans on their Twitch channels against a user who asked about U.S. war crimes in the channels' chats.

Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), who chairs the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, spoke out against the amendment during debate, saying, "The United States Military is a very special place...we oughta cast a very wide net to encourage young Americans to serve their country in the military."

Visclosky argued the military conducts educational programs for young people, but Ocasio-Cortez responded, "Children on platforms such as Twitch are bombarded with banner ads that link to recruitment sign up forms that can be submitted by children as young as 12 years old. These are not educational outreach programs but recruitment forms."

Referencing first-person shooter games popular with military members streaming on Twitch, like Call of Duty, Ocasio-Cortez said, "We cannot conflate war and military service with this kind of gamified format." She later tweeted, "Its totally fine if you dont know what Twitch is, but tech literacy is becoming an [sic] growing need in Congress so we can legislate to protect peoples privacy."

Using games as a means to recruit young people into the U.S. military isnt new. In 2002, the Army launched the America's Army series of video games, the latest being the free-to-play America's Army: Proving Grounds. "Funded by the Army Marketing and Research Group, America's Army, the official game of the U.S. Army, delivers an authentic and entertaining Army experience by reflecting the values, training, technology, skills and career advancement of a United States Army Soldier," the official video game page reads. Proving Grounds is rated Teen, meaning the content in the game is suitable for people ages 13 and older.

Following the accusations that the U.S. Army violated the first amendment right to free speech by banning a Twitch user from its channeljust as President Trump is restricted from blocking Twitter usersthe military branch told GameSpot that it would pause activities on the platform and "review internal policies and procedures, as well as all platform-specific policies, to ensure those participating in the space are clear before streaming resumes. The "About" page for the Navy's esports channel reads, "Other people will tell you not to stay up all night staring at a screen. Well pay you to do it."

Read more here:

House Blocks AOC's Amendment To Bar U.S. Military From Recruiting On Video Game Streaming Sites Like Twitch - Forbes

The order concerning the ballot process in the age of Covid-19 comes as the court's conservative majority has turned away other attempts to ease voting-related restrictions because of the pandemic.

The case stems from the actions of Reclaim Idaho, a political action committee that seeks to increase funding in K-12 education. It had attempted to gather the necessary signatures for a ballot initiative, but had to suspend its campaign because it felt uncomfortable seeking signatures during the pandemic.

It claimed its First Amendment rights were violated when Idaho law was not suspended to allow the group to collect signatures electronically. A district court judge extended deadlines and ordered the state to accept electronic signatures.

Idaho Gov. Brad Little, a Republican, accused the court of seizing "control of Idaho's initiative process" and contravening "an almost century-old principle of Idaho law requiring in-person collection of petition signatures."

"No system of checks and balances can support such an arbitrary abandonment of constitutional and statutorily-assigned election responsibilities," his lawyers told the justices in court papers.

Thursday's order was unsigned. Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, wrote to explain their thinking as to why they voted to block the lower court order.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, dissented.

It is unclear how the other justices voted but it would have taken the votes of five justices to block the order.

Sotomayor noted that the lower court had required Idaho to "accommodate delays and risks" introduced by the coronavirus. She noted that a federal appeals court is due to hear the case on August 11 and if it determines that the lower court's injunction was "improper" the state could still omit the initiative from the November ballot.

See the original post:

Supreme Court blocks Idaho group from gathering ballot initiative signatures online - CNN

A man accused of setting a fire to the Arizona Democratic Party headquarters this month was arrested on Wednesday, the authorities said.

The man, Matthew Egler, 29, was arrested on a charge of arson of an occupied structure, the Phoenix Police Department said. Mr. Egler, the police said, was a former volunteer at the office but had been recently barred from volunteer service.

It was not immediately clear whether he had a lawyer, or why he had been barred from volunteering.

The fire took place after midnight on July 24 at the partys offices in downtown Phoenix, causing damage but no injuries.

The Phoenix police said that Mr. Egler had posted information on social media that linked him to the fire. Investigators were also able to connect a car seen in a surveillance video from that night to a relative of Mr. Egler. The video showed a man arriving in the car and breaking glass to get into the building.

We are deeply saddened and shocked by todays news, but appreciate the swift action by law enforcement to ensure that the suspect is in custody, the Arizona Democratic Party said in a statement.

Reporting was contributed by Maggie Astor, Emily Badger, Luke Broadwater, Alexander Burns, Emily Cochrane, Nate Cohn, Johnny Diaz, Reid J. Epstein, Sydney Ember, Robert Gebeloff, Katie Glueck, Shane Goldmacher, Maggie Haberman, Annie Karni,Adam Liptak, Patricia Mazzei, Giulia McDonnell Nieto del Rio, Jennifer Medina, Jeremy W. Peters, Matt Stevens and Glenn Thrush.

More:

2020 Election Live Updates: Trump Defends Delay the Election Tweet, Even Though He Cant Do It - The New York Times

July 29, 2020 During a recent campaign event, Jenna Ellis, an adviser to President Donald Trump, cut loose with the old Religious Right chestnut that separation of church and state isnt part of the Constitution.

The left is going to tell you theres this separation of church and state, and thats just nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in American law,Ellis said during a Zoom meetinghosted by Asian Pacific Americans for Trump. Thats nothing that our founding principles ever, uh, derived whatsoever.

She added that church-state separation comes from twisting a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Church that was simply talking about the three tiers of authority that God himself ordained the church government, the civil government, and the family government.

Ellis would have done well to actually readJeffersons letterto the Danbury, Conn., Baptist Association before popping off on it because that famous missive doesnt say what she seems to think it does. The Daily Beast helpfully pointed out what Ellis got wrong and even quoteda blog postby Americans United Assistant Director of Communications Liz Hayes making it clear that key founders like Jefferson and James Madison supported separation of church and state. (Madison, it is worth noting, was one of the primary authors of the Constitutions religious freedom protections, which were inspired by JeffersonsVirginia Statute for Religious Freedom.)

History is important, but theres another reason why the term separation of church and state came into existence: Its a convenient way of explaining what the religious freedom provisions of the First Amendment do.

The first 16 words of the First Amendment are, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. People who work in the legal community call the first part of that the Establishment Clause and the second part the Free Exercise Clause.

These are not terms that smoothly roll off the tongues of non-lawyers, though. Even in pre-Twitter days, people often looked for shortcuts when communicating complex ideas. The phrase separation of church and state nicely summarizes the scope and effect of the First Amendment.

In his classic bookChurch, State and Freedom, eminent church-state scholar Leo Pfeffer put it well. Pfeffer noted that the literal words separation of church and state dont appear in the Constitution but added, But it was inevitable that some convenient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people.

Pfeffer pointed out that the phrases fair trial and religious liberty are found nowhere in the Constitution, yet few would doubt that our founding charter protects those principles. He wrote, The universal acceptance which all these terms, including separation of church and state, have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American principles.

Pfeffer was right. Separation of church and state is an American principle. We pioneered it, and we should be proud of it. Its a shame to see a vital American ideal subjected to ignorant attacks and thats why Americans United defends separation every day.

Wed love to haveyour support!

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a nonpartisan educational and advocacy organization dedicated to advancing the separation of religion and government as the only way to ensure freedom of religion, including the right to believe or not believe, for all. http://www.au.org

See the rest here:

Rob Boston: Trump Adviser Unleashes Error-Filled Attack On Separation Of Church And State - YubaNet

Firefighters in Hingham, Mass., are continuing to display a version of the American flag black and white with a blue stripe on their fire trucks. The firefighters say it's there to show support for the police, but their bosses say it's an inappropriate political statement and it has to come down. All Things Considered host Arun Rath spoke with Noah Feldman, a professor of law at Harvard Law School, on Wednesday about the controversy. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Arun Rath: And first, to give people some background, because in case you're not familiar, this flag that has the blue stripe in it, the supporters say that it's supposed to show support for the police. Right now in our current context, its also come up as is being shown in opposition to Black Lives Matter and that movement. And there were apparently some complaints from some citizens in Hingham along those lines. It sounds like it might be established law, but give us the foundation here.

First, do employers have the right to limit these kind of political displays in the workplace? And does it make a difference if we're talking about a private business or, say, the firefighters?

Noah Feldman: Well, first of all, it can make a difference. Certainly, a private employer can decide what flag will be displayed in the workplace. But that's because a private employer is also not governed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Government is a different matter. Government is governed by the First Amendment, and government can't limit citizens' free speech. So that's why this becomes sort of interesting and even a little bit complicated from a constitutional perspective.

The thing to keep in mind here is that if private citizens who were serving the government wanted to speak on their own, they would have some capacity to do so without being told what to say by the government. But because in this case, the flags that they're flying are on firetrucks, which are government property, it's almost certainly the case under existing law that if the town's executive say you have to take the flags down, that they are obligated to take the flags down.

Rath: And is there precedent in case law that supports that from the past?

Feldman: In general, the precedent here is a principle called government speech. The government is entitled, when it's speaking through its official channels, to say whatever it wants. It can express any point of view that it chooses. It can promote a view. It can argue against a view. The government can run public service announcements telling you to go out to vote. The government can have a holiday called Columbus Day, which some people don't like because, you know, [what was] originally intended to say nice things about Italian Americans is now construed by some to be, you know, papering over of a history of invasion and imperialism and even genocide. But the government is still entitled to do it.

And similarly, the government can decide what messages will or won't be conveyed on its property, including its firetrucks. So that's the general principle here.

Rath: And is there total clarity when it comes to saying what counts as political speech? It may be clear in a case like this, but are there other displays that would be considered nonpolitical and therefore, OK?

Feldman: Well, here it does get a little bit trickier because, you know, if the town of Hingham suddenly wanted to fly flags from its firetruck saying 'Vote Democrat' or 'Vote Republican,' it could be the case that it would be crossing a line that's very well established in American politics namely, that local governments and the federal government are not supposed to themselves express preferences that are partisan political. So that that would be a circumstance which might be relevant.

But broadly speaking, there isn't, other than a town policy here, a general constitutional principle that says that a town or a city couldn't say something that was political in its own right. So, you know, having Columbus Day is political. The state of Massachusetts does it. And that's OK. So what's going on here is that in Hingham, the town says it has a policy of not allowing political speech. But it doesn't have to have that policy to be able to choose what flag it flies.

Arun: Well, I was going to ask about that, because we've seen it in other areas where local governments are actually endorsing, even promoting political speech I think of New York City, where the city painted Black Lives Matter in front of Trump Tower. But that's OK because that's their policy?

Feldman: Exactly. That's their policy. And that's what they want to express.

Now, what Hingham says is that they have a written policy that says no political speech. And I suppose if the firefighters wanted to go to court and challenge an order for them to take down the flags, what their best argument would be would be to say, 'Well, you say that this is a political policy, a policy of no political speech. But this isn't political speech.' And then ask the court to determine the meaning of Hinghams policies. That would be different from a constitutional argument. It would just be saying, 'Hey, we don't think you're applying your own policy correctly.'

Rath: And where could this potentially go legally from here? Could the firefighters union challenge this policy?

Feldman: You know, I suppose they could. The firefighters don't have an individual right to fly any flags that they want from the firetrucks. And so far as I can tell, at least in the news stories that I've read, they haven't asserted that they have such a right. On the other hand, they have said, 'Well, gee, none of us have found it in our hearts to take down the flag.' So they're engaged right now in a kind of, I would say, gentle civil disobedience with respect to these flags.

If they were really pushed, I suppose they could go to court and ask the court to say that the town was not correctly enforcing its own policy. I think a court would be pretty skeptical of that because in general, courts like to be deferential to government officials who are reasonably enforcing their own policy. And I think they probably would say that a flag with a message is almost inherently something political and therefore up to the town to determine whether or not they can fly or not.

Here is the original post:

Harvard Law Professor Analyzes Hingham Firefighters' Refusal To Remove So-Called 'Thin Blue Line' Flags From Trucks - wgbh.org

Protesters gather in front of the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse in downtown Portland, where some demonstrators have been arrested and others released from jail on the condition that they not attend any more protests. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption

Protesters gather in front of the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse in downtown Portland, where some demonstrators have been arrested and others released from jail on the condition that they not attend any more protests.

A number of people arrested at demonstrations in Portland, Ore., say the terms of their release prevent them from attending protests going forward, a stipulation First Amendment experts have called cause for concern.

ProPublica reported on Tuesday that at least a dozen protesters arrested in recent weeks are prohibited from attending demonstrations within city or state limits, or in general, while they await trials on federal misdemeanor charges. Protesters say this was one of several conditions including abiding by a curfew, avoiding the area surrounding the federal courthouse and appearing for court dates that they had to agree to in order to leave jail.

Bailey Dreibelbis, 23, is one such protester. He told NPR's Vanessa Romo that he was arrested on the evening of July 22 and released the following afternoon on certain conditions, including that he would not attend any more protests in Portland.

Of the terms of his release, Dreibelbis said his public defender was "pretty clear that if I wanted to be out of there that day, that I would have to take them."

"She kind of chuckled with me, because I didn't do anything illegal upon arrest," he added. "I did not assault an officer, I did not set anything on fire."

Dreibelbis said he entered an open fence outside the federal courthouse, noting he did not see signs or hear announcements about that area being off limits. A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office said Dreibelbis was charged with failing to comply with a lawful order, which is a class c misdemeanor.

Like Dreibelbis, other protesters are facing charges in connection with petty offenses that took place on federal grounds.

According to ProPublica, 18 of the 50 protesters charged in Portland are accused of only minor offenses under federal law that criminalizes certain actions when they happen on federal property or against people on that property. These behaviors include "failure to obey a lawful order" and "disorderly conduct."

Fourteen protesters were charged with "failing to obey a lawful order" between July 21 and July 24 alone, ProPublica found.

Orders setting conditions for release, reviewed by ProPublica, were signed by a federal magistrate in Portland. Kevin Sonoff of the U.S. Attorney's Office said in an email to NPR that the prosecutors didn't seek the "no protest" restriction, that it was added by the court. He said the office did ask for those released to be barred from a five-block limit around the federal courthouse.

"This morning, we joined the Federal Public Defender's Office in jointly recommending to the court that these additional release conditions be modified," Sonoff said.

Dreibelbis told NPR he hadn't initially planned to attend a protest that night he said he roller skates after work and ended up in that part of town and is now barred from attending any other protests.

Legal experts told NPR that such a stipulation almost certainly violates individuals' First Amendment rights to free assembly.

"These conditions are deeply troubling and likely unconstitutional," Ramya Krishnan, staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, wrote in an email. "A blanket ban on attending future protests in the city seriously infringes on the First Amendment right to free assembly, and isn't reasonably related to any legitimate goal of pretrial release."

Enrique Armijo, a law professor at Elon University, explained that it is not uncommon for criminal defendants to give up certain rights as a condition of their release, but those conditions are typically very narrow, in the interest of public safety and tightly connected to the basis of prosecution.

The agreements in Portland, he said, are overly broad in that they do not show a clear public safety connection between the right the person is being asked to give up and the harm that person is alleged to have committed.

"There's no way you can say that because of something you may have done with respect to federal property, a federal court is going to say you cannot engage in First Amendment-protected activity in the entire city in which that federal property is located," Armijo said. "That's just the definition of what First Amendment law considers overbreadth: What you're being asked to give up is much, much greater from a constitutional perspective than that which you are alleged to have done."

Elizabeth Goitein, who codirects the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty & National Security Program, said this kind of "blanket First Amendment restriction" violates one of the most core constitutional rights.

"The fact that these people may or may not have committed a misdemeanor is irrelevant, they certainly haven't been tried or convicted of any such offense and they are presumed innocent until proven guilty," she said. "Even after someone has been convicted of an offense, that does not mean that the government can require them to give up First Amendment freedoms going forward."

Goitein also noted that this practice raises red flags even beyond Portland because it could potentially happen in other cities.

"It's a problem if it happens once," she said. "And if it's happening systemically across a major city in this country, we need to be extremely concerned."

People have gathered for demonstrations against racism and police violence in Portland every night since the death of George Floyd in May, with tensions escalating after the Trump administration deployed federal agents to the city to protect the federal courthouse there earlier this month. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown said federal agents will begin a phased withdrawal on Thursday.

More:

For Some Arrested At Portland Protests, Release Is Conditional On Not Attending More - NPR

Tony Mauro, Opinion contributor Published 6:02 a.m. ET July 30, 2020

Democratic lawmakers and even descendants of Confederate leaders are urging official removal of Confederate monuments at the center of a politically fraught national debate. (July 21) AP Domestic

The relevance of the Bill of Rights to todays divisions is clear and deserves recognition.

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: 10amendments 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 sayswhimsically. 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 BlissBill of Rights project havebeen 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.

A campaign to place Bill of Rights monuments in state capitols in all 50 states is already underway, albeit moving slowly(Photo: Getty Images)

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

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 10amendments 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 Amendmenthas 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.

Bliss saysthere is no better remedy for monument controversies than to commemorate the Bill of Rights, which he callsthe 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.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/30/monument-bill-rights-idea-all-americans-can-unite-behind-column/5534169002/

Go here to read the rest:

Here's a monument all Americans can rally around: Let's celebrate the Bill of Rights - USA TODAY

PEN America says federal agents are not above the rule of law in repressing and attacking protesters and reporters

(New York, NY) Reports have emerged that federal authorities have required detained protesters in Portland to commit to not attending further protests as a condition for release, and that federal officers have shot at and maced reporters and legal observers covering protests. PEN Americas director of U.S. free expression programs Nora Benavidez released the following statement in response:

Forcing First Amendment-abiding protesters to sign away their right to demonstrate to be released. Law enforcement using live ammunition against reporters and legal observers. These are gross violations of the First Amendment. Federal agents are not above the rule of law, and certainly not above the Constitution. The actions unfolding in Portland are aimed not only at silencing dissent, but also silencing the reporters and journalists working to reveal whats happening on the ground. This has to stop. Freedom predicated on silence isnt freedom at all.

Continued here:

Federal Authorities' Conduct Against Protesters and Reporters in Portland Gross Violations of the First Amendment - PEN America

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette| Times Herald-Record

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 military's esports teams quickly found themselves embroiled in controversy. Automated links would drop into the Army's 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.

Active and reserve personnel have been hopping online to stream themselves playing video games

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. What's 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 military's 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.

Read more:

ANOTHER VIEW: War is not a game - Times Herald-Record