People gather in protest in front of the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, on Tuesday.Spencer Platt/Getty Images

The First Amendment prevents the government from doing a whole lot of things. We tend to focus on the freedom of speech, but the First Amendment also protects other, equally important freedoms, among them, the right of the people peaceably to assemble. The right to assemble, protest, and gather is the neglected younger sister to the free speech clause. As the Supreme Court lavishes attention on commercial speech and money as speech and religious signage and union dues and cake baking as speech, the freedom to gather and protest is often forgotten.

But this spring and summer, as protests broke out across the country initially in response to the police killing of George Floyd, a Black man, and increasingly in response to government crackdowns on protest itself, we are left with the grim prospect of protesters without much legal protection, despite the First Amendment. This much was plain to see in two congressional hearings on Tuesday, in which thousands of peaceful demonstrators were dismissed as anarchists and mobs, both by Republicans in Congress and by Attorney General William Barr.

The first hearing, before the House Committee on Natural Resources, was about what transpired on June 1, when government officials assaulted protesters in Washingtons Lafayette Square. Adam DeMarco, a major in the D.C.National Guard, testified that he saw what he deemed excessive force used to clear peaceableprotestersoutside the White House immediately before President Donald Trumps photo opportunity atSt. Johns Church. DeMarco testified that inaudible warnings to clear the park were issued at 6:20 p.m. and that even though a curfew was set for 7 p.m., at 6:30 he witnessed a clearing operation that included explosions and smoke he was told was stage smoke, which he recognized from his own military experience as tear gas. He said he later found spent tear gas cannisters on the street nearby. DeMarco described the people targeted as demonstratorsour fellow American citizensengaged in the peaceful expression of their First Amendment rights.

Testifying immediately before DeMarco, though, acting U.S. Park Police Chief Gregory Monahan insisted thatwhat he had seen in the same park was some of the mostviolent protests that Ive been a part of my 23 years of the United States Park Police, and that the police were responding to severe violence from a large group of bad actors including arson, vandalism, and injuries sustained by more than 50 officers.He insisted that the surge of official violence to clear the park that happened at 6:30 p.m. needed to occur in a crowded park with almost no warning because protective fencing had to be installed around the perimeter and that the presidents walk to the church at that hour was pure coincidence. In response to multiple videos of police in riot gear assaulting unarmed protesters with bats and shields, and footage of an Australian TV crew punched and assaulted, Monahan insisted that the footage represented merely a moment in time, and that violent protesters had bats, boards, water bottles, and bricks that they were using against law enforcement. Monahan concluded that the Park Police had exercised tremendous restraint in clearing the protesters, although he conceded there were no incidents involving attacks on officers that day, save a single assault after the violent clearing began.

Neither Barr nor Monahan could explain when and how one protester hellbent on violence turns an entire peaceful protest into an angry mob, or why a thrown water bottle should be met with pepperspray.

In a separate hearing held the same day, Attorney General William Barr was testifying before the House Judiciary Committee for the first time in more than a year. He had said he was the one who gave the order to clear the park in June, and during the hearing, he characterized the scene at Lafayette Square as unprecedented rioting around the White House. He also urged that the timing connected to Trumps photo shoot was a coincidence. Barr described what is widely acknowledged as weeks of peaceful racial justice protests in Portland, Oregon, as a moblike siege by violent rioters and anarchists against a courthouse, which includes the use of lasers, pellet guns, and slingshots against federal officers. (The New York Times could not confirm the use of those weapons.) Barr declared that what unfolds nightly around the [Portland] courthouse cannot reasonably be called a protest; it is, by any objective measure, an assault on the government of the United States, although he could not explain why protests in Michigan by armed white men that included overt threats of lynching the governor were not a mob. (Barr claimed he did not even know of the Michigan protests.) Chillingly, he insisted that while tear gas and violence were not appropriate responses to peaceful protesters, the problem when these things sometimes occur is, its hard to separate people. Barr claimed that unmarked vans were used on protesters so that they could pick them up where there was less of a risk to this mob response. He further claimed there could be probable cause for law enforcement officers to arrest and detain innocent protesters simply because they had been standing next to someone else suspected of using a laser against law enforcement, or because it could mean the person ditched the laser. A peaceful protest thus reverts to a violent mob if one person throws a water bottle or if unarmed protesters fail to clear the perimeter when told to disperse. It is appropriate to use tear gas when its indicatedto disperse an unlawful assembly, the attorney general of the United States said.

In other words, in Barrs hands, the freedom of assembly is transformed to mass guilt by association. Neither he nor Monahan could explain when and how one protester hellbent on violence turns an entire peaceful protest into an angry mob, or why a thrown water bottle should be met with pepper spray. And never you mind that Barr is virtually alone in his view of what happened at Lafayette Square. Trumps own former Defense Secretary James Mattishas blastedthe administration for its treatment of the D.C. protesters, calling the June 1 eventa bizarre photo op. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley later saidit wasa mistake for him to participate in the walk to the church. Former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge has decried the use of federal law enforcement authorities in Portland as pouring gasoline on a fire and emphasized that preserving the right to dissent is something very important, and that you cant justify the violence that has accompanied those protests. Michael Chertoff, who served as secretary of homeland security under President George W. Bush, has written that what DHS is doing in Portland is wildly inappropriate:

Videos reveal agents operating in camouflage uniforms with no clear identifying insignia. That may be appropriate combating transnational drug gangs in a border environment, but not in American cities. Other videos and reports make clear that even peaceful demonstratorssuch as individuals identifying asmilitary veteranswere struck with nonlethal projectiles and strong tear gas. And there was no respect for, or coordination with, the wishes of local authorities.

Perhaps in response to the widespread horror from virtually everyone who is not currently serving in the Trump administration, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown announced Wednesday that federal forces would be withdrawn from the city of Portland.

But even if Barr stands alone, with only the president and DHS officials sharing his views of what the right to protest actually means, the retreat from Portland isnt without consequences. In perhaps the most alarming development on Tuesday, Dara Lind at ProPublica reported that federal authorities in Portland have been arresting protesters for offenses as minor as failing to obey an order to get off a sidewalk on federal property then advising them that they are specifically barred from attending protests or demonstrations as they await trials on federal misdemeanor charges. While one of Linds experts describes these orders as sort of hilariously unconstitutional, its manifestly clear that Barrs claim that the mere act of standing next to someone holding a weapon, or failing to obey an order to disperse, means you are part of an unlawful assembly has now been used by federal prosecutors to prosecute participants and also to explicitly chill any future protest. That renders the peaceable assembly clause of the First Amendment a shell of a freedom, an alarming new phase in its overlooked status.

It hasnt always been this way. As Drexel University professor Tabatha Abu El-Haj explained in her 2009 article The Neglected Right of Assembly, the existence of a right of peaceable assembly was not controversial at the founding because it was a traditional right of English freemen. Despite crowded cities and worked-up mobs, until the late 19th century, it was widely understood that street politics demanded the right to protest, gather, assemble, and shout on busy streets and parks. As Abu El-Haj explains it, that included bonfires and toasting and rowdiness and feasting, and all of that street gathering was deemed a central, and essential, feature of civic political life. And as she notes, so widely accepted was the fundamental right to gather and protest that it was included virtually without comment in the First Amendment. Moreover, in the first United States Congress a discussion of the proposed Bill of Rights amendment [regarding assembly] was declared beneath the dignity of the members.

There was very little case law, or even academic writing, about the right to assemble, and it was also widely understood that while the state could prosecute those who behaved criminally at public rallies, rallies themselves were integral to democratic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. This all changed, Abu El-Haj explains, only in the late 19th century, when courts began to permit all sorts of licensing requirements on public assemblies. Today, its simply understood and accepted that demonstrations require paperwork and permits and state discretion as to time, place, and manner constraints, and as she notes, in this century, maintaining order, preventing traffic jams, and ensuring security are all considered significant governmental interests. We have, in short, acceded to a regulatory regime that forces protesters to both seek government permission to assemble, and then to be at the mercy of state claims about potential lawlessness, rioting, inconvenience, or traffic, when the government seeks to quell protest. As Abu El-Haj points out, we have replaced the notion that the state can only interfere with gatherings when they disturb the peace, with a legal regime in which the state is permitted to regulate in advance (by confining to certain spaces or times) assemblages that are both peaceful and not inconvenient. Garrett Epps explains here that red states have been expansively regulating protest and protesters for years now, culminating, as he writes, inagrotesque opinionout of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year, approving the principle that anyone who organizes a protest can be suedand thus possibly bankruptedif someone else present commits an illegal act. That is why this summer we have seen enforcement officers justifying the use of tear gas on peaceful protesters on the grounds that they dont want to wait around to see if violence will ensure. That is essentially Barrs claim as well. And the larger the protest, the greater the chance for individual bad actors to act out, the less likely warnings to disperse will be heard, and the more likely arrests, and federal bans on future protest, will occur. In other words, as protests grow and spread, regardless of conduct, the more certain Barrs vision of all protests as inherently dangerous mobs of anarchists will become.

What the centurieslong failure to protect a robust right to assemble and demonstrate means is that we now gather to protest at the sufferance of local authorities. And the testimony of the attorney general on Wednesday signals that federal authorities will not wait to be invited to crack down on protest either. Arrests of protesters on pretext that lead to agreements not to protest in the future are perhaps the best signal that the First Amendment right to assemble is not nearly as robust as we might have believed.

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

Continue reading here:

Weve Neglected the Freedom of Assembly for Years Before Portland - Slate

July 24, 2020

Friends,

This week the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Included in this years NDAA is a section Iauthored as well as two amendments that Ico-sponsored. The National Defense AuthorizationAct fulfills one of Congress mostessential duties: funding our military. This years NDAA puts our troops and Americas security first by laying the foundations for an Indo-Pacific Command Deterrence Initiative, continuing to reform the Pentagons business practices, and improving provisions to support our military families.

Passing the National Defense Authorization Act is one of Congress most important constitutional duties. It is imperative that Congress passes a bill to support the brave men and women of our Armed Forces and provide them with the resources they need. I am especially pleased that three sections I co-authored were included in the final version of the bill. Those sections will equip our Armed Forces with the skills they need, deter our enemies threats, andkeep Americans safe.

Thelegislation I authored was the Banking Transparency for Sanctioned Persons Amendment whichrequires the Treasury Secretary to submit a semi-annual report regarding financial services for state sponsors of terrorism and puts foreign banks on alert that Congress will be watching their dealings with human rights abusers and corrupt officials.

The first amendment I co-sponsoredisentitled"Limitation on Eligibility of For-Profit Institutions To Participate In Educational Assistance Programs of the Department of Defense. This amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act will close the 90/10 loophole and help send more veterans to college by stopping for-profit institutions from exploiting Department of Defense funding.

The second amendment that I co-sponsoredis the"Homeland and Cyber Threat Act, which creates a cyber attack exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to protect U.S. nationals against foreign state sponsored cyber attacks.

The application process for student nominations to the U.S. Service Academies is now open. As a Member of Congress, I have the distinct honor of nominating candidates to four of the five U.S. Service Academies. Members of Congress can nominate candidates to the U.S. Military Academy (West Point), U.S. Naval Academy, U.S. Air Force Academy, and U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. The fifth Service Academy, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, does not require a Congressional Nomination for an appointment. The honor of attending a U.S. Service Academy comes with the obligation and commitment to serve in the military for a minimum of five years upon graduation. For more information and how to apply visit my website. I am deeply proud of my own time serving as an Air Force Officer and am grateful for all our students who are willing to serve.

The National Zoo is reopening today in Washington. The zoo will be open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. daily.

Earlier this week, I was saddened to learn of the passing of Congressman John Lewis of Georgia. Congressman Lewis was a giant who fought for civil liberties and spoke out against injustice. It was an honor to serve with him in Congress.On Monday, the late Congressman will lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda.

If you need help with a federal agency, please contact my Charlottesville Office at (434) 973-9631. At this time all indoorSmithsonian museums in Washington, D.C. are temporarily closed to the public. Additionally, tours of the White House, US Capitol, FBI, and Library of Congress have been suspended to help contain the outbreak and prevent community spread.

See the original post:

On the Hill with Denver Riggleman - Brunswicktimes Gazette

On Tuesday, July 28, 2020 the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the National Federal Register. With its latest foray into rulemaking, the Board is looking to make two amendments to the current rules governing representation elections held under the National Labor Relations Act. Both these amendments are subject to public comment for sixty days following the published notice.

This is the third set of amendments the NLRB has made to the election rules in the past twelve months. In December 2019, the Board issued a proposed rule that would make sweeping changes to election rules and processes by eliminating many of the quickie election rules issued in 2015. As you may have seen, a federal judge blocked implementation of some of those rules, holding they failed to comply with the APA by circumventing the notice-and-comment procedure. The Board has since appealed that order, and implemented the rules that were unaffected by the order. The Board also announced changes to the Boards blocking charge policy, timing and notice requirements attendant to voluntary recognition, and 9(a) recognition in the construction industry in April. Implementation of those rules was delayed until July 31 due to COVID-19.

The first amendment announced on July 28 seeks to eliminate the Boards requirement that employers provide available personal email addresses and home and cell phone numbers of all eligible voters to the Regional Director. The Board believes that the current requirement does not protect employees privacy interests, and eliminating this rule would better advance these important privacy interests.

The second amendment seeks to provide absentee ballots to employees currently on military leave. In light of congressional policies that protect service members employment rights and provide them with the opportunity to vote in federal elections, the Board believes it should seek to accommodate service members during representation elections. Additionally, the Board believes it can do so without impeding the resolution of these elections.

These two most recent proposed changes to NLRB representation election rules will not only protect employee privacy, but will also bolster enfranchisement for workers who are out of the workplace on military leave when an election occurs. We will certainly track the progress of this most recent round of proposed rules and will keep you posted of any significant updates.

See the rest here:

National Labor Relations Board Announces Another Proposed Rule Regarding Representation Elections - Labor Relations Update

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

About an hour ago

A federal grand jury indicted eight people in connection with alleged damage and vandalism during protests May 30 in Downtown Pittsburgh.

Most of those indicted were in some way connected to the destruction of a two Pittsburgh Bureau of Police cruisers that were set ablaze during protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody days prior.

The indictment was returned July 22 and unsealed Wednesday.

Those indicted are:

George Allen, 31; Nicholas Lucia, 25; Raekown Blankenship, 24; Devin Montgomery, 24; Brandon Benson, 29; and Christopher West, 35, all of whom live in Pittsburgh. DaJon Lengyel, 22, of McKees Rocks, and Andrew Augustyniak-Duncan, 25, of Carnegie, also were indicated.

The protests through Downtown carried on peacefully for much of the afternoon but turned violent after several people began damaging a marked police SUV. The marked SUV and an unmarked commanders SUV were eventually set on fire.

Throwing IEDs and bricks at police officers, throwing projectiles at and striking police horses, and setting police cruisers on fire are not the protected First Amendment activities of a peaceful protest; they are criminal acts that violate federal law, U.S. Attorney Scott Brady said in a statement.

He called those accused of sparking the violence agitators who hijacked a lawful protest and undermined a message of equality with one of destruction.

Michael Christman, Special Agent in Charge of the FBIs Pittsburgh office, vowed to continue making arrests when demonstrators spark violence. We are not done. We continue to use all of our investigative resources to find each person who chose to start a violent confrontation, he said.

Forty-six people were arrested May 30 in connection with the protest. District Attorney Stephen A. Zappalas office dropped charges against 39 of them.

Two days later, dozens were arrested during a protest in Pittsburghs East Liberty neighborhood, which had carried on peacefully for hours before the events turned violent. Zappala went on to drop charges against 22 who were arrested in that melee.

The lawlessness we saw on May 30 cannot be tolerated, said Public Safety Director Wendell Hissrich.

All of those named in the indictment also face state charges.

Allen is alleged to have thrown something through the window of a police cruiser, leading to charges of interfering with law enforcement. Blankenship, Lengyel, Montgomery and West face a similar charge for their alleged roles in kicking, punching and setting fire to the cruiser.

Augustyniak-Duncan is charged with interfering with law enforcement for allegedly throwing things at officers, and Lucia is accused of throwing a homemade explosive device at an officer that bounced off his vest and exploded on the ground. Benson and Montgomery are alleged to have tried to break into the Dollar Bank on Smithfield Street.

Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Megan at 412-380-8519, mguza@triblive.com or via Twitter .

Categories:Downtown Pittsburgh | Local | Allegheny | Top Stories

TribLIVE's Daily and Weekly email newsletters deliver the news you want and information you need, right to your inbox.

Read this article:

Feds charge 8 in Pittsburgh protests that turned violent - TribLIVE

The Church at Planned Parenthood (TCAPP) in Spokane, Wash.,is being sued for making too much noise and allegedly harming patients, but theanti-abortionpastor says, "it'sfalse accusations across the board."

TCAPP's First Amendment rightsare at odds with the health care of the patients at Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho (PPGWNI), according to thesuit filed in Juneby Legal Voice against five area pastors and Covenant Church, which started the ministry.

BABY LIVES MATTER MURAL PAINTED IN FRONT OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD CLINIC

"You have a billion-dollar industry suing local church pastors that aren't wealthy at all, for singing and peaceably assembly," TCAPP Pastor Ken Peters told Fox News.

"We've been running for two years. We've never been cited. Wedon't cause destruction. We don't loot. We don't riot. We literally go to Planned Parenthood and we hold church once a month," Peters explained. "We do this after hours.We are not causing any harm."

Pastor Ken Peters, who started The Church at Planned Parenthood (TCAPP), speaks Tuesday, July 28, 2020 in front of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Spokane, Wash. (Christine Stickelmeyer/TCAPP)

Hundreds gathered Tuesday night singing worship songs and Ryan Bomberger, a pro-life advocate who was conceived in rape andfounded the Radiance Foundation, was the speaker. The event began at 6 p.m. as the Planned Parenthoodclosed.

The abortion facility, which has been measuring noise levels, allegesthe group's worship and speakers reached disruptive and intimidating levels, violating an ordinancepassed by the Spokane City Council in March, after TCAPP started conducting the services. The lawsuit claims police are not enforcing the law because they "are on the side of the church."

BLACK PRO-LIFE LEADERS PAN PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S SANGER DISAVOWAL: 'LIKE CHANGING THE NAME OF AUSCHWITZ'

It's really, really frustrating and should not be allowed to happen, when the laws are very clear in Washington state and the city of Spokaneabout interference with health care facilities, Paul Dillon, vice president of public affairs for PPGWNI, told Crosscut. Its extremely unnerving for the patients at Planned Parenthood.

However, the pastor said their once-a-month services begin when the abortion facility closes down, and he's said they will start the service later if that is the problem.

The Church at Planned Parenthood (TCAPP), gathers Tuesday, July 28, 2020 in front of a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Spokane, Wash. (Christine Stickelmeyer/TCAPP)

"We arebringing attention to the fact that they are killing life for money," Peters said."That's what they don't like. That's what they're suing us for. We are shining a light for the Lord and on their sin and that's what they hate us."

PLANNED PARENTHOOD'S NEW YORK CHAPTER DISAVOWS FOUNDER MARGARET SANGER OVER RACIST EUGENICS

"At first they tried to drown us out with their own sound and their own protesters, but we kept singing, praying and praising God under our First Amendment rights of assembly and freedom of religion," Peters said.

The pastor says Planned Parenthood filled the city council with pro-abortion members and passed the city ordinance, but his gathering has even lowered their decibels.

The Planned Parenthood spokesman added that the hundreds who gather "can call themselves whatever they want, [but] in no way, shape or form is this a church.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"The Church at Planned Parenthood is NOT a protest," TCAPP writes on its website, describingitself as a"gathering of Christians for the worship of God and corporate prayer for repentance for this nation, repentance for the apathetic church, and repentance for our blood-guiltiness in this abortion holocaust."

"We don't do anything but pray, preach, and give," Peters said.

TCAPP's next service is set to be held on August 18 with speaker Greg Locke, a Tennessee pastor.

Planned Parenthood claims the service isnt protected under the First Amendment because of care provided by the facility.

Patients who rely on Planned Parenthood for vital medical care have the same right as all Washingtonians to access health care without unreasonable disruption or interference, Kim Clark, Senior Staff Attorney for Legal Voice, told KREM. This is more vital than ever in a global health pandemic that is disproportionately harming people of color people who already face substantial obstacles to accessing healthcare. TCAPP and its loud mob of angry protesters, many of whom carry guns, have terrorized patients and staff at Planned Parenthood long enough.

Read this article:

Planned Parenthood sues pop-up church over noise, but pastor says there's more to the story - Fox News