By Dr. John E. Warren, Publisher, The San Diego Voice & Viewpoint

From time to time, it becomes necessary to remind some of us of what the freedom of speech provision of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution actually says while addressing the issue of hate speech and the idea of religious freedom.

The First Amendment to the Constitution actually says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, 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.

Shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. This means that there shall be no state religion in this country. Hence, all the religions of the world are found in the United States of America. It also means that you are freed to have no religion. It does not mean you have a right to prohibit the faith or practices of another persons religion. The phrase or prohibiting the free exercise thereof means Muslim, Hindu, or any other religion has a right to be practiced in this country without inference from those of a different faith.

Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech. This means Congress can not make laws limiting or stopping ones freedom of speech. It does not mean that this freedom is without limits. It has long been held that the freedom of speech clause does not carry with it the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre where such a shout could cause death or harm. We may have the right to say what we want to or about another person, but that right carries with it consequences, including libel, defamation, and damages for pain and suffering based on the harm caused either physically or emotionally. Hate speech falls within this category because such speech can cause pain, suffering, and, in some cases, even death.

So while Congress can make no laws abridging or limiting ones speech, it has been established that the freedom of speech is not without limits, which includes harm to others. Clearly, there are limits on the freedom of the press.

This means that freedom of speech does not include the right to use offensive language clearly aimed at ones ethnicity or gender and is, therefore, deemed hate speech.

So it was hate speech when members of the public speaking, before the County Board of Supervisors, called the African American Public Health Officer a name associated with a racial stereotype. It was not an act of hate speech when a member of the Countys Human Relations Commission abstained from a vote that he disagreed with on the basis of his religious belief as a Pastor. When pressed for a reason for his abstention, he said that it was based upon scripture, which, he quoted, called the conduct in question an abomination. This was not hate speech but an exercise of his right to a religious belief covered by the First Amendment.

All of us have a duty to understand these First Amendment freedoms and how to apply them without harm and offense, which was the intent from the very beginning language by our Founders. Hopefully, this will help some of us at a very important time with our fragile democracy.

More here:

The First Amendment, Hate Speech, and Religion - San Diego Voice and Viewpoint

A person walks up the ice covered step of the Kentucky State Capitol on Friday, Jan. 29, 2021, in Frankfort, Kentucky. Photo by Michael Clubb | Staff.

The University of Kentucky College of Communication and Information hosted the annual State of the First Amendment Address on Wednesday, Nov. 17, featuring an address reinforcing journalists rights to report without restrictions from the government.

The address focused on the Kentucky Kernels win in May 2021 against the University of Kentucky in the Kentucky Supreme Court. After UK failed to comply with an open records request from the Kernel regarding a sexual assault accusation against a professor, a legal battle ensued.

After a four-year legal battle, the Kernel won the case. The court said that the university failed to comply with its obligation under the Kentucky Open Records Act (ORA).

Elizabeth Woodward and Tom Miller, the attorneys who defended the Kernel, gave the address.

They spoke on the case itself and the rights of journalists, touching on the difference between a journalists rights under the First Amendment and their rights to open records. Woodward explained that cases such as the one between the Kernel and the University of Kentucky can result in changes of the ORA. For instance, in summer 2021, the number of days public agencies have to handle requests increased from three to five days, and the law changed to grant only Kentucky residents the ability to request open records.

The Supreme Court held that the university had treated the investigative file as if it were one giant record unable to be separated, Woodward said on the case.

The attorneys also said that access to information from public agents is in the public interest, making open records cases important to the future of journalism.

The most rewarding type of work we do is working with journalists, who are the defenders of democracy, Miller said.

He went on to explain other cases that he had worked on involving other journalism institutions like the Louisville Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The event also recognized two of the most recent recipients of the James Madison award, an honor given to individuals who championed the publics right to access information at the national level.

The recipients, Benny Ivory and Stan MacDonald, spoke on their experiences as journalists and their time defending the First Amendment.

The First Amendment was under attack during the good old days, and it is today, MacDonald said. The First Amendment is sacred, and it should be protected with everything we have, because without it democracy dies.

The Kernel was the recipient of the James Madison award last year in recognition of its fight for rights under the First Amendment and the ORA.

Students, faculty and staff were given a chance to ask the attorneys questions about journalists rights and the case at the end of the celebration, including what steps citizens can take to prevent further weakening of the ORA. Miller said that the most important thing people can do is vote.

Remind [elected officials] how much you care about government transparency, he said.

Read this article:

UK College of Communication and Information hosts 2021 State of the First Amendment Address - Kykernel.com

Bayonne High Schools Turning Point USA club is now old enough to have students who participated as freshmen away at college.

Yet in its fifth year, the club affiliated with a prominent and controversial national conservative youth organizations is sparking debate in the Bayonne school community about the national group one teacher called it a flea-ridden dog and whether a chapter belongs in the high school.

Students who identify themselves as minorities told the Board of Education at its October meeting they feel less safe at school knowing that they have peers who affiliate themselves with Turning Point USA, whose past controversies involve spreading disinformation and hateful rhetoric against Blacks, Jews, Muslims and the LGBT+ community.

Two teachers called for a rebranding of the club at the September board meeting, arguing that while a debate or young Republicans club would be appropriate, a club affiliated with the flea ridden dog Turning Point USA risks hurting the high school community because of the national organizations reputation.

Club members, meanwhile, say the chapter welcomes students of all beliefs and backgrounds and is simply a place to converse and debate about political topics. Its the First Amendment that is keeping district officials as little more than spectators to the discussion.

Administrators monitor what goes on in the club, like all clubs, but at this time do not see grounds to change it because the students are exercising their freedom of speech and have not broken school rules, Board of Education President Maria Valado said in an interview.

Censoring or curtailing speech is very complicated, so our attorneys have advised us that the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that students do not shed their constitutional rights and right to freedom of speech when they come into the school building, Valado said.

Bill Montgomery and a then-teenage Charlie Kirk founded the national Turning Point USA organization in 2012. It now claims to be the most organized, active and powerful network of conservative student activists and names its core values as freedom, free markets and limited government.

It has also had its fair share of controversy. National and chapter leaders have been documented using racist and other bigoted language. Some have been found to have ties to white nationalist groups and the organization itself has crossed paths with groups such as the anti-Muslim group ACT for America. A watchlist of professors and a paid pro-Trump disinformation campaign have been alleged.

Bayonne alum Petra Ghaly founded the high schools chapter during the 2017-18 school year. Club meetings are a space where students discuss or debate political topics freely and without judgment, said current President Mark Basta and Vice President Jessica Longobardi.

Recent meetings have included discussions about COVID-19, inflation and capitalism versus socialism, Longobardi said. She called it a non-partisan club where most participants are more likely to lean conservative.

Ghaly, who graduated in the spring, said she jumped through hoops to start the club and keep it running, first being told that she couldnt start the club because of its political nature, and then in its second year having to reapply for it to continue operating.

A teacher called Longobardi a domestic terrorist and Ghaly a white supremacist because of their involvement in the club; and Ghaly claims she was subjected to online harassment that included death threats from other students when she was elected student representative of the Board of Education.

She, Basta and Longobardi have attended Turning Point USA conferences, and Basta said hes shut down conversations about the club disaffiliating from the national organization.

If we really pick on an organization as being racist just because someone said something that implied racism, wed be filtering out every political organization, Basta said.

Members of other clubs, meanwhile, said that Turning Points presence at the school makes them feel unsafe.

I believe that this is one of those times that students are allowed to be upset and should speak out, senior Zaria Keith, president of the Young Black Excellence club, told the Board of Education. This is immensely uncomfortable and is causing students of color to feel as though their fellow classmates could feel a sense of superiority over them just because of their skin.

Its the values of Turning Point USA as an organization that makes students like Mell Scott feel unsafe, the senior who also spoke before the board said. Scott, the president of the LGBTQ+ and allies club and a member of the Young Black Excellence club, who also identifies as transgender and queer, said the values and morals in this organization are a direct attack against people like me.

Basta and Valado said the students from Turning Point and the other clubs met after the board meeting to discuss the issues and they invited each other to meetings to get a better understanding of what theyre like. Scott said he and Keith went to the clubs next meeting before learning it had been cancelled.

Valado said students can continue expressing their views to the board, which will intervene if there are incidents that occur at Bayonne High School.

In an interview, Scott said he recognizes that the clubs existence is a freedom of speech issue and doesnt expect for the club to get disbanded. Students, however, deserve some reassurance from members of Turning Point USA that the club does not pose a threat to clubs that serve as safe spaces for marginalized students, Scott said.

I kind of dont understand the demographic that theyre looking for, Scott said. I want them to at least address to everyone say Hey we know what type of things Turning Point is known for, and I would like for them to just kind of address or highlight that just to at least keep other kids who are Black or gay or trans at ease knowing that at least thats a place that theyre not going to be targeted.

Read more from the original source:

Bayonne High conservative club has critics on one side, First Amendment defenders on the other - nj.com

Most courts presented with right of access claims consider both the common law and the First Amendment. The common law right of access "extends to all judicial documents and records" while the First Amendment "secures a right of access 'only to particular judicial records and documents." In their discussion of the common law right of access, those courts describe what constitutes a judicial record to which the common law right of access applies. "[N]ot all documents filed with courts are judicial records. whether something is a judicial record depends on the role it plays in the adjudicatory process."

The audio recordings of court proceedings are not "judicial records" to which the common law right of access attaches. The audio recordings of court proceedings are not documents or other materials that played any role in the adjudicative process. The audio recordings are not motions or briefs filed by the parties nor are they court opinions or orders. The audio recordings are not exhibits or other information relied upon by the parties to advance their claims and defenses.

Some courts have applied the "experience and logic" test from [the Supreme Court access-to-criminal-hearings precedents] to requests for access to judicial or court records. The Court is unaware of any tradition of public access to the court stenographer's or court reporter's notes regardless of the type of court proceeding. And, audio recording devices had not yet been invented when this country adopted the First Amendment.

For the second prong, public access to an audio recording of a court proceeding does not play a significant positive role in the actual functioning of the court proceeding. Public access to the proceeding itself plays a significant positive role. Access to audio recordings of the proceeding would be largely redundant.

Nor can Plaintiffs prevail using the Second Circuit's approach[, which considers whether the documents are derived from or are a necessary corollary of the capacity to attend the proceedings, applying the principle that "[o]nly those documents necessary to understand the merits of a civil . . . proceeding are covered by the First Amendment's presumptive right of access"]. Even if the state court set forth the merits determination from the bench and did not reduce the resolution of the issues to paper, Plaintiffs have a transcript of the proceeding.

The audio recordings are not records to which the First Amendment provides a right of access. Plaintiffs' concerns about transcript errors are addressed by the credentials and other professional requirements of court reporters who prepare the transcripts from recordings. To the extent that Plaintiffs maintain an error occurred in the preparation of their transcripts, they can have another transcript prepared by a different court reporter.

Finally, a number of courts have considered media requests for access to and copies of recordings played at a criminal proceedings. Overwhelmingly, the courts have rejected the requests and have frequently found that the First Amendment right of access does not extend to requests for copies of recordings played at the proceedings. The reasoning used in these opinions consistently reflect the conclusion that the moving parties have not been denied access. Attendance as access effectively undermines the risks and dangers associated with secret proceedings.

In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) the Court considered the scope and circumstances of "a common law right of access to judicial records[.]" The respondent, the media, sought copies of the Nixon tapes that were admitted into evidence at the trial of President Nixon's former advisors. Approximately 22 hours of recorded conversations were played at the trial and the reels of tape were admitted into evidence. "The District Court furnished the jurors, reporters, and members of the public in attendance with earphones and with transcripts prepared by the Special Prosecutor." Several media companies later filed a motion with the district judge seeking permission to copy, broadcast and sell the recordings played at the trial. The court denied immediate release of the tapes. The Court explained that the Presidential Recording Act created an administrative procedure for processing and releasing presidential materials of historic interest, which would include the recordings. For this portion of the opinion, the Court emphasized that it addressed only the application of the common law right to access judicial records. Turning to the First Amendment, the Court found that the situation did not implicate any constitutional right to access. The press was not prevented from publishing the testimony and those in attendance were allowed to listen to the tapes and report what they heard. Reporters were also provided transcripts of the tapes. Neither the media nor the public ever had physical access to the recordings.

In United States v. Beckham, 789 F.2d 401 (6th Cir. 1986) the media sought permission to make copies of audio recordings that were admitted as evidence and played in the criminal trial, as well as transcripts of the recordings. The district court denied the request and the media appealed. The Sixth Circuit found that the district court's denial did not violate the media's constitutional right of access. The court distinguished the opportunity to hear the audio recordings at trial from access to the recordings themselves. See Putnam Pit, Inc. v. City of Cookeville, Tennessee, 221 F.3d 834, 841 (6th Cir. 2000) (involving a tabloid and internet journalist who had access to hard copies of parking tickets and wanted the same information in electronic form and finding that "Davidian has no First Amendment right to government information in a particular form, as long as the information sought was made available as required by the First Amendment."). The court concluded, because the public and the media had the opportunity to attend the trial and could report what they observed, including what they heard when the tapes were played, "if a right to copy the tapes and transcripts in this case exists, it must come from a source other than the constitution."

At least four other circuit courts have declined to find the First Amendment right of access attaches to audio and video recordings played at a criminal trial. In re Providence Journal Co., Inc., 293 F.3d 1, (1st Cir. 2002) (involving a political corruption criminal case where excerpts of video and audio recordings were played at the trial, denying a newspaper's request for copies of the recordings, applying Nixon, and explaining that the "district court has not restricted media access to, or the publication of, any information in the public domain. Indeed, the district court has gone to great lengths to facilitate access to the trial proceedings . . . By affording interested members of the media ample opportunity to see and hear the tapes as they are played for the jury, the court has fulfilled its pertinent First Amendment obligations."); Fisher v. King, 232 F.3d 391, 396-97 (4th Cir. 2000) ("The precise question presented by Fisher's as-applied challenge, however, is whether the First Amendment provides him, as a member of the general public, a right to physical access to an audio tape that was played in open court in a criminal trial, admitted into evidence, and for which he possesses a complete verbatim transcript. Under the Supreme Court's decision in Nixon . . . , the answer to this question is no."); United States v. McDougal, 103 F.3d 651, 659 (8th Cir. 1996) (relying on Nixon, denying media organizations' physical access to and copies of a video recording of President Clinton used at the trial in the underlying criminal case and holding that "the First Amendment right of access to public information does not extend to the videotape of President Clinton's deposition testimony" where an edited version of the video was played at the trial which was open to the public, the transcript was admitted into evidence and made part of the record, and copies of the transcript were released to the public); Belo Broad. Corp. v. Clark, 654 F.2d 423, 426 (5th Cir. 1981) (involving audio recordings of discussions between criminal defendants and FBI operatives that were admitted into evidence at trial, applying Nixon, and holding the no First Amendment right of access to the tapes existed for the media).

The Court finds the reasoning in these opinions persuasive. Certainly, a difference arises between recordings presented as evidence at a trial and recordings of the proceedings themselves. For Plaintiffs' First Amendment right of access claim, however, that difference lacks significance. Plaintiffs were present for and participated in the proceedings. And, Plaintiffs were able to obtain a transcript of the proceedings. Those two facts satisfy the First Amendment's right of access. As the Sixth Circuit reasoned in Putman Pit, the right guarantees access to information, it does not guarantee the information be provided in a particular form. In the Court's view, the parties had access to the information contained in the recordings. The parties continue to have access to the information though the employment of a certified court reporter who could prepare a new transcript.

The Court concludes that Defendants did not deny Plaintiffs' First Amendment right of access [which sometimes provides protection beyond the common-law right]. While the Michigan Rules of Court might consider the audio recordings to be court records, the First Amendment does not consider those same recordings to be judicial records to which the public or press must have some access. And, even if the recordings are so protected, Plaintiffs were not denied access because they were present during the proceedings, have a transcript of the proceedings, and likely could pay for the preparation of another transcript of the proceedings.

The Court reaches no conclusion about whether the Local Administrative Order is a good idea. That concern is not before the Court. The privacy concerns that attend some family court and probate court proceedings likely would not apply herethe request for access was made by the parties themselves.

Frankly, the Court has difficulty finding a justification for denying the parties a copy of the audio recording. Although the First Amendment might not require the courts to permit access to audio recordings of proceedings, the amendment does not prohibit courts from making copies available. Even our United States Supreme Court, which has historically resisted cameras in the courtroom, makes audio recordings of its proceedings available through its website. The Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court both have YouTube channels and both archive audio recordings of proceedings, which are available on through their websites. In the wake of COVID-19 and the attendant health concerns, many local courts followed suit and established their own YouTube channels, including both Antrim and Bay counties (the links can be found at the Michigan Virtual Courtroom Director on the Michigan Supreme Court's webpage).

Excerpt from:

No First Amendment Right of Access to Court Recordings When Transcripts Are Available - Reason

A bill aimed at curtailing violent protesters is poisedfor a return engagementat the Gold Dome early next year when lawmakers convene for their 2022 legislative session.

In a committee hearing Tuesday, Democrats and civil rights groups said the measure could chill free speech.

Thebills author, Republican Sen. Randy Robertson of Cataula, said the measure will protect the right to peaceful protest and punish only those who break the law by engaging in violence, destroying property or blocking roads.

When this legislation was first brought forward last year, and as the author of this legislation, I take full responsibility for that, there was some miscommunication as to what the intent of the legislation was, Robertson said. And what the intent of this legislation is is fairly simple. It is to protect peaceful and lawful assembly. What it is to push back against is unlawful assembly, violent assembly and situations where citizens who may want to come out and exercise their rights are not intimidated or pushed back or infiltrated by individuals who are there to disrupt their right to peacefully assemble.

Under the proposed law, protesters who break the law would face increased penalties. Participating in a protest with seven or more people and committing violence against a person or property or blocking a highway during a protest could both land Georgians with a felony charge and a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000 or up to five years imprisonment. Defiling a publicly owned monument, cemetery or structure comes with even steeper punishments a fine of up to $15,000 or up to 15 years behind bars.

It would also require cities and counties to establish a process for granting permits for all protests on public property, regardless of size, and governments that fail to provide reasonable law enforcement protections for protests that become violent could be made to pay damages for injuries or property damage.

Robertson gave the example of last summers violent racial justice protests and the Jan. 6 U.S.Capitol riotas the type of events the bill is intended to target. The Georgia Capitol has added increased security measures including a perimeter fence after protests over police brutalityrocked Atlantalast year.

The bill also offers a legal shield for those who cause injury or death while fleeing such a protest if they do so under the reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to prevent or terminate an attack upon the accuseds property or person.

Sen. Elena Parent, an Atlanta Democrat, questioned whether that last part would allow motorists to simply run protesters over.

It seems like its like a license or escape hatch for individuals who would kind of run people over with their cars, she said. It just seems to really kind of almost, if not encourage, give license to that type of behavior.

Robertson said his intent was to provide that defense only in desperate situations.

I would attribute it to almost the castle doctrine, where an individual is securely in their vehicle and theres a threat by someone, to impede their free movement to the point where that individual felt unduly threatened and prevented from leaving, someone may be trapped in their vehicle in these situations.

Robertson gave the example of Los Angeles truck driver Reginald Denny, who was pulled from his truck and severely beaten by four men in the riots that followed the acquittals in the Rodney King trial in 1992.

Vasu Abhiraman, deputy political director and senior policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the law already protects people who cause injury in self-defense and outlined several other problems the ACLU has with the legislation.

Among them, Abhiraman said the bill would provide local officials an incentive to crack down on peaceful protests rather than risk them getting out of hand and risk liability.

The incentives go further than, for example, avoiding gross negligence, he said. They go towards avoiding any lawsuit established for that cause of action, and as municipalities have certain budgets for defending themselves against a suit like this, as they establish their standard operating procedure, were very concerned that that standard operating procedure will be anti-First Amendment, anti-peaceful assembly.

As the Senators discussed the measure, deliberations were underway in thetrial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three men, killing two of them, during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse argued he fired in self defense.

If this bill becomes law, more people could be inspired to take justice into their own hands, potentially escalating dangerous situations, Abhiraman said.

Unfortunately, theres a case going on now involving somebody who thought they were volunteering to protect businesses, and it ended really, really poorly, and we can all see that, he said. Do we want to invite more actions like that into our communities in Georgia, the cradle of the Civil Rights Movement?

Robertsons bill did not receive a vote and will not advance during the current special session, but the Legislature is likely to revive it when they return in January.

Visit link:

Lawmaker to revive protester bill critics say could infringe on 1st Amendment rights - Now Habersham

A Nashville-based civic engagement group will host a panel discussion on Thursday to probe the line between First Amendment rights and tensions arising from disinformation, called Protected Speech and Fear in America.

As part of its Conversationalist Series, Millions of Conversations will share information from global conflict mediation expert Andrew Ladley and Deborah Fisher, director of the John Seigenthaler Chair of Excellence in First Amendment Studies at Middle Tennessee State University. Fisher is also executive director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government.

Samar Ali, president of Millions of Conversations, will moderate the event.

From main street to the halls of Washington D.C. our country is grappling with an unprecedented flow of information on social media and online that includes disinformation and language designed to incite fear and suspicion of our neighbors, Ali said. How we reconcile our First Amendment rights with these powerful communication tools is one of the greatest challenges of our generation.

Registration is required for the virtual event, which is scheduled for noon.

Millions of Conversations is a nonprofit organization that seeks to unite Americans around common values for a shared future through productive dialogue. The organization seeks to change existing narratives that marginalize and politicize the other. Starting with the predominating narrative about Muslim-Americans, its focus is on eliminating stigma in all its forms. By transcending divides, Millions of Conversations disrupts cycles of hate, combats misinformation, and challenges harmful stereotypes. The organization engages energetic voices at the grassroots level to reach people across America.

More:

Group hosts discussion on the First Amendment and disinformation Tennessee Lookout - Tennessee Lookout