Jack Greiner Published 11:48 a.m. ET July 7, 2020 | Updated 11:48 a.m. ET July 7, 2020

The parties in litigation over the publication of a tell-all book written by Donald Trumps niece each got a partial victory in a recent decision by a New York trial court. But the ultimate losers are the members of the Trump family seeking to stop publication of the book later this month.

The issue in the case is a non-disclosure agreementthat the family of Fred Trump executed in connection with Fred Trumps estate. Fred Trump was the brother of Donald, Robert and Mary Trump. The books author is Mary Trump, Freds daughter and the niece of Donald, Robert and Mary.

When the family settled Fred Trumps estate in 2001 (he died atage42 from complications arising from alcoholism) the descendants (including Freds daughter Mary) signed an agreement prohibiting them from publishing a book about the family relationships. Specifically, the agreement provided:

[Mary Trump] shall not disclose any of the terms of this Agreement and Stipulation, and in addition shall not directly or indirectly publish or cause to be published, any diary, memoir, letter, story, photograph, interview, article, essay, account, or description or depiction of any kind whatsoever, whether fictionalized or not, concerning their litigation or relationship with the Proponents/Defendants or their litigation involving the Estate of FRED C. TRUMP and the Estate of MARY ANNE TRUMP, or assist or provide information to others in connection therewith. . . . In the event such breach occurs, [Mary Trump], as well as their counsel, hereby consent to the granting of a temporary or permanent injunction against them (or against any agent acting in their behalf) by any court of competent jurisdiction prohibiting them (or their agent) from violating the terms of this Paragraph.

On June 15, 2020, Ms. Trump announced the publication of a book entitled Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the Worlds Most Dangerous Man, which is scheduled for release on July 28, 2020. On June 30, Robert Trump, Marys uncleand Donald Trumps brother obtained a temporary restraining order from a New York Probate Court which prohibited Ms. Trump and her publisher Simon & Schuster, from publishing, printing or distributing any book or any portions thereof including but not limited to the book entitled: Too Much and Never Enough, How My Family Created the Worlds Most Dangerous Man, in any medium containing descriptions or accounts of [Ms. Trumps] relationship with [Robert Trump], Donald Trump, or Maryanne Trump Barry.

Mary Trump and Simon & Schuster asked a New York trial court to vacate the TRO. The trial court refused Marys request to vacate the TRO, at least for the time being. It found that while Mary Trump generally has a First Amendment right to publish her thoughts, she also has a right to enter a contract restricting that right. The court noted, however, that the interests underlying the non-disclosure agreement could shift over time so that the public interest in the book could outweigh the contractual interests. As the court noted, the legitimate interest in preserving family secrets may be one thing for the family of a real estate developer, no matter how successful; it is another matter for the family of the President of the United States. The court noted that it may be necessary to review the book in camera before making a final ruling on the restraining order. But for now, the court kept the order as to Mary in place.

But the court took a different view toward Simon & Schuster. It noted that Simon & Schuster was not a party to the contract, and thus never agreed to the non-disclosure terms. The court also rejected the argument that Simon & Schuster is Marys agent and thus comes under the contracts language permitting an injunction against Marys agent. The term agent in the law means one who acts on behalf of another person and at that persons direction. Typically an author employs an agent to negotiate with the publisher. This demonstrates that the publisher and the author are on opposite sides of contract and neither is the agent for the other. Given that Robert Trumps only basis for the restraining order was the contract, there was no basis to restrain Simon & Schuster.

This decision may end the effort to stop the release of the book. Once the book is released, the horse has left the barn, as the Trump Administration learned in its efforts to stop the publication of John Boltons book. Of course, all is not lost for Robert Trump. He can seek monetary damages against Mary. But in all likelihood, the public will be reading her book at the beach later this summer.

Jack Greiner is managing partner of Graydon law firm in Cincinnati. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues.

Read or Share this story: https://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/2020/07/07/strictly-legal-partial-victory-first-amendment-trump-book-dispute/5390353002/

See more here:

Strictly Legal: Partial Victory for the First Amendment in Trump Book Dispute - The Cincinnati Enquirer

Stanley Fish tells us that the 1st Amendment is out of date and predicates that on an assertion that it was formulated when opportunities for speech were scarce [Speech Is Too Free for Stanley Fish, June 28].

Fish ignores that the Founders as we should recognize in todays world, scarce or broad opportunities notwithstanding created the speech clause because they knew that if it wasnt unrestricted, someone would be deciding what speech was allowable.

And who would decide that? Mr. Fish? Despite his illustrious credentials, allowing him and his ilk to control speech is an invitation to rule by a small cadre of elites. Exactly the opposite of an inclusive democracy.

Kip DellingerSanta Monica

In her column discussing comedic use of blackface [Kimmel Apology Is Not Enough, June 26], Mary McNamara makes the somewhat patronizing argument that Intent is also tricky and way too difficult to parse in a mass-audience film or television show.

Does McNamara really believe that audiences are so universally unsophisticated that no one can possibly distinguish between those occasions in which blackface has been used to satirize, denigrate and skewer racists versus those in which it was merely a demeaning stereotype?

Comedy is about taking ideas and turning them on their head, often to powerful, truth-telling effect. To imply that an idea that might be tricky should never be expressed is troubling where art is concerned.

Linda WilliamsonGranada Hills

::

Im glad Kimmel has apologized for the blackface segments on The Man Show albeit belatedly. I will not hold my breath, however, for him to address the objectification of women that was a regular part of that show.

Does Girls on Trampolines sound familiar?

Laura OwenPacific Palisades

::

McNamaras column was one of the better explorations of blackface and liberal comedy.

As a fan of these comedians, and someone who, like Kimmel, has struggled to get my head around the problem, I really appreciated her perspectives and especially her suggestion that honest conversation is more important than defensive apologies.

I wish that everyone who has ever performed in, or just laughed at, blackface comedy could read this article.

Chris GoldsmithCardiff-by-the-Sea

::

I used to be a fan of Kimmel until his show became a humorous version of MSNBC news.

But, having said that, I dont feel that Kimmel should have to apologize for his actions in his past. Bad taste is part of being a comedian.

The liberals have made little or no noise about the governor of Virginia or the prime minister of Canada doing blackface but are coming down hard on Kimmel?

Mark WalkerYorba Linda

::

I cant believe that anyone was doing blackface ever.

I think that when I was a Cub Scout, we did a minstrel show and I did it. It was wrong then, and it is wrong afterward.

I remember when I was pretty young watching The Jazz Singer with Al Jolson (or a clip from it since it came out long before I was born).

I remember feeling repulsed by the fact that a white man was playing a black man and had used blackface to do it.

McNamara is calling out Kimmel. Good for her.

John OppenheimLong Beach

::

Celebrities should use their platforms to educate, enlighten and inform those who are ignorant to the many injustices in our world. If they dont, they are just as much a part of the problem as the solution.

This could have been a real teaching moment for both Kimmel and his many followers.

Sherry DavisPlaya Vista

::

George Washington, Christopher Columbus, Matthias Baldwin, Ulysses S. Grant, Mahatma Gandhi, Theodore Roosevelt, St. Junipero Serra and Francis Scott Key have all been the targets of BLM defacing or toppling. They arent around anymore to say Im sorry.

But Jimmy Kimmel, who so proudly and repeatedly blacked up for a television show, simply apologized.

All is forgotten. I dont see any protesters in front of ABC.

Double standard? I definitely see one.

Candy CarstensenLos Angeles

Law & Order insider POV

Regarding: Meredith Blakes analysis A False Sense of Law & Order [June 14]: I was the original non-writing show runner of Law & Order the first three seasons, which means my job was to oversee all aspects of the show from casting to the crew. The conceit of Law & Order was that the episodes would be divided into two halves. The regular characters were different and only connected by the case.

Dick Wolf was not thinking about the politics of Richard Nixon when he named the show, only to communicate that conceit. In fact, what made the show different, innovative and original was its documentary style and most importantly the subject matter of many of the episodes. They dealt with AIDS, homophobia, abortion, child abuse, rape, race, religion and, yes, bad cops.

If Dick could be accused of anything political it was his aversion to what we call political correctness. He resisted pressure from the network to make changes to the social or Black content even when there were threats by the sponsors to pull out.

At the time, to my knowledge, we employed more actors of color than any dramatic series on the air. We paid special attention to make sure people of color were judges, lawyers, doctors, experts, etc. We featured as guest stars many who were not yet household names: Samuel L. Jackson, S. Epatha Merkerson, Roscoe Lee Browne, Wendell Pierce, Mary Alice and Joe Morton.

Characters of color were not disproportionately portrayed in a negative light. Dick did not believe in reinforcing negative stereotypes. The writing was never politicized and often the main characters would have differing points of view.

In the time I spent with Dick he never asked me to do anything that would compromise the values of the show. The popularity of the show and its appeal to a wide sector of society can be attributed to its 20-year run. Dick Wolf respected his audience and never talked down to them.

Joseph SternHollywood

Movie hits all the right notes

Regarding Jen Yamatos review of the movie Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga [Off-Key Eurovision Is Singing the Wrong Tune, June 26]: The new Netflix film with Will Ferrell and Rachel McAdams is precisely what we need in these troubling times. For two hours I felt I was resting in an oasis of laughter, music and romance. A great relief in todays times.

We are becoming more isolated and pessimistic, as we survive a constant bombardment of bad news, partisan bickering and an uncivil national discourse.

Yamato should make sure she doesnt lose her sense of humor. We need more movies like Eurovision.

Luca BentivoglioSanta Monica

Excerpt from:

Readers on the 1st amendment, blackface and 'Law & Order' - Los Angeles Times

President Donald Trump in the White House press briefing room on Thursday.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Donald Trump has long revealed himself to be a bully, one who punches down yet screams bloody murder when someone else so much as taps him. Nowhere is this trait more manifest than in his free speech hypocrisy. Throughout his political campaigns and his presidency, Trump has routinely decried the scourge of political correctness, slammed the weakness of snowflakes who cant handle his telling it like it is, and demanded the right to publish factual misstatements without correction on private social media platforms. Yet Trump has wielded the extraordinary powers and privileges of the presidencyusing everything from the presidential bully pulpit to the classification system to his leverage over executive branch personnelto threaten, intimidate, and punish those whose words embarrass or anger him.

Lest the advantages of his office not fully protect him from unwelcome speech, Trump also continues to employ a technique that he has long used in his private life, his business life, and his political life: contracts featuring nondisclosure and nondisparagement clauses, or NDAs. At the moment, Trump is engaged in litigation to stop the publication of a book by his niece, Mary Trump, which reportedly contains damaging revelations about him. Because Mary once signed an NDA, Trump has declared that she is not allowed to write a book. On Wednesday, a New York Supreme Court appellate judge lifted a temporary restraining order on publication of the book. Given the heightened public interest in information about the president and the strong presumption against prior restraints on publications of any kind, the interests at stake are on Mary Trumps side.

Of course, though, Trumps penchant for NDAs goes well beyond his own family. More troubling still is his practice of requiring campaign staffers and White House employees to sign sweeping NDAs that bar them from criticizing Trump, his family members, or any Trump organizations for the rest of the signers lives. A recently filed case, now pending in federal district court in Manhattan, offers a fresh look at Trumps use of NDAs to muzzle former campaign staffers.

In Denson v. Donald J. Trump for President Inc., Jessica Denson, who worked on the 2016 campaign, seeks a judgment declaring that the form NDA that the campaign required its employees, contractors, and volunteers to sign is unenforceable. When Denson filed a previous state-court lawsuit against the campaign raising claims related to her employment, the Trump campaign sought to enforce the NDA against Denson through arbitration, claiming she violated the NDA by filing the lawsuit. Although an arbitrator initially granted damages to the campaign, a New York state appellate court vacated the award on the grounds that public policy prohibits parties from using NDAs to punish individuals for filing lawsuits. The court did not weigh in on the validity of the NDA itself, noting that any challenge to the campaigns NDA would have to be presented to the arbitrator in the first instance. While the campaigns arbitration proceedings were pending, Denson filed a federal lawsuit seeking to have the NDA declared invalid. The federal court agreed with the Trump campaign that Denson had to resolve her claim through arbitration. When Denson sought to initiate her own class arbitration challenging the NDA, however, the campaign asserted that it could itself choose to bypass arbitration, and insisted that the plaintiff file her purported claims in court. In her current lawsuit, filed last month, Denson does just that.

The NDA that Denson challenges is breathtaking in its scope. Its nondisparagement clause prohibits campaign workers, for the rest of their lives, from demean[ing] or disparag[ing] publicly the campaign, Donald Trump, Trump family members, or Trump companies. The nondisclosure clause forever bars campaign workers from revealing confidential information or using such information in any way detrimental to Mr. Trump, his family, or any Trump businesses. Confidential information includes any information with respect to the personal life, political affairs, and/or business affairs of Mr. Trump or any Family Member. On the off chance that the definition leaves some kernel of information unshielded, it extends as well to all information of a private, propriety or confidential nature or that Mr. Trump insists remain private or confidential (emphasis mine).

Denson argues that the NDA is invalid on multiple grounds, including the First Amendments speech and press clauses and New York state contract law. Among Densons contract law arguments is the notion that any benefit from enforcing the contract is outweighed by the public interest in the free exchange of ideas. At the heart of each legal claim are two key insights about free speech in a democratic system. First, the right of the people to criticize and to share information about government officials is essential to democracy and the rule of law. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has extolled our profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. Second, speech that scrutinizes government officials is as vulnerable as it is valuable. One need not be a hardened cynic to fear that those who wield power will use it to suppress their critics. This commonsense insight is manifest in numerous aspects of First Amendment law, including the presumption against content-based restrictions on speech and the high bar that public figures must surmount to win damages against speakers who defame them.

The Trump campaigns sweeping NDA affronts these foundational principles. This would be so even if Trump had not won the presidency and were merely an influential politician. That he is now the president of the United States makes starker still the NDAs insult to free speech and democratic discourse.

Finally, although the courts may not need to reach Densons First Amendment claim, given the strength of her state law positions, it is important to put to rest the notion that the campaigns NDA is a purely private instrument, and that the First Amendment therefore does not apply. It is true that the campaign organization technically is a private and not a governmental entity. However, the NDAs terms extend well beyond the time of Trumps candidacy and pertains to all information and views about Trump the president as well as Trump the candidate and private citizen. It seeks to stifle any unapproved utterance, from thousands of individuals throughout the course of their lives, about the president of the United States. The First Amendment would mean little if its protections could be circumvented so easily.

Trump has made clear that he values free speech only for himself and his supporters. The Constitution and the laws of New York state are not, thankfully, so selective.

For more of Slates news coverage, subscribe to What Next on Apple Podcasts or listen below.

Readers like you make our work possible. Help us continue to provide the reporting, commentary, and criticism you wont find anywhere else.

See original here:

Trump's political NDAs are an abomination to the First Amendment. - Slate

Citizen rights, enshrined in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, were on full display Sunday afternoon on Main Street in Watsontown.

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 First Amendment states.

On Sunday, those words sanctioned and protected the rights of about 200 members of the Milton-based group, If Not Us, Then Who?, and those who joined them, to gather at the intersection of Main Street and Brimmer Avenue to protest racism, to call out the names of Black citizens who died at the hands of police and speak out for justice.

The constitutional phrases freedom of speech and right of the people peaceably to assemble also sanctioned and protected the rights of spectators to gather across the street, watch the event, express their views and exchange words with those participating in the rally.

We were disappointed at the vulgar, insulting and hurtful language that became part of some of the exchanges. The event did remain peaceful, but police came on the scene and blocked several streets. Its unfortunate that was considered necessary.

During the three-hour rally, some protesters made speeches, but all frequently broke into chants of Black lives matter, Say his name, George Floyd, I cant breathe and Silence is violence.

Across the street, some spectators argued that the Democratic party or communists were promoting the Black Lives Matter movement.

One spectator, who refused to give his name, argued that politicians are using the death of George Floyd and racial divisions to further their political objectives.

We need to have this conversation, said rally participant Matt Nolder, 35, of Milton. Thats what this is all about. From the street level to the White House, this is what it has to be about.

The sign-carrying protesters later marched through borough side streets. As they started off down Brimmer Avenue, one obviously angry spectator shouted obscenities and Keep walking! and White lives matter! at the marchers.

We observed local police officers from Watsontown, joined by a few state police troopers and officers from other nearby departments, quietly, calmly and effectively walking between the groups, ensuring that everyone had space and that the conversations would not escalate into anything else.

We also observed that several of the direct conversations among people from opposite sides of the street ended with an approving nod, firstbump or handshake. That speaks to the power of freedom of speech and the right of people to peacefully assemble.

NOTE: Opinions expressed in The Daily Items editorials are the consensus of the publisher, top newsroom executives and community members of the editorial board. Todays was written by Digital Editor Dave Hilliard.

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 more here:

First Amendment on the street | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item

George Floyds death at the hands of a white police officer in late May brought a rush of Black Lives Matter protests this month across the state and nation, leading to tense confrontations between law enforcement officers and protesters.

In both Reno and Las Vegas, law enforcement responded to protests with what some community members called excessive use of force, deploying tear gas and firing rubber bullets into crowds. Some protesters said they had not been given proper warnings, which law enforcement is required to give before deploying the nonlethal measures.

One Las Vegas protest resulted in the death of 25-year-old Jorge Gomez, whose death circumstances remain contested without body camera footage from four police officers who were present when he was shot.

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department officer Shay Mikalonis was shot at the same event by someone who was reportedly not there to protest, leaving the officer paralyzed from the neck down and unable to speak.

Seven legal observers who attended protests to monitor the police response were arrested earlier this month in Las Vegas, drawing concern and troubling community members.

Protesters can and should prepare for protests by understanding their First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble beforehand, lawyers say. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) provides an outline of protester rights, and professional groups including the Las Vegas Latino Bar Association organized a webinar with four panelists in early June to clarify the details and complexity of protester rights.

The right to assemble and protest

The right to protest is strongest in public areas, such as streets, sidewalks and parks, with the broader protections afforded by the Constitution, according to the ACLU.

Other public properties include plazas or in front of government buildings, if the protest or gathering does not interfere with the purpose the building was designed for. Photo and video, including capturing law enforcement officials, are also within the rights of protesters in these areas.

Gathering is also allowed on private property, with the permission and at the discretion of the owners, who are allowed to set guidelines and limitations on speech, photo and video.

Larger marches or parades need a permit in order to shut down the street and reserve the area for the free flow and movement of a larger crowd. Rallies that require the use of sound amplifying devices and rallies that exceed the maximum capacity at a certain plaza or park also require a permit.

Permits for protests in Reno can be filed through the City of Reno, unless they are taking place in a public park, then permits need to be filed through the Parks and Recreation Department.

Similarly, permits can be filed through the City of Las Vegas, where prices range from $50 to $300, depending on the size of the event.

Permits cannot be denied on the basis that an event is deemed controversial or for the expression of unpopular views and cannot be denied to someone based on their inability to pay the fee for an application. Law enforcement is also prohibited from using the permit application procedures as a means to prevent a protest in response to breaking news events.

If organizers do not have a permit, the protest must remain on the sidewalk where there is no obstruction of vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Law enforcement officials can ask protesters to move away from streets that are not blocked off, for safety reasons.

However, restriction on the route or direction of a march or sound equipment is a potential First Amendment violation if the rules are deemed to be unnecessary for traffic control or public safety or if they interfere with communication to the intended audience.

When counter-protesters are present, police must treat both sides of the protest equally and allow them to remain within sight and sound of each other.

Dispersal orders

Despite the First Amendment protections for the right to peaceably gather and assemble, officers have the right to issue dispersal orders in a variety of circumstances.

You could be violating curfew, could be disturbing something, you could be too rowdy, said Addie Rolnick, a professor at UNLVs Boyd School of Law.

She added that even if a protester has the right to stand their ground in the face of a dispersal order, I might not try to exercise it at that moment.

Lauren Beall, a public defender in Pima County, Arizona, clarified that refusing to disperse is also grounds for arrest on the grounds that the protester is disobeying orders.

And under the state of emergencies that our states are in, [officers] have even more power and even more discretion than they usually do, Beall added.

According to the ACLU, dispersal orders must be law enforcements last resort and should be in response only to immediate threats to public safety.

A recent Metro press release points to NRS 203, which identifies unlawful assembly as a gathering of two or more people to commit an unlawful act and is grounds for dispersal orders.

A uniformed police officer will announce the dispersal order in both English and Spanish at 10-minute intervals, states the press release. The dispersal order may be repeated up to three times depending on the severity of the illegal activity that is occurring.

Another press release clarifies that action may be taken upon the first warning.

Once illegal activity occurs at the protest, and a dispersal order is given, all persons in the immediate area must leave, continues the press release. Failure to leave after a dispersal order is a misdemeanor offense and could result in arrest or citation.

Adequate notice

ACLU of Nevada Legal Director Sherrie Royster clarified that dispersal orders or even the use of force need to be announced by officers in a way that allows the crowd to prepare for the deployment of nonlethal weapons such as tear gas or rubber bullets.

Theres so much police force out there, Royster said. It needs to be announced. It needs to be announced in a way where everyone can actually hear it, not while walking and screaming. It needs to be announced well in advance as well.

The ACLU elaborates on the point.

If officers issue a dispersal order, they must provide a reasonable opportunity to comply, states the website. Individuals must receive clear and detailed notice of a dispersal order, including how much time they have to disperse, the consequences of failing to disperse, and what clear exit route they can follow, before they may be arrested or charged with a crime.

Last week, the LVMPD issued a press release outlining revised areas of the departments response protocol, which included an updated dispersal order strategy.

If a protest becomes violent or illegal activity occurs and a dispersal order is given, officers will attempt to give the dispersal order from multiple directions to ensure it is easier for protesters to hear the order, the LVMPD said in the press release.

Additionally, if a dispersal order is given, officers will communicate a clear path for protesters to leave the area to avoid confusion and conflict.

If a protester is stopped or detained

Legal experts underscore the importance of safety to the point of facing arrest or being detained by an officer.

Stay calm, reads the ACLU website. Make sure to keep your hands visible. Dont argue, resist, or obstruct the police, even if you believe they are violating your rights. Point out that you are not disrupting anyone elses activity and that the First Amendment protects your actions.

Beall cautioned about the discretion officers have to issue a resisting arrest charge for slight movements, like pulling ones hands away from their grip.

We see people who just yank their hands away from police officers and receive a resisting arrest charge or even an aggravated assault on a cop charge, Beall said.

Although the First Amendment grants protesters facing arrest certain rights, Beall reminded listeners that those rights need to be spoken aloud.

If you're not sure if you're free to leave, you can always ask, Beall said. And it's very important to ask if you're being detained or if you're free to leave. That's one of the main phrases that we tell protesters and anyone asserting their rights to use with police.

Beall underscored the importance that protesters understand how to verbally and specifically express their rights while being detained.

The other one is I'm exercising my right to remain silent and the other one is I don't consent to a search and the other one is I want to speak to a lawyer, she said. And those are really, really important phrases for everyone to know and memorize. Its not enough to just say, I know my rights. You have to actually say them to invoke them.

Phone confiscation and search

Officers have the right to confiscate a protesters phone, but need a warrant to unlock the phone and look through the content inside. Therefore, a protester has the right to deny an officers request to unlock a phone.

However, lawyers cautioned against the loopholes officers can use as a result of modern technology.

Royster, Rolnick and Clark County public defender Belinda Harris all acknowledged that the use of a thumbprint or facial recognition technology to get into a smart phone would allow officers to get into a phone without a warrant because officers have access to the thumbprints and mugshots of protesters who are detained, so claims that they can use the information they already have holds up in litigation.

The panelists recommended protesters protect their phones with a number combination passcode instead.

Another strategy officers may use to get into a protesters phone is to offer the phone for a phone call once the protester is detained. To this point, panelists underscored the importance of having phone numbers memorized so they will not need to unlock their phones as an officer has it in possession, surpassing the need for a warrant.

Harris also cautioned against arguing with an officer over phone confiscation.

If an officer takes your phone, dont fight with the officer to get your phone back, she said. Because thats property and life is more important than property. They make a new iPhone every other week.

If your rights have been violated

If a protester feels his or her rights were violated by a law enforcement officer, the ACLU recommends taking down information such as the law enforcement officers badge number, patrol car number and the agency they are employed with. Additionally, protesters should obtain contact information for witnesses to corroborate their experience.

Once this information has been gathered, protesters may file a formal complaint with the law enforcement agencys internal affairs division or civilian complaint board.

The panelists also discussed the importance of witnesses and having photos or video as evidence and recommended using the buddy system while protesting.

Because when it comes down to holding up in court, it's not that it didn't happen, Royster said. It's not that it's not a good case, it is this a matter of the weight of everything and having more people that corroborate or back you up.

Social media activity

Royster said another way protesters can protect themselves is to be wary of their social media activity and what they explicitly express to know because that information will be held against them in court.

Social media is probably one of the first places that people look, especially when you're talking about the notice aspect or what you did or didn't know, or what you did or didn't comment, especially if it's on a page thats organizing a march, that is usually public, Royster said. Oh yes, that is evidence. And it will come in in court to counter anything you said.

Specifically, the legal experts noted that if a protester argues they were unaware of certain rules or proposals, such as the Las Vegas backpack ban, but are then found to have commented about those rules, their arguments will be invalidated by their social media evidence.

Additionally, Beall cautioned protesters against taking photos of other protesters and live streaming the protest to their social media channels, which can be used by law enforcement agencies to prosecute other protesters.

Be really careful if you're filming or taking pictures of anyone at a demonstration, Beall said. [Law enforcement agencies] have facial recognition technology. They have the kind of technology where they can put together a bunch of different pictures, a bunch of different streams that are on all these different feeds and then produce some kind of narrative that they can use to prosecute people.

She advised protesters to keep their phones and any photos or videos focused on the actions of law enforcement officers instead of other protesters. As long as a protester is not standing too close to an officer while taking a photo or video or interfering with an investigation, they are allowed to record the officers until the cows come home, according to Beall.

Be prepared to get hurt or go to jail

Despite the First Amendment protections afforded to protesters, panelists agreed that every protester should be prepared for the possibilities of getting injured or being detained and even going to jail.

In this case, Rolnick suggested protesters memorize the local phone number for a family member or friend they can call in case they are detained and tell the person theyre with at the protest about any medical conditions or allergies they have or to even write it on their arms in marker.

She also suggested protesters carry any medical supplies they may need, water, and a cell phone, and to always have identification available.

The panelists also acknowledged that disobeying orders and facing jail time could be the purpose of a demonstration for some protesters.

There are people at the front on purpose, Rolnick said. A part of protesting is often breaking the law on purpose in order to make a point. So, when you hear this stuff about how protesters have to follow the law and be careful, historically, a lot of these movements have been disobedient of certain laws.

Proper behavior

Harris and Rolnick spoke about the importance of preparing to attend a protest or rally by becoming educated on the issues at hand, identifying groups that are dedicated to offering solutions for those issues and learning the policies that have been proposed.

Sometimes you can undermine the movement as well, Harris said. If there's a protest going on and you jump out there and you do something and you don't understand the dynamic or what's happening, or what's going on with a particular legislation, you could actually undermine the movement and send everybody back without any results.

Rolnick acknowledged that distractions from the purpose of the movement had already been seen in the protests in Nevada in early June.

To the extent, for example, that white people go out to protest and spray paint Black Lives Matter or yell Black Lives Matter and then do something that's very disruptive, Rolnick said. If you are coming in from another city and you're not Black, that is definitely gonna hurt the Black people who live in that city.

Influencing lasting change

Panelists pointed to the fact that movements do not rely on protests alone and need a variety of long-term sustainable organized efforts and support to influence lasting change for those who might not feel comfortable or safe protesting.

Royster suggested reaching out to legislators, who can influence policy changes.

That's where a lot of the power is, Royster said. That's where things get changed. And if you're not making noise there and [the movement] dies off, then everything is cool until the next person gets killed or the next incident happens.

She encouraged listeners to continue raising awareness after protests begin to lose momentum.

So you got to keep it going. You got to go through advocacy groups, wherever you can, but it has to be loud enough where everyone knows it's not going away, Royster said.

This happened after body cameras, Rolnick added, referring to the death of George Floyd. This happened after civil rights investigations of multiple police departments. So pay attention to what's being asked for.

Read the original here:

The Indy Explains: Your First Amendment rights as a protester - The Nevada Independent

Ellis Cose, Opinion columnist Published 7:00 a.m. ET July 6, 2020 | Updated 12:15 p.m. ET July 6, 2020

In the wake of statues and monuments being desecrated and taken down, President Trump vows to protect Mount Rushmore from any changes. USA TODAY

Trumpsdishonest characterization and vilification of people whose crime is having inconvenient opinions gets close to the worst of the World War I era.

As he tells it, President Donald Trump is fighting to deliver us from left-wing radicals out to destroy our history. That fewif anysuch figures exist has not deterred him. Nor does it give him pause that destroying history whatever that may mean is not the same as protesting particular monuments. Most disturbing is not the illogic of the quest, but the presumption that anyone who disagrees with Trumps version of the past is an enemy of the state.

Such intolerance in the presidency is much more dangerous, and un-American, than the threat Trump supposedly fights to contain. Also, Trump seems oblivious to the fact that the First Amendment is not designed to protect the president from people who disagree with him but to protect protesters against the repression of the state.

His speech at Mount Rushmore this pastweekend, attacking those out to overthrow the American Revolution, reminds me of the rhetoric of World War I: rhetoric weaponized against tens of thousands of people guilty only of opposing the war and President Woodrow Wilson.

Trumps language, with its reference to government agents assigned to protect us against a sinister campaign of destruction and indoctrination, could have been lifted almost verbatim from the governments anti-dissident playbook of over 100 years ago.

In September 1917, the Justice Department indicted 166 members of the Industrial Workers of the World for interfering with the war effort. The U.S. District Attorney in Chicago, who handled the case, claimed union leaders were promoting the most vicious forms of sabotage, particularly in industries engaged in furnishing war munitions.The government also alleged that the IWW had blown up ammunition factories, tried to foment armed resistance, and torched forests and lumber mills.

None of the ugly allegations was ever proven to be true. Most were never really addressed at trial.

President Donald Trump arrives for Independence Day events at Mount Rushmore National Memorial in Keystone, South Dakota, on July 3, 2020.(Photo: SAUL LOEB, AFP via Getty Images)

Even so, the establishment press blindly supported the government.Asthe marathon trial moved toward a conclusion, theNew York Timespublished a wrap-up that read more like a prosecution brief than a news report. It praised the judge, Kenesaw Mountain Landis, as one of the most able judicial officers on the Federal Bench. (The Times assessment notwithstanding, in 1921 the Supreme Court tossed out a conviction of and 20-year sentence imposed on anti-war congressman Victor Berger because of bias Landis had exhibited at trial.)

TheTimesportrayed the IWW as a band of dangerous outlaws: American Bolshevikiunder the Soviet boot, and a revolutionary society which has openly declared that its purpose is unceasing warfare to exterminate the wage system and seize the industries of the nation.

Juneteenth irony: Trump's Tulsa rally evokes a tragic 1921 example of the systemic racism he won't confront

In such an agitated atmosphere, impartiality was impossible. The entire IWW group (or what remained of it after various individuals had disappeared or had their cases dismissed) was convicted. Union leader Bill Haywood and his 14 top lieutenants were sentenced to 20 years. Haywood escaped imprisonment by fleeing the country, but numerous IWW members served hard time in federal confinement before President Warren Harding commuted their sentences in 1923.

By then the Red Scarewas over, along with the practice of arresting thousands of people just for speaking out. Also, Americans were beginning to understand thanks in part to the efforts of the recently foundedAmerican Civil Liberties Union that the point of the First Amendment was to protect them against such abuse.

Few people are prepared to defend the notion of a mob tearing down any statue it happens to dislike. But Trumps campaign goes much further than that. Protesters are not demanding absolute allegiance to anything. Nor are they attempting to destroy the very civilization that rescued billions from poverty, disease, violence, and hunger, and that lifted humanity to new heights of achievement, discovery, and progress.

Trumpsdishonest characterization and vilification of people whose only crime is having inconvenient opinions takes us uncomfortably close to the rhetoric that justified the worst excesses of the World War I era.

Outrage is warranted:Confederate statues are billboards for racism. Let's take themdown the right way.

After weeks of defending monuments of Confederate war heroes, Trump has decided America needs a so-called statuary park honoring American heroes. Too timid, apparently, to commission new statues of Confederate officers, he proposes featuring such luminaries as Billy Graham, Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and the Wright brothers.

Never mind that no one is threatening to pull down statues of Abraham Lincoln and the Wright brothers. Never mind that a few more statues of such people would add nothing to anyones understanding of American history.

In truth, Trump is not out to defend history but to obscure it and to crush those who would bring it to light while replacing reality with his fairy tale version in which he somehow ends up the hero.

Ellis Cose, a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors, is the author of "Democracy, If We Can Keep It: The ACLUs 100-Year Fight for Rights in America," which is publishingTuesdayand from which parts of this column are adapted. His next book,"The Short Life and Curious Death of Free Speech in America," will be released Sept. 15. Follow him on Twitter:@EllisCose

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/07/06/trump-attacks-free-speech-right-to-disagree-rushmore-column/5380437002/

Read more from the original source:

Trump attacks core US values at Rushmore. Disagree with him, you're an enemy of the state. - USA TODAY

NORRISTOWN, Pa. (KYW Newsradio) A federal lawsuit accuses Montgomery County Commissioner Joe Gale of violating the First Amendment by blocking people from his social media accounts and deleting their comments.

The lawsuit says Gale has the right to express his own views, and theyre not trying to change that. But about a year after he was sworn into office, the suit says Gale violated the First Amendment rights of eight people when he blocked at least seven of them and deleted their comments on his Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts. The eighth resident argues others being blocked prevents the ability to see the full range of dialogue in the community.

Related: Republican Montco commissioner censured for calling Black Lives Matter 'hate group'

It also says he allows posts that express support, agreement or admiration for viewpoints.

The suit calls that a blatant effort to chill speech and suppress opposition or dissent to his views, while blocking what should be open dialogue from the residents he represents.

The suit says Gales social media accounts each show him standing at a podium with the county seal. Although his Facebook and Instagram accounts are named Vote Joe Gale, the suit says the account has content related to Gales role as a commissioner.

The law of the United States is clear: Specifically, when an elected official opens up a social page, it is a very public thing, said Phil Press, one of the lawyers who worked on the suit. Viewpoint discrimination is when a certain host or certain government official does not like dissent and does not like criticism and will just cherry-pick that persons comments out from what is a public square.

Since the suit was filed, Gale has changed the bios of his social media accounts to note they are not official government pages. However, Press argues Gale uses the pages to push out information about what hes doing in office.

That would be no different than if I changed my Twitter page to say Im starting quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles. Its complete window-dressing, he said.

Gale responded in a statement: Political opportunist Joe Walsh is a former Republican turned Democrat who is jealous of my success and desperate to appease Democrat Party bosses and their militant army of far-left trolls. Agitators, anarchists and agent provocateurs will not be allowed to spew their lies and hate on my personal and campaign social-media platforms. I have already had to contact the police because of violent threats to my personal safety.

Press said Gale is not required to read the social media comments, but, he said, courts have ruled that a politician cant selectively delete comments.

In New York, the federal courts ruled that President Trump could not block individuals with whom he disagreed, he added.

Gale calls the suit a totally frivolous political stunt.

Link:

Montco commissioner accused of violating the First Amendment by blocking opposing users on social media - KYW Newsradio 1060

The intent of the 1stAmendment is to ensure that the government does not interfere with free speech, expression, assembly, religion, or seeking redress.

There is a lot of yapping and grumbling going on right now about The 1st Amendment, our most important right.

A lot of that anger is being directed at social media giants Facebook and Twitter.

Facebook is being accused by the left and right of employing a bias. Break the rules and you go to Facebook jail, meaning you cant share posts or have your posts shared or, in some instances, do anything other than view posts by others.

I was in Facebook jail once for two weeks.

It was about eight years ago and the algorithm got twisted up a bit, resulting in a lot of people being bounced for no good reason. After two weeks of arguing back and forth, the Facebook minion who I was dealing with finally came clean and told me it was all a mistake, that somehow the parameters of Facebook law had gone awry, the algorithm got screwed up, and I could go back to normal.

Theres a lot, now, however, being bandied about.

Some conservative friends are complaining that they have had posts taken down for violating community standards.

But, I also have some liberal friends grousing about the same thing.

Of course, the posts were long-removed and I never got the chance to see what they actually posted so whether they violated community standards or not is impossible for me to determine. I have a feeling, however, that there was probably a grain of truth to the claim that some of these folks stepped one toke over the line. In fact, I pretty much can rest assured that is exactly what happened, regardless of their ideology.

Twitter has been drawing heat for placing a warning on tweets from the presidents account. The social media outlet hasnt outright banned the president, even though he has clearly violated the rules of Twitterdom, crossing to outright violations of decency, with some of his dangerous and inflammatory language. Twitter claims that as a serious public figure, there is certain newsworthiness in whatever he spews. As much as I hate to agree, the public has a right to know just how ignorant, hateful, and spiteful the president is and to hear it from his own fingertips.

But, despite all of that, Facebook, Twitter, and all of the other social media outlets have every right to issue any kind of warning they so choose, can take down any post or tweet they wish, can block any account they deem unfit and it is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

The intent of the 1stAmendment is to ensure that the government does not interfere with free speech, expression, assembly, religion, or seeking redress. As far as what you say or do on somebody elses property is a different matter, and Facebook is Mark Zuckerbergs property. Im surprised at the number of folks out there who must have been absent the day that lesson was taught in their high school civics class.

Zuckerberg is, in essence, the publisher of Facebook. It is his publication, his medium, and he can allow or deny any content he wishes. The same goes for The Washington Post, Fox News, The Huffington Post, The National Enquirer, or, for that matter, the Southern Utah Independent. Those of us who pursued a career in the media are at the mercy of our publishers, in my case, Josh Warburton. Josh can manipulate, reject, or play up any damned thing he wishes on these pages because as a publisher, he has that right to do so without governmental interference. However, that doesnt mean I can go to Josh and argue that he is infringing on my 1st Amendment rights if he rejects a piece I write. The Independent is his baby and he can include or exclude anything he wishes. He is under no obligation, legally, to publish anything and everything that passes across his desk. Luckily, Josh is a fair-minded guy who is fearless in publishing as many cogent views as possible without prejudice. I am quite sure, however, that if I suddenly started writing about how Spongebob Squarepants is the leader of a radical undersea cult worshipping Squidward that is intent on overthrowing the United States government he might, at the very least, ask what Ive been smoking and spike the column. It is his right to apply any rules of censorship he believes are relevant to his publication. If I dont like it, I can pack up my words and go elsewhere. But, I cannot file a lawsuit against him claiming he has infringed my 1st Amendment rights. I can only do so if the giant squid in the White House, or the minions of Congress, decide to place a prohibition on publication of any pieces I might write about Squidward-gate.

Same for the right to assembly.

As long as I am on the sidewalk or public way, I can carry a picket sign or demonstrate against anything I wish. However, if I cross over onto private property I can end up in the back seat of a patrol car and headed for the county lockup because the property owner is not required to permit access to their home or business or private holding.

Zuckerberg is feeling a crunch right now. He is being criticized for following Twitter in issuing warnings, at the very least, for the violations of community standards that take place on an almost daily basis by the president.

Some of Facebooks strongest support will be withheld next month when advertisers from Ben & Jerrys to Coca Cola withhold advertising in protest of Facebooks lack of action on these violations.

I dont like boycotts. They are about as effective, for the most part, as one of those petitions that used to circulate when we were in high school and ticked off about some inconsequential action by the principal.

Besides, boycotts almost never work. Yes, there was an 8 percent drop in Facebooks stock price as a result of the announced boycotts, but in the end, Ben & Jerrys, Coca Cola, and all of the others will flock back to advertising on Facebook after a month off because advertising on Facebook produces measurable results. Facebook stock will bounce back, with some new, smart money that jumped on the price drop and bought low. When the advertisers realize that their boycott had more of an adverse effect on their bottom line than Facebooks, theyll be back, fighting for market share again.

It will have nothing to do with such lofty ideals as the 1st Amendment, truth, justice, or fairness. That all takes a back seat in the minds of these guys who are much more interested in profit margins and satisfying investors.

Its the stuff we learned in our high school economics classes.

But, I guess the same folks who walk around ignorant of the parameters of the 1st Amendment also chose to ditch class the day this lesson was taught in their econ class.

If they cant get the first one right its no wonder they have so much trouble understanding the 2nd Amendment.

Read the original post:

You're Wrong About the 1st Amendment - The Independent | News Events Opinion More - The Independent | SUindependent.com