from the [gestures-at-Dr.-Velyvis]-anyone-can-start-a-blog-on-Wordpress dept

What appears to be a very combative divorce between two very combative people in Marin County, California has reached the point of criminal charges. Not justifiable criminal charges, but criminal charges all the same.

Melissanne Velyvis has been very publicly documenting everything about her divorce proceedings and her ex-husband's (Dr. John Velyvis) alleged domestic abuse. In an apparent attempt to silence her from discussing her personal life (which necessarily involved discussing his personal life), John approached a judge and secured a restraining order forbidding his ex-wife from publishing "disparaging comments." Here's Judge Beverly Wood making her feelings clear about Melissanne's divorce-focused blogging:

I really came into this hearing not wanting to issue this order and really hoping that I wouldnt have to issue this order, but it has to stop, Wood said, according to a transcript of the proceeding. It really has to stop. And I need to tell you that if you dont stop this, this can become a criminal matter. I dont think you want to go there.

The order was expansive. It not only banned future "disparaging" posts but ordered the removal of everything fitting that description Melissanne had posted in the past.

I am making an order that you remove any posting on social media on Internet regarding Dr. John Velyvis and that you not post anything on social media regarding Dr. Velyvis or his children directly or indirectly. [...] I am going to order that you prevent disseminating any information about Dr. Velyvis to any parties absent a court order or subpoena.

Melissanne did not stop posting. Last December, Marin County prosecutors filed criminal charges over the violation of the restraining order. The prosecutor argued the prior restraint was Constitutional because the alleged harassment targeted by the order was unlawful.

Melissanne challenged the order. Seven months after being criminally charged for discussing her divorce and her ex-husband online, the restraining order has been dismantled by another county judge.

[Judge Roy] Chernus ruled on the petition on July 27. He agreed that the prior court order was an unconstitutional block on free speech, and said the criminal charge could not stand.

In California, a court must find that extraordinary circumstances exist in order to restrain the defendants right to share independently obtained information about another adult with other willing adults, Chernus wrote. The fact the public sharing of these comments might be humiliating to the targeted adult, or cause emotional distress or even cause harm to the subjects professional reputation, does not rise to the level of a compelling or extraordinary circumstance.

The ruling [PDF] (thanks, Volokh Conspiracy!) makes it clear the order is only unconstitutional as far as it applies to Melissanne's online postings. Other elements regarding "unwanted contact" still apply.

The court cites a handful of other divorce proceedings in which similar restraining orders were found unconstitutional. Just because one of the parties may feel harassed by the other party's discussion of ongoing acrimony doesn't make it unlawful for the party to engage in this speech. Unless the speech falls into narrow categories (like defamation or true threats), the speech is Constitutionally protected.

There is nothing on the face of the complaint, or in the Family Court judge's judicially-noticed findings of fact to indicate any of defendant's communications were previously found to be defamatory.

As stated in the DVPO, the Family Law judge found that defendant's statements about Dr. Velyvis were intentionally harassing, damaged his reputation and interfered with his personal relationships.

Based on the authorities discussed above, these reasons are insufficient to justify such a broad prohibition. The court finds that the portion of the DVPO restraining defendant from posting on the internet or communicating any information about defendant's ex-husband or his children is impermissibly overbroad and constitutes an invalid prior restraint under the federal and California constitutions.

Since the order is invalid, so is the criminal charge.

Violation of this portion of the DVPO, therefore, is not an actionable offense.

The protective order can still be violated but it can no longer be violated simply by posting content Dr. John Velyvis feels is disparaging or personally harmful. The First Amendment -- and California's own Constitution -- protects the right of divorce participants to make each other as miserable as possible. Which is as it should be, since divorce is just as much an American tradition as free speech itself.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyones attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise and every little bit helps. Thank you.

The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, california, divorce, free speech, john velyvis, marin, melissanne velyvis

Read this article:

Court Says First Amendment Protects Ex-Wife's Right To Publicly Discuss Her Ex-Husband On Her Personal Blog - Techdirt

If you are like me, you were vaguely aware of the TikTok app before it was a word thrown around on the news.

TikTok is an app that is primarily used to watch short, funny videos created by people around the world. Users can film themselves lip-syncing to music, acting out various sketches and trends or creating some other kind of short-form original content. It currently has over 100 million American users.

My 11-year old loves to watch the original videos created by the kids on there. The app has helped keep her entertained during the pandemic as she watched other kids do creative dances and songs.

For months, President Trump has been complaining about TikTok and its security risks for users of the app. The administration advocated banning the app because it says its Chinese owners could be required to co-operate with the Chinese government and turn over information about its users.

He recently issued an executive order calling for a complete halt of all US transactions with TikToks parent company by September 20.

Microsoft has been in talks with the company to discuss buying its US operations, but no deal is yet in place.

TikTok is owned by a private Chinese company called ByteDance. It does not operate in China and says user data is stored on servers inside the United States. They also say they are prepared to sue to stop the sale of their company.

Trumps order lists a variety of concerns like data collection and the possibility of disinformation by the Chinese government.

TikTok has reportedly been under a national security review for almost a year by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. So far, there has been no public release of their findings on the company.

The app collects information including geolocation tags, unique device identifiers, and contents of in-app messages in order to track and predict consumer trends.

The practice is neither illegal nor uncommon for social network platforms. Facebook collects personal data and makes ad profiles based on users political and religious affiliations. According to a recent Washington Post article, they can even track users when they are not using the app. They were accused of sharing user information to third party companies for ad revenue in 2018.

Six other popular apps that collect data about your appearance, browsing history and geographical location are Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp, Google, Amazon and Flickr.

Any of those companies could be selling data which ultimately ends up in the hands of the Chinese or the Russians. Could be, being the operative words.

The only difference is the owner of TikTok is based in China, who Trump has an ongoing feud with. Some suggest Trumps goal with the ban is a political win against China.

His current interest in TikTok began after a less than sold-out crowd at his Tulsa, Oklahoma political rally. It was rumored that an anti-Trump troll campaign originated on TikTok and was responsible for the small crowd.

A recent CIA assessment reportedly found no evidence that the app was used by Chinese spy agencies to intercept data, according to the New York Times.

Allowing the government to ban TikTok would present a problem with our constitutional right of free speech. If they get away with this ban, it could set a precedent for digital censorship.

Perhaps this is just the beginning of a campaign to do that. Facebook and Twitter have recently added fact checks and even removed some of Trumps videos and tweets they claim contain false or misleading information.

No American president has ever invoked emergency powers against a piece of software.

Critics worry that Trumps actions could set a dangerous precedent in how the government tries to control the way citizens use the internet. Restricting internet use results in peoples inability to speak their mind. When countries like the United States do it, it erodes our democracy.

The irony of a TikTok ban is noteworthy because removing TikTok would be similar to the actions taken by China which does not allow Facebook, Twitter and Google because it censors what its citizens can do online. Now the Chinese can accuse us of the same thing.

So far, we have seen no evidence of the governments case, only accusations and speculation.

Banning an app in a country built around individual freedoms should require more proof than allegations made by an administration that consistently provides inconsistent and often misleading information. Big tech companies that entertain, inform and allow millions of people to share opinions should not be banned in a democracy where its citizens are free to express themselves.

Changes in federal privacy laws to require better standards for security and transparency would be more beneficial.

Protections, not restrictions, are the American way.

See the article here:

TikToking away at the first amendment | Columns | jcsentinel.com - Jackson County Sentinel

Provided by The Independent

Voting rights groups are suing the head of the postal service to reverse reforms which have caused backlogs and delays across the country months before an election in which record numbers are expected to vote by mail.

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Maryland, accuses Louis DeJoy of weaponising the United States Postal Service to disenfranchise Americans who choose to vote by mail.

Mr DeJoy, a major donor to Donald Trump who was named head of the postal service in May, has overseen a raft of changes to working practices since his arrival including the removal of mail processing machines and a ban on overtime which caused severe delays to mail delivery.

Following an outcry from voting rights advocates and Democrats who said the delays amounted to election interference, he announced that he would suspend the reforms until after the November vote "to avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail.

But the lawsuit calls for a full reversal of the changes to working practices including the removal of mail processing machines and a ban on overtime which caused severe delays to mail delivery.

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has wreaked havoc across the country with reckless policies intended to disrupt the timely delivery of mail just weeks in advance of a general election, said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which is pursuing the case. Without question, DeJoy is weaponising the United States Postal Service (USPS) to disenfranchise Americans who choose to vote by mail amid an unprecedented pandemic gripping the nation.

Ms Clarke added that Mr DeJoys statement vowing to suspend changes rings hollow in the absence of remedial action taken to address the damage that his actions have caused.

Mr DeJoy claimed his reforms were long-planned and unrelated to the election. But the changes came at the same time president Trump has increased attacks on the validity of mail-in ballots and held up emergency funding for the postal service because he did not want to see their use expanded.

The suit was filed on behalf of voting rights groups the National Urban League, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters US against Postmaster General Louis DeJoy and the United States Postal Service.

It alleges that Mr DeJoy followed through on Mr Trumps publicly stated desire to undercut the delivery of mail ballots by weakening the postal service, which violates the constitution.

The drastic and disruptive changes to the Postal Service by the Trump administration have been an attack on every Americans right to vote and their First Amendment right to free speech and they must be rolled back definitively with more than just a press release, said Karen Hobert Flynn, President of Common Cause.

Following weeks of attacks against the post office and its ability to handle mail-in ballots in the upcoming election, Mr Trump offered a frank explanation last week about why he was blocking emergency funding for the service in the next coronavirus stimulus bill.

They need that money in order to make the Post Office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots, he told Fox Business. But if they dont get those two items, that means you cant have universal mail-in voting, because theyre not equipped to have it.

Mr Trump has blocked much-needed funding for the postal service to help it deal with the pressures of the coronavirus.

House Democrats have called for $25 billion for the post office as part of a $3 trillion coronavirus relief package. That package would also include $3.6bn for election funding to help states meet the demands of holding a vote during the pandemic. The White House has rejected that proposal, citing Mr Trumps false claims that granting the funding would lead to fraud.

Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell was one of more than 170 House members to sign a letter calling for the reversal of the reforms last week.

I think the motivation is quite clear. Donald Trump sees mail-in balloting as a threat to his reelection, and so he's seeking to dismantle the post office, he told The Independent.

Mr DeJoy is scheduled to testify in both chambers of Congress in the coming days, starting off with an appearance at the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Friday.

Video: Top Trump homeland security appointments improper, U.S. government watchdog says (Reuters)

Top Trump homeland security appointments improper, U.S. government watchdog says

Click to expand

UP NEXT

Continue reading here:

'An attack on the First Amendment': Voting rights groups sue postmaster general Louis DeJoy to reverse post office reforms - MSN UK

NY AG Letitia James called the NRA a 'terrorist organization.'

ALBANY Two years ago, Letitia James then a candidate for New York attorney general made a provocative campaign promise.

The National Rifle Association, the nation's preeminent guns-rights group, had a "poisonous agenda" that was "directly antithetical" to New York's tough gun-control laws, James said at the time.

She vowed to investigate the powerful and controversial group to determine whether it should keep its charitable status, making it the first plank of her plan to combat gun violence.

"The NRA is an organ of deadly propaganda masquerading as a charity for public good," the plan read. "Its agenda is set by gun-makers who think arming teachers is a better idea than making it harder for kids to get military grade guns."

Two years later, James now the attorney general made good on her pledge, filing a lawsuit this month alleging a wide array of fraud and corruption at the NRA. James says it is enough to warrant shutting down the 148-year-old organization.

The NRA wasted no time trying to use James' campaign comments against her, filing a counter suit accusing the Democrat of displaying a preconceived outcome that guided her investigation into the organization and violated its First Amendment rights.

Ultimately, it will be up to the state courts to determine whether James' prior remarks will hurt her headline-grabbing case, which seeks to dissolve the NRA and oust longtime executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre.

"It's never helpful for any prosecutor to show any bias against a potential target in advance of litigation," said Sean Delany [Copy checked] , a Westchester attorney who led the Charities Bureau of the New York attorney general's office in the late 1990s.

"But given the amount of wrongdoing alleged in the complaint, which draws a picture of a cesspool of fraud, it's hard to believe that the attorney general won't be able to prevail if she can prove even a fraction of those allegations."

James has been critical of the NRA

James, then the New York City public advocate and a former City Council member, made no secret of her disdain for the NRA during her 2018 campaign.

Along with the comments sprinkled in her anti-gun-violence plan, James also called the NRA a "criminal enterprise" and a "terrorist organization" in interviews and a debate prior to her November 2018 election, saying an investigation into the group would be her "top issue" if elected.

"The NRA holds [itself] out as a charitable organization, but in fact, [it] really [is] a terrorist organization," James said in a 2018 interview with Ebony magazine.

Those comments, along with the quotes from her anti-gun-violence campaign, are at the center of the NRA's counter suit, which seems to severely limit the scope of James' ongoing investigation and force the state to pay the organization for damages.

In short, the NRA claims James unfairly targeted the organization for investigation because she disagrees with its efforts to stop gun-control laws, violating its free-speech and equal-protection rights.

"James's threatened, and actual, regulatory reprisals are a blatant and malicious retaliation campaign against the NRA and its constituents based on her disagreement with the content of their speech," according to the NRA's lawsuit.

Is the NRA trying to distract?

James contends the NRA is simply trying to take away from the widespread fraud and corruption alleged in her lawsuit.

The suit, filed Aug. 6 in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, lays out a series of highly detailed, specific accusations across more than 160 pages. The NRA, LaPierre and three other current and former organization leaders are named as defendants.

Much of it focuses on LaPierre, who is accused of using the longstanding organization to enrich himself and support his family's lavish lifestyle, wasting millions of dollars on private travel including eight trips to the Bahamas and use of a yacht with four staterooms, a jet boat and two jet skis.

LaPierre is also accused of engineering a post-employment contract without NRA board approval that guarantees him a lifetime salary even if he's let go. That contract is currently worth about $17 million, according to James' lawsuit.

LaPierre and the NRA are also accused of hiding spending in a number of ways, including by having Ackerman McQueen the NRA's longtime advertising firm cover travel and entertainment expenses before billing the organization for reimbursement.

That allegedly fraudulent relationship allowed LaPierre to file false personal tax returns, according to the lawsuit.

The NRA's counter suit is just an attempt to divert attention away from the organization's "deep-rooted" fraud, James said in a statement.

"The facts speak for themselves, and our lawsuit will continue undeterred," she said.

James has civil jurisdiction to investigate and regulate the NRA because the organization was chartered in New York way back in 1871, when it was formed to promote marksmanship.

Pursuing the dissolution of a charity is the most severe form of punishment the attorney general's office can pursue against a not-for-profit organization. And the NRA is the most prominent organization the state has sought that punishment against.

NRA known to defend aggressively

Ted De Barbieri, an associate professor at Albany Law School who specializes in nonprofit law, said the NRA has a history of aggressively defending itself against litigation.

Using James' campaign comments in its counter suit fits into that playbook, he said.

"Based on what I know of the NRA's litigation strategy in the past, they are very aggressive," he said. "They're going to use all the legal tools they have available."

James is not the first New York official the NRA has accused of violating its First Amendment rights by highlighting critical comments that preceded state action.

In 2018, the NRA filed a lawsuit against the Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state Department of Financial Services over state actions that dissuaded major insurers from doing business with the organization.

Later in the year, U.S. District Judge Thomas McAvoy dismissed much of the NRA's lawsuit. But he allowed the NRA to continue with its claim that Cuomo and the state agency violated its freedom-of-speech rights by making direct and implied threats against insurers that were in business with the organization.

"The allegations ... are sufficient to make out plausible First Amendment freedom-of-speech claims," McAvoy wrote at the time.

James said her investigation's conclusions are based on the NRA's action and clear violations of New York's charity laws not her position on gun control.

"This is not a question of the moment that I've been waiting for," she said Aug. 6, the day she filed her lawsuit.

"This is a question again of following the facts and applying the law, and when you apply the law, the only conclusion you can come to is that these four individual defendants and the NRA and all of its directors and officers violated the law."

See original here:

Will past comments hurt NYs case against the NRA? - Hornell Evening Tribune

The 19,000-acre Essex Chain of Lakes between Indian Lake and Newcomb certainly has received lots of public attention. In 2007, it was a major part of the Finch, Pruyn and Company sale of 161,000-acres to the Adirondack Nature Conservancy, with help from the Open Space Institute.

Today, the first amendment to the Essex Chain of Lakes Primitive Area Unit Management Plan is up for public comment. Should it be approved? Before tackling that question, let us review.

What an earthquake the 2007 Finch, Pruyn sale felt like, with many aftershocks. It promised an exciting time for land conservation and for advocates for open space conservation like me and the nonprofits I worked with. It still is. It was a scary time for Finch employees, contractors, leaseholders, and many townspeople, including guides tied closely to the land and its future uses. The consequences of that land sale are still playing out and will continue to.

Also, it was a time to recall a longer continuum of debate about the Adirondack Park and what the Park should be and look like. During the 1950s people like my wilderness mentor Paul Schaefer had passionate exchanges with people like Lyman Beeman, then chairman of Finch, Pruyn, about the future of Finchs vast Adirondack holdings, about the practice of forestry, about wilderness, what was it and whether wilderness management of the Forest Preserve was desirable, achievable, worthy.

The National Wilderness Preservation Act passed in 1964, inspired by our forever wild State Constitution. State Lands (Forest Preserve) classified Wilderness, Primitive, Canoe, Wild Forest, Intensive Use came to pass in 1972 via the Adirondack Park Agency Act and its offshoot, the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan.

Paul Schaefer died in 1996. Even in his final year, he was still researching and speaking with Bob Flacke of Finch, Pruyns board (now also deceased) about how some of the Finch, Pruyn lands could be protected from development and eventually added to the Forest Preserve. In 2007, Pauls goal was amply fulfilled. In 2009 more than 90,000 acres of the 161,000 was sold with a conservation easement that prevented second home development but allowed continued forest harvesting and management, still ongoing. In 2012, Governor Cuomo and his DEC began to acquire on our behalf 65,000-acres for the Forest Preserve, where forest harvesting is prohibited by the NYS Constitutions Article XIV. The Essex Chain of Lakes were among those first acquisitions.

Land classification

Considering the miles of former logging roads, the history of mechanized uses, and the history of float plane landings on certain of the lakes, DEC initially proposed a Wild Forest classification for the Essex Chain of Lakes. The public immediately engaged in debate and hearings. Adirondack Wild pushed hard for a Wilderness classification, for good reasons we felt. Certain APA members, notably Dick Booth, and certain APA staff, argued effectively that the rare wetland plants, the extent of those wetlands fringing on the lakes, the 19,000-acres, the remote feel, the exquisite ecological and recreational values all pointed to greater resource protection than Wild Forest would permit. Ultimately, the classification decision was Primitive to allow the float plane uses to continue yet for most the lakes to be managed as near to Wilderness as possible. A Wild Forest snowmobile corridor would run between the Primitive Hudson River and the Chain Lakes.

Then in 2014-15 came the Essex Chain Unit Management Plan. Further exceptions to wilderness management were made at the insistence of the DEC, with APA members Booth and Lussi dissenting. With support from Governor Cuomo, DEC led APA by the nose to accommodate more recreational uses, such as bicycling. Regardless of how ill-suited these former logging roads, now trails, were for family bike touring an exception was carved out to authorize bicycling in this one Primitive area (bikes are not authorized in Wilderness, or on non-mechanized trails in all other Primitive areas).

Then, DEC wanted motorized vehicles to maintain those trails for bicycling and that, also, was authorized by Master Plan amendment in what Adirondack Wild and others viewed as an especially egregious violation of the State Land Master Plan.

From our viewpoint, yet even more egregious violations of law by DEC (and APA) were to follow, most prominently by allowing pre-existing uses to continue on Forest Preserve, including snowmobile corridors and bridges within Scenic River areas. These were authorized by the UMP and then by DEC permit. We took the agencies to court over the UMP and the permit. Some of those core issues went all the way up to the Court of Appeals. Adirondack Wild and Protect eventually lost that one 4-3 in 2019.

Proposed changes

Now in mid-2020, during a pandemic, comes the very first amendment to the Essex Chain of Lakes UMP. What is our DEC now proposing as a change to the UMP and why? In our view, a continuation of the pattern: still more accommodation to recreational uses at the expense of natural resource protection. And what is Adirondack Wild doing? Speaking up for the Essex Chain Lakes UMP that we took to court earlier. Who would have thought it?

The Essex Chain UMP of 2016 may have led to serious violations of the law in our view, but at least the document was thorough and backed by site specific information and data. This proposed amendment is anything but thorough. It amounts to guesswork. The data and rationale for it are entirely anecdotal, and the DEC admits it.

The proposed 2020 amendment would end the current prohibition of open campfires within 500 feet of the shoreline of the Essex Chain of Lakes, classified Primitive. The DECs amendment justifies the proposed action on three grounds: 1. Local community demand for increased visitor use; 2. it is believed that a portion of the low public use is due to the waterfront campfire prohibition based upon anecdotal negative feedback; 3. the Adirondack region has relatively little observational data regarding the impacts of campfires on natural resources.

As to reason # 1, local community demand for increased visitor use is a perfectly legitimate demand so long as it is not the driving force behind this amendment, which it appears to be.

As to reason # 2, the statement that It is believed that a portion of the low public use is due to the waterfront campfire prohibition is hardly an actionable basis for campfires which have known negative impacts to the natural resources along these shores, as detailed in the 2016 UMP.

Further, I suspect (and DEC ought to suspect) that a more fundamental reason why visitation has been below expectations over the past six years is the long 12-mile, remote drive from State Route 28 N to Deer Pond parking area. Visitor deterrence is largely the result of a long, slow drive on this remote road network.

As to reason # 3, it is contradicted by the UMP itself. The UMP devotes considerable attention on page 3 to the ecological significance of the Essex Chain shoreline, and the impacts that campfires have on natural resources, especially understory trees and course woody debris removal from firewood gathering. In fact, the decision to classify the Essex Chain of Lakes as Primitive was due, in part, to the ecological significance of the lakes and their ecologically rare and valuable, fringing wetlands.

Simplified management?

DEC adds this additional rationale for the amendment, that removing the campfire prohibition around these shorelines will contribute to simplified management and ease in visitor understanding of the area. That makes no sense. The public grasps the reasons described in the UMP why campfires along a sensitive lake shoreline are prohibited to protect the soil and vegetation and water quality. Visitors generally understand that the very act of searching for and obtaining firewood or carrying it into a campsite and burning things like trash in it can cause serious environmental damage to sensitive shorelines. They wish to be partners with DEC in protecting these beautiful, vulnerable lakeshores by using a camp stove.

What Forest Ranger will devote themselves to monitor the dozen or so primitive tent sites for abuses? Who will then clamp down again and prohibit campfires once environmental damage is found? Remediating damage after-the-fact instead of preventing it strikes me as the opposite of simplified management.

Given severe DEC staff shortages, future monitoring and tent site remediation along these shores appears to me overly expensive and unrealistic. The departments fundamental legal responsibility here, as elsewhere, is to proactively protect natural resources. In the 2016 UMP DEC presents documented evidence of the actual damage caused by firewood gathering at primitive tent sites elsewhere in the Adirondack Forest Preserve. That evidence led to the campfire prohibition. That prohibition ought to remain in place.

Another amendment

The second amendment to the Essex Chain UMP involves the former Gooley Farmhouse site north of Indian Lake and is similarly unsupported by factual data. The 2016 UMP called for that structure to be retained for a range of potential uses even though its perpetuation would be a violation of the forever wild provision of our state constitution. Time and neglect caused the structure to fall apart. Now, the amendment calls for its complete removal. In its place DEC is encouraging parking for cars and trucks with space for up to six horse trailers. Horse riding along this Wild Forest corridor is an appropriate and compliant use, but six? That number is unsupported by any analysis of actual or projected use or the ability of that area to withstand such uses. Whatever the precise number it should have a substantive basis. What about other actual or potential uses? UMP amendments are expected by the Master Plan to include the same detail that a full UMP should contain. That absence of carrying capacity information for the Outer Gooley Farmhouse area alone should be sufficient to reject the proposed amendments recommendation and return it to DEC for additional work.

The mid-August comment period for the draft UMP amendment has passed. Readers can still find the amendment on the APA website. See Adirondack Wilds comment letter here letter to DEC and APA. The amendment remains in draft form, so further public comment opportunities are expected to be set by DEC and APA.

Dave Gibson, who writes about issues of wilderness, wild lands, public policy, and more, has been involved in Adirondack conservation for over 30 years as executive director of the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks, executive director of Protect the Adirondacks and currently as managing partner with Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve

During Dave's tenure at the Association, the organization completed the Center for the Forest Preserve including the Adirondack Research Library at Paul Schaefers home. The library has the finest Adirondack collection outside the Blue Line, specializing in Adirondack conservation and recreation history.

Currently, Dave is managing partner in the nonprofit organization launched in 2010, Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve.

Read the rest here:

Ending the Campfire Prohibition on the Chain Lakes Makes No Sense - - Adirondack Almanack

A retired assistant U.S. attorney offers his thoughts on the ongoing unrest including fires, vandalism and riots.

PORTLAND, Ore. Retired assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Peifer has a unique perspective on the violent protests in Portland. During his time as a federal prosecutor, Peifer handled domestic-terrorism cases and learned a lot about anarchists, eco-terrorists and violent extremists. Peifer recently spoke with KGW about the ongoing unrest in Portland.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Are the violent protests, involving fires and vandalism, different than what weve seen before?

Stephen Peifer, former assistant U.S. Attorney:

Oh, I think theyre definitely different. Theyre much more violent and destructive. The type of weapons and other things being used are different than days past. You never saw the green lasers being used before, which are very dangerous. You never saw slingshots flinging ball bearings. You didnt see commercial grade fireworks- some, maybe but those are all very common and very dangerous.

As someone who spent years as a federal prosecutor, do you think police and prosecutors are handling this unrest correctly?

I think the U.S. Attorneys Office is handling it correctly under Billy Williams leadership but the district attorney now has written off a whole laundry list of crimes that he says wont be prosecuted and it is basically like throwing in the towel to these people. When you basically kiss off 400 cases as he did, that sends a message that youre not serious about prosecuting. You should be able to prosecute as many crimes as you can prove and once you decide not to do that, then youve basically told the organizers of this activity they can have carte blanche.

The arrests that we have seen so far; do they paint an accurate picture of whos behind the violence, the fires, the criminal behavior?

The anarchist organization antifa, and the wannabes that go along with it, theyre very loosely organized but very well-trained and they know how to avoid arrest. The ones who get arrested tend to be the very young ones, the 18-year-olds and even younger. Theyre the ones cutting their teeth so to speak and get caught up with it and get themselves arrested. There will be more arrests, I think, as more and more information is gleaned on who is operating and how theyre operating. There are ongoing investigations. The FBI has already said they have ongoing investigations of a number of federal crimes, including crossing state lines to commit crimes, and that may very well pan out in the future.

Whats it going to take to stop the violence?

Well, it is going to take very strong and effective law enforcement at all levels. And it should be coordinated. The state and federal and city people should all be talking to each other -- coordinating their response. Instead, you have a situation where thats not happening and it handicaps law enforcement. At the prosecution level, they should pick their cases carefully. Make sure they are provable because you dont want to bring any charges that will be thrown out unnecessarily. Orchestrate a concentrated effort to go after as many people as you can because deterrence is the only answer here, when it comes to the violence. Im not talking about deterrence of ordinary street demonstrations and the First Amendment, thats a different, totally different, subject. But we learned in prosecuting the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front, in what was known as Operation Backfire, which sort of came to a head in 2005, we learned in that case that once the heat is on people begin to talk, they begin to give you more and more information about the organization.

Go here to read the rest:

What will it take to stop violent protests in Portland? - KGW.com

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

In July 1963, Wendell Gunn appeared in the registrars office of Florence State College requesting an application from a bewildered secretary.

He was confused, too.

Gunn had seen James Hood and Vivian Malone admitted to University of Alabama the previous month. Autherine Lucy had been admitted in 1956. He thought the matter of Black folks attending white schools had been formally settled.

It had not.Gunn was taken to an office where the colleges president and dean awaited him.

The dean stared at me with those steely eyes and said, Who sent you here?

Gunn received his application with a warning from the president. He could not admit him without a federal court order. His mother phoned civil rights attorney Fred Gray.

He asked me if I really wanted to go. After saying we couldn't afford [litigation], he said, That's not what I asked you, Gunn recalled with a laugh. Gray sued and Gunn enrolled.

Civil Rights Attorney Fred Gray talks about representing Alabama State University students that were expelled for taking part in the 1960 lunch counter sit-in in Montgomery, during a press conference at the ASU campus in Montgomery, Ala., on Monday February 25, 2019. (Photo: Mickey Welsh / Advertiser)

The case was one of many for Gray. Throughout his career Gray filed suits that desegregated 105 of the 119 school systems in the state including everything under the control of the State Board of Education, which followed from Lee v. Macon. The students who had gained admission to UA in 56 and 63? Gray represented them, too.

After Gov. John Patterson ordered the president of the historically Black university, then Alabama State College, to expel students who led a sit-in demonstration in 1960, Gray won their reinstatement in St. John v. Dixon. The case enshrined all higher education students right to due process.

More: 'Unwilling to just wait': Alabama State sit-in brought change, cost protesting students dearly

As the civil rights attorney approaches 90 this December, Gunn is leading a renewed effort to honor Graywith the Presidential Medal of Freedom, among the highest awards granted civilians.

If anybody deserves the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Fred does, said Gunn.

For Gray, it began with a simple declaration: destroy everything segregated.

But he couldnt let it slip.

Black lawyers were hard to find when he graduated from Alabama State in 1951. It was why he had changed course, decided against a career as a preacher and instead enrolled at a law school in Cleveland. He had no choice but to leave the South.

African Americans were barred from white Southern schools. But he would return to Montgomery to complete his secret pledge in a place some proudly called the cradle of the Confederacy, no less by using the law to reclaim the rights denied to Black people through its unjust application.

Now, for a black boy in his upper teens to even think about that in Alabama was almost unheard of in the 1940s and 1950s. Nevertheless, that's the commitment I made to myself, Gray said in a 2014 interview at his alma mater Case Western Reserve University.

Civil Rights Attorney Fred Gray discusses his work in the civil rights movement at his offices in Tuskegee, Ala. on Tuesday February 7, 2017. (Photo: Mickey Welsh / Advertiser)

What proceeded was a legal career that has spanned more than half a century and yielded countless civil rights suits that have profoundly impacted American democracy. He played a significant role in four landmark Supreme Court cases in his first 10 years of practice, an outrageous feat rulings university students now study as case law.

How wide is the scope of litigation that Gray touched? If it had to do with segregation or civil rights in Alabama between the mid-1950s and today, Gray likely had a hand in it.

It's just astounding, said Jonathan Entin, a constitutional expert and professor emeritus of law at Case Reserve Western. He was involved in virtually every important civil rights case in Alabama for decades.

Gray took on these high-profile cases at a time when overt racial animus drove public policy and clotted even cordial attempts at race relations. There were signals that communicated the nature of this work: disturbing late-night calls; bomb threats; a draft letter.

He was there with his life, his body and his family on the line. He showed an extraordinary amount of courage that even today I have trouble getting my head around, said Entin.

Fresh out of law school in 1954, Grays first major client was Rosa Parks after her arrest off a city bus on Dec. 1, 1955. He became her lawyer at the age of 24. He would go on to represent the Montgomery Improvement Association, which launched the bus boycott that kicked off a national movement. Soon after, he became the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.s private counsel.

When the New York Times refused to retract a 1960s advertisement soliciting donations for Kings defense in a perjury trial brought by the state, Montgomerys public safety commissioner, citing some minor factual inaccuracies, sued them for libel. He sued the local Black ministers who were mentioned in the ad, too. Gray represented the clergymen.

Fred Gray(Photo: Advertiser file)

I think that New York Times against Sullivan is probably the greatest of all First Amendment cases in American history. That case made clear that ordinary citizens, we have a right to criticize the government without being harassed by the government. The nation would look very different today if it had come out the other way, said Entin.

After John Lewis and civil rights foot soldiers were beaten in Selma on Bloody Sunday in 1965, it was Gray who filed the federal lawsuit that allowed the march to Montgomery to take place, and required the state to protect the marchers from attacks by hostile white spectators.

It's extraordinary, said Entin. You couldnt make up a story like this.

In NAACP v. Alabama, he blocked the states attempt to compel the organization to furnish its membership lists, a move that wouldve undoubtedly put its associates in grave danger; it became a landmark freedom of association case that enshrined the right of assembly as essential to first amendment free speech.

Gray worked with distinguished lawyers such as Constance Baker Motley, Robert Carter, Arthur Shores and Clifford Durr. Together, they argued cases before jurists and juries who were disinclined to agree with them.

They believed at some point these jurors would be more faithful to the Constitution of the United States than the segregation laws of the South. That was a big leap of faith, said Derryn Moten, chair of history and political science at Alabama State University.

The effort to secure Grays Medal of Freedom nomination has been in progress since President Obamas first term in 2008. Why it hasnt yet been successful is as unclear as the process itself, which requires a combination of persistence, political savvy and sheer luck.

So far letters of recommendation have come from Secretary of State John Merrill and Bryan Fair, an Alabama law professor who sits on the board of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Fred Gray, left, and U. S. Rep. John Lewis talk after the 2011 Alabama Academy of Honor ceremonies in the old House chamber of the Alabama Capitol on Monday, Oct. 17, 2011, in downtown Montgomery, Ala.. (Montgomery Advertiser, Lloyd Gallman)(Photo: MONTGOMERY ADVERTISER, Advertiser file)

Gunn, the former student Gray secured admission to Florence State, has been working to seek national recognition of his legacy since late 2016. He said he intends do the impossible, secure a nomination for the medal from the Alabama Republican Congressional delegation. And after that, a resolution recommending Grays nomination from the state Legislature.

Grays mission has had personal effects. His son, Stanley Gray, attended UA Law School, the college his father was barred from. Alabama preferred to share the costs of Fred Grays out-of-state tuition rather than admit him to any of its white schools. It was an abundant investment.

Stanley Gray remembers examining the actual maps his father used as a lawyer in the Gomillion v. Lightfoot case to illustrate how officials had attempted to gerrymander Tuskegees majority-Black electoral district to suppress its political power. One justice called the shape an uncouth twenty-eight-sided figure.

One of the things that really impressed me about the work of my father, said Stanley Gray, is that he worked on cases that affected the everyday lives of individuals. Where someone goes to school, whether someone is able to vote, whether or not they're able to take public transportation in an equal way.

The man who set out on a secret mission almost 70 years ago is still at it. He takes cases out of his second office in Tuskegee.

Contact Montgomery Advertiser reporter Safiya Charlesat (334) 240-0121or SCharles@gannett.com

Read or Share this story: https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2020/08/19/civil-rights-lawyer-fred-gray-presidential-medal-freedom/5528302002/

See the original post here:

Fred Gray kept his personal promise, took the protests to the courtroom and won again and again - Montgomery Advertiser

President Donald Trump on Wednesday urged consumers to snub Goodyear tires, claiming that the company has banned hats bearing his campaign phrase "Make America Great Again," or MAGA.

"Get better tires for far less!" Mr. Trump tweeted, saying that he was taking a page from "Radical Left Democrats." He added, "Two can play the same game, and we have to start playing it now!"

Mr. Trump's tweet comes after a report by WIBW-TV in Topeka, Kansas, that some employees at a Goodyear plant in the city were told that that the company had "zero tolerance" for wearing clothing with political messaging. Those messages reportedly include MAGA attire, as well as all other clothing with political themes, as well as phrases like "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter."

According to a training slide shown by the station, the company said some slogans are acceptable, including "Black Lives Matter" and LGBT pride-related messages.

Goodyear on Wednesday issued a statement stating that the company "has always wholeheartedly supported both equality and law enforcement and will continue to do so." The statement noted that the image in question did not come from Goodyear's corporate headquarters and "was not part of a diversity training class," while reiterating its ban on political content in the workplace.

Although Americans tend to be focused on their First Amendment rights to exercise free speech, corporations are generally more intent on enforcing workplace rules and protecting their brand image, said Cheryl Sabnis, a partner at law firm King & Spalding.

"When things like political speech come into the workplace, it can be distracting, however well intended," Sabnis said. At the same time, she added, employees should be aware their behavior outside the workplace can impact their jobs, given that mobile phones with cameras make it possible for a comment or behavior to go viral and get back to one's employer.

"At the end of the day, individuals get to decide how they want to present themselves," she said. "At the same time, employers get to decide what they believe may be inconsistent with a collaborative workplace culture and what might be inconsistent with their brand."

Sabnis added, "It's about distracting from the work of the day it's not about what side you are on."

It's not the first time Mr. Trump has called out businesses for what he has cast as their bias against him. He has threatened and complained about a number companies, including Twitter, Toyota and Amazon.

At the same time, experts say consumers have grown increasingly motivated to buy from companies that align with their personal beliefs. The consulting firm Accenture recently found that almost two-thirds of Americans say their purchasing behaviors are swayed by such issues.

Here is the original post:

Trump calls for boycott of Goodyear, claiming company banned MAGA hats - CBS News