Daily Archives: November 13, 2023

(Updated with Lizzo spokesperson statement) The legal battle over assault, harassment and discrimination claims between Lizzo anda trio of former tour dancers and reality show contestants has turned into a constitutional squabble, at least for now.

Can a global celebrity be forever insulated from civil liability because all their conduct is protected as free speech under the anti-SLAPP statute? rhetorically ask lawyers for Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguezin an opposition filing this week to the Grammy winners attempt to have the matter tossed out of court. Defendant Lizzo asks this Court to rule in exactly that fashion. Fortunately for all victims of celebrity malfeasance, the law says otherwise.

More from Deadline

(Read the opposition memo to Lizzos anti-SLAPP filing here)

The recipient of the Record of the Year at the 65th Grammys, Lizzo plus her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc and dance team head Shirlene Quigley have been accused by formerLizzos Watch Out for the Big Grrrlscontestants Davis and Williams, along with Rodriguez, of body-shaming and being put through what the trio call an excruciating audition for their jobs.

Placed in the docket at LA Superior Court on August 1, the suit also alleges that the dancers were forced to attend and participate in sex shows at venues like Paris Crazy Horse cabaret while on tour, had their virginity made fun of, suffered false imprisonment and were subjected to religious tirades. The suit goes on to claim racial discrimination from the all-white management team against Davis, Williams and other non-African American dancers.

Followed in short order by another suit from Asha Daniels, a wardrobe designer who worked on Lizzos 2023 tour and claims of disrespect by Lizzos camp from Oscar nominated filmmaker Sophia Nahli Allison, the nine-claim complaint from Davis, Williams and Rodriguez seeks unspecified damages.

In addition to denials by Lizzos reps, declarations from staffers and other dancers to her good character, and the October 27 anti-SLAPP motion theJuicesinger herself (real name Melissa Jefferson), Lizzo has pushed back against the claims. She went online in early August to deride the allegations as sensationalized and coming from former employees who have already publicly admitted that they were told their behavior on tour was inappropriate and unprofessional.

This week, it is Team Lizzo thats essentially accused of being unprofessional or at least strategically selective.

In an apparent effort to dupe this Court, Defendants either cherry-pick allegations or out-right omit allegations inconvenient to their position, instead sanitizing them with euphemisms, the November 8 filing from the plaintiffs lawyers continues with an implied swipe at Lizzos heavyweight lawyer Marty Singer and his team at Lavely Singer.

None of Plaintiffs claims arise from conduct implicating a public issue or interest, the memorandum from attorneys at West Coast Lawyers APLC goes on to state. The document continues, How exactly does Quigley relaying how she masturbates or performing oral sex on bananas implicate public interest? Or when Lizzo attempted to strike Plaintiff Rodriguez? Or when Plaintiff Davis was deprived of her phone and confined to a room? These acts, which give rise to the claims at issue here, do not implicate public issues, and thus cannot be protected.

In closing, the 19-page filing insists Lizzos Special Motion to Strike should be denied in its entirety as Plaintiffs claims do not rise from conduct that is protected under Code of Civil Procedure.

The celebrity-can-do-what-they-want argument was shut down previously by the Court of Appeal in a case [in which] Marty Singers firm represented Shia LaBeouf, plaintiffs lawyer Ron Zambrano told Deadline today. They should know better.

Last month, 18 independent witnesses stood by Lizzos work ethic and character, a spokesperson for the performer said Friday. It is clear since then, these plaintiff lawyers have come up with exactly zero to refute these facts.

Lizzos Special Tour started on September 23, 2022, and ended on July 30 in Japan. With the exception of receiving the Quincy Jones Humanitarian Award in LA in September, Lizzo has kept a pretty low profile of late.

The anti-SLAPP battle in this case is set for a November 22 court hearing in downtown LA.

Best of Deadline

Sign up for Deadline's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Originally posted here:
Lizzo Accusers Say First Amendment Is No Reason To Throw Out Assault, Sexual Harassment & Discrimination Suit Against Grammy Winner - Yahoo...

(Photo by Brendan McDermid-Pool/Getty Images)

In 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that it is a legitimate exercise of state power to ban trial participants from speech which poses a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a judicial proceeding. That case,Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, involved a ban on attorneys commenting on pending trials. But for 30 years,Gentile has been understood to set the standard for imposing gag orders on all parties to a case, not just the attorneys.

What Donald Trumps appeal of his gag order in the election interference prosecution presupposes is maybe it didnt?

MaybeGentile only applies to lawyers. Maybe the proper test is theBrandenberg incitement standard. Maybe under Supreme Court decisions from 1976 and1978, Trump has the same rights as any member of the press to discuss a pending case. Maybe his status as a presidential candidate allows him to intimidate witnesses at will.

Or maybe not.

These are arguments which Trumps lawyers made at the trial level with Judge Tanya Chutkan. Quite frankly, they sucked then, and they continue to suck now. The only difference is that Trump has became even more brazen in his insistence that prosecutors did not include any evidence that any witness, prosecutor, or court staff had experienced any threats or harassment from third parties after President Trumps statements.

Trump repeats this claim several times, carefully stepping around the fact that a woman named Abigail Shry is under indictment after leaving a voicemail for Judge Chutkan saying Hey you stupid slave n You are in our sights, we want to kill you. Yes,technically, thats not a threat to any witness, prosecutor, or court staff. But its not speculative, as Trump argues repeatedly.

In fact, prosecutors and the trial court both noted that Trumps social media posts provoked waves of harassment for election officials and poll workers in the wake of the 2020 election as he sought to sow the claims of vote fraud which formed the basis of the election interference charged in this case. Trumps lawyers scoff that this was almost three years ago, and long before this case was brought, which is basically like a sealed juvenile record, if you think about it. (But not too hard.)

Trump continues to mischaracterize the hecklers veto, claiming that his free speech rights cannot be abridged just because his goons might hear him say that Gen. Mark Milley ought to be executed and then take it upon themselves to make it happen. Which is wildly offensive, but perhaps less so than Trump likening himself to civil rights protestors wrongly arrested for disturbing the peace by exercising their First Amendment rights. After all, this is a case which charges Trump with violating a Reconstruction Era statute by seeking to toss out 20 million votes on an inchoate theory that there must have been vote fraud in majority-Black cities.

Trump also argues that Judge Chutkans order violates the sacred right of 100 million Americans to hear Trump call Bill Barr a sluggish loser:

The Gag Order violates President Trumps most fundamental First Amendment rights. Even worse, it gives no consideration to the First Amendment rights of President Trumps audience, the American public, to receive and listen to his speech.

Never mind that that statistic includes the 94 million bots and actual users from platforms Trump got booted off of in January of 2021.

These are profoundly unserious arguments, all of which failed at the trial court. Although, to be fair to Lauro, once your client has forced you to defend his right to attack the prosecutors wife on social media, youre a little bit boxed in when you try to argue that he has a fundamental First Amendment right to call Special Counsel Jack Smith Deranged.

Theres also the bad fact that the second Judge Chutkan administratively stayed the gag order, Trump took to Truth Social to complain that cooperative witnesses are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation. I dont think that Mark Meadows is one of them, but who really knows?

And Trumps vicious attacks on Michael Cohen, who testified against him in New York, are a pretty fair indicator of how hell behave in this case if allowed to persist unmuzzled.

The gag order remains stayed through oral argument on November 20. Whether Judges Millet, Pillard, and Garcia will be swayed by the same arguments which failed to convince Judge Chutkan is unclear. But perhaps this brief is aimed a little further down First Street after all.

US v. Trump[Circuit Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

See the original post here:
Trump Appeals Gag To Protect First Amendment Right To Intimidate ... - Above the Law

The streets I used to walk on / Are full of broken glass. Thosewords, ripped from the brand new Rolling Stones album, might well be a metaphor for the shit show going on college campuses when it comes to the Israel-Gaza catastrophe. Whichever way one turns, conflict and chaos seem to be trumping civility and consensus. The marketplace of ideas has become a bazaar of pandemonium. Yes, democracy is messy, but how messy can it become until it ceases to be democratic?

The rise of antisemitism

Things appear to be going from bad to worse: Anti-Defamation League Director Jonathan Greenblatt hasnoted that there has been a 388 percent increase in antisemitism in America since Hamas Oct. 7 surprise attack in Israel that killed more than 1,400. Against that backdrop comes a recentop-ed in the Los Angeles Times,one penned by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky:

I was stunned when students across the country, including mine, immediately celebrated the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel on Oct. 7. Students for Justice in Palestine called the terror attack ahistoric winfor the Palestinian resistance. A Columbia professorcalledthe Hamas massacre awesome and a stunning victory. A Yale professortweeted, Its been such an extraordinary day! while calling Israel a murderous, genocidal settler state. A Chicago art professorposteda note reading, Israelis are pigs. Savages. Very very bad people. Irredeemable excrement . . May they all rot in hell. A UC Davis professortweeted, Zionist journalists . . . have houses with addresses, kids in school, adding they can fear their bosses, but they should fear us more. There are, sadly, countless other examples.

While Chemerinsky is careful to avoid calls for censorship, he justifiably feels compelled to call for the very thing that is certain to fan the flames of conflict: There has been enough silence and enough tolerance of antisemitism on college campuses. I call on my fellow university administrators to speak out and denounce the celebrations of Hamas and the blatant antisemitism that is being voiced.

The rise of repression

Of course, there is more to the free speech story. Enter the ACLUsDavid Cole:

In recent weeks, weve seen a surge in efforts to punish and silence students for their speech. The Anti-Defamation League and The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law issued an open letter last week calling on university leaders to investigate pro-Palestinian student groups, alleging their speech constitutes material support for terrorism, punishable under federal and state law, despite no evidence to support such claims. That is why the ACLU sent its ownopen letterto the administrative leaders of each states public college system, reaching over 650 colleges and universities, expressing our strong opposition to any efforts to stifle free speech and association on college campuses. The letter unequivocally urges universities to reject calls to investigate, disband, or penalize pro-Palestinian student groups for exercising their free speech rights.

And thenthis from Aaron Terr over at FIRE:

[S]ome reactions to opinions about the latest escalation of the conflict have gone beyond counter-speech:

Truth in the marketplace of candor

Colleges are struggling to balance campus safety for their students and free speech concerns amid the hostile rhetoric around the Israel-Hamas war. The Hill (Oct. 31)

So it has come down to this: Antisemitism continues, chaotic clashes persist, repression endures, and, yes, counter-speech remains when possible. And yet nobody seems quite fine with it. The much-hailed marketplace of ideas has become less of an Enlightenment mechanism than a college combat zone. In the process, minds close while tempers flare. This raises a question: What if more free speech is not the answer or is not a meaningful antidote to the menacing disturbances so rampant on college campuses? What then?

Let us not speak falsely: Does anyone really believe that free speech and open debate in the conflict that has engulfed college campuses will win over many minds or quell near-riotous clashes? While this is not a call for censorship, it is a call for some realist truth in the marketplace of candor.

Related: Josh Blackman What about critical curricula on antisemitism?

Anti-Semitism is as old as civilization itself. It never vanishes. In every generation, anti-semitism simply manifests in different forms.

Virtually every law school has courses of critical racial studies. Query how much of that curriculum focuses on anti-semitism? Every law school has a DEI department. Query how much of that programming focuses on anti-semitism? I suspect the answer to both questions is very little. Indeed, in 2021, Stanford's DEI Department said thequiet part out loud. They do not focus on anti-semitism as not to diminish discussion of anti-black racism. And, anti-semitism is not as important because Jews can hide behind their white privilege.

Related articles

How the redefinition of antisemitism has functioned as a tactic to undermine Palestine solidarity

The widespread adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism and the internalization of its norms has set in motion a simplistic definitional logic for dealing with social problems that has impoverished discussions of racism and prejudice more generally, across Britain and beyond. It has encouraged a focus on words over substance.

Erasing Palestinetells the story of how this has happened, with a focus on internal politics within Britain over the course of the past several years. In order to do so, it tells a much longer story, about the history of antisemitism since the beginning of the twentieth century.

This is also a story about Palestine, a chronicle of the erasure of the violence against the Palestinian people, and a story about free speech, and why it matters to Palestinian freedom.

University campuses in North America and Europe are deeply polarized over the character of the Jewish state and the meaning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This book reveals the damage that antisemitism does to the identity of Jewish students, staff, and faculty. It is the first book to ask what the impact has been on the fundamental principles the academy relies on for its identity academic freedom, free speech rights, standards for hiring or firing faculty members and administrators, and the ethics of academic conduct and debate.

WhileHate Speech and Academic Freedom details the chilling challenges we face, it also offers policies to use in meeting them, concluding with detailed chapters on how to use the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism.

Hate speech has been a societal problem for many years and has seen a resurgence recently alongside political divisiveness and technologies that ease and accelerate the spread of messages. Methods to protect individuals and groups from hate speech have eluded lawmakers as the call for restrictions or bans on such speech are confronted by claims of First Amendment protection. Problematic speech, the argument goes, should be confronted by more speech rather than by restriction.

Debate over the extent of First Amendment protection is based on two bodies of lawthe practical, precedent determined by the Supreme Court, and the theoretical framework of First Amendment jurisprudence. InHate Speech is Not Free: The Case Against Constitutional Protection,W. Wat Hopkins argues that the prevailing thought that hate is protected by both case law and theory is incorrect.

Within the Supreme Courts established hierarchy of speech protection, hate speech falls to the lowest level, deserving no protection as it does not advance ideas containing social value. Ultimately, the Supreme Courts cases addressing protected and unprotected speech set forth a clear rationale for excommunicating hate speech from First Amendment protection.

An engaging guide to the most important free speech rules, rationales, and debates, including the strongest arguments for and against protecting the most controversial speech, such as hate speech and disinformation.

This concise but comprehensive book engagingly lays out specific answers to myriad topical questions about free speech law, and also general explanations of how and why the law distinguishes between protected and punishable speech.Free Speechprovides the essential background for understanding and contributing to our burgeoning debates about whether to protect speech with various kinds of controversial content, such as hate speech and disinformation: the applicable legal tenets and the strongest arguments for and against them.

The book focuses on modern First Amendment law, explaining the historic factors that propelled its evolution in a more speech-protective direction - in particular, the Civil Rights Movement. It highlights the many cases, involving multiple issues, in which robust speech-protective principles aided advocates of racial justice and other human rights causes. The book also shows how these holdings reflect universal, timeless values, which have been incorporated in many other legal systems, and have inspired countless thinkers and activists alike.

Without oversimplifying the complexities of free speech law, the book's lively question-and-answer format summarizes this law in an understandable, interesting, and memorable fashion. It addresses the issues in a logical sequence, presenting colorful facts and eloquent language from landmark Supreme Court opinions. It will be illuminating to a wide range of readers, from those who know nothing about free speech law, to those who have studied it but seek a well-organized summary of major doctrinal rules, as well as insights into their background, rationales, and interconnections.

The case isNational Rifle Association of America v. Vullo.The issue raised in it is:

Does the First Amendment allow a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the governments own hostility to the speakers viewpoint or (b) a perceived general backlash against the speakers advocacy?

Professor Eugene Volokh was the counsel of record on thecert. petition.

The Supreme Court handed down some big First Amendment victories last term. What lies ahead for the Court in the upcoming term? FIRE Chief Counsel Robert Corn-Revere and FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London join the show to discuss important First Amendment cases that will be heard during the Court's 2023-24 session.

Related

The Supreme Courtworked hardina pair of argumentson Tuesday to find a clear constitutional line separating elected officials purely private social media accounts from ones that reflect government actions and are subject to the First Amendment. After three hours, though, it was not clear that a majority of the justices had settled on a clear test.

Review granted

Vidal v. Elster

OConnor-Ratcliff v. Garnier

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC/NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton/NetChoice, LLC v. Moody

National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo

Pendingpetitions

Brokamp v. James

Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dept.

Winterville Police Department v. Sharpe

Jarrett v. Service Employees International Union Local 503, et al

Porter v. Board of Trustees of North Carolina State University

Alaska v. Alaska State Employees Association

Speech First, Inc. v. Sands

OHandley v. Weber

Tingley v. Ferguson

State action

Lindke v. Freed

Reviewdenied

Stein v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., et al.

Blankenship v. NBCUniversal, LLC

Center for Medical Progress v. National Abortion Federation

Frese v. Formella

Mazo v. Way

Free speech related

Miller v. USA(pending) (statutory interpretation of 18 U.S.C.1512(c) advocacy, lobbying and protest in connection with congressional proceedings)

Previous FAN

FAN 399:Whats wrong with First Amendment casebooks? Where to begin?

This article is part ofFirst Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the articles author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or of Mr. Collins.

Read more here:
Chemerinsky: 'I am a 70-year-old Jewish man, but never in my life ... - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

The Scripps Howard First Amendment Center awarded Kendall Staton, Paxton Media Regional Editor, the Champion of Open Government Award on Thursday, Nov. 2.

Staton, who joined Paxton Media earlier this year, is the editor of The News-Herald, Grant County News and Cynthiana Democrat.

Director of the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center Kathryn Montalbano said the center created the award for Staton based on the merits of her accomplishments and her nomination for the coveted James Madison Award. Montalbano presented Staton with the award prior to the annual State of the First Amendment Address. She told the audience Statons work dated back to her time as a student at the University of Kentucky.

As assistant news editor at the Kentucky Kernel, Kendall worked with the editorial board to share information about the hazing-related death of Thomas Lofton Hazelwood. The teamwork of Kendall and the editorial board provided the community with over seven pages of a student conduct investigation report after nine months of advocating their open records request, Montalbano read from Statons James Madison Award nomination letter. Kendalls quest to provide accurate information to the public continues into her current role. With only a couple of months under her belt as editor, Kendall has pushed through intimidation tactics from local officials pressuring her to turn a blind eye to county expenses and payroll information.

In August, Staton submitted three open records requests looking to examine the wages of public employees in Harrison County. After receiving these requests, Harrison County Schools Superintendent Harry Burchett, Harrison County Judge Executive Jason Marshall and Cynthiana Mayor James Smith asked to meet with Staton and requested she not publish the requested records or use them in a story.

Staton conducted an investigation into each record, and discovered Burchett earned the 12th highest salary of any Kentucky Public School Superintendent last fiscal year, according to the Kentucky Department of Education.

After the publication of her articles related to wages in the county and the intimidation tactics employed by the men that run the county, Kendall received accolades from the citizens of Harrison County, Montalbano read from Statons nomination letter. The emails she received from citizens stated their appreciation of the information she provided and how it increased their knowledge of how the city and county are being run.

This is the first year the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center has awarded a Champion of Open Government recognition, according to Montalbano. She is not sure if the award will be presented annually.

It is great to know I have the support of the greater Kentucky journalism community for the work we are doing over in Cynthiana. This award just shows that I am doing my job, and plan to continue doing my job for years to come, Staton said.

Original post:
Staton recognized by Scripps Howard First Amendment Center - Pmg-ky3.com

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty)

In the past six weeks, Trump has filed four motions to dismiss his election interference case in DC, as well as throwing a dozen other miscellaneous motion-shaped wrenches in the works as part of a transparent attempt to get his March 4, 2024 trial date postponed.

Last week the government requested to combine its response to Trumps motion to dismiss on statutory grounds and his motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds into one document to avoid the repetition and cross-referencing that pervades the defendants separate motions. Prosecutors sought leave to exceed the 45-page limit for a single reply brief, promising that the combined document would come in well under the 90 pages to which the Government would be entitled if it filed separate opposition briefs.

Trump opposed the motion, because his lawyers are assholes. Ostensibly, he didnt want to allow prosecutors to game the system by spending 60 pages attacking his (idiotic!) constitutional arguments. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted the governments request, sighing in a minute order that the discussion of each Motion therein shall not exceed 45 pages.

In the event, the governments reply is 79 pages, 15 of which are taken up with the caption and tables of contents and authorities. Because Trumps motions were gobbledygook, and no one needed to spend 90 pages refuting them.

The government first tackles the claim that the indictment must be dismissed because it failed to allege that Trump violated the statutes at issue. In the defendants telling, he had a First Amendment right to try to overturn the election by dint of fake electoral certificates. And anyway, all he did was make words, which cant be a crime because have you people even heard of the FIRST AMENDMENT?

In response, the government points out that Trump was not indicted for spewing lies about rampant election fraud. He was indicted for conspiring to defraud the United States, obstruct an official proceeding, and violate the right to vote and have ones vote counted by substituting fake electoral votes for real ones and stopping Congress certifying the winner of the 2020 election.And the First Amendment protects the right to shout ridiculous lies, but the fact that Im a broke Nigerian prince, send me cash is just words wont save you from a fraud charge.

Trump also made a bizarre argument that he was just lobbying Congress, in keeping with his God-given right to petition the government.

That argument fails because the indictment alleges not lobbying or political advocacy, but instead that the defendant engaged in a multifaceted conspiracy aimed at overturning the results of the presidential election by targeting deceit at the federal government function, the special counsel scoffed in response.

Trumps constitutional arguments come in for similar disdain and clock in at considerably less than 45 pages. In chief, he argued that he cant be arrested because he was already impeached, and uh, you know DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

The Impeachment Clause specifies that the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. But Trump argued that hes not a party convicted, and adopting the obverse assumption, he cannot now be tried in a court of law.

But, as the government notes: impeachment is a civil remedy, and has nothing to do with criminal jeopardy; Trump was impeached for incitement, not conspiring to obstruct Congress, and those things are not the same; Congress and the Justice Department are separate sovereigns, and thus the charges are parallel, not overlapping; and, Trumps own Republican allies said that they were voting against impeachment because they thought they lacked jurisdiction to impeach an ex-president, not based on the validity of the charge.

On top of which, thats not how anyone has ever understood the Impeachment Clause to function, looking back to the days of the Founding Fathers although perhaps if theyd consumed a bucket of paint thinner and spent 1,000 hours mainlining Steve Bannons podcast, theyd have come to a different conclusion.

The special counsel requests that Judge Chutkan designate the double jeopardy claim frivolous, which would block Trump from an immediate interlocutory appeal under DC Circuit precedent.

The defendants wholly meritless double-jeopardy claim should not, therefore, divest this Court of jurisdiction in a manner that risks delaying the trial, the prosecutors concluded.

On the plus side for Trump, he did win a partial victory on his motion to extend discovery subpoena deadlines under Rule 17(c). The original cutoff was tomorrow, November 9, 2023, but Trump asked for an extension to February 9, 2024, just three weeks before the scheduled start of this trial. That was never going to happen, of course. But Judge Chutkan did give him two weeks extra to get his homework done, extending the deadline to November 27.

And thats probably the biggest win hes going to get out of this trial court.

US v. Trump [DDC Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Continue reading here:
Prosecutors Mock Trump Attempt To Get Election Case Dismissed ... - Above the Law

NICK EICHER, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: Free speech on campus.

As we know, speech rights and obligations can be complicated. Private universities are facing legal questions that are different from the questions government institutions face. Its difficult to know whats protected and whats not.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Joining us now to help sort it out is Tyson Langhofer. He serves as senior counsel and director of the Center for Academic Freedom with Alliance Defending Freedom.

Tyson, good morning.

TYSON LANGHOFER, GUEST: Hey, good morning. Thanks for having me.

REICHARD: Glad youre here. Well, lets start with the baseline. What is the legal definition of hate speech?

LANGHOFER: There actually isn't a legal definition of hate speech, which is what really creates the problem in First Amendment context, because what might be hateful to one person may not be hateful to another person. And so we have taken the approach in America to have a very broad protection of speech so that the government doesn't get to define whose speech they think is hateful and thus prohibited and whose speech they think is okay and thus not prohibited.

EICHER: Okay, so going beyond the legal definitions which don't exist, are there uniform policies about hate speech on college campuses? Or is this just an ad hoc kind of case by case thing?

LANGHOFER: It is an ad hoc case by case thing, which is what creates the problem. So what the Supreme Court has said is that the government cannot look to the content or the viewpoint of somebodys speech in order to prohibit that speech. And so when a government official looks at somebody's speech and says, Well, that viewpoint is hateful, therefore, I'm going to prohibit it, the government or the Supreme Court has said that that is unconstitutional. And so what you see is there is no uniformity across the college campuses, because it is a subjective determination, which is what the Supreme Court has said the First Amendment prohibits.

REICHARD: You know, we've heard the chants "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" from those who are supporting Hamas, meaning Palestinian control over the entire territory of Israel's borders, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Now, some say that is not anti-semitic, it's only anti-zionist, Tyson, what do you make of that argument?

LANGHOFER: Well, I mean, I think that if you're advocating for the complete annihilation of a people group from a certain, you know, country, that that makes it difficult to argue that, you know, your that your argument against simply a country as opposed to, to a people group. But I mean, I think that the debate that we're having here, about what type of rhetoric that we can engage in, in a very, very politicized and highly inflammatory environment, is the very debate that the First Amendment is designed to protect. And what the Supreme Court has said, is that the highest principle of our First Amendment jurisprudence is to protect the thought that we hate. But I think that's what our First Amendment calls us to, is to protect those things. Now, obviously, there are certain limits. So if there are people calling for imminent violence against anyone, regardless of who they are, that's not protected. But if they're arguing in general for broader principles, then that is protected, even if we think that principle is hateful or wrong.

EICHER: So maybe that's the way to do it, because I intended to ask, how do you sort of make that balance between protecting free speech but also condemning ideas that justify abhorrent action? So that's the line whether it's sort of inciting or how do you make that distinction?

LANGHOFER: That's absolutely the line as the Supreme Court has drawn it. They've said there's there's very narrow areas that are unprotected speech, one of them would be a true threat. So if I'm threatening somebody in the moment and saying, I'm going to commit some act of violence against you that's not protected, you know, actually engaging or encouraging people to go engage in imminent violence that's also not protected, but advocating for principles that might lead people in the future to take some acts which are unlawful, that is protected. And that's sort of the line that we've drawn. And I think it's really important to understand that if you have a conservative originalist view of the Constitution, you have to understand that it is going to require us to allow people to say things that we vehemently disagree with, that we think are wrong and immoral, but that also protects us as Christians to engage in speech that we believe is consistent with our biblical worldview, that many people would say it is hateful or shouldn't be protected as well.

REICHARD: I have to ask this question: why are some of our most prestigious campuses inundated with these pro Hamas views? What's going on?

LANGHOFER: Well, I think when you see that they have been taught this the issue of of critical theory, where everything is intersectional. And and it's all about who we deem as the bigger victim. And there's not a broader justice, there's not an absolute, that's it's the victim, and it's based upon identity rather than actual actions. And I think that has led them to stop looking at the actual facts on the ground, and just looking at whose identity do we believe is more oppressed? And in that, in that framework, I then determine who is the victim and who we should be supporting, as opposed to looking at it broader, what is the truth of the situation, and what is just in this situation, regardless of what their identities are? Everybody should be, you know, advocating for a just result, regardless of the identity of the individual who's being victimized.

EICHER: Tyson, I know you've been paying very careful attention to this for many years. What is your assessment of what's missing from the conversation about free speech and mitigating harm on campus? What's missing?

LANGHOFER: Yeah, I think what's missing is this. There's a large and growing portion of campus which is advocating for social justice. And we want justice as well as Christians, we desire justice. But what they don't understand is that you cannot achieve justice without obtaining the truth. What is the truth, truth and justice are inextricably linked. We must arrive at truth and then we can get the justice and everybody I think can agree we want a just society. But shutting down certain viewpoints is not going to get us to truth. And it's not going to get us to justice. And I think that's what's missing is this ability to to engage with people that we very, very much disagree with, but to do it in a way that where it's a dialectic rather than a debate, right? It's the ability to learn and to listen to the other side, and explore what they're saying. All right, at the same time, of being able to give them your viewpoint and recognize they're both created an image of God and that they're both we all have that inherent human dignity and we should respect them as a person, even if we disagree with their viewpoint.

REICHARD: Tyson Langhofer serves as senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom. Thanks for joining us!

LANGHOFER: Thank you for having me.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.

See the original post:
The right to disagree matters | WORLD - WORLD News Group

MONTGOMERY, Ala. Flying certain flags on public property would become a criminal offense in Alabama under a newly filed bill by State Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa.

Among the first bills filed for the 2024 legislative session, Senate Bill 4 would make it a Class C misdemeanor for an individual to place, hoist, or display a flag on public property outside of 11 exceptions, including the United States flag and the Boy Scouts of America flag.

Perhaps one of the most important exceptions to the new law, according to Allen, was the inclusion of the Freedom Flag, a flag created in November of 2001 in remembrance of 9/11.

One of the reasons why we think its important for us to (include) the remembrance Freedom Flag is (that) its a very important part of American history, one that not one of us needs to forget, Allen told Alabama Daily News.

The world doesnt think and believe like we Americans believe; theyre trying their best to destroy us as a country, as a nation, and I just think this is very important for us to make sure that our young people understand what took place on 9/11.

Calling 9/11 a turning point in America, Allen said his hope was that by making the Freedom Flag more commonly flown on public property, younger Alabamians would be reminded of the sacrifices made since the attack on the World Trade Center.

We must be reminded so this sort of thing can be placed in the minds of our citizens and our children, that this is not ever going to happen again, he told ADN.

As to the prospect of criminalizing the act of waiving unapproved flags on public property, Allen said it was not his intention to violate the First Amendment, under which flying flags on public property has been ruled time and time again to be a protected activity.

As far as a protest or someone staying on public property waiving Trump or a Biden sign, thats their First Amendment right, Allen told ADN Tuesday. Weve got the First Amendment issue, and we sure dont want to infringe on constitutional rights.

Allen said he would consult with his legal team to ensure his proposal ultimately does not conflict with the First Amendment. As currently written, however, the bill would criminalize the flying of any unauthorized flags on public property, though would excluderoads, highways, in stadiums, arenas and athletic facilities, however, would be exempt.

Flags permitted to be flown on public property under the bill are as follows:

Similar bills have been filed in other states, including one in Florida that would have restricted the exhibition of flags on government property to the state flag, the U.S. flag, the POW-MIA flag or the firefighter memorial flag. However, that bill ultimately died in the Florida Legislatures Constitutional Rights Subcommittee, and never became law.

Other states have seen more local efforts to restrict what flags can be displayed on public property, including communities in Ohio, New York and Utah, where certain school districts have restricted the display of Pride flags outright.

Excerpt from:
New bill to criminalize flying unauthorized flags on public property ... - Alabama Daily News

The city of Flagstaff, Ariz., recently told Rob Wilson, owner and founder of Timberline Firearms & Training in Flagstaff, that he can no longer run an ad for his store and range in a local airport. This is a clear First Amendment infringement designed to cancel use of our Second Amendment rights.

Wilsons struggle to retain his American freedom is regional, but it says a lot about what is happening now in many areas of this nation.

Our ad ran thousands and thousands of times over the baggage claim belt at our local airport and there were no complaints. But this year, when we tried to run it during the summer peak season, the city of Flagstaff determined that somehow our video depicted violence. And they have a policy that prohibits depicting violence in advertising, says Wilson.

But that doesnt make sense, as the gun-safety courses he teaches as an NRA-certified firearms instructor are designed to help people handle guns safely and to, potentially, stop violent criminals who might come for them.

The city of Flagstaffs city council apparently has an issue not really with violence, however, as they have since decided to revise their policy, says Wilson. Their new policy eliminates the violence and anti-social behavior paragraph and replaces it with one that specifically targets firearms. Banning advertising of firearms sales, rentals, use, ammunition or any associated type of business is their proposed new policy.

The anti-social claim is also counterintuitive, as theres just nothing more social than going to a range, hanging out with good friends, or just meeting people and shooting. Its a very social experience.

But those reasons were seemingly dropped and a new policy is being floated that bans all gun-related advertising.

When Wilson pushed back, he says he had a meeting with the city attorney. They thought we should compromise somehow, says Wilson. They thought we should just not include firearms in our ad and then it might be okay. I said, I spent 22 years in the Navy defending our Constitution and our rights, and I am not about to let a city council and mayor just walk all over my rights now.

They city attorney indicated that Timberline Firearms & Trainings ad made them uncomfortable, says Wilson.

So he offered to take anyone from the city council onto his range for one-on-one instruction, so they can become comfortable with their own freedom. None of the council members even replied to the offer, says Wilson.

This caseand the video interview shown hereexposes how hard it can be to talk to officials who only want to cancel this American freedom.

Read more here:
This First Amendment Attack is Designed to Reduce Gun Ownership ... - America's 1st Freedom

Alexander Luzula | Assistant News Director

The Student Government Association is one step closer to simplifying its own constitutional processes and making it easier to amend the SGA Constitution. On Monday, Nov. 6, the SGA Senate passed Bill SB 04 006, known as the Amendments Streamlining Act.

If enacted, the new legislation would repeal Article XII of the current SGA Constitution and expand student rights by allowing students to submit amendment proposals by filing petitions with either 250 student signatures or 15% of voters in the previous general election, as well as the traditional method of the Senate initiating a bill and passing it with the support of two-thirds of the legislature. The bill also lowered the required number of senators needed to overturn a veto from a unanimous vote to three-fourths.

The legislation would also lower the necessary approval from voters from to of all voters.

The new legislature will also make sure that this and future amendments are enacted immediately, as opposed to the current standards of waiting until the next legislative year.

The bill was passed by a unanimous 30 yeas, with no opposition or absences.

President Alexander Sutton is expected to sign the bill on Thursday, Nov. 9, after which it will be put to a referendum on Tuesday, Nov. 28. Students will be given the chance to vote from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

If two-thirds of the electorate approves the legislation, the amendment will be presented to the Interim Vice President for Student Affairs, Dr. Charlie Andrews. If Andrews approves of the measure, it will be enacted immediately.

Essentially, this is a constitutional amendment about constitutional amendments, said President Sutton in a statement sent to PantherNOW.

This amendment marks the first amendment successfully passed by the Senate since the current constitution was enacted in February 2021, and is an important milestone for student rights at FIU, according to Sutton.

I think its very monumental and historic that were seeing the first referendum of the student body on the constitution since it was put into effect, said Sutton. I would strongly encourage all of the students to vote yes on this constitutional amendment so we can finally put democracy back into our student body constitution.

See original here:
SGA Amendment to Make Amendments Easier Passes; Will Move to ... - PantherNOW