The answer to that question is as old as the country itself, and it continues to evolve as Americans debate the right balance of individual freedom and public safety.

After every mass shooting and subsequent examination of gun violence statistics, a predictable argument is sure to follow as gun-rights advocates and gun-control advocates square off over what should be done next. Each side speaks with passion and fire about rights and law and the Constitution, the meaning of the right to bear arms and a well-regulated militia, and what these terms mean in the context of our Second Amendment rights.

But does anyone really know what those rights are? Even the experts cant say for certain because the Constitution is constantly being reviewed and reinterpreted. Some commonly held myths about the Constitution also cloud what we think we know about our rights, and that goes for our First Amendment rights as well as our Second. So, what is the Second Amendment, exactly, and what does it encompass?

A lot of people forget that the Supreme Court didnt recognize an individual right to own guns until 2008, says Adam Winkler, professor of Constitutional Law at UCLA and author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. That was when the Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller. The 54 ruling found that the Second Amendment protects the individuals right to bear arms for self-defense, and overturned a Washington, D.C., law that prohibited people from keeping handguns in their homes.

Nowhere else in the Constitutiondoes the people refer to anything other than an individual right, the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. And thus the right to bear arms came to include the right of the individual to own a gun for protectionsomething that had never been articulated by the Supreme Court before.

RELATED: What Would It Take to Amend the Constitution?

The Constitution is a remarkably brief founding documentjust 7,591 words stretched over seven articles defining the authority invested in the government and 27 amendments generally laying out the rights retained by the people. Its brevity is both the beauty and the burden of the Constitution since it allows for interpretation in response to changing circumstances but also lacks specificity to easily settle disputes. When it comes to Second Amendment rights, the tension between these two traits is particularly sharp.

Heres what Second Amendment actually says: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That short sentence has sparked endless discussion and disagreement.

The gun debate has been going in circles for decades, and it certainly doesnt bring us together as a society, Winkler says, noting that absolutists on both extremes often drown out more moderate discussion. Nonetheless, he says its important to let every side be heard when deciding which policy to pursue: Thats what makes us a democracy.

RELATED: Interesting Facts and Figures About the Constitution

Another key part of democracy is its ability to adapt to new g44conditions and societal norms. As attitudes that were once thought of as perfectly natural become abhorrent in more enlightened times, the law can change to reflect that. The subject of race relations is a perfect example.

In the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court ruled that state-mandated racial segregation did not offend the Constitution. But in 1954, when civil rights advocates argued in Brown v. Board of Education that separate but equal was a fiction that legalized unconstitutional discrimination, a unanimous Supreme Court agreed. Government-sanctioned segregation was outlawed, in the North and the South, less than 60 years after Plessy.

That same changing dynamic could exist in the context of the Second Amendment. Will the next mass shooting change the hearts and minds of so many Americans that the right to own guns has to change to accommodate this new reality? Its possible. After all, its sometimes said amongst Constitutional scholars that all it takes to change the Constitution is the ability to count to five. In other words, can you get five Supreme Court justices to agree with what you think the Constitution means? Ultimately, the right to bear arms means what a majority of the Court says it means, and that can shift relatively quickly.

But the Courts respect for precedent and history is meant to prevent our fundamental rights from getting blown away too easily by political winds. Justices often look to the Founders struggle in crafting the Constitution for guidance.

RELATED: Why I No Longer Think Guns Are a God-Given Right

The gun control debate frequently focuses on what the Founders intended when they wrote the Second Amendment into the Bill of Rights, as the first 10 amendments are called. Was it so the people could take up arms to fight their own government gone tyrannical, or was the establishment of a well-regulated militia a way to discourage foreign threats? As Winkler and co-author Nelson Lund, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote for the non-partisan National Constitution Center, its a little of both.

While the Constitution and the amendments that would become the Bill of Rights were being debated in the earliest days of the republic, two factions emerged with very different views of what the new nation should look like. What would the relationship between the individual states and the federal government be? Should one be superior to the other? Who should have the firepower to maintain that balance?

States rights advocates, the Anti-Federalists, argued that the proposed Constitution would leave the states vulnerable to federal force, while pro-centralized-government Federalists responded that the people were armed and therefore not easily controlled by a federal army. But the lessons of the Revolutionary War showed that building an army was difficult and a ready militia was necessary for national defense.

Implicit in the debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists were two shared assumptions, Winkler and Lund wrote. First, that the proposed new Constitution gave the federal government almost total legal authority over the army and militia. Second, that the federal government should not have any authority at all to disarm the citizenry.

RELATED: The Difference Between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

But while the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were hashing out the right to bear arms, the states were already regulating who could own guns and how they could keep them, Winkler notes. In 1776, Massachusetts required an oath of loyalty to the Cause of America from anyone who wanted to own a gun, with Pennsylvania passing similar laws to disarm those disaffected by the fight for independence.

Even after the Second Amendment became law, states were in the business of deciding who could own and keep firearms. In slave states like Virginia, for example, African Americans, even freedmen, were barred from possessing weapons.

In 2016s Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court extended the Second Amendment right to own weapons for self-defense to include all instruments that constitute bearable arms. But does that mean every individual has the right to own any weapon? The short answer is, no.

Like all of our rights, the Second Amendment is subject to commonsense restrictions, Winkler says.

Just as the First Amendment right to free speech doesnt protect perjury and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination doesnt cover voluntary confessions, the individual right to own guns can be regulated without offending the Second Amendment, he says. The Court has approved laws preventing convicted felons and the mentally ill from owning guns, for instance, a position not considered controversial except by the most ardent gun advocates.

Except for the few who favor totally banning firearms on one end of the debate, and the few who favor completely unregulated weapons on the other, the vast majority of Americans fall somewhere in between. They favor reasonable laws targeted at keeping guns out of the most dangerous hands while recognizing law-abiding citizens right to own firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sport. According to a November 2020 Gallup poll, 91 percent of Americans want gun laws to be stricter or to stay as they are, while just 9 percent want looser regulations.

But Winkler says revoking or significantly changing the Second Amendment is highly unlikely. The truth is, there are only about 10 states with restrictive gun laws, he says, including Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. Notably, California is known for the strictest regulations, and it also has the seventh-lowest rate of deaths by gun violence. Since it takes a super-majority of 38 states to repeal an amendment, and roughly 40 states are gun-friendly, Winkler says the Second Amendment is more likely to be amended to expand gun rights than revoke them. Instead, we will have to continue talking about it and trying to find the sweet spot where our right to individual security and public safety are in balance.

RELATED: Why Is It So Hard to Stop Gun Violence in America?

Sources:

More here:

What Is the Second Amendment? | Second Amendment Rights - Reader's Digest

By Sam Gedge, Michael Jones

Raleigh, NC Drones! In recent years, drones have captured the imagination nationwide. There are over 1.7 million FAA-registered drones in the U.S. And increasingly, theyre used not just for fun, but for work. Drone-photography companies have popped up across the nation, using new technology to capture, create, and process data. The services have been a boon for many industries. Developers hire drones to monitor property. Construction companies hire them to oversee the progress on building sites. Real-estate agents hire them to capture vivid images.

Increasingly, though, drone start-ups have found themselves grounded by a centuries-old profession: land surveyors.As most people would understand it, surveying involves establishing and recording legal boundaries between pieces of property. But surveying boardsmost notably, North Carolinasare taking a far more aggressive view: They insist that simply creating and sharing images of and information about land is the practice of surveying and illegal without a full-blown surveyor license.

Drone photographers across the state have been surprised to receive stern warnings from the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers. The letters state that drone companies are practicing or offering to practice surveying without a license. And unless they stop mapping and come into compliance, there will be civil and even criminal consequences. One of us (Michael) even received one of these warnings directly.

Now, we are teaming up to fight back, filing a lawsuit against the surveying board to vindicate everyones right to generate useful information.

Drone technology may be new, but the principles at stake are as old as the nation itself. Photographers want to use drones to create valuable images and data for willing customers. Thats speech, and its protected by the Constitution. As the Supreme Court underscored in 2011, the creation and dissemination of information are speech within the meaning of the First Amendment.

That principle applies with equal force to occupational licensing. Just last year, in fact, a federal court in Mississippi remarked that surveyor requirements are not wholly exempt from First Amendment scrutiny simply because they are part of an occupational-licensing regime. Put simply, surveying boards cant claim a monopoly on useful information about land. Small-business drone companies arent creating maps for the purpose of defining legal property boundaries. Theyre creating and communicating photos and information. Its speech, pure and simple. In fact, much of it is similar to what you can find on Google Maps.

North Carolina should encourage innovative business ventures, not suppress them because established industries dont like competition. And as our case will establish, you dont need the governments permission to take photosno matter how cutting-edge the technology.

Michael Jones is a videographer, photographer, and drone pilot from Goldsboro, N.C. and Sam Gedge is an attorney with the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm.

See the original post:

Drones (and the First Amendment) take on regulatory overreach in North Carolina - Chatham Journal Weekly

Seventy percent of U.S. TV householdsreport having at least one smart TV, and smart TVs account for 52% of all TV sets in households, on average -- up from 45% in 2020.

In addition, more than half of smart-TV homes report havinga smart TV with a Roku or Fire TV operating system built in, according to the latest connected-home report from Hub Entertainment Research.

All of which translates to a critical mass of TVsets that don't need other devices to connect to the Internet to stream, interact with or receive addressable advertising.

The study, conducted among 5,000 U.S. consumers ages 16 to 74weighted to U.S. Census data, was completed in March.

The results show that homes with kids or younger adults are more likely to own smart TV sets. In households with children under 18,59% of all sets are smart TVs, and in homes where the oldest person is under age 35, 61% are smart TVs.

advertisement

advertisement

4K is becoming a more important factor in choice of content and providers. Forty-fourpercent now report having a 4K-capable set, versus 31% in 2019, and 61% of 4K set owners say they've actually watched 4K content, versus 49% in 2019. In addition, 10% say they are "very likely" to buyan 8K set in the next 12 months.

Voice control also continues to grow, with 44% of TV households reporting having at least one remote with that capability, versus 31% in 2019. These remotesare still used mainly for content discovery. If smart speakers are also counted, half of homes use voice commands to control at least one TV set.

At the same time, 40% of householdsreport regularly watching premium content on a phone -- up from 35% from 2019.

That in part likely reflects the higher proportion with unlimited data plans: 64%, versus 56% in 2019.

More users also described streaming on phones as "very easy," and more rated the experience as "excellent," according to Hub.

Over the past three years, ownership of smart speakers hasincreased from 37% (2019) to 46% (2021).

Net ownership of all other smart home devices also grew, from 33% to 43%.

While just 10% of households report owning a virtual reality device,that's up from 8% in 2019 and 2020.

Ownership of augmented reality devices is unchanged from 2020, at 8%.

With gaming being the application used by 72% of VR device owners, VR/AR"seem destined to appeal only to small niche markets," in Hub's view.

See the original post:

Smart TVs Now In 70% Of US TV Homes 04/08/2021 - MediaPost Communications

Do First and Second Amendment rights complement each other, or do they cause a constitutional conflict that poses a threat to dialogue and democracy? Professor Gregory P. Magarian will discuss the relationship between these topics during Free Speech & Firearms: Constitutional Rights in Conflict? on April 20 at 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. on Zoom and Facebook Live.

Weve frequently seen guns incorporated into political protest in recent yearswhether gun laws are the subject of the protest or not, said Patrick File, Reynolds School of Journalism assistant professor of media law. Theres nobody better than Professor Magarian to help us think about these two constitutional rights together and whether guns might augment freedom of speech or undermine it.

Magarian is a professor of law at the Washington University of School of Law in St. Louis. He received his B.A. from Yale and his J.D. and masters degree from the University of Michigan.

The forum will be moderated by the University of Nevada, Renos College of Liberal Arts Associate Professor Amy Pason with an introduction by File. The event is free to the public and will include an audience Q&A. Attendees can register through Eventbrite to receive a Zoom link or watch the event on Facebook Live.

The First Amendment Forum is an annual event that explores emerging issues facing freedom of the press and free speech sponsored by the Reynolds School and Warren and Janet Lerude.

Read more:

Online event examines the relationship between free speech and firearms - Nevada Today

Would you say social media platforms offer "a forum for a true diversity of political discourse?"

Congress used this language over 20 years ago to describe the internet when it passed Section 230, a federal law that provides liability protection for online service providers when they transmit or take down user-generated content. While the internet generally does offer such a forum, on social media platforms, it is disappearing.

Big Tech, including social media platforms, are now under the microscope, and legislators have very different ideas on what, if anything, needs to be done. The recent hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee billed as an investigation of digital misinformation among Facebook, Twitter and Google showed just how divided members of Congress, both parties and the public are on the future of social media.

Committee members barraged Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Google's Sundar Pichai with questions. Some threatened to repeal Section 230. Others called for government regulators, such as the Federal Trade Commission, to review their content moderation practices and algorithms.

Many on both the left and the right agree that Section 230 needs to be reformed. But this is generally where the agreement ends.

At the heart of the Section 230 debate is a disagreement regarding the importance of allowing Americans to speak their minds. Some want to reduce the chilling of speech by social media companies. And some want to use Section 230 reform as a way to chill speech still further. They want to ensure that speech communicated online is consistent with their worldviews.

For many on the right, Section 230 needs to be reformed because social media companies have so clearly broadened the types of content that they moderate, demonstrating bias and censorship of content associated with conservatives. Many on the left, however, believe Big Tech companies are not moderating enough content, particularly what they view as harmful or extremist speech.

Go inside New York politics.

By clicking Sign up, you agree to our privacy policy.

For example, they want these companies to go after First Amendment-protected "hate speech," which is so vague that it can mean almost anything, including thoughtful and legitimate discourse on such sensitive topics as gender identity.

They also desire to have social media companies go even further in taking down "misinformation," as if one side has a monopoly on everything that is true, even in subjective debates. There would be no fact-checking the self-anointed fact checkers. And this so-called fact-checking is arguably a pretext to remove or discredit views inconsistent with their own. In fact, if these companies were so concerned with the facts, they would allow the content to be subject to public scrutiny.

Conservatives and others concerned with bias and censorship should clearly recognize these differences if they hope to achieve their desired Section 230 reforms. There should be wariness of getting on board with "230 reform" without recognizing that many on the left have a completely different view of what reform looks like. Details matter, and Section 230 reform is needed, but the pathway in the current environment could help the left get reforms that would be to the opposite of what many conservatives would want.

To be clear, Section 230 reform shouldnt be an excuse for the government to trample on the First Amendment, such as by trying to dictate the type of legal speech that private companies must allow or prohibit on their platforms. But Section 230 is a federal government intervention that provides the benefit of liability protection for online service providers, provided they are willing to abide by the parameters set forth in that provision.

To account for the spread of misinformation on their platforms, the CEOs at the hearing explained how difficult it is to moderate the high volume of content uploaded on their sites each day. To help moderate content, the companies have built artificial intelligence algorithms to seek and remove content they deem to be illegal or in violation of their terms of service or community guidelines.

The CEOs blame the algorithms when the companies go overboard on limiting speech. But algorithms are not self-created by computers. Rather, company employees design and code the algorithms based on direction from their company superiors.

And currently, be it through algorithms or other moderation tools, these social media companies are chilling speech on their platforms. This isnt merely about them removing user content. It also includes the recent proliferation of labeling, delisting and context commentaries from these social media companies.

Theres a wide range of opinions across the ideological spectrum on whether and how to reform Section 230, or to eliminate it entirely. Legislators should reform it, and in so doing, protect the forum for political discourse envisioned when the law was passed 25 years ago.

Daren Bakst and Dustin Carmack wrote this piece for The Heritage Foundation.

See the original post:

Fights over free speech and the future of social media - Newsday

Too often, colleges and universities shirk their commitment to diversity by invoking free speech rights to excuse abusive interpersonal and online behaviors.

Rather than focusing on healing and addressing the emotional toll caused by hateful words, administrators typically claim they cannot do anything because of the First Amendment.

This boilerplate response overlooks the safety and feelings of students of color, heightening campus tensions.

Students have reason to question First Amendment protections.

Diversity training typically focuses on protected segments of society. Title IX forbids gendersex-based discrimination in academic programs that receive federal financial aid. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion and national origin. The Americans with Disabilities Act bans disability-based discrimination.

If a person is accused of violating those tenets, say, by making sexist remarksto a co-worker or telling inappropriate jokesto a student, intent does not excuse the conduct. The offended persons subjective viewpoint, however, is relevant, as well as an objective (or reasonable person) analysis of the incident in question. Conduct, including speech that is both subjectively and objectively offensive, may violate the law.

Then there is social media Twitter, Facebook, YouTube , et. al. whose terms of service acknowledge hate speech. Twitters policy forbids conduct that may promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.

Students are flummoxed when social media acknowledges hate speech, but public universities do not. After all, if former President Donald Trump can be censored by social media, why do universities let campus offenders off the verbal and proverbial hook?

The disconnect is exacerbated by ignorance of the First Amendment. Congress (meaning ouri.e., government, including public institutions) shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. But private companies can, refusing service for any or no reason.

Lack of knowledge about censorship adds to confusion.

A survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found six out of 10 students censored themselves on such topics as racism, abortion and other challenging issues out of fear of how others would react.

A Knight Foundation survey found that students support campus prohibitions against protected speech that targets certain groups. Some 78% of students believed colleges should be able to restrict use of racial slurs. The same percentage favored safe spaces on campus designed to be free from threatening actions, ideas or conversations.

More telling, most college students believed efforts at diversity and inclusion frequently (27%) or occasionally (49%) conflict with free speech rights.

Essentially, students believe that hate speech undermines community values and violates the conscience of under-represented and protected groups.

The United States came close to adding a sixth freedom to the First, which protects free speech, press, religion, petition and assembly. James Madison, statesman, philosopher and fourth president, believed the conscience was the most sacred of all property and a natural right.

His proposal was a blueprint for the First Amendment. Its primary clause, however, dealt with religion: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience ([emphasis added)] be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.

That language was revised in the House to read: Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience. The reference to conscience was removed in the Senate.

Had it remained, the United States would have endorsed a concept that had secular as well as religious connotations.

As Michael J. White writes in the San Diego Law Review, freedom of conscience raises messy questions about what behavior can be tolerated in society.

Madisons view of conscience is echoed indirectly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Articles 1 and 18, respectively:

Dozens of countries have based hate speech laws on freedom of conscience. For instance, in Germany, it is illegal to incite hatred against any part of the population or to insult their human dignity. A recent case involved a man who called women second-class people, with an appeals court stating this was misogynist abuse.

If such were the case in the United States, the court docket would overflow with violations.

More important, a freedom of conscience clause in the First Amendment, open to secular interpretations, would result in government determining what is and is not an affront to morality, the primary reason why the United States has no such hate speech law. Rather, the courts have held that the concept of freedom of conscience indirectly unifies other First Amendment rights.

Sharing this history, however, does little to resolve campus tension, especially when few understand applicable case law.

Universities typically do not educate constituents about protected speech. My employer Iowa State University is an exception, nationally recognized for First Amendment Days, now in its 19th year.

When public universities create speech codes, much like social media companies does, free speech proponents cite Texas v. Johnson. In that 1989 case, the Supreme Court stated that the government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.

This principle allows extremely offensive speech.

States that created laws to curtail such speech eventually confront Brandenburg v. Ohio. In 1969, the Supreme Court found a Ku Klux Klan leaders rights were violated by a law that banned speech or education advocating crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.

Advocation alone is not sufficient to suppress free speech. The real test, according to Brandenburg, is whether such speech is likely to incite or produce such action. That clause affords broad protection of free speech rights.

There are limits to First Amendment rights, of course. They include incitement likely to produce illegality; true threats to an individual or group; fighting words in face-to-face communication, provoking a reaction; obscenity; and defamation. Also, harassment may apply in an academic environment when it is so severe and pervasive that it reasonably interferes with a persons educational experience.

The American Civil Liberties Union acknowledges targeted harassment as a violation of free speech. However, it adds, merely offensive or bigoted speech does not rise to that level and determining when conduct crosses that line is a legal question that requires examination on a case-by-case basis.

The ACLU cautions administrators not to see free-speech restrictions as a quick fix to address campus tensions. Rather, it recommends they step up their efforts to recruit diverse faculty, students, and administrators; increase resources for student counseling; and raise awareness about bigotry and its history.

This essay endorses that.

In the aftermath of offensive speech, in person or online, institutions have three choices:

Without such initiatives, the odds of campus unrest escalate.

It is also important to communicate tenets of the First Amendment, beginning with the syllabus. This is required at ISU. Professors inform students on the first day of class that their teacher will honor free expression:

Iowa State University supports and upholds the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech and the principle of academic freedom in order to foster a learning environment where open inquiry and the vigorous debate of a diversity of ideas are encouraged. Students will not be penalized for the content or viewpoints of their speech as long as student expression in a class context is germane to the subject matter of the class and conveyed in an appropriate manner.

Iowa State balances that tenet with annual required diversity training focusing on the inclusive classroom. Faculty are encouraged to add course-specific diversity components.

The university also has established diversity, equity and inclusion as community values with an online site to report infractions. Best diversity-related recruitment practices also are important in searches.

Diversity planning and assessment are essential at the departmental level as well as the college and university levels, as detailed in this IHE essay.

The College of Information and Communications at the University of South Carolina developed a comprehensive diversity strategic plan approved by the faculty, which includes specific measures of assessment for each objective. For instance, in its goal to recruit a more diverse student body, the college each year tracks and compares:

Without assessment, diversity initiatives often founder.

Aspirational goals are important as benchmarks. Penn State University not only has published best diversity practices but also has outlined extensive potential ones, such as developing a shared and inclusive understanding of diversity, recruiting a diverse student body and work force, and diversifying central administration.

Similar initiatives should be mentioned whenever opportunity presents itself but especially when central administration condemns offensive but legal speech.

First Amendment seminars and webinars inform the campus community in advance about how the institution will respond to offensive speech in person, in class or online. Thats a proactive measure that fosters greater understanding of legal ramifications of constitutional precepts.

Too often, frustration about free speech rights indicates a deeper concern about equity, diversity and inclusion in institutional practices, policies and environment.

Even proactive institutions like Penn State must respond to criticism informed by data. Last year a faculty- authored report disclosed that Black professors constituted only 3.9% percent of tenured and tenure-track positions at the flagship campus. In response, the institution promised to address concerns, including comprehensive reviews of affirmative action plans and increased efforts to recruit individuals from underrepresented groups.

Every institution can do better. Deficiencies continue nationwide.

For instance, one study has shown that faculty of color and female faculty disproportionately experience stress due to discrimination and feel they have to work harder than their colleagues to be perceived as a legitimate scholar. Another study documents how representation of students of color at selective public colleges and universities has declined since 2000.

If we are to decouple First Amendment arguments at the heart of campus tension, colleges and universities must commit resources, time, effort and assessment into sustaining and realizing campus climate goals.

Otherwise, statements about free speech legalities will ring as hollow as unrealized promises to increase diversity, equity and inclusion.

Here is the original post:

The university response to offensive speech often reflects a feeble commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion - Poynter

Florida has thousands of bridges and causeways. Many people use the words interchangeably. So what is the difference between a bridge, a causeway and a causeway bridge? Wochit

VERO BEACH Extensive deterioration to concrete beams on the eastside of the Alma Lee Loy Bridge has left a portion of the span unstable, yet the Florida Department of Transportation maintains the bridge is safe.

FDOT records obtained by TCPalm provide an incomplete picture of the 17th Street Bridge. Moreover, heavy redactions and high costs for obtaining records from the state agency have raised concerns from First Amendment experts.

Documents show the three most eastern spans are scour critical, an industry term for a bridge that has so much erosion or removal of its foundational materials that it reachesa critical point.

Sections of spans 58 and 59 on the east end of the Alma Lee Loy Bridge in Vero Beach are seen crumbling away exposing rusted metal cable while still be considered in fair condition according to the Florida Highway Administration. The bridge was built in 1979 with prestressed concrete and is the second-most trafficked bridge in Indian River County over a major body of water , with 23,500 trips per day.(Photo: PATRICK DOVE/TCPALM)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has said scour is the most common cause of bridge failure.

The inspection report says the bridge's scour-critical levels make it unstable, according to a briefstructural appraisal section. Further details are not included.

Photos taken under the bridge show the scour-critical elements concrete crumbling into the Indian River Lagoon, leaving steel rebar to rust and fray as its exposed to the water that is less than 5 feet below.

The FDOT documents, however, are heavily redacted. The most recent inspection report obtained, conducted in November and completed in January, is 101 pages, and nearly two-thirds of its pages are entirely blacked-out. Pages that do provideinformation often redact details.

A deeper look: Concrete crumbles, steel rusts as work begins on 'structurally deficient' Alma Lee Loy Bridge in Vero Beach

Sections of spans 58 and 59 on the east end of the Alma Lee Loy Bridge in Vero Beach are seen crumbling away exposing rusted metal cable while still be considered in fair condition according to the Florida Highway Administration. The bridge was built in 1979 with prestressed concrete and is the second-most trafficked bridge in Indian River County over a major body of water , with 23,500 trips per day.(Photo: PATRICK DOVE/TCPALM)

Nearly two months ago, TCPalm requested documents such as emails and other FDOT materials related to the17th Street Bridge. In response, the Department of Transportation said it would charge nearly $2,000 for select emails about the bridge and involving FDOT District 4 leadership.

FDOT often cites a public-records exemption tied to Sept. 11 that allows information relating to the physical security of a structure to remain confidential and exempt from public inspections.

That approach only hurts the public, according to one expert.

When the government uses an exemption intended to thwart terrorism to block the public from knowing about the potentially dilapidated state of our bridges, we know something is seriously wrong with open government in Florida, said Pamela Marsh, executive director of Floridas First Amendment Foundation. This leaves the public completely in the dark about how or why an agency determined a bridge is safe or unsafe to use.

According to the inspection report, the 17th Street Bridge has deficiencies that require prompt corrective action. The superstructure of the bridge is in poor condition, the report says.

Although extensive beam deterioration exists, the partial analysis dated Oct. 16, 2019, found that, due to the location of the damage, spans 57, 58 and 59 do not control for the overall structure, Scott DeReus, engineer for the contracted companyVolkert, wrote in December in the inspection report.

The report released by FDOT blacks out the bridge's weight capacity. It does say how much weight it could carry if it was "posted," or needed to be closed to general traffic. FDOT has repeatedly declined to provide the bridge's weight capacity.

The bridge, built in 1979, carries 23,5000 trips per day, according to the Federal Highway Administration.

Traffic is currently limited to thesouth lanes of the bridge while work continues on the north side.The bridge has been known to have deterioration of some of its beams since a 2018 inspection, according to the report. Work on the structure ofthe bridge had been paused, and had restarted in February, according to FDOT records.

Read the inspection report from FDOT:

A line of vehicles is seen on Tuesday, April 6, 2021, heading west over the Alma Lee Loy Bridge in Vero Beach as all traffic has been diverted to the eastbound lanes as construction crews continue to work on the structural integrity of the bridge. (Photo: PATRICK DOVE/TCPALM)

A scour-critical bridge is one with abutment or pier foundations which are rated as unstable, according to a 1991 technical advisory on evaluating scour-critical bridges from the Federal Highway Administration. Scour-critical bridges should have a plan of action for monitoring the performance and closing of the bridge, if necessary, during and after flood events.

The 17th Street Bridge is rated high risk unknown. according to the report.

Until the risk can be determined, a plan of action for a scour-critical bridge should be developed and implemented to reduce the risk to users from a bridge failure during and immediately after a flood event, according to a 2001 memorandum from the Federal Highway Administration.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

The Tallahassee-based First Amendment Foundationargues the records held by FDOT should be given to the public without an astronomical, baseless price tag. By doing so, Marsh, the foundations executive director, said it is another sneaky government way of discouraging citizens.

They belong to the taxpayer. Why should we have to pay twice? Marsh said. This kind of dysfunctional governance puts us all at risk. If the government really has nothing to hide, why hide it?

The 9/11 exemption was intended to prevent attacks and protect individuals using government infrastructure, said Virginia Hamrick, staff attorney for the foundation.

Instead, she said, FDOT is using the lawin a way to keep the public is in the dark as to how or why the agency determined a bridge is safe or unsafe to use.

Alma Lee Loy Bridge in Vero Beach(Photo: PATRICK DOVE/TCPALM)

Joshua Solomon is a politics and transportation reporter covering the Treasure Coast.You can reach him at 772-692-8935 or joshua.solomon@tcpalm.com.

Read or Share this story: https://www.tcpalm.com/story/news/local/2021/04/07/17th-street-alma-lee-loy-bridge-partly-unstable-fdot-says-its-safe/7068853002/

See the original post:

Portion of Alma Lee Loy Bridge in Vero Beach 'unstable,' but state wants thousands for detailed records - TCPalm

ANNAPOLIS,MDGovernor Larry Hogan and state leaders today participated in a ribbon cutting ceremony to mark the rededication of historic Lawyers Mall outside the Maryland State House in Annapolis.

The redesign of Lawyers Mall, which once served as the site of the Court of Appeals, took place in conjunction with a project to repair and replace the underground utility infrastructure which provides power, steam, and water to the State Government Complex. The project also upgraded the layout and accessibility of the Thurgood Marshall Memorial, designed by Antonio Tobias Mendez, a sculptor from Washington County.Read more about Lawyers Mall.

First Lady Yumi Hogan, Lt. Governor Boyd K. Rutherford, Senate President Bill Ferguson, House Speaker Adrienne A. Jones, General Services Secretary Ellington E. Churchill, Jr., and Deputy State Archivist Elaine Bachmann also participated in todays ceremony.

Since its creation in 1973 after the demolition of the old Court of Appeals building, Lawyers Mall has been a central symbol of democracy here in our state capital, and a space where countless Marylanders have gathered to exercise their first amendment rights, said Governor Hogan. On this beautiful spring day, the rededication of Lawyers Mall is a symbol that democracy is still alive and well in Maryland, and that there truly are brighter days ahead, and that each day now brings us closer to that light at the end of the tunnel.

With the combined efforts of The State House Trust and General Services, we have transformed Lawyers Mall into a more efficient and modern gathering space, said Lt. Governor Boyd K. Rutherford, chair of the State House Trust. Lawyers Mall has been a focal point of our State Government Complex for decades, and will continue to be so for generations to come.

Lawyers Mall is a constant reminder of the power of the First Amendment, and the rights of the people to redress their government, said Senate President Bill Ferguson. In times where electronic communication is fastly becoming the norm, this area, and the statue of Thurgood Marshall are a constant reminder of the force for good that government can be, and the essential power of the people as a part of that process.

Lawyers Mall is a meaningful reminder that we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, said Speaker Adrienne A. Jones We still strive to meet the equal society that Justice Marshall fought for. I also want to remember the contributions of Speaker Mike Busch and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller to reinvigorate a space that is dedicated to civil rights legacy and civic engagement.

General Services takes great pride in Lawyers Mall as well as the entire Annapolis complex, said General Services Secretary Ellington E. Churchill, Jr. By investing in the replacement and improvement of Lawyers Mall and our underground utility distribution system, the Annapolis campus will gain a stable system for the next 25-30 years that will provide a comfortable environment for staff and visitors alike.

The newly redesigned Lawyers Mall has been updated with multiple amenities and accommodations that were not featured in the previous design. The total square footage of assembly space has been increased from 2,000 sq. ft. to 6,000 sq. ft., allowing groups of up to 1,200 people to comfortably gather. The new design also includes a natural speaker podium, as well as an abundance and variability of seating options.

The State Archives, and the Maryland Commission on Artistic Property, were very gratified to work with the Department of General Services to preserve artist Toby Mendezs original vision for the Thurgood Marshall Memorial within this space, said Elaine Rice Bachmann, Deputy State Archivist and Secretary, State House Trust. The success of the new design is in large part due to Mr. Mendezs collaboration with the landscape architects, Ziger/Snead, to make adjustments without compromising the artistic integrity of the 1996 design.

The redesign of Lawyers Mall removed and limited the number of steps and ramps to make the space more accessible and easier to maintain. The project also allowed for the opportunity to integrate a snow melt system into the design as well as sustainable stormwater features.

-###

The rest is here:

Governor Larry Hogan - Official Website for the Governor of Maryland - maryland.gov

ARLINGTON, Va.Michael ORielly has joined The Media Institute as a senior fellow, according to an announcement made by Richard T. Kaplar, president of the Institute. ORielly has also been appointed a member of the First Amendment Advisory Council, the foundations flagship advisory body comprising First Amendment scholars and practitioners.

After more than three decades as a public servant, including service in the U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate and as an FCC Commissioner, ORielly was previously a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institutes Center for the Economics of the Internet, and principal at MPORielly Consulting LLC. He served as a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission from 2013 through 2020.

Michael ORielly shares the same values we hold dear: sound communications policy, a competitive media industry and a strong First Amendment, said Institute President Richard Kaplar. We are truly honored and gratified to welcome him as a senior fellow of the institute and as a member of our First Amendment Advisory Council. With his insightful perspectives on media and telecom policy and his love of the First Amendment, Commissioner Mike ORielly is a highly respected voice in the public policy arena.

Being invited to join The Media Institutea legendary institution set on defending and preserving the First Amendmentas senior fellow and member of its First Amendment Advisory Council is an extremely deep honor, said ORielly. Hopefully, my record shows that I welcome the opportunity, even when not easy or popular, to push back against anyone seeking to denigrate, malign or infringe upon our cherished rights preserved by the U.S. Constitution.

The Media Institute is a nonprofit foundation working to advance sound communications policy, freedom of speech, and excellence in journalism. The Digital Media Center is a program of The Media Institute that brings clarity to key issues at the heart of todays digital revolution. For more information, visit the Institute online atwww.mediainstitute.org.

Original post:

Michael O'Rielly Appointed Senior Fellow of The Media Institute - TV Technology