Daily Archives: January 9, 2022

Sorry, Democrats: Civil War isn’t likely even if you’re trying to provoke one – New York Post

Posted: January 9, 2022 at 4:40 pm

Lets set the scene: American democracy is said to be under threat from a political party that questions the legitimacy and outcome of a presidential election, that incites and justifies lawless insurrectionist actions and undermines American democratic institutions and processes, threatening the continued existence of the Constitution itself. If this state of affairs continues unabated, experts claim, the United States might well lapse into a second Civil War, as argued in Barbara F. Walters new book How Civil Wars Start.

Yes thats a pretty good description of the Democratic Party. You were expecting something else around the anniversary of Jan. 6?

Lets do the checklist. A Washington Post/University of Maryland poll in 2017 found that 67% of Democrats and 69% of Hillary Clinton voters said Donald Trump was not a legitimately elected president, and Hillary herself told CBS News that Trump was not a legitimate president because he stole the 2016 election. Three years of contentious and debilitating investigations into what we now know was a phony Democrat-created story followed. But now that Republicans make similar claims about an anomalous election, liberals have caught a case of the vapors and say it is a threat to democracy.

And about that insurrection: Would that be the 1992 riots in Los Angeles that Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters praised with that term? What about the violent riots of the summer of 2020, which leading Democrats and much of the media called mostly peaceful and the legitimate voice of the people despite billions of dollars in damage and dozens of deaths from the violence? Maybe they were just following the lead of Baltimores former Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who declared during that citys 2015 riots that we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.

As for the Constitution and long-established democratic processes, which party is it that argues for wholesale changes to the Constitution? That wants to pack the Supreme Court? That wants to jettison century-old rules of the Senate to make it a purely majoritarian body? Admit new states to tilt the partisan balance in Washington? What changes to the Constitution are Republicans demanding exactly? A balanced-budget amendment is about the only one hardly a regime-shaking idea.

A certain consistency deserves to be noted here. Trump was not the first Republican president to face The Resistance from Democrats. It was, after all, the refusal of the Democratic Party to abide by the results of a free election in 1860 that led to our first Civil War, so why change modes now?

The hysteria among Democrats over the shambolic riot at the Capitol a year ago reveals not only the hypocrisy of the left but also its deep insecurity, ideological hollowness and what psychologists call projection, that is, attributing to others what is going on in your own mind.

Democrats can take a patronizing attitude toward the violence and destruction from the far left because it does not take the far left seriously, while at the same time sympathizing with the far left to some extent out of liberal guilt. But a single outburst of lawlessness from the right, foolishly tolerated if not encouraged by President Donald Trump, shakes liberals to their core not simply because it is so unexpected but because it controverts their core theory of the universe.

If you think that you are on the side of history but events dont cooperate with this lazy progressive narrative, you will be pitched into an existential crisis. This outlook cannot abide the fact that we have lived in a 50/50 nation for nearly 30 years now and are likely to continue to be closely divided for a long time to come. Progressive leftists cannot understand or accept this (or any) level of dissent.

The point is: The true intolerance in America resides overwhelmingly on the left today.

The lefts concern trolling over a potential civil war can be seen as a sequel of their obsession with what should be called coup porn over the events of Jan. 6. Recall that the cities that boarded up their downtowns before the 2020 election feared violence from Democrats if Trump had won, as indeed occurred after the 2016 election.

The foolish Jan. 6 mob action allowed the left to flip the script and project their own toleration of violence onto Republicans, though as usual the impulse to hyperbole has taken over. If Jan. 6 hadnt happened, the left would have had to invent it. Now it is going to become the lefts Saint Crispins Day for decades to come.

Barbara Walter, perhaps the chief civil war re-enactor of the moment, confesses to being really happy on Jan. 6, telling the London Times recently that this was the gift that America needed to wake up because those of us who were sounding the alarm had been getting nowhere with it. A gift? More like a grift for the left.

How exactly the QAnon shaman and other unarmed rioters could have ever succeeded in preventing Joe Bidens accession to the presidency on Jan. 20, or toppling the Constitution, has never been seriously explained, which may be one reason not a single person arrested for Jan. 6 acts has been charged with insurrection or sedition.

As coups go, it was pathetic: There were no seizures of radio and TV stations, detention of officials, control of transportation and armories or other hallmarks of a real coup. Never mind that Americas separation of powers and federalism features of American government that the left generally dislikes and wishes to replace make a traditional power-grabbing coup nearly impossible to succeed.

That the electoral vote count proceeded later in the day on Jan. 6 testifies to the resilience of American democracy, not its fragility.

The giddy talk of civil war trivializes our divisions, which are real and deep. It is hard to maintain a sense of common citizenship when we increasingly see each other as utterly alien. But projections of a new civil war are overwrought. For one thing, we lack the sectional geographical divide that was central to our actual Civil War and a single, central issue over which compromise became impossible.

Walter predicts something more like guerilla war instead of a real civil war with localized terrorist acts. (Once again we can draw on the violent history of the new left in the 1960s for a precedent another case of leftist projection.)

It is more likely that Americans will continue the accelerating process of self-sorting. Americans are moving in large numbers to states more congenial to their political and social views (mostly from blue to red states) or forming enclaves within red and blue states.

Some of the ideological divides can be ameliorated by reinvigorating federalism: Let Vermont be Vermont, and let Idaho be Idaho. The possibility of terrorist acts that Walter predicts would be diminished substantially through reinvigorated federalism.

Of course we know who is against this: the very same people warning of a civil war. If a new civil war does come, it will be on account of the intransigence of the same party that started the first one.

Steven F. Hayward is a resident scholar at the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley.

Original post:

Sorry, Democrats: Civil War isn't likely even if you're trying to provoke one - New York Post

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Sorry, Democrats: Civil War isn’t likely even if you’re trying to provoke one – New York Post

Opinion: It will be a dreary Christmas in Ethiopia this year, and here’s why Americans should care – Iowa City Press-Citizen

Posted: at 4:40 pm

Ron McMullen| Guest opinion

On Friday, people in the Ethiopian city of Axum will gather to celebrate Christmas, as will some 280 million other Orthodox Christians around the world.

But wait, isnt Christmas on Dec. 25?Most Iowans would answer yes, because the 13 colonies skipped ahead 12 days in 1752 (when George Washington was just 20) as we ditched the older Julian calendar in favor of the more accurate Gregorian one.

Orthodox churches, however, still use the oldcalendar.Thus, if you have a friend who is an Orthodox Christian, surprise them with a cheery Merry Christmas on Friday.When I was ambassador to Eritrea (next door to Ethiopia), our family celebrated both days, enjoying a double helping of Christmas cheer those years.

However, few Christians celebrating Christmas this year in Axum, Ethiopia, will find anything remotely merry about the holiday season.Axum, about the size of Ames, hosts the Ark of the Covenant and the stone tablets on which Moses inscribed the Ten Commandments, according to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.

Its 45 million members believe the Ark rests in a church in Axum, having been smuggled to Ethiopia ages ago by King Solomon and the Queen of Shebas son. It has supposedly been safeguarded by Christians in Axum ever since (despite what you saw at the end of "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark").

Axumites, along with 7 million other Ethiopians living in the northern state of Tigray, have been engulfed in a civil war since November 2020.Tigray is currently besieged by Ethiopian federal forces aided by troops from Eritrea the United Nationsreports 400,000 people have crossed the threshold into famine and 1.7 million have been displaced from their homes.

Amnesty International claims Eritrean troops, who occupied Axum earlier in the war, systematically killed hundreds of civilians in cold blood.The U.S. State Department has voiced grave concern about atrocities and egregious human rights abuses committed by both sides in this ongoing war in the Horn of Africa.

Why should we care?With omicron surging, inflation spiking, supply chains clogged, politics polarized, and socio-economic gaps persisting, dont we have enough to worry about?Isnt the Tigray War just another African conflict generating vague humanitarian concerns?

The lesson we should learn from the Tigray War is that ethnic federalism doesnt work.Ethiopia, like the U.S., is a federal system.

Our states are based on geography, but Ethiopias are based largely on ethnic identity, with each major ethnic group having its own regional state.Under Ethiopias constitution, states even have the right to secede.

Politicians from Tigray dominated Ethiopia for 30 years until the election of Abiy Ahmed in 2018.Prime Minister Abiy is neither Orthodox nor Tigrayan (hes a Pentecostal Oromo) and, somewhat ironically from todays perspective, won the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize.

The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were also federal systems based on ethnic group identity, at least according to their constitutions.When the Soviet Union collapsed, it did so along ethno-national lines.Yugoslavia also collapsed along ethnic lines, leading to genocide, war, secessionand ongoing animosity.

Abiy may yet win the Tigray War, albeit at great cost.Ethiopias recent agony, however, shows ethnic federalisms record is 0-3.

Expanding and protecting individual rights, as opposed to group rights nominally based on ethnicity, would have led to strikingly different outcomes in the evolution of the Soviet Union, Yugoslaviaand Ethiopia.Is there anything in these three examples that Americans should ponder as we contemplate the state of our country in 2022?

On Friday(and beyond), let us wish peace on earth to all.

Ron McMullen is a former U.S. ambassadorcurrently teaching political science at the University of Iowa.

Continue reading here:

Opinion: It will be a dreary Christmas in Ethiopia this year, and here's why Americans should care - Iowa City Press-Citizen

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Opinion: It will be a dreary Christmas in Ethiopia this year, and here’s why Americans should care – Iowa City Press-Citizen

Indian Origin Tamils and Muslims refused to ink Tamils’ joint letter to Indian PM – NewsIn.Asia

Posted: at 4:40 pm

By P.K.Balachandran

Colombo, January 8 (newsin.asia): A long and determined effort by the political parties of the Tamil-speaking communities in Sri Lanka to jointly write to the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking his good offices to persuade Colombo to address the political grievances of the Tamils and the Muslims, has failed.

The Indian Origin Tamil (IOT) parties led by Mano Ganeshan and the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) led by Rauff Hakeem, had objected to certain demands and references in the draft saying that these were inimical to their political interests.

Subscribe to ourTelegramchannel for the latest updatesfrom around the world

The IOT parties said that the demand for federalism could not be put forward by them because such a demand would alienate the majority Sinhalese, among whom they have to live and seek their political fortune. The IOT parties also have a tradition of becoming part of the government of the day and, therefore, they cannot take very antagonistic positions.

IOT leader Mano Ganeshan said that the majority Sinhalese community would dub the demand for federalism as anti-national and use it to oppose all the demands of the Tamils. The IOT parties wanted the letter to the Indian PM to focus on the retention and full implementation of the 13th. Amendment (13A) of the Sri Lankan constitution. The 13A appears to be headed for repeal or a severe pruning if the Gotabaya Rajapaksa government goes ahead with its plan to draft a new constitution for Sri Lanka. The 13A gives the Sri Lankan Provinces a modicum of powers under a Unitary constitution. Even these limited powers might be taken away.

READ: One Country, One Law: The Sri Lankan States hostility toward Muslims grows deeper

The IOT believe that Indias help could be legitimately sought only for the retention and full implementation of the 13 A because it flowed from the India-Sri Lanka Accord of 1987 signed by the then Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and the then Sri Lankan President J.R.Jayewardene in July 1987.

However, the reference to the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord in the letter irked the SLMC leader Rauff Hakeem who said that the Accord had manifestly neglected the Muslims. Also, the Muslims of the Eastern Province would not support the merger of the Northern and Eastern Province (as the Tamils have been demanding) because merger would make the Muslims a minority in a united province and further exacerbate their minority status in Sri Lanka as a whole.

READ: China reaches out to Lankan Tamil fishermen in a bid to upstage India

Not wanting to dilute the draft letter to the Indian PM as per the wishes of the IOT and the SLMC, the parties of the Northern and Eastern Sri Lanka, the home of the Sri Lankan Tamils, decided to sign the letter dated December 29, 2021. These parties plan to hand it over to the Indian High Commissioner Gopal Baglay next Tuesday or Wednesday.

The North-East parties that signed the letter are: the Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK), which is the largest and the oldest Tamil party, the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization (TELO) led by Selvam Adaikalanathan, the Tamil National Liberation Alliance (TNLA) led by N.Srikantha; the Peoples Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE) led by D.Siddharthan; the Eelam Peoples Revolutionary Liberation Front (EPRLF) led by Suresh Premachandran; and the Tamil Peoples National Alliance (TPNA) led by C.V.Wigneswaran.

The Tamil National Peoples Front (TNPF) led by Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam kept out of the entire exercise because it felt that the 13A has no place even as a temporary arrangement or as the first step towards a federal structure. The only solution the Tamils should fight seek is full federalism, according to the TNPF.

READ: The many facets of the Tamil festival Thai Pongal

ITAK leader M.A.Sumanthiran said that the IOT parties could pursue their case separately with the Indian Prime Minister. Mano Ganeshan said that the IOT will lend outside support for the North Eastern Tamils cause but will not sign the letter.

Explaining his position, IOT leader Mao Ganeshan said that the original idea was to present a common front with a common set of demands, in other words a Common Minimum Program (CMP) to the Indian PM. The CMP could not include divisive issues, he said. He also felt that the letter to the PM should be short and not 13 pages. There is no need to recall the past in detail as these are known to the Indian Establishment very well, Ganeshan added.

He was at pains to stress that at the moment, there is a crisis situation as regards the 13A and this has to be met urgently with the good offices of the Indian Prime Minister. Therefore, the one and only focus of the letter should have been the 13A.

READ: In Sri Lanka, the Tamil link with Buddhism is brushed under the carpet

On the contrary, the ITAK strongly felt that the demands of the Tamils could not be confined to the 13A, which, in any case, could only be a starting point. The case of federalism could not be lost sight of at any point of time.

Therefore, the letter said that the Tamil-speaking people remain committed to a political solution based on a federal structure that recognizes their legitimate aspirations.

Calling for the unification of the Tamil Homeland, the letter pointed out that the Tamil speaking peoples have always been the majority in the North and East of Sri Lanka, thereby calling for a merger of the Northern and Eastern provinces.

On the 13A, the letter said that it was introduced into a Unitary constitution making the exercise one of decentralization instead of devolution. It pointed out that since 1987, the North-Eastern Tamil parties have been moving towards a federal structure in their campaigns.

Giving the landmarks, the letter said that at the Oslo peace conference between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE, the Sri Lankan delegate, G.L.Peiris, had said that the two parties had agreed to explore a solution founded on the principle of internal self-determination in areas of historical habitation of the Tamil-speaking people, based on a federal structure within a united Sri Lanka. When Mahinda Rajapaksa was President, he told the visiting Indian Foreign Minister S.M.Krishna, that Sri Lanka would go beyond the 13A. And in an address to the Sri Lankan parliament, Indian Prime Minister Modi had said that he was a firm believer in cooperative federalism.

READ: Whats Touted As Tamil King Elaras Tomb Is A Fable, Says Historian

It was against this background the letter to the Indian PM, finalized by the North Eastern Tamil parties, sought Indian help to make the Sri Lankan government fully implement the provisions of the 13A and implement the clear commitments made by all sections of government from 1987 onwards.

A leader of one of the North Eastern Tamil parties said that the IOT parties had agreed to the draft letter initially and that it was the North-East-based Ilankai Tamil Arasu Katchi (ITAK) that was putting spokes in the wheel. The ITAK did not want the credit for getting the various parties together to go to the Tamil Elam Liberation Organization (TELO) leader Selvam Adaikalanathan.

The source also said that Mano Ganeshan finally opted out because of the insults hurled at the IOT community by an ITAK leader, S.Sritharan. The source also alleged that ITAK leader M.A.Sumanthiran had continuously worked to scuttle the bid to write to the Indian PM because he felt that the Indians would not help the Sri Lankan Tamils to achieve their goals and that it would be better to seek American help.

But IOT leaders said that their information was that the US would concentrate on wartime accountability and human rights issues, and leave the other political issues to India, the regional power.

END

For similar articles, join ourTelegram channelfor the latest updates.click here

Here is the original post:

Indian Origin Tamils and Muslims refused to ink Tamils' joint letter to Indian PM - NewsIn.Asia

Posted in Federalism | Comments Off on Indian Origin Tamils and Muslims refused to ink Tamils’ joint letter to Indian PM – NewsIn.Asia

Cyberbullying | The First Amendment Encyclopedia

Posted: at 4:40 pm

John Halligan shows the Web page devoted to his son, Ryan, at his home in Underhill, Vermont, Feb. 7, 2007. Ryan Patrick Halligan, bullied by classmates for months online, killed himself in 2003. States from Oregon to Rhode Island are considering crackdowns to curb or outlaw the behavior in which kids taunt or insult peers on social Web sites like MySpace or via instant messages. However, cyberbullying presents First Amendment issues because the statutes often criminalize speech and some of the language in certain laws and regulations arguably is overly broad or vague.(AP Photo/Toby Talbot, used with permission from the Associated Press)

Cyberbullying, sometimes called cyber-harassment, is bullying or harassing committed by electronic means. Cyberbullying has become a major issue in schools, as well as society at large, particularly after several high-profile incidents where kids who were bullied online committed suicide. The White House called a summit on the phenomenon in 2011.

More than 30 states have cyberbullying laws and other states have laws that require public school districts to amend their anti-bullying policies to include cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying presents First Amendment issues because the statutes often criminalize speech and some of the language in certain laws and regulations arguably is overly broad or vague. For example, the New York Court of Appeals invalidated Albany Countys cyberbullying law as overbroad in People v. Marquan M. The defendant, a high school student, posted sexually explicit pictures of classmates on the Internet.

Prosecutors charged him with violating Albany Countys law, which read:

"any act of communicating or causing a communication to be sent by mechanical or electronic means, including posting statements on the internet or through a computer or email network, disseminating embarrassing or sexually explicit photographs; disseminating private, personal, false or sexual information, or sending hate mail, with no legitimate private, personal, or public purpose, with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, abuse, taunt, intimidate, torment, humiliate, or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on another person."

The New York Court of Appeals reasoned that the law was too broad, because it embraces a wide array of applications that prohibit types of protected speech far beyond the cyberbullying of children.

The North Carolina Supreme Court invalidated its state cyberbullying law in State v. Bishop (2016). This case also involved a high school student who posted negative comments about a classmate under a sexually explicit photo. The state law prohibited the use of a computer to post or encourage others to post on the internet private, personal or sexual information pertaining to minors with the intent to intimidate or torment a minor.

The state high court explained that the law failed to require that the subject of an online post suffer injury from the online tormenting and, thus, the law sweeps far beyond the states legitimate interest in protecting the psychological health of minors. The state court also noted the failure of the state legislature to define the key terms intimidate or torment. Thus, the law could be applied to merely annoying speech protected by the First Amendment.

A related issue involves school officials attempting to punish students for their cyberbullying speech that takes place entirely off-campus. Many state laws targeting cyberbullying apply whether or not the speech takes place on-campus or off-campus.

However, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in a couple of decisions that school officials lack the authority to discipline students purely for off-campus, online speech. In one of those decisions, Layshock v. Hermitage School District (3rd Cir. 2011), the Third Circuit wrote that it would be a dangerous and unseemly precedent to allow the state, in the guise of school authorities, to reach into a childs home and control his/her actions there to the same extent that it can control that child when he/she participates in school sponsored activities.

However, most other circuits apply the familiar substantial disruption standard from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). Most courts have applied the Tinkers reasonable forecast of substantial disruption standard even to off-campus, online speech so long as there is a reasonable connection or nexus to school activities.

There is another part of the Tinker test that is often forgotten. In Tinker, the Court intimated that school officials could punish students if their speech invaded the rights of other students. Cyberbullying expert James C. Hanks explains in his book School Bullying: How Long Is the Arm of the Law that this part of the Tinker case could provide the legal justification for cyberbullying laws.

David L. Hudson, Jr. is a law professor at Belmont who publishes widely on First Amendment topics. He is the author of a 12-lecture audio course on the First Amendment entitled Freedom of Speech: Understanding the First Amendment (Now You Know Media, 2018). He also is the author of many First Amendment books, including The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (Thomson Reuters, 2012) and Freedom of Speech: Documents Decoded (ABC-CLIO, 2017). This article was originally published in 2009.

View post:
Cyberbullying | The First Amendment Encyclopedia

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Cyberbullying | The First Amendment Encyclopedia

Craig Carter: Another lecture on the First Amendment – Ontario Argus Observer

Posted: at 4:39 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

More:
Craig Carter: Another lecture on the First Amendment - Ontario Argus Observer

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Craig Carter: Another lecture on the First Amendment – Ontario Argus Observer

Letter: Unpopular letters and the First Amendment – Itemlive – Daily Item

Posted: at 4:39 pm

Opinion

You have 4 free articles left this month.

To the editor:

I read with interest letters to The Item by Dylan Cashman and Mary Gatlin published on Dec. 31 regarding their decisions to drop their subscriptions because they objected to another persons letter to The Item concerning vaccinations.

They did not agree with the letter (Richard G. Eramian, Dec. 30), and thought it should not have been published.

What these two individuals dont seem to understand is that a good and responsible newspaper, like The Item, has an unwritten duty to publish controversial letters in accordance with the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Its called Freedom of Speech a freedom espoused by Cashman and Gatlin in their letters to The Item.

Their decisions to cancel their subscriptions reminds me of little children threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue if they dont get their way. Too bad! Grow up its in your interest!

Edward M. LandryLynn

Originally posted here:
Letter: Unpopular letters and the First Amendment - Itemlive - Daily Item

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Letter: Unpopular letters and the First Amendment – Itemlive – Daily Item

First Amendment challenge: Gov. Inslee to advance law that makes lying about elections a gross misdemeanor – Must Read Alaska

Posted: at 4:39 pm

Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington announced Thursday that he will advance a bill that makes lying or spreading lies about free and fair elections by elected officials a gross misdemeanor, if those lies have the likelihood to stoke violence. The law would also apply to candidates for elected office.

Its yelling fire in a crowded theater, Inslee said to reporters on Thursday.

January 6 is a reminder not only of the insurrection that happened one year ago, but that there is an ongoing coup attempt by candidates and elected officials to overturn our democracy. They are willing to do this by provoking violence, and today I proposed we do something about that in Washington, Inslee said in a published statement on his governmental website on Thursday.

Soon, legislation will be introduced in the state House and Senate that would make it a gross misdemeanor for candidates and elected officials to knowingly lie about elections.The proposed law is narrowly tailored to capture only those false statements that are made for the purpose of undermining the election process or results and is further limited to lies that are likely to incite or cause lawlessness, Inslee said.

This legislation attempts to follow the relevant U.S. and state supreme court opinions on this issue. Were talking about candidates and elected officers knowingly throwing bombs at democracy itself when doing so is likely to result in violence, Inslee said. We can outlaw actions that provoke political violence and in doing so also protect our democracy. There is more that can be done by states and Congress to protect our democracy. I am open to any proposal that will protect the will of the voters and the institutions they use to decide who governs them.

Inslee cited the court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). In that case, it was found that speech that supports law-breaking or violence in general is protected by the First Amendment unless it directly encourages people to take an unlawful action immediately. More about that case at this link.

Inslee is a governor who rules with a heavy hand. In May of 2021, he ordered workplaces in Washington State to not only check employee vaccination documents, but to force employee badges to show their vaccination status, in violation of their health privacy. More about that illegal action at this link.

Washington state has been a hotspot for lawless behavior by Antifa, Black Lives Matter, anarchists, and other leftist groups during the months leading up to the 2020 election. Those activities gained national attention as leftists took over a section of downtown Seattle, vandalized and set fire to buildings, and clashed with police for weeks on end.

But rather than focus on actual lawlessness, Inslees new bill is aimed at conservatives who have legitimate concerns about the security of the election process.

Like Loading...

Continue reading here:
First Amendment challenge: Gov. Inslee to advance law that makes lying about elections a gross misdemeanor - Must Read Alaska

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment challenge: Gov. Inslee to advance law that makes lying about elections a gross misdemeanor – Must Read Alaska

Sean Hannity Wants the January 6 Committee to Believe Hes a Journalist – Vanity Fair

Posted: at 4:39 pm

In the months leading up to Donald Trumps 2016 election victory, Fox News host Sean Hannity used his massive media platform to openly help his friend defeat Hillary Clintonan approach he justified by insisting that he is not a journalist and does not have to abide by journalistic ethics. Im not hiding the fact that I want Donald Trump to be the next president of the United States, Hannity said in August of 2016, adding: I never claimed to be a journalist. Earlier that year, the Fox News star acknowledged that, if he were to interview Clinton, he would go after her a hundred times harder than any Republican because he is an overtly partisan actor. Im not a journalist, Im a talk show host, he concluded.

However, on Tuesday, Hannitys attorney Jay Sekulow insisted that the House select committee investigating the Capitol riotwhich has released text messages Hannity sent to former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadowstreat his client like a journalist and offer him the same protections that members of the press are afforded by the First Amendment. We are evaluating the letter from the committee. We remain very concerned about the constitutional implications especially as it relates to the First Amendment, wrote Sekulow. We will respond as appropriate. Separately, to Axios, Sekulow mentioned concerns regarding freedom of the press.

The text messages in question, which were obtained as part of 9,000 pages of documents that Meadows handed over after being subpoenaed, show how Hannity acted as a key outside adviser for the former president during his final days in office. One week before the Capitol riot erupted, Hannity questioned Trumps strategy to overturn the election and warned that it could result in mass White House resignations. We cant lose the entire WH counsels [sic] office. I do NOT see January 6 happening the way [Trump] is being told, Hannity wrote in an exchange with Meadows. On the night of January 5, Hannity again texted Meadows, writing that he was very worried about the next 48 hours while expressing concern regarding Trumps attempt to pressure Mike Pence into intervening in the elections certification process. On the afternoon of January 6, as violence erupted around the Capitol building, Hannity pleaded with Meadows to try to put a stop to the attack. Can he make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol, he wrote. "Ask people to peacefully leave the Capitol.Finally, on January 10, Hannity reacted to the Houses attempt to impeach Trump by telling Meadows and Rep. Jim Jordan that Trump cant mention the election again. Ever. I did not have a good call with him today. And worse, Im not sure what is left to do or say, and I dont like not knowing if its truly understood. Ideas?

The bipartisan committees chair and vice-chair have requested Hannitys cooperation with the investigation. We have no doubt that you love our country and respect our Constitution, wrote committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson and vice-chair Rep. Liz Cheney. Now is the time to step forward and serve the interests of your country.On the Tuesday night edition of Hannity, the host lashed out at the cowardly swamp creatures and the media mob, though he ultimately dodged the issue by not directly responding to the committees request. He also failed to address the role that his personal messages and advice to Trump have played in the January 6 investigation. Instead, he allowed his attorney to speak for him, with Sekulow releasing his First Amendment statement shortly after the conclusion of Hannitys show.

When asked for comment about the committees request and Hannitys lawyers reference to the First Amendment, a Fox News spokesperson referred Vanity Fair to Sekulow's statement. The question of whether Hannity is a journalist, and subject to any professional and ethical obligations that go along with it, has come up before. While Hannity has both denied being a journalist and described himself as suchIm an advocacy journalist, or an opinion journalist, he said in 2017The Washington Post struggled the following year to get a direct answer from his employer following the revelation that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen also represented the Fox News host. At the time, a network spokesperson would allow that Hannity is an opinion talk show host.

More Great Stories From Vanity Fair

The Story Behind the Only Known Photo of Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein The 140,000 COVID Orphans Left in the Shadows It Sure Sounds Like Trump Was Screening Don Jr.s Calls on January 6 Of Course the Ridiculous Bible Photo Op Was Ivankas Idea CNN and Chris Cuomo on the Brink of All-Out War The Prosecution Is Fumbling Its Case Against Ghislaine Maxwell Hunter Biden Paints His Truth From the Archive: Inside the Ultra-Exclusive Bohemian Club Not a subscriber? Join Vanity Fair to receive full access to VF.com and the complete online archive now.

See the rest here:
Sean Hannity Wants the January 6 Committee to Believe Hes a Journalist - Vanity Fair

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Sean Hannity Wants the January 6 Committee to Believe Hes a Journalist – Vanity Fair

Letters to the editor for Sunday, Jan 9: Learn to live with COVID-19 – The Register-Guard

Posted: at 4:39 pm

Learn to live with COVID-19

Winter is the cold season! People get colds and the flu!

Now, rather than being proactive in myriad ways, colleges and universities around the country have decided to be reactive to delay their upcoming terms or go fully online.

The COVID-19 vaccine isn't stopping the virus, and we are going to have to live with it. COVID-19 and its variants have become like the flu. Just like the flu, likely you'll get an annual COVID shot for the mutations if you choose.

How long will our state and federal governments keep imposing vaccine and mask mandates that interfere with our personal lives and freedom?

Let people wear masks or not; let people take the shot or not.

Compared to the number of infections or deaths from cancer, heart disease and car accidents, the death rate from COVID-19 is very low.

Its time to stop the nonsense.

We can learn to live with this virus and its mutations.

Take the shackles off the citizens, especially our young adults, so they can have an enjoyable college experience while becoming educated as well as we can all worldwide have a Happy New Year!

Isn't it time?

Steve Mozena, Eugene

Nancy Lukasik maintains that Nick C.E. Squires should read the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, (Letters, Jan. 4). She states the First Amendment promises freedom ofreligion, not freedom fromit.

Here is the textthat pertains to religion: Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

Lukasik and Squires: Letters to the editor for Tuesday, Jan 4: Proof in the (vaccine) pudding

The first clause sounds a lot like freedom fromreligion (established by the federal government). The second clause sounds a lot like freedom ofreligion (including no religion). You need to read both parts.

The First Amendment explicitly prohibits the federal government from getting into the religion business in any way, pro or con. At least thats how I read shall make no law.

There are millions of Americans who believe in a host of religions and millions of others who dont. It would seem, unless we intentionally allow the federal government to color outside the lines of the First Amendment as written, Nancy and Nick should be able to sleep OK at night.

The religious, hypocritical, right wing of the Republican Party demands that unborn children have the right to life. Pro-choice people demand the womans right to choose. Neither notes what kind of life the child is entitled to live.

Our Constitution guarantees the pursuit of happiness.What if that happiness does not include being forced to birth unwanted children?

Twenty-five percent of our children in this the wealthiest nation on Earth suffer from hunger and/or homelessness.

The Republican Party pro-life/anti-abortionposition insists an unborn child must be born whether wanted by the birth parents or not.

Once that child is born, these religious, principled Republicans dont care or feel responsible for the type of life that child will have, or adult he or she will become. Will this child they insist on being born live in abject poverty, neglect, be abused, abandoned, receive a decent education, have food and shelter? Will this child be forced to be a criminal, destitute, have severe physical or emotional needs?

So, what right to a decent life does that child have?

Robert Rubinstein, Eugene

Whitney Randallsletterin The Register-Guard on Jan. 3 describes an upcoming ballot measure (Measure 6) that would establish the Oregon Peoples Rebate, a yearly cash payment of $750 to every Oregonian.

For progressives, this is a worthy cause for all the reasons Randall lists, especially for the large swath of Oregonians with low and middle incomes who have been economically left behind as the wealthy grew ever richer.

But there is a gigantic problem with Measure 6. It raises taxes on corporations in exactly the same way the overwhelmingly rejected Measure 97 would have in 2016:by taxing the gross receipts of corporations with more than $25 million in sales at such a high level that many types of businesses would see all of their net profit taxed away. Thats right. Alltheir profit.

Grocery stores, auto dealers and construction companies are only a few types of businesses that could no longer make a profit under this measure. The negative effects on the Oregon economy would be unthinkable.

Douglas Berg, Eugene

In this new year, we face some gigantic challenges.

Reminds me of the situation in the late 1940s when we faced the armies of the Axis powers. Everyone wanted to contribute to the war effort.Kids collected scrap metal and adults planted "victory gardens."

But what can ordinary people do about the challenges that come with the climate change? For one thing, we can install cisternsand water storage tanks to catch rain water that comes off roofs during rainy seasons. There could be some interesting competitions.

Dick Sweeney, Eugene

Ive been a registered nurse at PeaceHealth for 20 years. The last two have been extraordinarily challenging, particularly because Im also a mother with school-aged children.

Initially PeaceHealth supported staff with 80 hours of COVID-19 paid time off. When things improved last summer, it took whatever was unused away from us.

Today, I am forced to go into work and leave my teenager home, who is sick with COVID-19 (yes, shes vaccinated). I dont have the sick time to cover my pay and since I have no symptoms, I am expected to work. Hopefully, Im not exposing my coworkers and patients.

In reality, I probably am.

This health care worker is beyond exhausted. I feel I am being forced to abandon my sick and scared child and that I am being forced to put others at risk as I am likely a carrier of COVID-19.

In the meantime, PeaceHealth is paying traveling RNs quadruple what I make.

This experience has been demoralizing, to say the least. I believe health care workers and families deserve better than this.

Misty Villalobos, Eugene

Letters should be 200 words or fewer and sent with the writers name, address, and daytime phone number via e-mail to rgletters@registerguard.com. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and maybe published in any medium. We regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.

See original here:
Letters to the editor for Sunday, Jan 9: Learn to live with COVID-19 - The Register-Guard

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Letters to the editor for Sunday, Jan 9: Learn to live with COVID-19 – The Register-Guard

Can a Christian flag fly at City Hall? The Supreme Court will have to decide – Carolinacoastonline

Posted: at 4:39 pm

There are three flagpoles outside Boston City Hall. One flies the United States flag. Another flies the Massachusetts state flag. What can and cant fly from the third is an issue being taken up by the Supreme Court.

On Jan. 18, 2022, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments inShurtleff v. Boston. The case addresses whether the city violated the First Amendment by denying a request to temporarily raise the Christian flag on a flagpole outside City Hall, where Boston has temporarily displayed many secular organizations flags.

The case raises important questions aboutfree speechat a time when many members of the Supreme Court seem concerned aboutrestrictions on religion. The courts decision will likely clarify one or more free speech doctrines, impacting how courts nationwide interpret the First Amendments guarantees.

Shurtleff v. Boston also highlights disagreements about the nature and scope of freedom of speech, the kind of disputes I study inmy work on free speech and the First Amendment.

Case background

Boston permits groups to request that a flag temporarily fly alongside the American and Massachusetts flags at City Hall to mark special occasions, replacing the city flag that usually occupies the third post. Past examples include flag requests from the Chinese Progressive Association and the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation.

In 2017, Camp Constitution, a New Hampshire-based organization, requested to fly theChristian flag, which has a cross in the upper left corner and was designed by a Sunday school teacher and a missionary executive in the late 1800s. Today, some Protestant denominations display the flag inside their churches.

Camp Constitution asked to fly the flag as part of a planned event to celebrate the civic contributions of Bostons Christian community. The organizationsays its missionis to enhance understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage, our American heritage of courage and ingenuity, including the genius of our United States Constitution, and the application of free enterprise.

Boston denied the request. The city cited concerns that raising the Christian flag at Boston City Hall would violatethe First Amendmentsestablishment clause, whichbars the governmentfrom promoting particular religions over others. After making a second request, which Boston also denied, Camp Constitution sued.

A federal district court and the First Circuit Court of Appealssided with Bostonon the grounds that flying a flag on the third flagpole was government speech, not private speech and therefore the city was entitled to refuse to fly the Christian flag on its flagpole.

Camp Constitution appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted review.

The cases outcome will likely hinge on the Supreme Courts determination of whose views are represented by the flagpole outside City Hall: the private organization whose flag is temporarily flying, or the government. In other words, this case is about who is speaking when that flag goes up, and whose free speech rights are protected.

If the court determines that Camp Constitution is speaking, then a framework the court has developed, known as the public forum doctrine, will apply. This would likely result in a ruling favoring Camp Constitution.

If the court determines that the city of Boston is speaking, then the courtsgovernment speech doctrinewill apply. This would likely result in a ruling favoring Boston.

Public forum doctrine

Federal, state and local governments oversee a wide variety of public spaces, such as parks, universities and courthouses, just to name a few. These areas serve different functions, some of which require more regulation of speech than others.

The Supreme Court has organized government spaces into several categories, each of which permits different types of restrictions on free speech. This set of categories and permitted restrictions is referred to as thepublic forum doctrine.

Spaces like public parks and sidewalks are considered public forums, the category that permits the fewest restrictions on speech. In a public forum, a government can never restrict speechbased on viewpoint specific positions on a topic and is severely limited as to when it can restrict speechbased on content a given topic.

Normally, a flagpole outside a city hall would not be considered a public forum. However, the Supreme Court also recognizes a separate category, designated public forums, which are spaces the government converts into public forums. In a designated public forum, free speech regulation is limited in the same way it would be in a public forum.

In Shurtleff v. Boston, both parties agree that the area surrounding the flagpole is a public forum. But they disagree over whether the flagpole itself is a designated public forum.Camp Constitution arguesthat Boston has turned the flagpole into a designated public forum by allowing other groups to fly their flags there. Meanwhile,Boston arguesthat it has not, because the city retained control by permitting limited types of groups to raise their flags.

Camp Constitution notesthat Boston previously approved 284 requests to raise other flags, and that there is no record of a prior request being denied.

But Boston counters that none of those previous requests were for religious flags.The city arguesthat only two types of flags have been permitted: flags representing territories, nations and ethnicities, and flags associated with publicly recognized days of observance, such as Veterans Day andLGBTQ Pride Month. Boston argues that such limited categories of approval are not what one would expect in a designated public forum, and that this is evidence that Boston has not turned its flagpole into a designated public forum.

[3 media outlets, 1 religion newsletter.Get stories from The Conversation, AP and RNS.]

Government speech doctrine

Over 30 years ago, inRust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court recognized that the government itself is a speaker with First Amendment rights an idea known as thegovernment speech doctrine. Government speech is not subject to the public forum doctrine. Instead, the government has much greater discretion in deciding which messages it endorses.

Boston argues that raising a flag on the third flagpole at City Hall is government speech and therefore the city has the right to determine what views it wants to express on its flagpole. Camp Constitution disagrees, maintaining that the flagpole is a designated public forum and therefore few restraints on private groups free speech are allowed on the flagpole.

Both parties arguments rely on competing interpretations of the government speech doctrine put forward by the Supreme Court in two cases,Pleasant Grove v. SummumandWalker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans.

In 2009, the Supreme Court held in Pleasant Grove v. Summum that the permanent monuments in a park owned and operated by the town were government speech. The Supreme Courts unanimous decision allowed the town to denya request from a small religious group, Summum, to install a permanent monument expressing its beliefs, even though the park had previously accepted a monument of the Ten Commandments.

In 2015, the Supreme Court held inWalker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veteransthat license plates were government speech. This permitted Texas to deny a request for a specialty license plate featuring the Confederate flag, even though Texas offered a wide range of other specialty plates. Unlike Pleasant Grove v. Summum, this case was decided by a slim 5-4 majority.

Shurtleff v. Boston will likely require the court to further clarify the government speech doctrine. The central issue is this: When another flag temporarily replaces Bostons own, who is speaking?

Link:
Can a Christian flag fly at City Hall? The Supreme Court will have to decide - Carolinacoastonline

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Can a Christian flag fly at City Hall? The Supreme Court will have to decide – Carolinacoastonline