I was raised to understand the importance of voting and elections. This year, Ive been moved to join in how that system works, as well.

Like many, I accompanied my parents every time they voted. As a young child, I still remember being excited when poll workers would also give me an I Voted sticker. At the time, I didnt quite understand what an important service these individuals were providing to our country.

Voting is the ultimate expression of the freedom of petition, one of the five core rights protected by our First Amendment.

Often discussion around elections has been centered on registering and educating voters and ultimately turning out the vote. And those discussions are still very important. The Freedom Forum launched our Freedom of Petition resources and programs to remind people how voting and the First Amendment go hand in hand.

A unique topic of discussion in the 2020 elections is the need for young people to become poll workers. Traditionally many of these volunteers are older, but with the global pandemic, many states sounded the alarm that their reliable volunteers of the past wouldnt be able to participate this year.

I honestly had never before considered being a poll worker. I registered to vote as soon as I turned 18, Ive volunteered for campaigns before I was old enough to vote and now, as a registered voter, Ive consistently voted either on Election Day, early voting or absentee. However, the more I heard about the need for poll workers, the more I knew it was time to step up my civic engagement. What would happen if there werent enough poll workers? Would people have a harder time being able to vote and truly exercise their right to self-governance?

With that in mind, I went online and signed up. I am very fortunate that I am able take time off from work to do it: The Freedom Forum instituted a new policy that grants each employee two First Amendment Freedom Days per year to participate in First Amendment activities of their choosing. I was able to take in-person poll worker training and to reserve a day to be a poll worker.

The process has been interesting learning how to make elections run smoothly. In a mix of online and in-person training of about five hours, Ive learned how voting locations are set up, how to check in voters, how to distribute the correct ballots and how to help voters ultimately cast their votes in elections from local to federal.

Ive been encouraged to see the number of people stepping up to volunteer, many of them young people. It is also why I respect groups working to recruit poll workers, like Poll Hero, which is recruiting thousands of college and high school students to be poll workers this election cycle a new type of civic engagement that gives me hope and empowers everyone to play a role in protecting the First Amendment freedom of petition. Its become apparent that poll workers will be the guardians that ensure voters can petition their government by casting a ballot this cycle. They will be on the front lines, ensuring that all who want to participate are able to do so, while reassuring the public that this election is being held fairly.

Am I nervous about this? 100%. Yes. Do I like the idea of being exposed to many people in the age of COVID-19? No.

But what I and many others know is that poll workers will be vital in ensuring that all who want to can cast their ballots, and in turn exercise their right to petition.

Also, being a poll worker is a reminder in these times that there are many ways for us to champion the First Amendment without being a journalist or leading a protest movement.

We all can apply the First Amendment by going to the polls, mailbox or drop box and voting and then doing what we can to support other people in this process. Vote, volunteer, use your speech to educate others. No matter the method, we can all be guardians of the First Amendment.

Excerpt from:

Poll workers: Guardians of the first amendment this election - Hopkinsville Kentucky New Era

Freedom of speech is no laughing matter except in the hands of comedian and author Judy Gold. She analyzes threats to the First Amendment of the Constitution from the perspective of a stand-up comic.

The book makes the case that PC police and cancel culturesometimes go too far in their quest to avoid offending anyone. Thats a real problem for stand-up comedians who are often funniest when they arent bound by the niceties of polite society.

Gold also devotes a good portion of her book to the contributions of Jewish talent in the history of comedy and why Jews make great comedians.

Gold is a two-time winner of the Daytime Emmy Awards for her work as a writer and producer on The Rosie ODonnell Show. She spoke with theJewish Lightrecently about her book, Yes, I Can Say That: When They Come for the Comedians, We Are All in Trouble. Her responses have been edited for space.

In a 25-year-old episode of the HBO Comedy Half-Hour, you did a set in which you talked about the importance of free speech to comedy. Is it fair to say this is a subject that youve had strong opinions on for quite a while?

I have always, even when I was a little girl. I was always like, wait, wait, why cant we talk about that? My mother was always like, Judith! Oh, no, we dont discuss that. Why? Why don't we discuss that? I think a lot of Jews are like that: Lets just keep a low profile.

When we were kids, didnt our parents try to protect us by talking in hushed tones about certain subjects?

Right. Theres always a lot of whispering or Yiddish sprinkled into the adult conversations when youre a Jewish kid. You know, you have no idea what theyre talking about. And then you hear your name and youd be like, Wait, what?

In the foreword to the book, you said you were asked to write about freedom of speech from a comedians perspective, which seems like a pretty good idea. It makes you wonder why somebody didnt think of that before.

When they asked me to do it, it was because I was on Vice News. They were doing a piece on college bookers who were telling comedians what they can and cannot say on stage. Young kids were telling these comedians who were booked that they cant say certain things. And so they asked me to be the opposing viewpoint, which I gladly said yes to. That went viral, and then I heard from HarperCollins, who said to me, Would you write this book? And I said,Absolutely.

One of the pitfalls of being a comedian is that an ill-timed comment can have a significant financial cost. For example, when Gilbert Gottfried made a joke about the tsunami in Japan he subsequently was fired by Aflac insurance, where he had a lucrative voiceover contract doing the ducks voice. You described the situation with him in some detail in the book.

Right, of course, if you work for a corporation, you sort of are selling your soul. If you want that money, then you may have to give something up. And, you know, theres another layer to the Gilbert Aflac thing. When he tweeted those jokes, no one knew how bad the tsunami was at that point. He had his followers on Twitter, and his fans were asking him, Arent you going to make some ridiculous jokes? And he did. And if youre a corporation and youre going to hire a comedian, then do your due diligence.

You got into a situation that you mentioned in the book in which a corporate client gave you a list of things to do and not to do, which you actually used in your set. The client was not amused, but the audience was. Exactly who did they think they were hiring?

Right. You dont get a plumber to come to your apartment and tell him, Oh, no, I turn the pipes to the right, and hell say,Get away from me! You want me to fix your toilet? Im going to fix your toilet. But dont tell me how to do my job. I dont tell you how to do your job.

If comedians get too concerned about whether a joke might offend an audience and they start to censor their own material, does that inherently curb free speech and curtail creativity?

When you try to silence us, thats the end of free speech. Thats the end. Its over. Think about all the sitcoms we watched as kids and the topics they tackled, and the reason it was so impactful was that we were so invested in those characters. Like All inthe Family and the episode of Maude where they decide to terminate a pregnancy.

Its kind of amazing, given how cautious the network executives are, that Norman Lear got as much content in as he did.

He threatened them multiple times. If theres a hierarchy deciding what America should watch on television, its so ridiculous. Why doesnt the individual decide? If you don't like the comedian, then then dont listen to them. But dont say they should never be able to do stand-up again. Its like you go to an art exhibit, and you love this artist and you see they have 15 paintings and three of them you dont like. Oh, I dont like that one. You say they should never paint again? Or if theres a song on the radio that you dont like, you can change the channel.

Sir Michael Palin was asked about free speech and comedy. He said comedy has to reflect the way life is, and that its especially important in times of crisis because people need laughter more than ever.

Right. Think about this past Saturday night [in early October], everyone I know couldnt wait for Saturday Night Live to come on. I was doing shows outdoors all summer in Provincetown, Mass., and people were dying to laugh, and it is such a part of our culture. Think about Bob Hope in the in the 1940s, going to visit the troops and bringing comedians along. And comedians still go to visit the troops. What other country has the military abroad, and they bring people to make them laugh? I mean, its so much a part of who we are.

Speaking of SNL, during comedian Bill Burrs opening monologue in the Oct. 10 show, he took aim at privileged white women and subsequently generated a mini-controversy on Twitter. Was Burr out of line with his jokes or are audiences becoming way too sensitive?

Bill Burr was not out of lineand, yes, audiences are becoming way too sensitive. Its as if their natural instinct is to laugh because its funny, and then they pivot because they realize that the joke isnt politically correct. Funny is funny.

A Jew can make a joke about Jews. Blacks can make jokes about Blacks. A white non-Jewish comedian probably is playing with fire making jokes about Blacks or Jews. Bill Burr is a white man, and he made jokes about Pride Month, Blacks and mostly, white women. Fair game?

One hundred percent fair game. As an LGBTQ person, I thought his joke about Pride Month was actually about Black History month being in February and I thought it was hilarious. And I loved how he called out hypocritical white women. Yes, Bill Burr is a white man, but are you aware that he is married to an African American woman and his children are mixed race? His brilliance as a comic comes from his ability to take us to an uncomfortable place and relieve the tension with a great punch line. He speaks the truth, and its an unfortunate state of affairs that people feel threatened by that. I laughed.

In the book, you talk a lot about the many Jewish comics throughout history. Can you elaborate on the close connection between Judaism and humor?

Well, we know that humor is in the Talmud. In Judaism, everything is a question or an argument, and thats what a joke is. A joke is looking at something from a completely different perspective. Your bar or bat mitzvah: Youre taking a piece of the Torah and being told,OK, here, find something new. Make it your own. Thats what we as comedians do. Also, being a persecuted race of people, we use humor as a weapon. Its gotten us out of a lot of trouble. We all we know that during the Holocaust, that they were entertaining each other in the camps and also in the late 30s, it was the Jewish comedians who were getting onstage in Germany and talking about what the hell was going on. And then Hitler had the Treachery Act, where you could not make a joke about him. That is how powerful comedy is.

Why do you think Jews make good comedians?

As my mother always said, If we werent laughing, wed be crying. Judaism is a thinking persons religion. Comedy is a thinking persons art.

Author:Judy Gold

Book:Yes, I Can Say That: When They Come for the Comedians, We Are All in Trouble

Schedule:7 p.m. Monday, Nov.2

Interviewed by: Jo Firestone, comedianand writer for The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon

See the original post:

Consider the source: Jews, comedy and the First Amendment - St. Louis Jewish Light

The question of who, if anyone, owns the Constitution is yet another fault line in our current national fragmentation. Politicians and cable news outlets routinely question the constitutionality of every posture, provocation and decision, even in situations where the provisions of the Constitution are irrelevant. While most Americans have never read the document, weve been conditioned to respond to it in ways that reflect our political and social biases. I cant help but notice that voices on the right have more tightly wrapped themselves inside the idea of the Constitution, though not necessarily its true meaning. They have appointed themselves arbiters of what is or is not constitutional, attempting to own the document in a way that leaves little room for the rest of us. Recently in Michigan, a ragtag army of 13 constitutional vigilantes planned to kidnap the governor for what they saw as violating their constitutional rights in mandating restrictions to help slow the spread of the coronavirus. They proved that no good deed goes unpunished.

Its important to note that the First Amendment only protects citizens from restrictions placed upon us by the government. Because private entities are allowed to control speech, the First Amendment is not carte blanche to say what you want, where you want. In the world of social media, companies like Facebook and Twitter have no legal obligation to provide a forum for free speech, although gauging by the amount of garbage regularly posted therein, I would argue that theyre going a good job of providing it. Just as a private baker in Lakewood, Colo. doesnt have to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple if it clashes with his religious views, a social media company can remove messages that contradict its corporate principles.

My own experience at the intersection of the First Amendment and social media occurred at the right-wing Breitbart News Networks website. The Breitbart community, an active collection of conservatives, alt-right mudslingers and conspiracy theorists, coalesces daily around a dynamic comment string that scrolls below each news article. Hundreds, if not thousands, of comments are logged on subjects that veer far and wide from the original topic. Breitbart users profess a level of patriotism and a commitment to the First Amendment that is admirable if only it were true. They, along with President Trump, routinely complain about other social media platforms, insisting that their right-wing voices are being silenced. Lets be clear. This is another conspiracy theory and, even if it were true, its the prerogative of any private company to censor unwanted content.

Im proof of that. Three times I set up a user profile at Breitbart with the intent of sharing my contrasting point of view with the community. And three times I was banned. My opinions were regularly attacked with an anger and hostility that was impressive but not unexpected when youre swimming upstream in a right-wing echo chamber. And to be honest, I did bait the audience, often encouraging users to post their best Holocaust denial. But I never used obscenities and I never advocated or threatened violence. I cant say the same for the people who responded to me.

I accepted the punishment each time, understanding that Breitbart is a private entity and can shape the culture of its web property as it sees fit. What I cant accept is the hypocrisy. To be suppressed by Breitbart, a community that consistently derides social media companies for denying them their First Amendment rights while simultaneously censoring my liberal point of view, is a double standard that only a conspiracy theorist would miss.

But dont worry, President Trump has a solution for my problem. His administration has recently petitioned the Department of Commerce to reinterpret Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. Section 230 protects technology companies and their platforms from legal liability for the third-party content that people post. It also includes a good Samaritan clause that encourages technology companies to remove objectionable content and protects them from lawsuits for doing that. From comments on mommy blogs to one-star ratings on restaurant reviews sites, Section 230 and its protections have allowed the internet to boom and become the freewheeling hub of social interaction weve come to rely on.

Trumps petition, packaged in the guise of free speech, is to strike down the part of Section 230 that provides those important legal protections to technology companies when they flag, fact check or remove the bile and animus that he and his supporters spew into public discourse each week. In this, the right is conveniently ignoring what it professes to hate: the use of the power of government to coerce private companies, in this case by threat of litigation, to do something that runs counter to their principles. And that, you can argue, encroaches on First Amendment rights.

If Section 230 is reinterpreted, the result wont be kinder, gentler online conversations. Instead, well be chest deep in even more of the lies and vitriol that were already wading through. I wonder what the Breitbart community thinks about all this and Id post a comment to ask but, unfortunately, Im still banned.

Amos Klausner lives in San Geronimo and is a local school board trustee.

See the original post:

Say what you want about the First Amendment - Point Reyes Light

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerbergtold senators Wednesday that free speech is an equity that should be weighed against other considerations.

Sen.Marsha Blackburn(R-TN) said in introducing her question that Facebook is picking winners and losers and that the company is inserting itself into issue of free speech. Is the First Amendment a given right, or is that a competing equity? she asked, referencing Zuckerbergs earlier commentary.

I believe strongly in free expression, Zuckerberg replied. But I do think that, like all equities, it is balanced against other equities, like safety and privacy. Even people who believe in the strongest possible interpretation of the First Amendment still believe there should be some limits on speech when it could cause an imminent risk of physical harm.

Even the people who believe in the strongest possible interpretation of the First Amendment still believe there should be some limits on speech when it could cause risk of imminent physical harm. The kind of famous example thats used is that you cant shout fire in a crowded theater, Zuckerberg added. So I think that getting those equities right, and the balance right, is the challenge that we face.

Having agreed in principle that Facebook does involve itself in the process of free speech and making determinations with regard to the balance of that First Amendment freedom, Blackburns time expired and the discussion had to end.

Facebook has been the subject of criticism by conservatives who have questioned its censorship decisions, most recently for a warning label it appended to an Oct. 14 New York Poststory about Democratic presidential nomineeJoe Bidenand his son,Hunter Biden.

The Facebook chief appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday alongside Twitter CEOJack Dorseyand Google CEOSundar Pichaito testify on Section 230, a law protecting their companies from liability for content their users post. Lawmakers are considering whether to reform the law after controversy this year over censorship decisions made by social-media companies.

Watch above via the Senate Commerce Committee.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

More here:

Mark Zuckerberg Says Facebook Balances First Amendment Against Other Equities: There Should be Some Limits on Speech - Mediaite

Do you remember your first time? Your first time at a protest is something special. Holding handmade signs with passionate messages that let the world know whats on your mind and what you value is a beautiful, powerful feeling.

No matter your political, religious, or personal beliefs, your right to gather and vocalize your opinions at a protest or just about anywhere is possible thanks to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The third week of October is nationally recognized as Free Speech Week, celebrating all things freedom of speech and the press.

Sandy and Jessica Bohrer, two constitutional lawyers who also happen to be father and daughter, recently published their first book focusing on teaching grade school children the value of the First Amendment.

Your Voice Is Your Superpower: A Beginner's Guide to Freedom of Speech (and the First Amendment), released in September, teaches children about their most valuable weapon: their voice.

The childrens book numbers a colorful 34 pages, written in witty rhyme kids that will easily digest yet will still resonate with adults.

A native of New Jersey, Sandy has been living in Miami and fighting for freedom of the press for nearly four decades. One of the nation's top First Amendment attorneys, he also happens to be the only lawyer who has represented Miami New Timesever since our papers inception in 1987. (He has also represented the Miami Herald.)

Growing up in the Bohrer household, it wasnt uncommon for Jessica and her brother to see their father on the television news. Sandy was featured in print so often that Jessicas paternal grandfather would carry the newspaper clippings in his pocket. But there was rarely any shop talk in the home.

Much like her father, Jessica has dedicated her life to free speech, working as Forbes editorial counsel and volunteering with the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

Jessica and Sandy Bohrer's children's book, Your Voice Is Your Superpower

Photo courtesy of Jessica Bohrer

I became a lawyer because I wanted to help people, says Jessica, admitting there may have been some subconscious influence. I certainly grew up with those values embedded in my moral compass, of protecting freedoms, and freedom of speech being the first of them.

The concept behind Your Voice Is Your Superpower evolved through various conversations between Sandy and his daughter. The current political climate ultimately helped to inspire the theme of the book.

We thought this was a really important time to start teaching young children about how important it is to use your voice and how important it is to protect the freedom to speak, to protest, to be able to express yourself without fear of harm, Jessica explains.

In this environment where the president of the United States is trying to destroy freedom of speech and freedom of the press, [we thought] maybe its time to start building it back up, Sandy adds, noting theimportance of teaching young children about the values associated with the First Amendment.

Children arent born hating anyone; they have to be taught to hate. And they can be taught to respect other people, too, Sandy says.

Jessica echoes her fathers sentiments. The attacks on journalists have increased exponentially, and I think what that tells us is that the value of free speech, the value of the free press, is under threat right now.The best way you can counteract those trends is to start with young people," she says. "We want to teach them to be accepting, and to take this value very seriously and stand firmly to defend it.

Before speaking with New Times on Wednesday afternoon, Jessica participated in a virtual book reading with a second-grade class.

The students, she says, excitedly recounted stories of accompanying their parents to protests.

These kids are experiencing all of these things in the world, and so its great to be able to give them a tool to understand whats happening and understand how they can be a part of their community and part of democracy, Jessica says.

Your Voice Is Your Superpower: A Beginner's Guide to Freedom of Speech (and the First Amendment), by Jessica and Sandy Bohrer. City Point Press. 2020. 34 pages. Paperback $6.99, board book $13.99.

Carolina del Busto is a freelance writer for Miami New Times. She nurtured her love of words at Boston College before moving back home to Miami and has been covering arts and culture in the Magic City since 2013.

Originally posted here:

First Amendment Childrens Book Teaches a New Generation About Freedom of Speech - New Times Broward-Palm Beach

AP Explains: The rule that made the modern internet

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) Twenty-six words tucked into a 1996 law overhauling telecommunications have allowed companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google to grow into the giants they are today.

Those are the words President Donald Trump's administration has challenged directly via executive order, one that would strip those protections if online platforms engaged in editorial decisions. The CEOs of the three internet companies face questioning Wednesday by the Senate Commerce Committee about Republican claims of anti-conservative bias.

Beyond questioning the CEOs, senators are expected to examine proposals to revise long-held legal protections for online speech, an immunity that critics in both parties say enables the companies to abdicate their responsibility to impartially moderate content.

Under the U.S. law, internet companies are generally exempt from liability for the material users post on their networks. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act itself part of a broader telecom law provides a legal safe harbor for internet companies.

But Trump and other politicians, including Democrats, though for different reasons than Republicans argue that Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms have abused that protection and should lose their immunity or at least have to earn it by satisfying requirements set by the government.

Section 230 probably cant be easily dismantled. But if it was, the internet as we know it might cease to exist.

QUESTION: Just what is Section 230?

ANSWER: If a news site falsely calls you a swindler, you can sue the publisher for libel. But if someone posts that on Facebook, you can't sue the company just the person who posted it.

That's thanks to Section 230, which states that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

That legal phrase shields companies that can host trillions of messages from being sued into oblivion by anyone who feels wronged by something someone else has posted whether their complaint is legitimate or not.

The legal interpretation of section 230 also allows social platforms to moderate their services by removing posts that, for instance, are obscene or violate the services' own standards, so long as they are acting in good faith."

QUESTION: Where did Section 230 come from?

The measure's history dates back to the 1950s, when bookstore owners were being held liable for selling books containing obscenity, which is not protected by the First Amendment. One case eventually made it to the Supreme Court, which held that it created a chilling effect to hold someone liable for someone elses content.

That meant plaintiffs had to prove that bookstore owners knew they were selling obscene books, said Jeff Kosseff, the author of The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet," a book about Section 230.

Fast-forward a few decades to when the commercial internet was taking off with services like CompuServe and Prodigy. Both offered online forums, but CompuServe chose not to moderate its, while Prodigy, seeking a family-friendly image, did.

CompuServe was sued over that, and the case was dismissed. Prodigy, however, got in trouble. The judge in their case ruled that "they exercised editorial control so you're more like a newspaper than a newsstand, Kosseff said.

That didn't sit well with politicians, who worried that outcome would discourage newly forming internet companies from moderating at all. And Section 230 was born.

Today it protects both from liability for user posts as well as liability for any claims for moderating content, Kosseff said.

QUESTION: What happens if Section 230 is limited or goes away?

ANSWER: I dont think any of the social media companies would exist in their current forms without Section 230, Kosseff said. They have based their business models on being large platforms for user content.

There are two possible outcomes. Platforms might get more cautious, as Craigslist did following the 2018 passage of a sex-trafficking law that carved out an exception to Section 230 for material that promotes or facilitates prostitution. Craigslist quickly removed its personals section altogether, which wasn't intended to facilitate sex work. But the company didnt want to take any chances.

This outcome could actually hurt none other than the president himself, who routinely attacks private figures, entertains conspiracy theories and accuses others of crimes.

If platforms were not immune under the law, then they would not risk the legal liability that could come with hosting Donald Trumps lies, defamation, and threats," said Kate Ruane, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Another possibility: Facebook, Twitter and other platforms could abandon moderation altogether and let the lower common denominator prevail.

Such unmonitored services could easily end up dominated by trolls, like 8chan, which is infamous for graphic and extremist content, said Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman. Undoing Section 230 would be an an existential threat to the internet, he said.

But Goldman doesnt see the White House order as that kind of threat to the internet, saying its political theater that will appeal to Trump supporters. The president cant override Congress, he said.

__

AP Technology Writer Tali Arbel contributed to this story from New York.

More:

Behind the fight over the rule that made the modern internet - Huron Daily Tribune

PHILADELPHIA (AP) The police commissioner in Philadelphia said Wednesday that her department will release 911 tapes and footage from police body cameras in the near future in the shooting death of a Black man following two nights of protests that set off clashes with police and break-ins of stores on the other side of the city.

The death of Walter Wallace Jr., who was fatally shot by police Monday after authorities say he ignored orders to drop a knife, came amid already heightened tensions in the battleground state just days before the election.

City officials announced Wednesday they would enact a curfew in the city from 9 p.m. until 6 a.m.

Mayor Jim Kenney told reporters the Pennsylvania National Guard would also be deployed to help protect property and assist the police. The first troops were expected Friday and Saturday.

Kenney, a Democrat, said 23 officers were treated and released for injuries, often bruises, after objects were thrown at them during Tuesdays clashes.

Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw said officials would release the body cam footage and 911 tapes after talking with Wallaces family members. She also said the police department should move as soon as possible to integrate with mental health services.

Outlaw said the police department was caught off guard by looting in the citys Port Richmond neighborhood, far from the protests near the shooting scene in West Philadelphia.

The clashes erupted after about 500 people gathered in a West Philadelphia park Tuesday evening, marching to the nearby police headquarters where officers were stationed with riot shields. Some of the demonstrators threw debris at officers, according to police.

Business owners were cleaning up damage and boarding up windows and doors Wednesday after video showed people streaming into stores and stealing goods on the opposite side of the city from where Wallace was shot.

The clashes come as Pennsylvania emerges as a key focus of the contentious 2020 election, with President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden, a native son, locked in a battle for the states 20 electoral votes. Both candidates have made frequent campaign stops in the state.

More than 9 million Pennsylvanians have registered to vote, and many in Philadelphia waited in line for hours this week to request a mail-in ballot by Tuesdays deadline, as news of the police shooting spread.

The unrest started Monday evening, shortly after Wallace, 27, was killed, and set off protests elsewhere, including in Washington, D.C., the Brooklyn borough of New York City and Portland, Oregon, where demonstrators held their hands in the shape of a W in his honor.

Police said Wallace was wielding a knife and ignored orders to drop the weapon before officers fired shots Monday afternoon. But his familys lawyer said the family had called for an ambulance to get him help with a mental health crisis. His parents said Tuesday that officers knew their son was in a mental health crisis because they had been to the familys house three times on Monday.

Wallaces wife, Dominique, is pregnant and was scheduled to be induced Wednesday, according to the familys attorney, Shaka Johnson. Johnson said Wallace had nine children, two of whom briefly spoke at a news conference late Tuesday, along with Wallaces mother and father.

When you come to a scene where somebody is in a mental crisis, and the only tool you have to deal with it is a gun ... where are the proper tools for the job? Johnson said, arguing that Philadelphia police officers are not properly trained to handle mental health crises. Johnson said Wallaces brother had called 911 to request medical assistance and an ambulance.

Police officials said they could not confirm what information had been given to the responding officers, whether they were told about a possible mental illness or how many calls they had received for help at Wallaces address Monday. Chief Police Inspector Frank Vanore confirmed that police had received a call before the fatal encounter Monday about a man screaming and saying that he was armed with a knife.

Outlaw said earlier the officers involved in the shooting were taken off street duty as they investigate. Outlaw said the officers names and other identifying information, including their race, would be withheld until the department could be sure releasing the information would not pose a threat to their safety.

Neither had a Taser or similar device at the time of the shooting, Outlaw said, noting the department had previously asked for funding to equip more officers with those devices.

The two officers each fired at least seven rounds at least 14 total shots but Vanore could not say how many times Wallace was struck.

Wallaces father, Walter Wallace Sr. said Tuesday night that he is haunted by the way his son was butchered.

Its in my mind. I cant even sleep at night. I cant even close my eyes, he said.

In video filmed by a bystander and posted on social media, officers could be seen yelling for Wallace to drop a knife. In the video, Wallaces mother and at least one man followed Wallace, trying to get him to listen to officers, as he briskly walked across the street and between cars.

Wallace advanced toward the officers, who then fired several times, said police spokesperson Officer Tanya Little. Wallaces mother could be seen screaming and throwing something at an officer after her son was shot and fell to the ground.

The video does not make it clear whether he was in fact holding a knife, but witnesses said he was. Police would not confirm any details about the weapon Wallace was alleged to be holding Tuesday, saying it is still part of the open investigation.

Wallace was hit in the shoulder and chest, Little said. One officer drove him to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead a short time later, she said.

Lawyer Robert Trimble represented Wallace in a 2016 robbery case that led him to spend about a year in jail. His sentence, according to court records, included six years of probation and mental health supervision. He had new charge pending at the time of his death.

I ran into him about a year ago by City Hall. He stopped me on the street and thanked me for helping him, Trimble said. I remember him being a decent guy.

Wallaces death set off demonstrations Monday night, leading to the arrest of more than 90 people. Police said 30 officers were injured Monday, most of them hit with objects like bricks.

Associated Press writer Maryclaire Dale contributed to this report from Philadelphia.

See the original post:

Body cam, 911 tapes in Walter Wallace killing to be released - The Associated Press

On Wednesday, Omaha Police Chief Chief Todd Schmaderer outlined what his department needs to do better when it comes to responding to protests and civil unrest.Schmaderer went over a review of the the department's response to more than 60 different events in Omaha this summer.Click here to read the full reportOverall, the chief said OPD operated with patience to provide the opportunity for free speech.He said officers dealt with being spit on, screamed at and having objects thrown at them.He said despite difficulties, command and control improved each day and the department gained valuable experience."Because if we can't learn they were destined to repeat the failures that we had on the first go round and we don't want that to occur," he said. Schmaderer said there were 123 use-of-force incidents and three were not within policy.One officer was fired and is appealing that termination.He said area's for improvement included training, equipment and bringing policies and procedures up to speed.He said training would include areas of de-escalation and on the First Amendment. The department plans to make changes in handling mass arrests.

On Wednesday, Omaha Police Chief Chief Todd Schmaderer outlined what his department needs to do better when it comes to responding to protests and civil unrest.

Schmaderer went over a review of the the department's response to more than 60 different events in Omaha this summer.

Click here to read the full report

Overall, the chief said OPD operated with patience to provide the opportunity for free speech.

He said officers dealt with being spit on, screamed at and having objects thrown at them.

He said despite difficulties, command and control improved each day and the department gained valuable experience.

"Because if we can't learn they were destined to repeat the failures that we had on the first go round and we don't want that to occur," he said.

Schmaderer said there were 123 use-of-force incidents and three were not within policy.

One officer was fired and is appealing that termination.

He said area's for improvement included training, equipment and bringing policies and procedures up to speed.

He said training would include areas of de-escalation and on the First Amendment. The department plans to make changes in handling mass arrests.

See the original post:

Omaha police chief details changes to be made in officers' responding to protests and civil unrest - KETV Omaha