Daily Archives: October 9, 2023

from the age-verification-and-free-speech dept

Using Protect the children! as their rallying cry, red states are enacting digital pornography restrictions. Texass effort, H.B. 1181, requires commercial pornographic websitesand others, as well see shortlyto verify that their users are adults, and to display state-drafted warnings about pornographys alleged health dangers. In late August, a federal district judge blocked the law from taking effect. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit expedited Texass appeal, and it just held oral argument. This law, or one of the others like it, seems destined for the Supreme Court.

So continues what the Washington Post, in the headline of a 1989 op-ed by the columnist Nat Henthoff, once called the eternal war against pornography.

Its true that the First Amendment does not protect obscenitywhich the Supreme Court defines as prurient and patently offensive material devoid of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Like many past anti-porn crusaders, however, Texass legislators blew past those confines. H.B. 1181 targets material that is obscene to minors. Because virtually all salacious material is prurient, offensive, and without value to young children, the district judge observed, H.B. 1181 covers sex education [content] for high school seniors, prurient R-rated movies, and much else besides. Texass attorneys claim that the state is going after teen bondage gangbang films, but the law theyre defending sweeps in paintings like Manets Olympia (1863):

Incidentally, this portrait appearsalong with other nudesin a recent Supreme Court opinion. And now, of course, it appears on this website. Time to verify users ages (with government IDs or face scans) and post the states ridiculous warnings? Not quite: the site does not satisfy H.B. 1181s one-third . . . sexual material content threshold. Still, that standard is vague. (What about a website that displays a collection of such paintings?) And in any event, that this webpage is not now governed by H.B. 1181 only confirms the laws arbitrary scope.

H.B. 1181 flouts Supreme Court decisions on obscenity, internet freedom, and online age verification. This fact was not lost on the district judge, who noted that Texas had raised several of its arguments largely for the purposes of setting up Supreme Court review. If this case reaches it, the Supreme Court can strike down H.B. 1181 simply by faithfully applying any or all of several precedents.

But the Court should go further, by elaborating on the threat these badly crafted laws pose to free expression.

When it next considers an anti-porn law, the Court will hear a lot about its own rulings. But other opinions grapple with such lawsand one of them, in particular, is worth remembering. Authored by Frank Easterbrook, perhaps the greatest jurist appointed by Ronald Reagan, American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut (7th Cir. 1985) addresses pornography and the First Amendment head on.

At issue was an Indianapolis ordinance that banned the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women. Interestingly, this law was inspired by two intellectuals of the left, Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. They maintained (as Easterbrook put it) that pornography influences attitudesthat depictions of subordination tend to perpetuate subordination, including affront and lower pay at work, insult and injury at home, battery and rape on the streets. (You can hear, in todays debates about kids and social media, echoes of this dire rhetoric.)

Although he quibbled with the empirical studies behind this claim, Easterbrook accepted the premise for the sake of argument. Indeed, he leaned into it. For him, the harms the city alleged simply demonstrate[d] the power of pornography as speech. That pornography affects attitudes, which in turn affect conduct, does not distinguish it from other forms of expression. Hitlers speeches polluted minds and inspired horrific actions. Religions deeply shape peoples lifestyles and worldviews. Television leads (many worry) to intellectual laziness, to a penchant for violence, to many other ills. The strong effects of speech are an inherent part of speechnot a ground for regulation. Any other answer leaves the government in control of all of the institutions of culture, the great censor and director of which thoughts are good for us.

Like Texas today, Indianapolis targeted not obscenity alone, but adult content more broadly. And like Texas, the city sought to excuse this move by blending the two concepts together. Pornography is low value speech, it argued, akin to obscenity and therefore open to special restriction. There were several problems with this claim. But as Easterbrook explained, it also failed on its own terms. Indianapolis asserted that pornography shapes attitudes in the home and at the workplace. It believed, in other words, that the speech at issue influenced politics and society on a grand scale. True, Easterbrook acknowledged, pornography and obscenity have sex in common. Like Texas today, though, Indianapolis failed to carve out of its ordinance material with literary, artistic, political, or scientific value to adults.

Exposure to sex is not, Easterbrook declared, something the government may prevent. This is not an exceptional conclusion. Much speech is dangerous. Under the First Amendment, however, the government must leave to the people the evaluation of ideas. Otherwise free speech dies. Almost everyone would, if operating in a vacuum, happily outlaw certain kinds of noxious speech. Some would bar racial slurs (or disrespect), others religious fundamentalism (or atheism). Some would banish political radicalism (of some stripe or other), others misinformation (defined one way or another). Many of the lawmakers who claim merely to hate porn would, if given the chance, eagerly police all erotic film, literature, and art. (Another pathbreaking Manet painting, Luncheon on the Grass, would plainly have fallen afoul of the Indianapolis ordinance.) The First Amendment stops this downward spiral before it begins. It removes the government from the role of censor.

Indianapolis paint[ed] pornography as part of the culture of power. Maybe so. But in the end, Easterbrook responded, the First Amendment is a tool of the powerless:

Free speech has been on balance an ally of those seeking change. Governments that want stasis start by restricting speech. . . . Change in any complex system ultimately depends on the ability of outsiders to challenge accepted views and the reigning institutions. Without a strong guarantee of freedom of speech, there is no effective right to challenge what is.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Courts conservative justices sang a similar tune. It is not the role of the State or its officials, they declared in 303 Creative v. Elenis, to prescribe what shall be offensive. On the contrary, the Constitution protect[s] the speech rights of all comers, no matter how controversialor even repugnantmany may find the message at hand. Heres hoping that, when theyre dragged back into the eternal war against pornography, those justices give these words their proper sweep.

Corbin K. Barthold is internet policy counsel at TechFreedom.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 5th circuit, adult content, age verification, frank easterbrook, free speech, hb 1181, pornography, texas

Read more:
A Reagan Judge, The First Amendment, And The Eternal War Against Pornography - Techdirt

WASHINGTON One of Thomasina Browns favorite books is a memoir about a girl who deals with the grief of losing her father and struggles with her sexual identity.

Brown, a 16-year-old student at Nixa High School in Nixa, Missouri, said in an interview that she felt a connection with the book, as she grieved the loss of her own father and came to terms with her own queer identity.

That book, Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic, is one of the more than 3,300 books that have been banned during the 2022-2023 school year, a 33% increase from the previous school year, according to a report by PEN America, a group that is dedicated to fighting book bans and advocates for the First Amendment.

I saw myself very much so reflected in those pages, Brown said of the book by Alison Bechdel that the Nixa school board banned. And so for adults and the school board to deem it inappropriate felt kind of like they were telling me I was inappropriate, and I dont think thats fair.

In the last few years, there has been an unprecedented wave of book bans and censorship spurred by parents and conservative groups to target books that center the LGBTQ+ community, Black history and diverse stories. During the 202223 school year, book bans occurred in 153 districts across 33 states, according to the PEN America report.

Many of the book bans started during the early days of the pandemic, part of frustration over mask mandates and online learning that eventually led to the politicization of school board meetings.

To combat this, and in celebration of Banned Books Week on Oct. 1-7, PEN America has launched online training for students to fight book bans, and more recently, teamed up with bestselling authors to fight against book bans in Florida and across the country.

Some of those authors include Judy Blume, Ruby Bridges, Suzanne Collins, Michael Connelly, Gillian Flynn, Amanda Gorman, Nikki Grimes, Daniel Handler, Khaled Hosseini, Casey McQuiston, James Patterson, Jodi Picoult and Nora Roberts, among others.

Fighting book bans in Florida

One of the authors, Connelly, has committed $1 million to launch PEN Americas efforts in Florida, where the organization plans to open a Florida center before the end of the year to host public events and spearhead campaigns against book bans.

We see Florida as almost setting the map for where other states could go and certainly we hope that efforts to oppose book bans in Florida will also help us in how we think about pushing back against book bans before they ramp up to this scale in other states, said Kasey Meehan, the Freedom to Read program director at PEN America.

For the 2022-23 school year, more than 40% of book bans occurred in Florida, with 1,406 book bans in the state. States with high numbers of book bans include Texas with 625; Missouri with 333; Utah with 281; and Pennsylvania with 186.

In Florida, during the 2022-23 school year, 33 out of 69 school districts have book bans, nearly half of all school districts in the state, Meehan said.

When we look at Florida, and Florida appears to be such an anomaly, whats important for PEN and for other organizations that are tracking these movements is that Florida isnt necessarily an outlier. They are putting forth the roadmap for other states to follow, Meehan said.

PEN America and publishing giant Penguin Random House also sued a Florida school district in May over the school boards decision to remove books about race and LGBTQ+ identities.

State and federal actions

Beyond local school boards, Republican lawmakers at the state level have also joined the movement to ban books from public schools and libraries.

And the Republican-majority U.S. House this year passed legislation known as a Parents Bill of Rights. Democrats criticized the bill, arguing that it would lead to book bans.

Congressional Democrats have raised concerns about the increase in book bans across the country. U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin introduced a resolution to recognize Banned Book Week and condemn bans on books.

The escalating crisis of book bans across our country in recent years is a direct attack on First Amendment rights and should concern everyone who believes freedom of expression and the freedom to read are essential for a strong democracy, Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, said in a statement. The sinister efforts to remove books from our schools and libraries are a hallmark of authoritarian regimes.

In September, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss the consequences of book bans, but senators ultimately decided it was not Congress role to intervene.

The White House in June announced that the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights would appoint a coordinator to counter the massive wave of book bans across the country.

However, the department has not responded to multiple requests from States Newsroom asking about the hiring status of the new coordinator.

One state, Illinois, became the first state to pass a law outlawing the banning of books.

Eight states home to a majority of bans

PEN America found that 87% of the book bans were in school districts with a nearby chapter or affiliate of a national group known for advocating for book banning or censorship.

And 63% of all book bans, or 2,114 books, occurred in eight states Florida, Missouri, Utah, Virginia, Tennessee, Georgia, Oklahoma and West Virginia with state laws that either banned books or created local pressure to remove books for the 2022-2023 school year.

Two states have also recently passed similar legislation, Texas and Iowa.

The main group that has challenged school boards is Moms for Liberty, an organization formed in 2021 that has strong GOP ties and local chapters that target local school board meetings, school board members, administrators, and teachers to push right-wing policies, as reported by Media Matters. Moms for Liberty has about 300 chapters across 47 states.

Moms for Liberty has four chapters in Thomasina Browns home state, but not in her town of Nixa. There is a chapter right next to the county she lives in, which is Christian County.

Brown said that many of the book challenges came from faith-based groups.

Brown, who runs a club with several other students to push back against book bans, often attends school board meetings where books shes read are being challenged.

Were telling this group of adults, how these things directly impact us, she said. Theyre the books that we read in our schools, in our libraries. Were telling them our stories, our identities, and theyre telling us that its inappropriate, and we dont know whats best for ourselves, even though some of us that get up there and talk are 18 and are able to vote on these issues and definitely can have a say in what they can be reading.

She said she feels sad when she attends those school board meetings. When a book is banned, there are typically cheers from adults in the audience, she said.

That was really disheartening, she said. I just watched my peers get up and share their experiences and why the books and our schools and our libraries were important to them and important to other students, and we were basically completely ignored.

But Brown said she is still fighting. Even though its her senior year, shes spending time training a sophomore to take over the club, Nixa Students Against Book Restrictions. She said she understands the importance of books.

Being able to read stories from different perspectives, I think really is able to build a lot of empathy for what other people go through or what they have gone through in the past, and I think thats really important, she said.

States and the number of books they have banned from July 2022 June 2023 include:

North Carolina 58 books

Arkansas 4 books

California 1 book

Colorado 8 books

Florida 1,406 books

Georgia 4 books

Idaho 25 books

Indiana 3 books

Iowa 6 books

Kansas 7 books

Kentucky 3 books

Maine 13 books

Massachusetts 1 book

Michigan 39 books

Minnesota 1 book

Missouri 333 books

Nebraska 6 books

New Hampshire 1 book

New Jersey 3 books

New York 6 books

North Dakota 27 books

Oklahoma 2 books

Oregon 38 books

Pennsylvania 186 books

South Carolina 127 books

South Dakota 2 books

Tennessee 11 books

Texas 625 books

Utah 281 books

Virginia 75 books

West Virginia 2 books

Wisconsin43 books

Wyoming 15 books

(Note: The report only runs through June 30 of 2023. Since then, school districts have banned hundreds more titles.)

View post:
First Amendment advocates fight growing number of U.S. book bans - NC Newsline

Efforts to ban books in public schools and public libraries reached anall-time high in 2022and show few signs of abating for 2023, according to the American Library Association.

The recent movement to remove books appears to be acoordinated campaigntaking place at both the state and local levels; it often targets books that address race, gender or both. Some of these efforts have resulted inlaws that threaten to jail librarians.

Most Americans opposeremoving books from libraries. That may explain why Illinois recently enacted a law that outlaws banning books: If any public library in the state bans materials because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval, it will be ineligible for state funds.

Bans and the banning of bans have already ended up in the courts. For example, in a lawsuit in Florida, a First Amendment advocacy group, a publisher, parents and authors whose books have been targeted filed suit against the Escambia County School Districts removal of 10 books and restriction of 100 others in the school library. They alleged that school officials violated students First Amendment rights when they removed books that discussed, race, racism and LGBTQ+ people. The case is ongoing.

One or more of these sorts of cases could end up at the Supreme Court but until then, the lower courts will look to existing precedent, set in a legal ruling that dates back to 1982. In that ruling, the court declared that school personnel have a lot of discretion related to the content of their libraries, but this discretion may not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner.

My analysis of that 1982 case,Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico, finds useful information that can help put thesebook ban lawsuits in context.

One student, on behalf of four other students in the school district, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court. The suit claimed that removing the books from the library infringed upon the students First Amendment rights to freely access ideas and information.

The school board prevailed in U.S. District Court because the judge found that school boards should have discretion in those matters. But the appeals court overturned that ruling, saying the fact that the school boards reasoning relied in part on external evaluations of the books raised concerns about censorship.

When the case came before the Supreme Court in 1982, the justices agreed to analyze whether the school boards decision to bar certain books from its libraries, based on the books content, violated the students rights.

The ruling was divided five justices affirmed the appeals courts decision in favor of the students, though not all of them agreed on exactly why.

Justice William Brennan Jr. wrote that the First Amendment does limit school officials authority to remove books from school libraries, because that authority infringes onstudents rights to receive ideas and information. Justices Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens signed on to this opinion, which was not a majority opinion. Two justices wrote concurring decisions, but only one agreed with the trios overall conclusion that the board had unconstitutionally infringed on students rights. Justice Harry Blackmun said the government the school board could not deny students access to ideas based on political reasons. Justice Byron White agreed with the conclusion, but did not express a view on the First Amendment question.

Four justices dissented. Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote the main dissent, which was joined by Justices Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist and Sandra Day OConnor. Their opinion focused more on the issue of accessing books than it did on the First Amendment questions the case raised.

Though there was not a clear majority opinion, the case suggests that school boards have broad discretion over library books but do not have unlimited authority to remove books from library shelves.

The justices agreed that a school library is a place where important information is disseminated to learners and is a unique place for students to engage in inquiry related to their interests and passions. Therefore, they ruled, school officials may remove books only for sound educational reasons or legitimate purposes such as pervasive vulgarity or lack of educational suitability.

As a result, school personnel are likely limited in their power to restrict books availability simply because they or other officials disagree with the books content.

If any of the current cases reach the Supreme Court, the current justices could rule differently, of course. But in the meantime, lower courts hearing book-banning cases will be guided by that precedent.

This article is republished from The Conversationunder a Creative Commons license.Read the original article.

Suzanne Eckes is the Susan S. Engeleiter professor of education law, policy and practice at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. High school student Ian Shaw contributed to the research and writing of this article. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.

Link:
Where the Supreme Court stands on banning books - Kansas Reflector

Libraries across Multnomah County celebrate Banned Books Week by prominently displaying banned or challenged books Oct. 1-7.

Multnomah County libraries Banned Books Week celebrations have added significance this year. With book bans and challenges rising throughout the United States and Oregon, challenges or requests for reconsideration keep the Oregon Library Association, or OLA, Intellectual Freedom Committee busy addressing censorship issues.

Librarians throughout Multnomah County and the state look forward to raising awareness about intellectual freedom in the wake of schools and librarians facing threats and harassment regarding books with LGBTQIA+ content.

Displays include books like Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe, the most challenged book in America from 2022, according to the American Library Association. Many educators consider this young adult graphic novel, which deals with gender identity, to be appropriate for high school students.

The State Library of Oregon reports book challenges are at a historic high, with many attempts focused on multiple titles at once. Of 46 challenges, 82% were at public libraries and 18% at school libraries. Patrons, parents or groups, some explicitly political or religious, file the challenges. These challenges range from requesting librarians move a book to a separate library shelf to asking librarians to remove materials altogether.

The First Amendment allows individuals to gather, speak, publish, read and view what they wish with few restrictions. The legal bar for restricting speech is extremely high, so banning books in public libraries is on shaky ground when it comes to the First Amendment.

Regardless of dubious legality, groups and individuals are ramping up efforts to ban books, particularly those written by marginalized people, Shawn Cunningham, Multnomah County Library spokesperson, said.

Across the country, so-called parent advocacy groups put pressure on school districts to ban books addressing race, sexuality and gender identity. Leading groups include Citizens Defending Freedom, Parents Rights in Education and Moms for Liberty, which are typically funded by special interest groups and promote a far-right or religious agenda. Often, the groups have few local ties, if any, but work to create a superficial fervor for banning books in a given area.

Multnomah County Library stands against censorship, Cunningham said. Public libraries are vital civic spaces, places for differing ideas and points of view. Promoting civil discourse about difficult subjects and upholding the principles of intellectual freedom are core library values.

In light of organized efforts to suppress marginalized voices and perspectives, those values are more important than ever.

Emily ONeal, OLA Intellectual Freedom Committee chair, leads OLAs efforts around intellectual freedom.

ONeal said the committee has been busier than usual in recent years. Four years ago, the committee tracked one challenged book at a time. Now, the committee typically tracks three or four book challenges at a time.

Bans, challenges, censorship; a lot of folks use the term banning universally, but it is the least likely of scenarios, ONeal, also a public librarian in Bend, said. A ban is the result of a process when a book has been removed. It does not happen very often and is not a concern nationwide. We more often see a challenge process, the act of asking for removal.

Request for Reconsideration is a formal process to challenge a book. Questions on the form from the OLA include whether someone read the entire book, what concerns they have and suggestions for how they want the library to provide more information and other viewpoints. The complainant completes the form and talks to the librarian, teacher or principal about their concerns.

According to Miranda Doyle, a school library media specialist who serves on the OLA Intellectual Freedom Committee, the process can continue from there. If unresolved, the school district can form a committee that meets once or several times; they vote on their recommendation. Most often, there are teachers, parents, students and librarians on the committee. These meetings can be public or summarized for the public afterward. Sometimes, the recommendation to retain, remove or relocate books goes to the school board or superintendent for approval or a different outcome.

Multnomah County Library operates based on a set of values and goals that reflect its mission of service to the community, Cunningham said. Library patrons are welcome to submit statements of concern about library materials; the library evaluates each of those separately and with care.

Currently, 90 books, two films and one magazine are on the State Library of Oregons list of challenged items. Almost all have been retained or are under review. One, Crank by Ellen Hopkins, has been restricted. Libraries are still reviewing some items and have not removed any.

Most challengers follow the process, but sometimes people circumvent this by going straight to the library board, school administration or local government, according to the state library. A few resort to aggressive tactics, such as harassing library staff and lobbing death threats, as was the case for three Oregon public libraries challenged over LGBTQIA+ books this year.

The state library reports challengers accused the libraries of promoting content, distributing pornography to minors, and encouraging sexualization of young children. In addition to death threats and general harassment, challengers called library staff groomers and "pedophiles," according to the state librarys Oregon Intellectual Freedom Clearinghouse 2023 Report.

These instances in Oregon reflect what is happening around the country. OLAs Intellectual Freedom Committee maintains a statement regarding its stance on the First Amendment and book banning.

We support the right of parents and guardians to guide their childs reading and viewing choices, but that right does not extend to removing choices for others, the statement reads. The work of libraries and librarians is to serve everyone in their community and provide resources that are reflective of the world around us.

All the books on the American Library Associations list of the 13 most challenged books of 2022 face claims of sexually explicit content or content pertaining to LGBTQIA+ communities. A 2022 Gallup poll found 7.1% of the U.S. population identifies as LGBTQIA+, double the number in 2012. These books reflect a growing demand, and the pushback reflects an intensifying reaction from people and groups with anti-LGBTQIA+ views.

The American Library Association Office of Intellectual Freedom documented challenges to 3,923 book titles nationwide between Jan. 1 and Aug. 31. Challenges are up from last year and the highest number of challenges in the last 20 years. Most of these books were written by or about people of color or members of LGBTQIA+ communities. Some depict violence or abuse.

While libraries removing books altogether is rare, its not unheard of in Oregon.

In April 2022, North Medford High School removed the graphic novel version of Margaret Atwoods book, The Handmaids Tale, from shelves. A parent complained about images of nudity, sexual assault and suicide in the dystopian science fiction novel, and the school has not returned the title, according to ONeal.

In March 2023, KGW News reported the Canby School District removed 36 titles outside of the review process. Two community members wanted to remove the books because they allegedly depict violence, sexual content, profanity and drug addiction.

KGWs published list of challenged titles included mostly books by and about people of color, LGBTQIA+ people and books with alleged sexual content.

The district planned to review the books over the summer, according to ONeal. Hundreds of parents and students wanted the books returned to the shelves. They attended board meetings, protested and the students set up an Instagram account.

Ultimately, a school board-established committee decided to keep all books except one, Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. ONeal said the school board did not involve the OLA in the process.

Other school districts in Oregon have faced similar requests from parents, but chose to keep the books available until the matter was resolved. Some, like West Linn-Wilsonville School District, chose to restrict certain books to high school libraries.

PEN America, a writing advocacy group, reports most book bans this school year are in Texas, Florida, Missouri, Utah and South Carolina.

At least seven states passed or are considering obscenity laws penalizing librarians for providing LGBTQIA+ content or what the state considers sexually explicit content, according to The Washington Post.

One thing that is important to this current situation is the folks that are pushing for materials to be removed are organized and pushing at a higher level, ONeal said. They are political and organized, with extreme views, not what communities want. I dont want a protected worldview, and Im baffled as to who these people are because it is an organized extreme effort.

In December 2022, The Bulletin reported some parents asked a director of library services in Crook County to remove childrens books with LGBTQIA+ content to a different part of the library. Moving and labeling the books would be a violation of the First Amendment and could put funding for the library in jeopardy, according to an attorney hired by Crook County.

In turn, the Crook County Library Board of Trustees voted not to move or label the books reflecting the LGBTQIA+ community. Following this, students were not given access to school library materials.

Social media posts targeted the director with misinformation, and patrons subjected library staff to harassment and name-calling. The director eventually resigned, partly due to the overwhelming pressure, The Bulletin reported.

The Oregon Library Association helps libraries through challenges across the state as a resource with policies and information. It may issue public statements against the challenges.

There are things a library can and should do, ONeal said.

She recommends well-trained library staff work with library boards and their community to make sure they understand what to do about book challenges. They can be sure to follow the process and not sidestep policies. Community members can speak up at board meetings in support of libraries and First Amendment rights.

In states with less official resistance to book banning, libraries fight back against First Amendment violations with lawsuits.

This year, libraries in Arkansas, Texas, Florida, Missouri and Wisconsin filed lawsuits because of First Amendment violations, with the help of the Freedom to Read Foundation, the First Amendment legal defense branch of the American Library Association.

In June, the Freedom to Read Foundation, along with authors, librarians, readers, publishers and booksellers, filed suit for Arkansas to remove Act 372, which restricts reading materials in libraries and bookstores.

In Texas, citizens filed a suit against the Llano County government for removing materials from the county library that some library users complained about.

PEN America and Penguin Random House sued the Florida Department of Education on May 16 over unconstitutional book bans targeting books about LGBTQIA+ identities along with race and racism. The ACLU has been involved in other lawsuits, fighting against censorship and upholding the Constitution.

Banned Books Week is a time to call out the need to fight against censorship and to celebrate the freedom to read. This year, the ALAs theme for Banned Books Week is Let Freedom Read!.

Young people in Multnomah County weighed in on the topic of banning or challenging books. The library published some of their comments.

Ive read many banned books, a youth from Gresham said. For example, Stamped by Jason Reynolds & Ibram X. Kendi. I believe people challenged it because of its content on racism. And the history they wrote about it. I found it very interesting and a very important novel. We learn about history so we make sure it doesnt happen again.

Multnomah County Library states on its website that everyone should have the opportunity to see themselves represented on the shelves.

I think books are being banned/challenged because people are afraid of what they dont understand, so they try to get rid of it altogether, a young reader from Woodstock Library said.

Street Roots is an award-winningweekly investigative publication covering economic, environmental and social inequity. The newspaperis sold in Portland, Oregon, by people experiencing homelessness and/or extreme poverty as means of earning an income with dignity.Street Roots newspaper operates independently of Street Roots advocacy andis a part of the Street Roots organization.Learn more about Street Roots.Support your community newspaperbymaking a one-time or recurring gift today.

2023Street Roots. All rights reserved. |To request permission to reuse content, emaileditor@streetroots.orgor call503-228-5657, ext. 404

Visit link:
Oregon libraries celebrate Banned Books Week - Street Roots News

TAMPA, FLORIDA Defense attorneys representing three U.S. citizens accused of operating a Russia-directed malign influence campaign to sow discord in the United States urged Federal Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli to dismiss the Department of Justices (DOJ) case against their clients this September 28, arguing their continued prosecution threatens to blow a hole in the 1st Amendment.

This is a very dangerous case. I have not seen anything like it in 25 years of practicing law. The government is trying to put three of its critics in jail for making political speeches, organizing peaceable rallies and publishing political articles, Leonard Goodman, an attorney representing one of the defendants, commented to The Grayzone outside the U.S. district courthouse in Tampa, Florida.

A federal grand jury charged Florida residents Omali Yeshitela, Penny Joanne Hess, and Jesse Nevel with acting as unregistered agents of the Russian government in April, accusing them of carrying out a multi-year foreign malign influence campaign to sow discord and spread pro-Russian propaganda in the United States. The charges stemmed from their political activism as part of the Uhuru Movement, a self-described African Nationalist organization that Yeshitela founded in 1972.

Their defense lawyers argue that their prosecution represents an unprecedented threat to the First Amendment, with the DOJ seeking to not only criminalize the public speech and political activity of U.S. citizens, but set a legal precedent regarding the governments definition of disinformation. In its opposition to Goodmans motion to dismiss, the DOJ argues that the term does not refer to information that is necessarily false.

The DOJ has attempted to bolster its argument by citing Thomas Rid, a Johns Hopkins academic who gained prominence as a pundit during the Russiagate affair. In a 2020 Washington Post commentary, Rid insisted,

We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operationeven if they probably arent.

The DOJ quotes Rids book, Active Measures, to argue that disinformation refers to Russian intelligences long standing employment of active measures that seek to create wedges that reduce trust and confidence in democratic processes, degrade democratization efforts, weaken U.S. partnerships with European allies, undermine Western sanctions, encourage anti-US and anti-Western political views, and counter efforts to bring Ukraine and other former Soviet states into European and international institutions.

Lawyers for the Uhuru 3 maintain that the DOJs justification for prosecuting their clients sets the stage for the U.S. government to legally harass and prosecute other Americans who criticize U.S. domestic and foreign policy, particularly where designated enemies like Russia or China are concerned.

The government is asking the Court to create a new exception to the First Amendment for what it calls disinformation, Goodman asserted. (Full disclosure: Goodman donated to The Grayzone at its inception in 2018 and has previously volunteered legal analysis to this site).

Indeed, the indictment accuses Yeshitela of spreading disinformation and propaganda during a February 2022 speech to supporters. During that address, the defendant argued that the U.S. and NATO had provoked Russias invasion of Ukraine by expanding NATO 800 miles towards the border of Russia, by sponsoring a 2014 coup against the government of Ukraine, and by arming Kiev to the teeth.

The Uhuru 3s defense lawyers pointed out their clients views are nearly identical to the views held by well-renowned public intellectuals such as Professors Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago.

In response, the government now seeks authority to label anything you say disinformation if it is favorable to Russia, or whatever country the government wants to have a war with, Goodman explained.

The April indictment of the Uhuru 3 defendants came nine months after the FBI raided several properties affiliated with the Uhuru Movement in Florida and Missouri. And it was not the first time properties affiliated with the group had been invaded by SWAT teams.

The July 2022 operation culminated with a pre-dawn military style raid on 81-year-old Yeshitelas private home that featured dozens of geared-up riot police, armored vehicles, flash bang grenades, and even a drone.

When they come to your house at pre-dawn, and they use flash bang grenades to terrorize the entire community, when they use assault weapons mounted with laser targeting devices hitting you in the chest-making you remember what they did to Fred Hampton, in 1969, at four oclock in the morning, when they killed him in his bed-when this happens there is an assumption that we are supposed to be so terrified that we dont fight back, Yeshitela told The Grayzone shortly following the September 28 hearing.

If they can attack the First Amendment through us, if they can make the assumption that they can do like they did in the 60s, create this whole anti-Russian, anti-communist hysteria the free speech rights of everybody in this country are at stake, he added.

The Uhuru Movement and its political wing, the African Peoples Socialist Party (APSP), have long served as a thorn in the side of the local and national political establishment, particularly the Democratic Party. Local police in St Petersburg, Florida targeted the group with a militarized assault in 1996 which resembled the Philadelphia polices notoriously lethal raids against the Black nationalist MOVE organization.

That raid followed weeks of public protests and rioting against the police killing of 18-year-old TyRon Lewis, who was shot while seated in his car after being stopped. Lewis was one of eight young Black men killed by St. Petersburg police officers that year.

In 2008, Yeshitela garnered national attention for questioning then-candidate Barack Obama about his program for Black Americans during a campaign stop in St. Petersburg. Liberal media outlets accused Uhuru protestors of heckling the would-be president. More recently, APSP city council and mayoral candidates in St. Petersburg caused a massive split within the local Democratic Party after several high-level party apparatchiks jumped ship to join the APSP campaign.

Of course they are being targeted because of their politics, Goodman remarked to The Grayzone.

They have been harsh critics of Western colonizers for fifty years, and they have a large and loyal group of supporters.

Goodman also pointed to the Uhuru movements media network, which includes a community radio station and newspaper, The Burning Spear, as factors in the governments legal attack.

The April indictment focuses on allegations that the Uhuru 3 conspired with a Russian national named Viktorovich Ionov, President of an outfit called the Anti-Globalization Movement of Russia (AGMR), to produce articles and speeches with the stated goal of causing turmoil in the United States. The three defendants are accused of violating 18 U.S. Code Section 951, which requires agents operating under the control of foreign governments or foreign officials, other than diplomats, to notify the Attorney General before acting. Throughout Thursdays pre-trial hearing in Tampa, however, it was apparent the governments case was heavily reliant on innuendo.

During his presentation, Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel J. Marcet branded the Uhuru 3two of whom are over seventy years oldas urgent threats to the national security of the United States. Marcet conjured a scenario in which Ionov directed the co-defendants to destabilize the U.S. through their national campaign to win reparations for Black Americans. The prosecutor punctuated his case with references to some of the most familiar boogeymen and women of the Russiagate affair, from the Internet Research Agency troll farm to Marina Butina to Russias Federal Security Service (FSB), which he characterized as the first or second most hostile foreign intelligence service on the planet.

Sowing discord is the Russian governments aim, Marcet insisted before the court.

Seemingly missing from Marcets argument was hard evidence on the Uhuru 3s activities as witting agents of the Russian state. Defense attorneys pointed out that each of the overt acts listed in the federal indictment consist of public statements, articles, and lectures delivered by the defendants. Goodman maintained therefore, that their alleged crimes ultimately fell under the category of constitutionally protected political activity and speech.

It is well established that government intrusions on political expression strike at the core of the First Amendment, Goodman explained.

As the Supreme court held in Meyer v. Grant (1988), the governments burden to justify criminalizing political speech is well-nigh insurmountable.

In opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, prosecutors highlighted the case of Khaled Abdel-Latif Dumeisi, a Chicago-based publisher who was found guilty of failing to register as an agent of the Iraqi state in 2004 and ultimately sentenced to 46 months in prison. The DOJ argued that publishing [political] articles at the direction of Iraqi intelligence was a legitimate basis for Dumeisis conviction.

Yet as Goodman pointed out, Dumeisi was prosecuted for actionsnot speech. And as the court found in his case, there was evidence to show that Dumeisi acted as a covert spy for Iraqi intelligence, gathering intelligence and submitting reports on Iraqi dissidents. In fact, the jury was told directly that Dumeisis speeches, newspaper articles and political views were protected by the First Amendment, and are to be considered only insofar as they may pertain to issues of motive and intent.

In other words, as Dumeisis own defense attorney argued, his clients public political activity was not relevant to the case in and of itself, and was only considered by the court as evidence insofar as his speech complimented an action like intelligence gathering conducted on behalf of the Iraqi state.

In deploying Dumeisis prosecution to establish precedent for convicting the Uhuru 3, Assistant U.S. Attorney Marcet papered over the critical distinction between speech and action. He thus created the impression Dumeisi had been convicted on the grounds that his speech constituted an action taken on behalf of Iraq.

To argue that the Uhuru 3 engaged in a multi-year conspiracy to sow discord in the U.S. at the behest of Russia, DOJ prosecutors pointed to evidence that Ionovs AGMR group contributed about $7,000 to help fund a four-city Reparations Tour which Yeshitela conducted in January 2016.

Defense attorneys argued that Yeshitelas tour constituted political speech and was thus protected under the First Amendment. Whats more, they noted that Yeshitela has been a leading advocate of reparations for decades before Ionov was even born. Yeshitelas supporters credit his decades-long campaign, including his work to organize the first ever World Tribunal on Reparations for African People in the U.S. in 1982, with popularizing the idea of reparations among the U.S. public.

Somehow the Russians just got us to start talking about genocide, according to the logic here. Its extraordinary, Yeshitela told the media following the motion to dismiss hearing.

Its an assault on the whole assumption that Black people have agency, that we have brains, that we know that we are oppressed and dont need anybody to tell us.

Goodman noted that top Washington think tanks rake in tens of millions of dollars a year from Gulf monarchies while pushing a foreign policy agenda that advances their donors goals. Our clients, he told the judge,

are accused of accepting about $7,000 from Russia during six years of their alleged collaboration, mostly to cover some of the costs relating to a four-city speaking tour to promote reparations.

Goodman further cited the 1934 case of De Jonge v. Oregon, where the Supreme Court overturned the conviction and imprisonment of Dirk De Jonge, a member of the Communist Party, who was prosecuted under an Oregon law that sought to criminalize a public meeting held under the partys banner. There, the Supreme Court held that peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime.

The Court further explained:

The question, if the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly are to be preserved, is not as to the auspices under which the meeting is held but as to its purpose; not as to the relations of the speakers, but whether their utterances transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects.

Goodman built on the Courts ruling to argue that the speakers relationship to the Communist Party in De Jonge, or to Russia as alleged in prosecution of the Uhuru 3, cannot justify the governments using criminal prosecution to suppress political speech.

At the heart of Goodmans argument was his sense that the governments prosecution not only threatened his clients rights, but the Constitution itself.

Dismissal of this indictment is not only proper, the defense lawyer declared.

It is necessary to preserve our freedoms under the First Amendment. Allowing this prosecution to proceed to trial sends a message to all Americans that they better watch what they say. As the Supreme Court stated in Dombrowski v. Pfister (1965): For free expressionof transcendent value to all society, and not merely to those exercising their rightsmight be the loser.

Anya Parampil is a journalist based in Washington, DC. She has produced and reported several documentaries, including on-the-ground reports from the Korean peninsula, Palestine, Venezuela, and Honduras.

Monthly Review does not necessarily adhere to all of the views conveyed in articles republished at MR Online. Our goal is to share a variety of left perspectives that we think our readers will find interesting or useful. Eds.

Continue reading here:
How U.S. govt prosecution of Uhuru activists threatens a First ... - MR Online

Social media companies argue that their content moderation decisions are a form of editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment. Conservative critics of those companies reject that argument, even as they complain that the platforms decisions reflect a progressive agenda.

That contradiction is at the heart of two cases that the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear, which involve constitutional challenges to state laws that aim to correct the bias that Republicans perceive. Although supporters of those laws claim they are defending freedom of speech, that argument hinges on a dangerous conflation of state and private action.

The 2021 Florida law at issue in Moody v. NetChoice requires social media platforms to host speech by any candidate for office, even when it violates their content rules. The law also says platforms may not limit the visibility of material by or about a political candidate and may not censor, deplatform, or shadow ban a journalistic enterprise based on the content of its publication or broadcast.

The law does not cover relatively small, right-leaning platforms, such as Gab, Parler, Rumble, and Truth Social. It applies only to the largest platforms, such as X formerly Twitter Facebook, and YouTube, which Republicans have long accused of discriminating against conservative speech.

Florida politicians made it clear that they were trying to address that perceived imbalance. The bills legislative findings, which complain that Facebook et al. have unfairly censored, shadow banned, deplatformed, and applied post-prioritization algorithms, assert that the state has a substantial interest in protecting its residents from inconsistent and unfair actions by those platforms.

If Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, Governor DeSantis declared upon signing the bill in May 2021, they will now be held accountable. Lieutenant Governor Jeanette Nunez said Florida was tak[ing] back the virtual public square from big tech oligarchs who were determined to censor views that run contrary to their radical leftist narrative.

Four months later, Governor Abbott signed the law at issue in NetChoice v. Paxton, which says social media platforms may not censor speech based on viewpoint and defines censorship to include not just deletion but also any steps that make user-posted content less visible, accessible, or lucrative. Like Floridas statute, the Texas law is limited to the largest platforms, which Mr. Abbott said were trying to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas, adding, It is now law that conservative viewpoints in Texas cannot be banned on social media.

In May 2022, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit unanimously ruled that the major provisions of Floridas law probably violated the right to exercise editorial judgment, which the Supreme Court has recognized in diverse cases involving a Miami newspaper, an electric utilitys newsletter, and a private organizations Saint Patricks Day parade. The 11th Circuit noted that private actors have a First Amendment right to be unfair which is to say, a right to have and express their own points of view.

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected that conclusion when it considered the Texas social media law later that year. Because they rely heavily on algorithms, do not review content before publication, and take action against only a tiny percentage of messages, Judge Andrew Oldham said in the majority opinion, Facebook et al. are nothing like a newspaper.

Writing in dissent, Judge Leslie Southwick objected to that characterization. While none of the precedents fit seamlessly, Ms. Southwick said, a social media platforms right to curate content is analogous to the right of newspapers to control what they do and do not print.

In arguing that the 5th Circuit got it right, Mr. DeSantis, Mr. Abbott, and like-minded politicians assert that Facebook et al. are pursuing a left-wing agenda while simultaneously denying that the First Amendment protects their right to do so. The Supreme Court should not let them have it both ways.

Creators.com

See more here:
Does the First Amendment Apply to Speech on Social Media ... - The New York Sun

It was during the Student Government Association (SGA)s Sept. 19 Senate that senior Sen. Parker Boggs first took notice of what he considered a major First Amendment violation. His concerns came after the organization amended its election policy to require social media posts from candidates to be submitted for approval before posting, and since he raised his concerns, the SGA has made plans to revisit the amendment at a later time, said on Sept. 28.

The passage in the virtual document stipulated that, as it had been enforced in previous years, all campaign content posted to social media or otherwise must be approved by the commission before posting. Although the SGA is open to further conversation surrounding the policy, it felt the Sept. 19 meeting was neither the time nor place to discuss it.

JMU Student Government Association passed an amendment to its election process, requiring any candidate running for SGA office to share all campaign content with the election commission. Noel James has the latest on the resolution amid concerns it violates the first amendment.

The amendment applies to prospective SGA members during election season, which is required by the organizations Constitution to take place before the first week of October. Class of 2026 President Reagan Polarek said the reason this was a time-sensitive issue was that without the approval of the corrections, the entire policy would have been stalled, delaying elections by two weeks. Despite the dissent, the Senate passed the amendment with only Boggs objection, as he outlined in a letter to The Breeze.

Its not that its personal. This is about the First Amendment, Boggs said in an interview with The Breeze on Sept. 27. This is about our Constitution. This is about the school were named after, the Father of the Constitution himself. If James Madison were alive today, Im pretty sure hed see that and that clause and understand that that is a blatant violation of what he fought for so hard.

Polarek explained the necessity of the clause and the practices that take place in its effect. Polarek said prior to any SGA-related social media content being shared during elections, the candidate must first receive approval from the election committee. This was to verify information before its release to the public, she said.

I think that this policy protects SGA as a whole and potential new members in SGA from spreading misinformation, even unintentionally, Polarek said.

Polarek followed this comment with a personal anecdote of misdated content that was reviewed by the committee, which she later corrected and posted to her platforms. She stressed that the policy may be revisited in the future, but that it was both effective and imperative to this years Fall election cycle.

Our elections commissioner, Riley Gilbert, has done a great job of managing elections thus far, and I think she will continue to do that throughout the end of the election season, Polarek said. I trust her wholeheartedly.

Gilbert sent an email to The Breeze on Sept. 28 clarifying the statements purpose.

Despite the SGAs flexibility on revisiting this matter, Boggs said he believes the policy requires immediate attention. Boggs said its very existence, having flown under the radar, was an attempt at censorship rather than dispelling misinformation.

You can combat misinformation by combating it after it comes out, Boggs said. Misinformation, while it is very important that it absolutely should be addressed, that still has the right to be posted.

Boggs attributed his lack of support from other senators to a discomfort surrounding the matter.

Its a precedent that if people dont vote for the majority, that theyre going to feel like people are going to force them to be in the minority, he said.

While Boggs has no more campaigning opportunities as he graduates in May, he still intends to challenge the policy on behalf of incoming and current SGA members. In spite of this, he emphasized his trust in the elections committee but said his faith in it would improve with the removal of the policy.

The fight continues, Boggs said. Im not going to let this next election have that happen. Im going to ensure that I fight within SGA to make sure that we dont have that clause.

Ultimately, the importance of bipartisan problem-solving was stressed by both those against and in support of the amendment, and Polarek said the issue could be solved by greater student involvement.

I would encourage all those who think that its a violation of their free speech to come to Senate, voice that opinion and propose an amendment, Polarek said. We had a member of SGA do that already, and I think that will be an issue that we talk about further.

Read the original post:
SGA to amend elections policy after first amendment violation ... - The Breeze

Quick quiz: What do you get when you mix comedy, music, education, balloon art, yard games, scavenger hunts and fictional dictatorships?

Answer: A day celebrating the First Amendment!

That was the goal of Freedom Forums 1A Fest, the 2023 First Amendment festival held on The Wharf in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, Sept. 9.

Freedom Forums mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all. On paper, its a catchy (and alliterative) sentiment. In practice, its about educating, engaging and inspiring people online, around the country, and mere blocks away from where Supreme Court justices consider abstract-sounding legal questions that affect the rights of very real people.

Another quiz: What are the five freedoms protected by the First Amendment?

Answer: Religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.

If you didnt know all five, thats OK! Most people in the United States dont either, according to Freedom Forums annual survey. Thats why we do this work to educate people about their First Amendment freedoms and how to use them in everyday life.

The 2023 1A Fest showed why we think the First Amendment is F.I.R.S.T.: Its fun, inspiring, relatable, stormy and thought-provoking!

is fun As a family-friendly event, face painting, a caricature artist and various yard games all reinforced the fact that the First Amendment encompasses many kinds of free expression. Painting your face, making art, and getting your groove on while dancing at a concert or in a coordinated flash mob are all protected free speech.

Wait, flash mob? Yes, complete with protest signs, a dance remix to Woody Guthries This Land is Your Land, and ending with dancers unfurling a banner reading The First Amendment was made for you and me. How appropriate!

is inspiringFirst Amendment freedoms for all really means all people, kids included. Its incorrect that because someone is under 18, or at school, they dont have any First Amendment rights. Its important for young people to know and understand this.

There are numerous examples of school-aged young people taking their First Amendment cases all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Some of these are highlighted in Freedom Forums First Amendment and You(th) exhibit, which was on display at 1A Fest and is also on display at Reagan National and Dulles International airports.

Voting rights may start at age 18, but the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition dont stop at the schoolhouse gate, to invoke a notable line from a 1969 Supreme Court decision upholding the right of students to protest at school.

When young people know about this history, its more likely they will use their First Amendment freedoms, challenge limits to their rights and be inspired to be engaged members in a participatory democracy.

is relatableIf there are three things people have abundant access to and demand for in the United States, its scrolling social media, enjoying comedy, and looking for food all of which were well represented at 1A Fest.

Stage programming included talks about satire and the First Amendment with writers for The Onion and making news relatable and approachable with chef-turned-TikTok creator Vitus V Spehar.

V explained that their approach to delivering news via their popular TikTok channel Under the Desk News is based on making information, and those delivering it, feel approachable and relatable.

I have been told that I have oldest daughter, a big sister, favorite cousin energy I try to keep that energy for folks because people got so afraid of the news, V told moderator and Freedom Forum Fellow Lata Nott. And folks really started to trust the news again, they would see me come up and theyd be like, OK, Im going to listen because Im not going to be upset when this is over, even if its an upsetting story.

Comedian and actor Ron Funches didnt get to perform his set due to inclement weather. But he did talk to the Freedom Forum about how his evolving career shaped his views on the First Amendment.

The First Amendment to me is kind of like oxygen or your blood, where you dont really think about it that much until its not working properly, or when you feel like you need it suddenly and it becomes desperate for you, Funches said. So, Id say when I was younger, its not something I thought about much. There were certain things in the background. I grew up listening to people like Public Enemy, and they were always talking about utilizing your First Amendment. And I think as Ive gotten older and more active in my life and just my community around me, you become more aware about how important the First Amendment is.

The First Amendment is stormy

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

This summary of French free speech advocate Voltaires philosophy from Evelyn Beatrice Halls biography of him comes up often in First Amendment conversations. Perhaps because its a provocative line. Perhaps because its wistful and aspirational.

If only the First Amendment were so understood, agreed on and defended today. In reality, conversations about free speech can quickly get emotional. What is protected speech to one person can be harmful and hurtful hate speech to another. (Yes, for the most part, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.)

Flag burning or desecration is another fraught example as it touches on themes of military service, patriotism and even the First Amendment right not to stand during the national anthem.

As lightning and torrential rain forced the outdoor event to delay and move to a protected area, attendees heard from one person with direct experience in these stormy conversations.

Nate Boyer, a former U.S. Army Green Beret and former college football and NFL player, explained how he felt about Colin Kaepernicks well-documented protest to sit and later kneel during the national anthem in 2016 and beyond.

Boyer described the letter he wrote in the publication Army Times, specifically addressing Kaepernicks decision to sit during the national anthem as a protest against police treatment of Black people.

I wrote this letter. I said, This is my experience. This is why I feel this way, Boyer said. This is why those symbols are important, but I respect what youre doing.

Later, talking with Kaepernick in person, Boyer suggested Kaepernick join his teammates on the sideline and take a knee instead of sitting on the bench.

I said I dont think kneeling is ever really seen as disrespectful. And he agreed. He thought that was actually better. Kind of, in that moment, he just said, Alright, Ill do that. Ill take a knee.

Taking a knee didnt stop the blowback for Kaepernick. If anything, it made the protest more visible, obvious and easy to emulate for other athletes, like members of the U.S. Womens National Soccer Team. It also inflamed years of culture war back-and-forth among politicians and garnered heavy media coverage and criticism. It also effectively ended Kaepernicks NFL career; though the First Amendment prohibits government from punishing expressions like Kaepernicks, private employers like the NFL and its teams are not bound by the First Amendment.

Though that is the First Amendment in action: the right to stand, kneel, sit or otherwise not be compelled to make any gesture toward the flag is a form of protected speech. And the right to criticize or condemn people who dont do as you do, though stormy and provocative, is using your own free speech right.

At the end of the day, when I took the oath to join the military, I took the oath to defend the Constitution, which includes the First Amendment, Boyer recounted when describing how he thought about that initial letter to Kaepernick. You are exercising that right. And I respect that, and I look forward to the day that you are inspired to stand once again. Ill be standing right there next to you.

The First Amendment is thought-provoking

Many people value the First Amendment but dont necessarily know all five freedoms and how they apply to their daily lives.

One way to highlight and teach that is to show what its like when those freedoms disappear. As Joni Mitchell sang, Dont it always seem to go, that you dont know what youve got til its gone.

That was the idea behind Freedom Lost Caf during 1A Fest. Participants left the United States and entered the fictional country of NoFreedonia, located in The Brighton restaurant. In exchange for free food and drinks, visitors to NoFreedonia gave up their First Amendment rights of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.

Turns out, a lot. Inside NoFreedonia, people did indeed get free food at the high price of their freedoms. They were met with the ominous instructions of a fictional dictator, who appeared on TV screens and warned customers not to break the rules: No praying. No speaking out of order. No talking with pesky reporters. No gathering together. No protesting.

The sunglass-wearing state security enforced the rules and hauled any offenders to jail.

Throughout the experience set up with scripted scenarios from actors speaking out against the dictator, praying together, protesting injustice, and a journalist breaking through NoFreedonia immigration to report a story attendees got a taste of what its like to live in a country without a First Amendment.

A journalist from HillRag detailed the experience of one attendee at the Freedom Lost Caf:

Ralph Albrecht was reminded of his fathers experience as a young boy in Nazi Germany. Obviously, he was a kid, so couldnt do anything about it. But his father lost his businesses and everything, Albrecht said, referencing his grandfather. And really the whole world can be turned upside down [without the First Amendment], Albrecht added.

Freedom Lost Caf was adapted from a program by the Society of Professional Journalists, which produced similar events on college campuses.

After leaving NoFreedonia and returning to the United States, attendees could talk with Freedom Forum staff and experts about the very freedoms they have and want to better understand under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment doesnt appear first in the Bill of Rights because it was necessarily top-of-mind. Its more a quirk of history why its, well, first. Regardless, its first now, which means its not only Freedom Forums focus, but also a Fun, Inspiring, Relatable, Stormy, and Thought-provoking way to learn about your freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.

Scott A. Leadingham is a Freedom Forum staff writer, journalist and journalism trainer. Follow him on Twitter/X @scottleadingham

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

Read more:
Why the First Amendment is F.I.R.S.T. - Southwest Virginia Today

Heres the scenario. A First Amendment auditor someone who purposely films on public property to test the right to record police walks into the public lobby of your police department and begins recording with his cell phone. The supervising officer verbally confirms with the man that hes recording, points to a clearly posted sign that prohibits recording and tells the man he must stop. The man refuses, is arrested for defiant trespass, and convicted. He appeals, arguing the departments recording ban violates his First Amendment right to record police in public places.

Who wins?

The U.S. Supreme Court hasnt squarely ruled on a citizens First Amendment right to record police activity in public. But a growing number of federal circuit courts of appeal have found such a right currently eight of the thirteen. They include the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh circuits.

The right to record police officers in public is not absolute. It may be subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Courts use a three-part test to determine whether any restrictions meet First Amendment standards:

For example, a state court may restrict the public from speaking in a courtroom unless they are an attorney or a witness on the stand.

The beginning scenario was a real case Pennsylvania vs. Bradley (2020). A state court ruled that the departments ban on recording in the lobby was a legitimate time, place and manner restriction. There was no disagreement that the ban was content-neutral.

As for the significant government interest served, the court found the ban helped:

Regarding alternative channels of communication, the court said the ban does not bar the use of parchment or quill in the Lobby. (Whether reference to parchment or quill was intended seriously, ironically, or pedantically, the opinion doesnt reveal.)

A factor that neither party argued, and the court did not address, was that Bradley was live streaming. Live streaming is broadcasting video content, recorded in real-time, to a target audience over the internet. Whether live streaming versus simply recording raises other government interests in police lobbies remains an open question.

While a Pennsylvania state court has ruled, citizen recording in public police lobbies remains an unsettled, litigious issue. Consider recent developments in New York. In July of this year, independent journalist SeanPaul Reyes sued the NYPD, which had arrested him for recording in the lobby of a precinct station while waiting to file a complaint. Reyes is also a self-proclaimed First Amendment auditor who has garnered 500,000 subscribers to his YouTube channel.

New York is in the Second Circuit, which hasnt yet joined those that have held citizens have a right to record police in public places. New York state, however, passed the Right to Monitor Act in 2019, providing protection for individuals to record police.

Additionally, after the NYPD banned filming within police precincts, including public areas, the City Council passed the Right to Record Act, which codified an affirmative right to record police officers "acting in their official capacity, with limited exceptions." Police precincts are not one of the exceptions.

In defense of maintaining its policy, an NYPD spokesperson said recording inside a police station "undermines the privacy of people who interact with the criminal justice system and compromises the integrity of ongoing investigations."

The lawyer of the national civil rights organization suing on Reyes behalf responded that its hard to understand why privacy issues would be important within public precinct lobbies, because people are already exposed to their neighbors and community members.

Patricia Rodney also filed a federal lawsuit against the NYPD in February 2022 claiming she was subjected to retaliatory violence for engaging in her First Amendment right to record police. Rodney had gone to a Brooklyn precinct to file a report for a missing blood sugar monitor. She declined to stop recording and was arrested. During the arrest, her arm was broken.

Commenting on the First Amendment right to record police, Stephen Solomon, editor of NYU's First Amendment Watch said, "It's kind of a delicate balance that depends on the situation. But a blanket restriction typically is not consistent with the First Amendment."

The issue of whether a right to record police in public spaces includes police lobbies has been heating up since the Bradley decision in 2020. Its not going away. Police need to think, consult with legal advisors, and have a clear policy for officers that will meet the courts time, place and manner requirements for any restrictions on recording.

Read the original post:
Recording in police department lobbies is unsettled law - Police News

EFF, along with the ACLU, urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to find a New York statute that compels platforms to moderate online speech that falls within the states particular definition of hateful conduct unconstitutional.

The statute itself requires covered social media platforms to develop a mechanism that allows users to report incidents of hateful conduct (as defined by the state), and to publish a policy detailing how the platform will address such incidents in direct responses provided to each individual complainant. Noncompliance with the statute is enforceable through Attorney General investigations, subpoenas, and daily fines of $1000 per violation. The statute is part of a broader scheme by New York officials, including the Governor and the Attorney General, to unlawfully coerce online platforms into censoring speech that the state deems hateful.

The bill was rushed through the New York legislature in the aftermath of last years tragic mass shooting at a Buffalo, NY supermarket. At the same time, the state launched an investigation into social media platforms civil or criminal liability for their role in promoting, facilitating, or providing a platform to plan or promote violence. In the months that followed, state officials alleged that it was their perceived lack of oversight, transparency, and accountability over social media platforms content moderation policies that had caused such dangerous and corrosive ideas to spread, and held up this hateful conduct law as the regulatory solution to online hate speech. And, when the investigation into such platform liability concluded, Attorney General Letitia James called for platforms to be held accountable and threatened to push for measures that would ensure they take reasonable steps to prevent unlawful violent criminal content from appearing on their platforms.

EFF and ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the plaintiffs: Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment scholar who runs the legal blog Volokh Conspiracy, the video sharing site Rumble, and the social media site Local. In the brief we urged the court to affirm the trial courts preliminary injunction of the law. As we have explained many times before, any government involvement in online intermediaries content moderation processesregardless of the form or degreeraises serious First Amendment and broader human rights concerns.

Despite the New York officials seemingly good intention here, there are several problems with this law.

First, the law broadly defines hateful conduct as the use of a social media network to vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group or a class of persons, a definition that could encompass a broad range of speech not typically considered hate speech.

Next, the bill unconstitutionally compels platforms speech by forcing them to replace their own editorial policies with the states. Social media platforms and other online intermediaries subject to this bill have a long-protected First Amendment right to curate the speech that others publish on their sitesregardless of whether they curate a lot or a little, and regardless of whether their editorial philosophy is readily discernible or consistently applied. Here, by requiring publishers to develop, publish, and enforce an editorial standard at allmuch less one that must adopt the states view of hateful conductthis statute unlawfully compels speech and chills platforms First Amendment-protected exercise of editorial freedom.

Finally, the thinly veiled threats from officials designed to coerce websites to adopt the states editorial position is unconstitutional coercion.

We agree that many internet users want the online platforms they use to moderate certain hateful speech; but those decisions must be made by the platforms themselves, not the government. Platforms editorial freedom is staunchly protected by the First Amendment; to allow government to manipulate social media curation for its own purposes threatens fundamental freedoms. Therefore, to protect our online spaces, we must strictly scrutinize all government attempts to co-opt platforms content moderation policieswhether by preventing moderation, as in Texas and Florida, or by compelling moderation, as New York has done here.

View post:
EFF Urges Second Circuit to Affirm Injunction of New York's ... - EFF