Daily Archives: July 29, 2021

The Second Amendment and Vacated Ex Parte Domestic Protection Orders – Reason

Posted: July 29, 2021 at 8:54 pm

From Henry v. County of Nassau, decided today by the Second Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Steven Menashi, joined by Judges John Walker and Susan Carney:

In 2014, the daughter of Plaintiff-Appellant Lambert Henry commenced an ex parte proceeding against Henry in Nassau County Family Court.{Henry's daughter alleged that she and Henry were having a discussion when Henry blocked her from leaving a room and "put [her] in a headlock and squeezed," causing her to "fear for [her] safety." Henry, for his part, characterizes the case as arising out of an argument about his daughter's grades in school.}

The Family Court issued a temporary order of protection against Henry that, under the policies of the Nassau County Police Department, triggered an immediate suspension of his pistol license. Members of the Nassau County Police Department subsequently arrived at Henry's residence to confiscate his pistol license. They also confiscated all firearms in Henry's possession.

Five months later, the temporary order of protection was dissolved and the Family Court matter was dismissed, but the County did not reinstate Henry's pistol license or return his firearms. The Nassau County Police Department then formally revoked Henry's pistol license and informed Henry that he is prohibited from possessing any firearms.

Henry appealed the revocation. Approximately a year and a half later, Henry was informed that his appeal was rejected based on a record of domestic incidents at his home, including allegations by his ex-wife that Henry had been violent with her; his having been the subject of other, since-dissolved orders of protection; and his failure to report to the Police Department the domestic incidents, the protective orders, and his son's diagnosis of depression and admission to a medical center, as the appeals officer understood to be required by Nassau County's Pistol License Section Handbook.

Henry denied all allegations of domestic violence and included with his appeal affidavits from his daughter and ex-wife in support of the reinstatement of his pistol license and ability to possess firearms. Henry will become eligible to apply for a new pistol license in 2023, seven years after his license was suspended, but the standard for granting a new license appears to be the same as the standard under which the County revoked his existing license. In any event, Henry remains barred from owning any firearms at least until that time.

Henry sued, and the District Court held his "claims did not lie at the core of the Second Amendment and therefore were subject to intermediate scrutiny because Henry did not 'actually alleg[e] in his complaint that Nassau County has implemented a policy banning all firearm ownership for all people.'" The Second Circuit disagreed:

As an initial matter, the district court's scrutiny analysis was flawed because "the Second Amendment confer[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms." Henry was therefore not required to allege "a policy banning all firearm ownership for all people" to state a claim at the core of the Second Amendment. We would never hold that a plaintiff failed to state a claim at the "core" of the First Amendment because the plaintiff alleged only that the government prohibited him from speaking but did not ban "all" speech for "all" people. Because the Second Amendmentno less than the Firstsecures an "individual right" that "the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty," the district court erred in holding that Henry failed to state a claim at the core of the Second Amendment merely because he does not allege that the County enacted a complete ban on firearm ownership for all people.

Moreover, contrary to the district court's assertion that "the restrictions [Henry] complains of are not as severe a burden on the [Second Amendment] right as [Henry] makes them out to be," there is no doubt that Henry has alleged a substantial burden on his Second Amendment rights. Here, Henrywho has not been convicted of any crimealleges that the County has left him with no means of acquiring firearms for any purpose for a period of at least seven years.

Because Henry has alleged a substantial burden on his Second Amendment rights, whether strict or intermediate scrutiny applies to Henry's claims depends on whether he has stated a claim at the "core" of the Second Amendment. That determination turns on whether there is a reliable basis for concluding that Henry is not law-abiding and responsible. As we discuss below, the complaint plausibly alleges that the evidence on which the County based its decisions was not reliable. Therefore, we cannot determine at this stage whether strict or intermediate scrutiny applies. Even assuming that intermediate scrutiny applies to Henry's claims, however, we conclude that Henry has stated a claim for a violation of the Second Amendment.

"To survive intermediate scrutiny" under the Second Amendment, the government "must show 'reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence' " indicating "that the [state action is] substantially related to the governmental interest" in "public safety and crime prevention." The County's alleged confiscation of Henry's firearms and revocation of his license do not meet that standard.

The complaint alleges that the County immediately suspended Henry's pistol license and confiscated all of Henry's firearms based on the issuance of an ex parte order of protection and that Henry has since been barred from owning any firearms.

It may be that the issuance of an ex parte order justifies a temporary license suspension and firearm confiscation to allow the County to investigate whether the subject of the order poses a threat to the safety of others. But Henry alleges that the County's ban on his right to own firearms persisted even after the court that issued the order of protection allowed it to expire. In fact, the County continued to prohibit Henry from owning firearms for a year and a half after the order's dissolution without providing any justification for the prohibition besides the prior issuance of the ex parte order of protection.

Such actions do not withstand intermediate scrutiny because ex parte orders of protection issue without adversarial testing. The Family Court's order against Henry was based solely on his daughter's allegations. Under New York law, the order did not constitute "a finding of wrongdoing." And because the order was issued ex parte, Henry had no opportunity to contest his daughter's allegations in the Family Court proceeding or to demonstrate to the Family Court, before the order issued, that he was not dangerous. In light of these procedural limitations, the ex parte order of protection did not provide the "substantial evidence" that intermediate scrutiny requires to support the conclusion that barring Henry from owning firearms for an extended period is "substantially related to the achievement of governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention."

The complaint also plausibly alleges that the County's eventual revocation of the pistol license and the appeals officer's decision to uphold that decision do not withstand intermediate scrutiny. According to the allegations of the complaint, the County revoked Henry's license without conducting a bona fide inquiry into whether "substantial evidence" supported a finding that Henry was too dangerous to possess firearms.

Henry plausibly alleges that the County relied on evidenceincluding the prior issuance of dissolved orders of protection against Henry, unsubstantiated allegations of abuse, and Henry's purported failure to report potential disqualifications to the policethat had limited probative value in establishing Henry's dangerousness. With respect to the dissolved orders of protection, such orderseven if numerousdo not necessarily provide substantial evidence that Henry poses an ongoing danger to his family. In revoking Henry's license, the County did not explain why it found Henry's evidence and arguments responding to its concerns to be unpersuasive, and, at this stage of the litigation, it is not even clear that the County considered Henry's evidence at all.

With respect to Henry's failure to report the alleged incidents of domestic violence, the issuance of orders of protection, or the fact that his son was diagnosed with and received treatment for depression, the complaint plausibly alleges that Henry again did not have an opportunity to respond to the allegations that he failed to meet reporting conditions of his pistol license. Moreover, these alleged reporting failures, standing alone, do not necessarily provide "substantial evidence" that barring Henry from owning any firearms is "substantially related to the achievement of [the County's] interests in public safety and crime prevention," such that the issue can be decided on a motion to dismiss.

The County's review, leading to its decision to revoke Henry's right to own firearms, was allegedly conducted without affording Henry the opportunity to submit evidence in support of his position. And even when he took his appeal, it is plausible that, as Henry alleges, the appeals officer did not conduct a genuine inquiry into whether Henry actually posed a danger to others.

According to the complaint, the appeals officer credited Henry's ex-wife's allegations and failed to consider whether the evidenceincluding the ex-wife's more recent affidavit in favor of his ability to own firearmssupported a finding of dangerousness. Because Henry plausibly alleges that the County's decision was not based on a reliable determination that he posed a danger to others, Henry has stated a claim for a violation of the Second Amendment even if his claims are subject only to intermediate scrutiny.

The court concluded, though, that Henry had not introduced enough evidence that he was discriminated against because he was black, and thus affirmed the dismissal of the discrimination claim:

"A plaintiff alleging racial discrimination must do more than recite conclusory assertions. In order to survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must specifically allege the events claimed to constitute intentional discrimination as well as circumstances giving rise to a plausible inference of racially discriminatory intent." While Henry has alleged that the County's firearm policies have a discriminatory purpose and effect, he has not pleaded any facts supporting an inference of discriminatory intent. Henry alleges only that "White communities" within Nassau County appear to have a higher rate of pistol ownership than "Hispanic" or "Black" communities. But Henry does not allege facts supporting the inference that these purported disparities are the result of discrimination.

View post:
The Second Amendment and Vacated Ex Parte Domestic Protection Orders - Reason

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on The Second Amendment and Vacated Ex Parte Domestic Protection Orders – Reason

Attorney General Herring aims to break the cycle of gun violence – 13newsnow.com WVEC

Posted: at 8:54 pm

Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring proposes using $2.5 million in federal COVID-19 relief funding for intervention programs.

NORLINA, N.C. Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring is urging the General Assembly in its special session next week to take on the issue of gun violence.

"It's really critical that we do everything we can to address the gun violence problem that we have in our country," he said.

Herring is proposing that $2.5 million from the American Rescue Plan be used for his staff to implement what he calls "proven-effective" intervention programs with law enforcement agencies and local community organizations.

"What it does is provide funding for community-based intervention to break the cycle of violence," he said. "We know gun violence has a ripple effect all through a community. It's traumatic."

Herring said previous violence reduction efforts led by his office have worked.

His team worked with local law enforcement, Commonwealth's Attorneys, and gun violence prevention advocates to reduce gun violence and other violent crime through a combination of outreach, prevention, intervention, and evidence-based practices.

He says Norfolk saw a 19 percent reduction in violent crimes and a 25 percent reduction in homicides.

Herring is confident this idea will not be opposed by Second Amendment supporters.

"This is different," he said. "It's really aimed at crime prevention and violence reduction through intervention, outreach, and enforcement. This should not create resistance from strong supporters of the Second Amendment. It does not restrict anyone's firearms rights that they might otherwise have. What it does is bring community-based strategies to break the cycle of violence."

Go here to read the rest:
Attorney General Herring aims to break the cycle of gun violence - 13newsnow.com WVEC

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Attorney General Herring aims to break the cycle of gun violence – 13newsnow.com WVEC

Iowa News Headlines Thursday, July 29, 2021 | Regional – KMAland

Posted: at 8:54 pm

(Iowa City, IA) -- The Iowa Board of Regents has approved tuition increases starting this fall. Tuition was frozen last year during the coronavirus pandemic, but a loss of state funding brought on the change. The approval was given Wednesday afternoon. Students at the University of Iowa and Iowa State will see their tuition charges increase by almost 300 dollars. At the University of Northern Iowa tuition will go up by 115 dollars.

(Winterset, IA) -- Two more Iowa counties have become Second Amendment sanctuaries. Tuesday votes by the Board of Supervisors at both Cedar and Madison counties mean there are now four Iowa counties where sheriffs offices wont be enforcing state or federal gun laws that conflict with the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Adams County is also considering a similar resolution at its August 2nd meeting, but all that is pending is a discussion, so far.

(Iowa City, IA) -- A Waucoma-based pork dealer that does business nationwide has been sanctioned by federal regulators for a second time. Lynch Livestock is accused of illegal buying practices that cheated hog sellers out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Iowa dealer has been ordered to stop recording false weights for the hogs at its buying stations. Lynch will pay a civil penalty of 445 thousand dollars. The U-S-D-A had ordered the company to stop the same improper practices four years ago.

(Des Moines, IA) -- Des Moines police are reporting a man who was running from officers Tuesday stopped and shot himself to death. Officers were responded to a call from a woman who said she was being threatened by a group of men. As they pulled up, the 18-year-old man began to run. When he finally stopped, officers say he took a handgun out of his pocket and pointed it at his head. All efforts to de-escalate the situation failed and he shot himself. First aid was provided, but he died before he could be rushed to a hospital. The mans name hasnt been released.

At KMA, we attempt to be accurate in our reporting. If you see a typo or mistake in a story, please contact us by emailing kmaradio@kmaland.com.

Visit link:
Iowa News Headlines Thursday, July 29, 2021 | Regional - KMAland

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on Iowa News Headlines Thursday, July 29, 2021 | Regional – KMAland

Witch City Tarot & Divination Gathering | Coby Michael Ward – Patheos

Posted: at 8:54 pm

Witch City Tarot Gathering 2021

I had the pleasure of attending a fantastic event, The Witch City Tarot & Divination Gathering. It was a virtual weekend-long event being held in the Witch City, Salem, MA. This weekend was all about Tarot, divination and building a sense of community. There was an impressive line-up of independent deck designers, artists and intuitives including the Shadowland Tarot, The Southern Gothic Oracle, and Lubanko Tarot to name a few. The event began Friday evening with an opening ritual conducted at Maison Vampyre, a sexy psychic parlour in Salem, followed by an introduction of the presenters. Maison Vampyre is a posh setting offering a variety of readings and energy work, in addition to being a beautiful event venue.

There were live performances throughout the weekend including a sensual burlesque show by Bianca Boom Boom and the terrifyingly talented Thea Munster, as well as an entrancing performance by DJ Lowkey Doom. With one of the most diverse performance line-ups I have seen, the weekend performances began with the talented Foulk Voegelis hauntingly beautiful harp composition.

There were enough classes to keep me busy the entire weekend! I had the pleasure of attending some of the wonderful presentations, and I plan on watching the recordings of the ones that I missed! There were some terrific workshops on creating your own deck and developing your intuitive powers. Also, there were also some interesting herbal classes, including my own, which I was very excited about! As an occult herbalist and practitioner, I love learning the different ways that people work with plants. The focus this weekend was on divinatory herbs, many of them entheogenic in nature. I was right in my element!

The workshop variety was wonderful! The organizers did an amazing job curating the line-up for the weekend. I say curate because the selection and specialization of everyones area of expertise made this such an enriching weekend. There were so many facets of different practices covered. Some of the other classes that I attended live were Intuitive Tarot 101 with Kris Gurky owner of Dark Moon Salem, Hoodoo in Memphis with Tony Kail, Candle Magick with June Jennings owner of Wicked Wax and a beautiful ceremony/workshop on the spirit of tobacco with Vrylak Faemanna owner of The Arcanist Witch Store. There was literally a class for everyone, from ecologists to introverts. The best thing about watching these presentations was seeing the passion everyone has for what they do. It is a blessing to have a space to share that passion with others.

I was asked by Kris to be a part of the Witch City Tarot Gathering (WCTG) this year. The event was held virtually, and I presented on Ritual Entheogens in Divination. The event is typically held in-person in historic Salem, MA; however, like many events this one was temporarily taken online. It is so important that we are still able to gather as a community, and events like this wouldnt be possible without the sacrifice of time, patience, and energy of those who organized it. This event was made possible through the efforts of Dark Moon Salem, Maison Vampyre and Wicked Wax. As well as and a lovely group of moderators and presenters.

If you have the chance be sure to check out the event, which will be IN PERSON next year (Jul 22-24 2022)

For more info go to: witchcitytarotgathering.com

Dark Moon Salem is ran by Kris Gurky, witch, herbalist and intuitive psychic where she offers a variety of in-person herbal workshops and retreats at The Witch Cottage in the woods of Massachusetts. Kris is just an all-around-bad-ass, and made this event not only possible, but one of the smoothest run that I have been a part of. The behind the scenes work that must happen to make an event like this enjoyable for attendees is quite a feat!

Wicked Wax owned and operated by experienced witch and candlemaker, June Jennings who creates high-end intention candles using magickal botanical ingredients. These candles ooze power, and contain some of Junes own personal magick! If you are looking for quality artisanal candles that pack a magickal punch be sure to check out Wicked Wax!

Maison Vampyre Salems exclusive vampyre parlour offers psychic readings and energy work. This elegant and private space is home to a variety of psychics and energy workers of different modalities. Located on Derby Square, Maison Vampyre is also a venue for dark weddings and nightside ceremonies. Maison Vampyre is presided over by Alexis Pharae, an ordained minister and vampyre witch.

Read this article:

Witch City Tarot & Divination Gathering | Coby Michael Ward - Patheos

Posted in Entheogens | Comments Off on Witch City Tarot & Divination Gathering | Coby Michael Ward – Patheos

Letter: Everyone loves our freedom of speech, but there is confusion – The Union Leader

Posted: at 8:54 pm

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Read this article:
Letter: Everyone loves our freedom of speech, but there is confusion - The Union Leader

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Letter: Everyone loves our freedom of speech, but there is confusion – The Union Leader

Kyrgyz Lawmakers Approve Controversial Bill That Opponents Say Will Stifle Free Speech – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

Posted: at 8:54 pm

BISHKEK -- Kyrgyz lawmakers have approved a controversial bill that they say is aimed at stopping the spread of fake news online, but which civil rights defenders and opposition activists fear is an attempt to stifle free speech.

A total of 97 lawmakers voted for the bill on July 28, while five voted against it.

Civil rights organizations and media groups in the Central Asian nation have criticized the legislation saying it contradicts the constitution, Kyrgyzstans international commitments, and violates human rights and freedom of speech.

The bill envisages the creation of a government watchdog that would "react to complaints" regarding the content of online posts within 48 hours. The sites where the content was posted are obliged to follow any instructions received from the watchdog within 24 hours.

Under the bill, Internet providers must register their clients in a unified identification system and provide officials with full information related to users if a court or a state organ requests such data.

The bill also stipulates that owners of websites and social network accounts must have their personal data and electronic email addresses open and accessible to everyone, while anonymous Internet users will be located and cut off.

The legislation, initially called the "draft law on the manipulation of information," was proposed by lawmakers Gulshat Asylbaeva and Ainura Osmonova a year ago.

It sparked mass rallies in Bishkek in June 2020, prompting then-President Sooronbai Jeenbekov to reject it. He returned the bill back to lawmakers for additional discussion.

Disputed parliamentary elections sparked more mass rallies last October, leading to the resignations of the government and Jeenbekov.

Sadyr Japarov easily won a presidential election in January and has initiated many legal changes that he says are needed to create a strong central branch of government to "establish order."

Continued here:
Kyrgyz Lawmakers Approve Controversial Bill That Opponents Say Will Stifle Free Speech - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Kyrgyz Lawmakers Approve Controversial Bill That Opponents Say Will Stifle Free Speech – Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty

Freedom of Expression in Schools: Legal Perspectives in India and the United States – NewsClick

Posted: at 8:54 pm

Juxtaposing Indias legal current legal position, or lack thereof, with respect to freedom of speech in schools with that of the U.S.,AROHA KADYANargues that there is no adequate safeguard for this right for school students in India.

ONJune 23, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its verdict inthe case ofMahanoy Area School District v. B. L.The case involved a student, B.L., who expressed her resentment with her high school and its cheerleading squad on the social media app Snapchat with an abusive caption, on a weekend and outside school premises. The post was reported to school officials, who then expelled her from the junior cheerleading squad for a year.

The central question, in this case, pertained to whether public school authorities are prohibited from regulating the off-campus speech of a student under the U.S. ConstitutionsFirst Amendment. It was held by the U.S. Supreme Court that the decision of the school authorities to suspend B.L. from the junior team on the pretext of posting content with inappropriate gestures and words was a violation of the First Amendment.

The Court opined that students, upon entering the school campus, do not relinquish their constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression. It is unreasonable to assume, the court stated, that parents authorise the school to impede such an essential right by sending their children to public schools.

As per the court, the freedom of speech and expression owed to students off-campus would fail if it cant even function in the face of such minor complaints. Therefore, going by the First Amendment precedents, an off-campus speech of the schools student can be regulated by the school officials, but in a limited manner. It does not completely restrain the supervision of the students speech off-campus, and only limits it to certain situations.

In effect, this was a continuation of theTinkerjurisprudence, wherein the U.S. Supreme Court hadheldin 1969 that state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism and that restrictions on speech should not be censored unless it substantially or materially interferes with the requirements of maintaining adequate discipline in the operation of the school.

The effect of this ruling has ensured that when a students exercise of their speech hampers the operation of a school or conflicts with the rights of other students or individuals in school, it may be justified on the part of school officials to restrict that students speech. This line of reasoning ensures that public schools are authorised to regulate, for example, displaying objectionable or racist symbols or sexual innuendo, but such regulations cease to exist outside the school premises, wherein free speech is safeguarded by the First Amendment.

Also read:Why is it Important to Preserve and Protect our Freedom of Speech, Expression and Right to Protest

India has witnessed myriad cases wherein students freedom of speech suffers suppression and threats from school authorities in order to silence students. This completely ignores that it is vital for students to express their opinions and experiences, especially when they are in public interest or about an important public issue or debate.

It is worth noting that the situation of India with respect to freedom of speech and expression in schools is completely contrary to American case laws. In 2013, it wasreportedthat a student was suspended from school for his brothers criticism of the schools practices on Facebook. The suspended student was allegedly called on the stage in a school assembly where he was admonished, and his face was grabbed by the schools director.

The incident presents many interesting questions, but the most interesting one of them from a legal perspective is the question of balancing the schools power to suspend a student against the freedom of expression of the student and his family.

From this narrow perspective, the case can be contextualised as one person expressing their dissatisfaction with the opinion of another and being punished for expressing that dissatisfaction. The suspension may have little to do with the speech; rather, it serves to set a deterring example for other students and their family members.

From a constitutional perspective, it can be said that such restrictions have an adverse bearing on free speech, ormore precisely, have a chilling effect on free speech.Hadthis occurred in the U.S., it would be quite difficult to see how such a Facebook post would pass the substantial disruption test.

The snowballing effect it has had over time has potentially festered a culture of silence and suffering in schools. The#metoomovementthat was recentlyusheredin Chennai by an alumnus of the school is an indicator of this culture. The alumni in question shared various stories on the social media platform Instagram which exposed the lewd and inappropriate conduct of one of her former teachers. It spurred an entire movement of students publicly sharing and slamming sexually inappropriate behaviour by teachers at school, and had a rather domino-like, cascading effect all around Chennai schools that led to the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Protection of Child Rights summoning the management of six private schools to conduct an inquiry into the matter.

If students were not afraid to call out, question, and criticise their schools and teachers, such widespread sexual abuse in one of Indias biggest cities wouldnt have stayed a secret for so long.

Also read:CCTV in classrooms: Establishing a violence-free school culture

For a judiciary and a Constitution which draw a lot of inspiration from the American First Amendment jurisprudence, there is reticence in the development of the sphere of protection afforded to speech that school children have in India.Bijoe Emmanuelscase(which drew its inspiration from the U.S. Supreme CourtsGobitisjudgment) is one of the rare instances where the Indian Supreme Court has demystified the scope of freedom of expression in school, but even this standard would not find much use in an era of online education and communication.

In both the Indian cases, there is no evidence to depict any general efforts of the school to deter the usage of objectionable language. The schools inclination towards imparting good mannerisms can be a part of the justification to restrict the students freedom to speech and expression, but there must be effort put in to strike a balance between maintaining disciple, and promoting and protecting students rights to expression.

(Aroha Kadyan is an undergraduate law student at the Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University. The views expressed are personal.)

The articlewas originallypublished in The Leaflet.

See the rest here:
Freedom of Expression in Schools: Legal Perspectives in India and the United States - NewsClick

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Freedom of Expression in Schools: Legal Perspectives in India and the United States – NewsClick

Why the Threat to Free Speech Suddenly Looks Much Bigger | Adam Johnston – Foundation for Economic Education

Posted: at 8:53 pm

What do Donald Trump winning the presidency in 2016, the Capitol Protests on January 6, and Joe Biden missing his July 4th Covid-19 vaccination target all have in common? According to many of todays left-wing politicians and media pundits, Facebook, and social media in general, are partially to blame for all three. Google Democrats blame Facebook, and youll see what I mean.

On the other end of the spectrum, Republicans blame social media for censoring their ideas due to a perceived anti-conservative bias. Unfortunately, banning former President Trump from all social media didnt help alleviate those concerns. Many Americans no doubt long for simpler days where people logged onto Facebook to find old friends and play FarmVille and Mafia Wars, but I digress.

Both left and right agree on one thing, however. Social media is a significant battleground in shaping Americas political landscape. Seventy-two percent of US citizens of voting age actively use some form of social media, while 69 percent of Americans in the same group use Facebook alone, according to data from Socialbakers. Overall, 82 percent of the population in the United States had a social networking profile, which translates into 223 million US social media users as of 2020.

There is no question that social media companies and their platforms wield incredible power and influence, especially in journalism and the media. Back at the beginning of the pandemic, The New York Post ran an op-ed suggesting that the coronavirus might have leaked from a lab. Facebook stepped in and claimed that this opinion was false information.

Social media is incredibly effective in amplifying individual voices and helping to coordinate collective action. This is why totalitarian governments such as China severely restrict social media and the internet.

Over a year later, Facebook decided that the lab leak hypothesis isnt conspiratorial and will allow stories and opinions on that subject to be shared.

The New York Post also published a story about Hunter Bidens emails before the last election. In response, Twitter and Facebook both limited the storys reach and ultimately locked the NY Post Twitter account for about two weeks before reversing its decision. The New York Post is not some no-name conspiratorial blog. The paper was started in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton and has more than 2.2 million Twitter followers and more than 4.4 million Facebook followers.

Later in front of the Senate Judiciary Committees hearing regarding censorship and suppression on social media during the 2020 election, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that the censoring of the Hunter Biden story was a mistake.

In both instances, social media companies took it upon themselves to be the arbiters of truth, and in both cases, their decisions proved to be wrong.

Social media is also incredibly effective in amplifying individual voices and helping to coordinate collective action. This is why totalitarian governments such as China severely restrict social media and the internet. Its also why Cuba completely shut off the internet in response to anti-government protests.

But that could never happen here in the United States, right?

Unfortunately, its not beyond the realm of possibility that an American tech company could consider censorship as a good business model, whether for profit or self-preservation. One prime example of this comes from Google and the development of their heavily censored Chinese search engine dubbed Project Dragonfly. After The Intercept broke the story, Google eventually canceled it due to extensive pressure from employees and even Congress.

There are calls for Big Tech and Big Government to work even more closely.

The NSA wants Big Tech to build back doors into the encryption technology used by various tech firms. Others are openly praising Chinas censorship of the internet, stating that the Wests model of free speech is obsolete compared to Chinas.

When governments and private businesses begin to act in concert and move in lockstep, we risk bringing George Orwells 1984 into reality. Theres a name for this, a term weve heard screamed from the rooftops throughout Donald Trumps tenure in politics.

While private companies should be free to enforce their terms of service, it would appear that they are being coerced and pressured to bend to the governments will.

Fascism.

But dont take my word for it, lets hear from Benito Mussolini himself, who stated the following in his Labour Charter of 1927:

The intervention of the state in economic production takes place only when private initiative is lacking or is insufficient or when political interests of the state are involved. Such intervention may assume the form of control, assistance, or direct management. (emphasis added.)

Many people in government today, on both sides of the political aisle, feel that the states political interests are most definitely at stake when talking about social media. President Trump recently sued Big Tech, claiming that his removal from social media platforms amounted to state action.

Meanwhile the White House made the startling admission that they are flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformationBiden claims Facebook is outright killing people,and have identified about 12 people that are producing 65% of anti-vaccine information on Facebook.

Let me reiterate that point. The government has identified 12 individuals who they deem problematic and have reported them to a private company for speech they have classified as misinformation.

This comes on the heels of Facebook testing new Anti-Extremism warning prompts, informing users that they may have been exposed to extremist content while also asking users if they are worried about a friend who may be becoming an extremist. Its not a coincidence that these pop-up warnings come after Bidens attorney general testified that White supremacists are the most serious domestic terror threat facing the United States.

As individuals, we have to decouple ourselves from the centralized nature of social media and begin to move back to a decentralized model.

Beyond that, the Biden Administration is considering partnering with private firms to monitor extremist chatter online. The definition of extremism, and who gets to define it, is a question that should concern everyone.

While private companies should be free to enforce their terms of service, it would appear that they are being coerced and pressured to bend to the governments will. There is still a wall, however fragile, between Big Tech and US Intelligence agencies. Free speech as we know it depends on that wall holding.

So what are some answers? First, let me identify what I do not see as solutions.

On the social media front, the answer to this problem should not come from government legislation or regulation but rather from creating both a free market and free speech environment that fosters competition and lowers barriers to entry; however, that wont be enough.

As individuals, we have to decouple ourselves from the centralized nature of social media and begin to move back to a decentralized model, similar to what the internet looked like at its inception.

The internet of the past was primarily individual websites, or blogs, unshackled from the constraints of social media. We are so used to logging into Facebook as a one-stop-shop for our content or searching for an app in Apple or Googles App stores that we forget we still have a web browser on our phone.

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments

Companies like Substack are also popping up for independent writers and journalists to publish their content and get paid for it (outside of the censoring eye of social networks). And then, there are protocols like LBRY, a blockchain-based file-sharing and payment network that powers decentralized platforms, primarily social networks and video platforms. LBRY's creators also run Odysee, a video-sharing website that uses the network.

While the content on Odysee is moderated to remove videos that promote violence and terrorism, it is a model for what a decentralized internet could look like.

The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. As we have learned, private companies are under no such obligation. However, they can (and should) play an essential role in creating a culture that reinvigorates the spirit behind the First Amendment.

James Madisons original First Amendment draft, which overall was much more descriptive than the one that ended up in the Bill of Rights, gives a little more insight into what he was thinking on this subject. It reads in part:

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments

Doesnt that sound like a modern-day Facebook post?

The digital newsfeed has replaced the public square, and Big Tech, whether they like it or not, has a responsibility to help to facilitate the free exchange of ideas.

Its also worth noting that in both the original and final versions of the First Amendment, there's no qualifier excluding misinformation. The founders understood that unpopular opinion and information was the most important kind of speech in need of protection. So much so that many wrote under pseudonyms for their safety.

The digital newsfeed has replaced the public square, and Big Tech, whether they like it or not, has a responsibility to help to facilitate the free exchange of ideas.

In the final analysis, American social media companies base their entire business model around monetizing individual self-expression. They can and should serve as champions of free speech, especially when confronted with government pressure.

Read the original post:
Why the Threat to Free Speech Suddenly Looks Much Bigger | Adam Johnston - Foundation for Economic Education

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Why the Threat to Free Speech Suddenly Looks Much Bigger | Adam Johnston – Foundation for Economic Education

Speech suppression is habit-forming – Chicago Daily Herald

Posted: at 8:53 pm

Speech suppression is a habit that the Biden administration and its liberal supporters can't seem to break. Many staffers may have picked up the habit in their student years: Colleges and universities have been routinely censoring "politically incorrect" speech for the last 30 years. As Thomas Sowell noted, "There are no institutions in America where free speech is more severely restricted than in our politically correct colleges and universities, dominated by liberals."

Now, the Biden administration seems to be giving the colleges and universities some serious competition. Like many Democrats during the Trump presidency, they have come to see suppression of "fake news" as the ordinary course of business and indeed a prime responsibility of social media platforms.

For decades, print and broadcast media have been dominated by liberals, but Facebook, Google and Twitter have developed a stranglehold over the delivery of news which exceeds anything that the three major broadcast networks and a few national newspapers ever enjoyed. If they suppress a story or a line of argument, it largely disappears from public view. And to the extent that it lingers, it can be stigmatized by these multibillion-dollar companies as "misinformation" or "fake news."

Speech suppression was exactly what White House press secretary Jen Psaki had in mind last week when she called on Facebook to suppress 12 accounts that she said were spreading "misinformation" about COVID-19 vaccines. These accounts, she said July 15, were "producing 65% of vaccine misinformation on social media platforms."

"Facebook needs to move more quickly to remove harmful, violative posts. Posts that would be within their policy for removal often remain up for days, and that's too long. The information spreads too quickly."

And she wasn't aiming her demand at just Facebook. "You shouldn't be banned from one platform and not others," she added a day later.

Like most speech suppressors, Psaki protested her good intentions. As did her boss, President Joe Biden, who, when asked about Facebook on Friday, said simply, "They're killing people." The implication is that any advice contrary to the current recommendations of public health officials -- contrary to "the science" -- is bound to increase the death toll. This is more in line with Cardinal Bellarmine's view of science than Galileo's. As Galileo knew, science is not acceptance of holy writ but learning from observation and experiment. Today, in dealing with a novel and deadly virus, current science is a body of hypotheses only partly tested and subject to revision based on emerging evidence.

There's a long list of things once believed to be "misinformation" about COVID that are now widely accepted. One prime example: the possibility that the coronavirus was accidentally released from the Wuhan lab. For more than a year, this was widely treated as a wacky right-wing conspiracy theory. Facebook slapped "warnings" on it and boasted that it reduced readership -- i.e., suppressed speech.

Then, in May, former New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade, in an article that Facebook let slip through, argued a lab leak was likelier than animal-to-human transmission, and a group of 18 bioscientists called for a deeper investigation. The Biden administration, to its credit, soon reversed itself and opened its own investigation and, reportedly, multiple officials now believe the lab leak theory is likely correct. Some "misinformation!"

That example provides powerful support for Galileo's view that debate over scientific matters takes place best out in the open. But of course the urge to suppress speech is not limited to science. As conservative commentator Stephen L. Miller wrote, "Removing information on vaccines will translate right over to anything they think is misinformation on gun violence, or climate, or health care or what defines a man or woman. Which is why they are doing this."

It's easy to imagine this administration pressuring Facebook and other social media to suppress information on other issues. For example, as the New York Post's Michael Goodwin noted, his paper's negative stories about Hunter Biden's shady business dealings, which were largely blocked from public view in the weeks before the 2020 election.

Speech suppression is evidently habit-forming. Which is why a constitutional amendment was passed back in the 1790s guaranteeing "freedom of speech, and of the press." Or is that obsolete in these modern times?

2021, Creators

Originally posted here:
Speech suppression is habit-forming - Chicago Daily Herald

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Speech suppression is habit-forming – Chicago Daily Herald

Lebanon One year after Beirut blast, economic crisis pushes families further into hunger, says Save the Children – Lebanon – ReliefWeb

Posted: at 8:53 pm

Hundreds of thousands of children in Lebanon are going to bed hungry, Save the Children warned today, as their parents increasingly fail to make ends meet at the end of every month and are unable to pay for basics such as food, electricity and medicine.

The gap in finances needed to buy basic goods has skyrocketed 550 per cent over the past year, according to a new analysis of the financial situation of families in Beirut published a year after an explosion in the port tore through the city.

Save the Childrens analysis found that families from virtually all wealth groups in the nations capital have been plunged deeper into poverty, with children increasingly being sent out to work.

Very poor families are hardest hit, falling on average 5.5 million Lebanese pounds short of the 6.1 million pounds needed monthly just to afford the basics. This shortfall is equivalent to $3,600 USD at the official bank rate or $456 at the official informal rate. Poor and middle-income families are also several hundred dollars short every month.

Najwa, a Lebanese single mother of two, receives cash assistance from Save the Children. She said,

Our children are craving food - as simple and tragic as that. My children (16 and 13 years old) lost weight significantly and the entire situation has affected not only their physical but also mental health. Both my parents are elderly with chronic illnesses. My father has cancer and, due to the situation, we missed a couple of months of treatment. Medication was either unavailable or too expensive. I dont know how long well be able to survive the situation. For months, we kept waiting and hoping things would get better but all were witnessing is a free fall into the abyss.

On August 4th last year, an explosion killed over 200 people and wounded more than 7,000, destroying the port and thousands of homes and shops in Beirut. The impact of the blast, coupled with an ongoing economic crisis, COVID-19, and the highest spike in food prices in the world, means more families in Lebanon are resorting to desperate measures that affect the youngest and the most vulnerable.

These include eating less, poorer quality food, buying food on credit, and selling furniture. Many are cutting back on health and education expenses, and are surviving on savings or borrowed money, or by sending their children to do dangerous work just to survive every month, said the child rights organisation.

Salma, a Syrian resident of Beirut and mother of three, said,

My son and husband were injured in the explosion so they needed medication and checkups. Everything is expensive, we cant even afford yoghurt or cheese. We have to split the bread bag for two days and meat is a luxury we cant afford. Our children know not to ask us for anything now because our answers would be no or not now.

The economic crisis has impacted families from all socio-economic groups and nationalities, but Syrian refugees across the country are among the hardest hit. Some nine out of 10 Syrian families in Lebanon are living in extreme poverty. Essential goods like lentils, cooking oil, diapers, sanitary pads and fuel are unaffordable for around 47% of Lebanese[i], and almost 90% of Syrian refugees[ii].

Surviving, but barely, said Jennifer Moorehead, Save the Childrens country director in Lebanon, Hundreds of thousands of children are going to bed hungry, often without having eaten a single meal that day. Families cant afford the electricity to run a fridge or hot water, or the medicines they need to treat illness. The longer this situation continues, the more likely it is that children will slide into malnutrition, which ultimately could lead to death.

In 2020, Save the Children warned that over half a million children in Beirut would struggle to survive by the end of the year. That number will most likely have risen sharply over the past year, the organisation said.

To support children going hungry in Lebanon and across the globe, Save the Children recently launched its largest-ever appeal, aiming to raise $130 million.

The economic downfall of Lebanon does not only impact the financial situation of children and their families, Save the Children said. Poverty has a deep impact on the education of children, on their health care, and their growth and mental development and wellbeing. Babies and young children who are unable to have a healthy diet are at risk of malnutrition and disease.

Children who are hungry have trouble learning or are dropping out of school altogether as they have to work to help with the family income.

Ms Moorehead continued: The government of Lebanon and the international community need to start treating the situation in Lebanon for what it is a full-fledged humanitarian crisis driven by an economy in total collapse. This crisis is entirely man-made, so it can also be man-unmade. If that doesnt happen, children can die of hunger any day.

Save the Children is calling for donors to prioritise funding for transparently distributed cash support for the most vulnerable families of all nationalities in Lebanon. The government of Lebanon should urgently set up a cash-based social safety net programme, to cover monthly basic needs for families, so they can ensure children have access to food, electricity, health care, clean water and can keep going to school.

More info on Save the Childrens largest-ever hunger appeal.

Multimedia content available.

[i] WFP and World Bank, Lebanon Vulnerability and Food Security Assessment, March-April 2021. Accessed at: https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-0000129566/download/

[ii] UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, Vulnerability Assessment of Syrian Refugees in Lebanon VaSyR, 2020. Available at: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/VASyR%202020.pdf

For spokespeople or more info, kindly reach out to:

See the original post:

Lebanon One year after Beirut blast, economic crisis pushes families further into hunger, says Save the Children - Lebanon - ReliefWeb

Posted in Socio-economic Collapse | Comments Off on Lebanon One year after Beirut blast, economic crisis pushes families further into hunger, says Save the Children – Lebanon – ReliefWeb