Monthly Archives: February 2017

Forbes

Amazon Argues Alexa Speech Protected By First Amendment In Murder Trial Fight Forbes Amazon is sticking to its guns in the fight to protect customer data. The tech titan has filed a motion to quash the search warrant for recordings from an Amazon Echo in the trial of James Andrew Bates, accused of murdering friend Victor Collins in ... Amazon cites First Amendment protection for Alexa in Arkansas murder caseTechCrunch Protecting AlexaVICE News Amazon argues AI assistant Alexa has free speech rights in murder trialThe Independent TechnoBuffalo -GeekWire -Consumerist all 27 news articles »

Follow this link:
Amazon Argues Alexa Speech Protected By First Amendment In Murder Trial Fight - Forbes

A recently enacted California law, AB 1687, requires websites that provide employment services to an individual for a subscription payment to stop publishing a subscribers age whenever the subscriber so demands. In practice, this law was aimed at IMDb, which lets people in the entertainment industry post various rsum information online (via its IMDb Pro service) but also publishes biographical information about people subscribers or not including their ages. The law wasnt limited to information that IMDb learned through its relationship with subscribers; it also covered information that IMDb independently acquired.

Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria temporarily blocked the enforcement of the law, ruling that IMDb was likely to succeed in its First Amendment claim:

Its difficult to imagine how AB 1687 could not violate the First Amendment. The statute prevents IMDb from publishing factual information (information about the ages of people in the entertainment industry) on its website for public consumption. This is a restriction of non-commercial speech on the basis of content. Therefore, the burden is on the government to show that the restriction is actually necessary to serve a compelling government interest. [Footnote: The government has not argued that birthdates or other age-related facts implicate some privacy interest that protects them from public disclosure, and its doubtful such an argument would prevail in any event.] The government is highly unlikely to meet this burden, and certainly nothing it has submitted in opposition to the preliminary injunction motion suggests it will be able to do so.

To be sure, the government has identified a compelling goal preventing age discrimination in Hollywood. But the government has not shown how AB 1687 is necessary to advance that goal. In fact, its not clear how preventing one mere website from publishing age information could meaningfully combat discrimination at all.

And even if restricting publication on this one website could confer some marginal antidiscrimination benefit, there are likely more direct, more effective, and less speech-restrictive ways of achieving the same end. For example, although the government asserts generically that age discrimination continues in Hollywood despite the long-time presence of antidiscrimination laws, the government fails to explain why more vigorous enforcement of those laws would not be at least as effective at combatting age discrimination as removing birthdates from a single website. Because the government has presented nothing to suggest that AB 1687 would actually combat age discrimination (much less that its necessary to combat age discrimination), there is an exceedingly strong likelihood that IMDb will prevail in this lawsuit.

[Footnote: The government casts AB 1687 as ordinary economic regulation falling outside First Amendment scrutiny. But IMDb Pros commercial relationship with its subscribers has no connection to IMDbs public site, which relies on data obtained from third parties or from the public record. The government would perhaps be on stronger ground if AB 1687 were limited to preventing IMDb from misappropriating the data furnished by subscribers to its industry-facing site.]

Sounds right to me, though Id go further and say that such a restriction on publishing truthful information would be unconstitutional even if it did combat age discrimination more effectively than other alternatives would. (Note that I signed on to an amicus brief in the case that supported this position; the brief was written by M.C. Sungaila, and was signed by, among others, noted liberal professor and University of California at Irvine dean Erwin Chemerinsky, our own David Post and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Read more:
IMDb likely has First Amendment right to display people's ages - Washington Post

Christine Emba edits The Posts In Theory blog.

Speech is free, but not consequence-free. Milo Yiannopoulos managed to skirt this reality for years, but eventually it comes for us all.

A quick recap for those who have not been following this sordid tale: MILO, as hes best known (all-caps his own), is an Internet personality and now-former Breitbart News senior editor best known for his glibly offensive remarks about minority groups, his hatred of political correctness and his support of Donald Trump.

Many on the right hailed Milo as a much-needed iconoclast, one of the few brave enough to defend free speech, speak uncomfortable truths and push back against the simpering social justice warriors of the left. After his charmingly titled Dangerous Faggot speaking tour was met with protests at college campuses, including some most notably at the University of California at Berkeley this month that turned violent, he was invited to speak at this years Conservative Political Action Conference.

This weekend, however, video emerged of Milo joking about pedophilia and molestation. In short order he was disinvited from CPAC, his book deal was canceled, and he resigned from Breitbart.

[If college liberals are so naive, why did the campus right fall for Yiannopoulos?]

It is interesting to consider that while the right championed his racist, misogynist invective as a much-needed tonic for our stifled public discourse, discussions of child sex abuse were not seen the same way. The defense of free expression seemed to go only so far as be free to insult those we already disagree with, but please, no further than that. For all the invocations of the First Amendment, there is apparently still a line. Milo crossed it, the end, goodbye. I, for one, do not look forward to his apology tour and inevitable transformation.

Yet the fact that a line exists at all brings to light a point often overlooked when free speech is bandied about as a hallowed but somehow threatened ideal. Yes, speech is free, but not free from dissent. You can say what you like, but no one has to listen to you. The fact that you have spoken something controversial in public does not make your provocation correct or worthy of acclaim.

The First Amendment guarantees that Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. That is all. It does not say that private companies such as Facebook must promote all kinds of content equally, or that Simon & Schuster is obliged to hand out book contracts to everyone who wants one. It should not be stretched to imply that institutions must provide a platform for every opinion that comes their way. And while the First Amendment often makes it possible for individuals to challenge the dominant discourse, it gives them no more help than that.

Some myself included have argued that the best remedy for hateful speech is more speech, not less. But it is worth pointing out that more speech can take a number of forms. It could be the addition of other, opposing speakers to a lineup featuring a contentious guest. It could be a petition asking for the guest to be disinvited. It could be protesters telling said speaker to shut up and get off of their campus, or even calling the speaker a racist or Nazi. Some of these methods are far more productive than others, and some are less likely to promote useful discourse. But free speech also means that such responses must be allowed to occur and may well bring about consequences that the original speaker might not enjoy.

[At CPAC, conservatism betrayed]

Positive freedom relies on prudence. If the things you say provoke an intense and unpleasant reaction, it may be worth wondering whether your critics have a point. And if youre in favor of free speech when it comes to some topics but not others, perhaps you should investigate why your limits lie where they do.

The Milo debacle helpfully illustrates the limitations of invoking free speech to cast a benevolent glow on any and every injudicious statement, and the bind created when any opposition is cast as unjust, illiberal silencing. It may finally be time to stop flogging the First Amendment as some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card for foolish talk. Were wonderfully free to say whatever we want to. But that doesnt mean we should.

View original post here:
Milo learns the First Amendment isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for foolishness - Washington Post

The first amendment to the U.S. constitution is just a few short lines, but it speaks volumes. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This past weekend, more than a hundred people in Floyd, Virginia came out to celebrate those words and explore their meaning. Robbie Harris prepared this report.

In a cathedral-like post and beam auditorium at the Floyd Eco Center, they sang songs, read poems and essays theyd written for the occasion and shared their thoughts about that powerful sentence. The celebration was the brainchild of Alan Graf, a civil rights attorney, activist and lover of blue grass music whod hoped to retire in Floyd and learn to play the banjo.

But in the past few months, he says, hes seen his beloved first amendment coming under attack, and he felt he had to say something. I think our best defense against any grabbing of power is our ability to speak and thats why I wanted to put together this celebration to remind people to use it

Graf explains, he devoted his life to being a watchdog for civil rights because of his own familys story. His grandparents were killed in the Holocaust in Germany during World War II.

So its in my family to fight against totalitarian regimes - and I see the writing on the wall. And so Ive been defending the constitution for 25 years - I feel religious about the Bill of Rights, first, second, third, fourth - well, every amendment, but particularly the first amendment. I see it as the peoples last stand against a totalitarian regime."

Thats in part because it limits the power of government as Floyd County Commonwealth Attorney Eric Branscom points out.

It was in 1791 that the first amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, became part of the Constitution. Its important to note that the first amendment and the freedoms therein are not positive rights, theyre negative rights, which means they exist as limitations on the government rather than rights granted by the government."

And that leaves a lot of room for interpretation, making the Bill of Rights something the legal system has grappled with ever since. And so have the poets, the philosophers and musicians among us.

Heres Kim ODonnel reading a poem she wrote for the first amendment celebration:

There is no such thing as free speech. Soldiers stand and fall, arrive home in a box beneath a flag. We have been given nothing that we did not pay for.

A rich man grabs a woman against her will and she eats her rage and every word she wants to say until she is emaciated from her hunger for truth.

She speaks out and he arrives in our capital, takes an oath beneath our flag.

There is no such thing as free speech. We have been given nothing that we did not pay for.

And just because freedom of expression is protected, that doesnt mean you have to agree with or accept whatever is expressed. Over the years, the legal community has come up with this balancing act; the remedy to any speech you dont like or dont agree with is more speech.

Original Music by Michael Kovick, Silence is Complicity.

I know that things aint just what they ought to be. You and I could turn it around. When we stand up for what we believe in, first amendment rights are found and if you dont like it and you dont stand up how is anybody gonna know where you stand? I want to know. Silence is complicity.

Read this article:
Celebrating the First Amendment in Floyd, VA - WVTF

Observer

Artists Join the Fight to Protect First Amendment Rights Observer It's been just over one month since Donald Trump took office, and already messages of protest are popping up in unexpected places. One such example is at Brooklyn's Ground Floor gallery, where organizers are pledging to donate proceeds from a pop-up ... and more »

Continued here:
Artists Join the Fight to Protect First Amendment Rights - Observer

The Constitution does not allow the state to muzzle doctors who wish to inquire about gun safety.

Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by iStock.

In recent years, most states have been clever enough to dress up unconstitutional statutes in pretext that might just fool courts into affirming their legality. But apparently the Florida legislature did not get this memo, because in 2011, the state passed a law that did not really pretend to be anything other than what it was: a blatant act of censorship.

Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, struck down the bulk of Floridas Firearms Owners Privacy Act (FOPA) last Thursday in an emphatic and near-unanimous ruling. But the law, as well as the decision in Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Florida that has invalidated it, are worth examining at length because this fight is far from over. FOPA gagged doctors who wished to discuss gun safety with patients based on the contents and viewpoints of their speech. In defending it, pro-gun advocates have concocted a clash between the First and Second Amendments, hoping that the Second Amendment wins out. Just because they lost this battle does not mean they have given up on the broader war.

Some background: The sponsors of FOPA, frequently referred to as the docs vs. glocks bill, claimed they were responding to anecdotal evidence of Florida doctors talking to patients parents about gun safety in the home, which they felt constituted an egregious invasion of privacy. (You may remember one sponsor, Greg Evers, as the state senator who raffled off an AR-15.) In reality, the bill was peddled by the National Rifle Association, which donates significant sums to Floridas GOP state legislators and routinely requests favors in return. This particular gift was designed as a rebuke to the medical groupsincluding the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physiciansthat encourage physicians to talk to parents about childproofing firearms. These groups and their members believe firearm safety education is critical, especially in a country with so many gun accidents involving children.

The NRA does not want physicians to talk to patients about firearm safety. It considers a mere question about gun ownership, as well as advice about childproofing guns, to be a privacy violation meant to advance a political agenda, according to the courts majority opinion. FOPA prohibits doctors from asking patients or their parents about guns in the home; recording the answer to such questions; harassing a patient about firearm ownership during an examination; and discriminating against patients on the basis of gun ownership.

In a lengthy ruling, the 11th Circuit struck down all these provisionsexcept the nondiscrimination ruleas a violation of the First Amendment. The issue of free speech protections for professional expression, particularly in the course of medical treatment, is notoriously thorny. Courts typically give the government more leeway to regulate speech issued in the course of professional conduct: For instance, states can, without infringing upon the First Amendment, ban harmful treatments that involve speech, like conversion therapy. But the court found that FOPA is a different beast: It takes direct aim at doctors speech on the basis of its content, one of the most insidious kinds of censorship.

Protecting the Second Amendment right of Floridians from private encumbrances may, as Florida claimed, outweigh constitutional protections for free speechbut there was no evidence whatsoever, the court noted, that any doctors or medical professionals have taken away patients firearms or otherwise infringed on patients Second Amendment rights. As the court wryly added, This evidentiary void is not surprising because doctors and medical professionals, as private actors, do not have any authority (legal or otherwise) to restrict the ownership or possession of firearms by patients (or by anyone else for that matter).

Florida may generally believe that doctors and medical professionals should not ask about, nor express views hostile to, firearm ownership, the court explained, but it may not burden the speech of others in order to tilt public debate in a preferred direction.

Next, Florida argued that the legislature passed FOPA to protect patient privacy. (This, by the way, is the same legislature that also passed a law granting the state broad access to patient recordsat abortion clinics.) But as the court noted, there is no evidence that doctors or medical professionals have been improperly disclosing patients information about firearm ownership. Moreover, patients are fully empowered to not answer doctors questions about firearms. So any patients who have privacy concerns about information concerning their firearm ownership, the court writes, can simply refuse to answer questions on the topic.

Several other judges then took turns clobbering the law on different grounds. Judge Stanley Marcus, writing for a majority of the court, explained why FOPAs anti-harassment provision is also an unconstitutionally vague restriction on speech. Judge Charles R. Wilson, joined by Judge Beverly B. Martin, slammed that act as a subversive attempt to stop a perceived political agenda [that] chills speech based on not only content but also a particular viewpoint.

And even the extreme conservative Judge William Pryor felt moved to concur, expressing his belief that the profound importance of the Second Amendment does not give the government license to violate the right to free speech under the First Amendment. Only one judge, Gerald Bard Tjoflat, disagreed, devoting his dissenting opinion to a bizarre attack on the Supreme Courts current free speech jurisprudence.

Top Comment

. More...

These multiple writings all drive home the same critical point: FOPA marked an attempt to limit the protections of the First Amendment by expanding the scope of the Second Amendment. Floridas radical defense of FOPA held that the Second Amendment is so powerful that, in order to safeguard it, the state should be allowed to diminish other constitutional rights. The 11th Circuit was right to reject this argument. Florida already does a great deal to protect the rights of gun owners in the name of the Second Amendment. But the Constitution does not allow the state to muzzle doctors who wish to inquire about gun safety.

In recent years, a considerable amount of ink has been spilled criticizing the American left for allegedly censoring speech it finds offensive. But FOPA is one of the most censorial pieces of legislation to emerge from a state in this decadeand it is the work of Republican legislators, and a Republican governor, whose intentions were to shield gun owners, those delicate snowflakes, from experiencing a brief moment of mild discomfort. There are real threats to free speech in America today. But they are more likely to emerge from Republican statehouses than from liberal college campuses.

See the original post here:
Docs vs. Glocks Shows the Threat to Free Speech Is the Pro-Gun Right - Slate Magazine

The First Amendment of our U.S Constitution gives the press freedom of speech. I firmly believe this refers to commentary on the editorial pages only, which I believe is sacred, but even then it doesn't protect the press from libel for commentary (through the use of lies, distortions and outright fabrication) designed to hurt, distort and/or mislead the readers in some way.

As for the rest of a newspaper, I believe it is reserved for truthful news free of the author's opinion. Any opinion and bias blended into "news articles" should not be constitutionally protected. Beware of descriptive adjectives, descriptive adverbs and descriptive phrases blended into news articles to bias the reader for or against the topic being written about.

Also, some people read only the headlines to get the "gist" of the article. Others read a few paragraphs, then move on. Others read the entire article as continued onto other pages. For example, refer to the following article in Sunday's Reporter-Herald, "Trump's America after a Month."

Read the headline and write down how you understand what the article is about. Then read the first few paragraphs and do the same. Then read the entire article and do the same. Now go back through the article and cross out all descriptive adjectives, adverbs and phrases, then reread the article and document how you understand what has been written. Is your understanding of what has been written the same as before? If not, you now understand why the press has such a low rating among the American readers.

Try this on several different articles on different days.

Dennis Carr

Loveland

Read the original post:
First Amendment shouldn't protect biased news articles - Loveland Reporter-Herald