Daily Archives: November 28, 2023

The First Amendment does not protect messages posted on social media platforms.

The companies that own the platforms can and do remove, promote or limit the distribution of any posts according to corporate policies. But all that might soon change.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear five cases during this current term, which ends in June 2024, that collectively give the court the opportunity to reexamine the nature of content moderation the rules governing discussions on social media platforms such as Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter and the constitutional limitations on the government to affect speech on the platforms.

Content moderation, whether done manually by company employees or automatically by a platforms software and algorithms, affects what viewers can see on a digital media page. Messages that are promoted garner greater viewership and greater interaction; those that are deprioritized or removed will obviously receive less attention. Content moderation policies reflect decisions by digital platforms about the relative value of posted messages.

As an attorney, professor and author of a book about the boundaries of the First Amendment, I believe that the constitutional challenges presented by these cases will give the court the occasion to advise government, corporations and users of interactive technologies what their rights and responsibilities are as communications technologies continue to evolve.

In late October 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two related cases in which both sets of plaintiffs argued that elected officials who use their social media accounts either exclusively or partially to promote their politics and policies cannot constitutionally block constituents from posting comments on the officials pages.

In one of those cases, OConnor-Radcliff v. Garnier, two school board members from the Poway Unified School District in California blocked a set of parents who frequently posted repetitive and critical comments on the board members Facebook and Twitter accounts from viewing the board members accounts.

In the other case heard in October, Lindke v. Freed, the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, apparently angered by critical comments about a posted picture, blocked a constituent from viewing or posting on the managers Facebook page.

Courts have long held that public spaces, like parks and sidewalks, are public forums, which must remain open to free and robust conversation and debate, subject only to neutral rules unrelated to the content of the speech expressed. The silenced constituents in the current cases insisted that in a world where a lot of public discussion is conducted in interactive social media, digital spaces used by government representatives for communicating with their constituents are also public forums and should be subject to the same First Amendment rules as their physical counterparts.

If the Supreme Court rules that public forums can be both physical and virtual, government officials will not be able to arbitrarily block users from viewing and responding to their content or remove constituent comments with which they disagree. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court rejects the plaintiffs argument, the only recourse for frustrated constituents will be to create competing social media spaces where they can criticize and argue at will.

Two other cases NetChoice LLC v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice LLC also relate to the question of how the government should regulate online discussions. Florida and Texas have both passed laws that modify the internal policies and algorithms of large social media platforms by regulating how the platforms can promote, demote or remove posts.

NetChoice, a tech industry trade group representing a wide range of social media platforms and online businesses, including Meta, Amazon, Airbnb and TikTok, contends that the platforms are not public forums. The group says that the Florida and Texas legislation unconstitutionally restricts the social media companies First Amendment right to make their own editorial choices about what appears on their sites.

In addition, NetChoice alleges that by limiting Facebooks or Xs ability to rank, repress or even remove speech whether manually or with algorithms the Texas and Florida laws amount to government requirements that the platforms host speech they didnt want to, which is also unconstitutional.

NetChoice is asking the Supreme Court to rule the laws unconstitutional so that the platforms remain free to make their own independent choices regarding when, how and whether posts will remain available for view and comment.

In an effort to reduce harmful speech that proliferates across the internet speech that supports criminal and terrorist activity as well as misinformation and disinformation the federal government has engaged in wide-ranging discussions with internet companies about their content moderation policies.

To that end, the Biden administration has regularly advised some say strong-armed social media platforms to deprioritize or remove posts the government had flagged as misleading, false or harmful. Some of the posts related to misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines or promoted human trafficking. On several occasions, the officials would suggest that platform companies ban a user who posted the material from making further posts. Sometimes, the corporate representatives themselves would ask the government what to do with a particular post.

While the public might be generally aware that content moderation policies exist, people are not always aware of how those policies affect the information to which they are exposed. Specifically, audiences have no way to measure how content moderation policies affect the marketplace of ideas or influence debate and discussion about public issues.

In Missouri v. Biden, the plaintiffs argue that government efforts to persuade social media platforms to publish or remove posts were so relentless and invasive that the moderation policies no longer reflected the companies own editorial choices. Rather, they argue, the policies were in reality government directives that effectively silenced and unconstitutionally censored speakers with whom the government disagreed.

The courts decision in this case could have wide-ranging effects on the manner and methods of government efforts to influence the information that guides the publics debates and decisions.

Read the original post:
Supreme Court to consider giving First Amendment protections to social media posts - The Conversation

Terance Albert Tracy, 31, of Annapolis

On November 15, 2023, Terance Albert Tracy, 31, of Annapolis, was convicted by a Calvert County jury of criminal trespass on the premises of the County Health Department.

Earlier this year, Tracy, a self-styled First Amendment Auditor, entered the lobby area of the building during business hours and began filming people as they came and went.

Based upon patient privacy concerns, the County Health Officer asked Tracy to stop filming and leave.

When Tracy refused to do so, he was arrested by deputies from the Calvert County Sheriffs Office.

Sentencing is scheduled for December 15, 2023, before the Honorable Mark S. Chandlee. The case was prosecuted by Senior Assistant States Attorney Kyle Tores.

Tracy has three misdemeanor cases for incidents that occurred in Annapolis/Anne Arundel County in 2018 to 2022.

This entry was posted on November 27, 2023 at 11:53 am and is filed under All News, Anne Arundel News, Calvert News, County, Law Enforcement, Top News, z 600X120 Top Ad Bottom, z 600X120 Top Ad Top. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

Here is the original post:
Annapolis First Amendment Auditor Convicted for Criminal Trespassing at Calvert Health Department - Southern Maryland News Net

State Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls is asking a federal judge to issue an injunction against the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission as she pursues an appeal in her First Amendment lawsuit.

Without an injunction, the commission could decide next week whether to move forward with a formal investigation of Earls comments about Supreme Court operations.

US District Judge William Osteen decided on Nov. 21 not to grant an injunction against the commissions investigation. Earls argued in court filings Monday that Osteen should grant an injunction until the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals can consider the case.

The Court should issue an injunction pending appeal to preserve the Fourth Circuits ability to review the weighty constitutional issues in dispute, Earls lawyers wrote. This case is about a disciplinary proceeding concerning core political speech, there are substantial reasons to contend that proceeding is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiff, and, absent an injunction, Defendant immediately intends to determine whether to proceed to a formal hearing against Plaintiff by December 8, 2023.

If that formal hearing goes forward and the Fourth Circuit ultimately agrees that the proceeding as applied to Plaintiff is unconstitutional, then there will be no way to undo the harm Plaintiff has suffered from a disciplinary proceeding that violated her First Amendment rights, Earls lawyers added. An injunction pending appeal, by contrast, would preserve both parties rights while the Fourth Circuit considers these issues.

Earls court filings included a series of emails between her lead attorney, Press Millen, and Patricia Flood, the Judicial Standards Commissions commission counsel. Staff is responsible for completing the investigation in time for the panel to be prepared to address the matter as scheduled at the December 8 meeting, Flood informed Millen on Nov. 17.

A Nov. 22 email from Flood addressed Osteens initial decision not to grant an injunction.

In light of the courts order from yesterday afternoon, please let me know if Justice Earls would like to schedule an interview, Flood wrote. Staff remains available on the mornings of November 27, 28, and 29. If those dates do not work, we could make it work to schedule an interview early in the week of December 4. And regardless of whether Justice Earls chooses to be interviewed, she is still welcome to submit a written response and any relevant materials by December 1.

Earls argues that the commissions investigation into her comments has unconstitutionally chilled her speech about matters of public interest.

Osteen issued a 54-page order explaining his decision to reject her initial request for an injunction.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant North Carolina Judicial Standards Commissions investigation into comments Plaintiff made about her North Carolina Supreme Court colleagues unconstitutionally infringes upon her First Amendment rights, Osteen wrote. Plaintiff asserts that her speech has been chilled in several instances when she declined opportunities to speak on topics of diversity and equity since the Commissions investigation commenced.

Defendants, the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission and its members, argue that the Younger doctrine applies, and this court should abstain from interfering with the investigation, Osteen wrote, referencing a precedent that suggests federal courts should steer clear of state court proceedings in most instances. Defendants argue in the alternative that the investigation is narrowly tailored to serve the compelling state interest of maintaining public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

This court finds, for purposes of this motion only at present, that Younger abstention applies at least to preclude entry of the preliminary injunction, Osteen concluded. In the alternative, this court finds the motion should be denied because the Commission likely satisfies strict scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny is a legal term referring to the review a government action faces when a plaintiff alleges an unconstitutional violation of a fundamental right.

Following up on questions he asked during a Nov. 2 hearing in Greensboro, Osteen focused on Earls quoted statements in a published interview that [t]he new members of our court very much see themselves as a conservative bloc. They talk about themselves as the conservatives. Their allegiance is to the ideology, not to the institution.

It appears to this court, particularly when considering the larger context of other statements made in the Interview and the Interviews topics, that Plaintiffs statements at issue could be reasonably interpreted as an accusation that Plaintiffs conservative bloc colleagues unethically prioritize their conservative political principles in some decisions, either administrative, judicial, or both, Osteen wrote.

If the Judicial Standards Commissions investigation leads to any recommended action against Earls, the full state Supreme Court would address that recommendation. [A]ny disciplinary measure implemented against Plaintiff by the North Carolina Supreme Court is subject to direct review by the Supreme Court of the United States, Osteen wrote. This ensures that Plaintiffs First Amendment challenges to the investigation and to Canon 2A can be addressed without the involvement of this court.

Even without the Younger abstention, Osteen would deny Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction on the merits.

The judge rejected Earls argument that Canon 2A of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct offers a vague prescription of acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

These Canons were adopted by the North Carolina Supreme Court and do not appear, at least on their face, difficult for a trained lawyer or jurist to interpret, particularly in light of the fact that the North Carolina Supreme Court has published opinions explaining the application of the Canons in disciplinary proceedings, Osteen wrote.

Its not clear to Osteen that all of Earls published comments would be protected political speech.

A justices speech carries certain weight due to the authority of, and respect commanded by, the office of North Carolina Supreme Court Justice, he wrote. Public criticism by a justice of other justices is different from the same statement by media outlets or citizens in general. While public criticism of other judges by a judge may in some circumstances be fair political speech, an allegation that certain judges may elevate political or other personal ideology over the institution of the North Carolina Supreme Court may diminish the authority and integrity of that Court as a whole.

The Judicial Standards Commissions confidential investigation does not strike Osteen as an unacceptable response to Earls comments.

It appears to this court that the Commissions process of confidentially investigating complaints, either dismissing complaints, conducting confidential investigations, or bringing formal charges, conducting a hearing at which an accused judge has the right to present evidence, and then either dismissing the complaint, issuing a private letter of caution, or recommending that the North Carolina Supreme Court evaluate the matter and issue an appropriate consequence, is narrowly tailored to serve the States interest in maintaining the integrity and the appearance of integrity of the judiciary, Osteen wrote.

A judge subjects herself to the Code and its Canons upon taking office, and the disciplinary process for handling alleged violations of the Code is done confidentially in a way that does not affect the judges public image or daily responsibilities in the early stages of an investigation or if a complaint is dismissed, he added. Only if the investigation eventually requires action by the North Carolina Supreme Court does the public learn of a judges alleged violation of the Code. The processs confidentiality until that point, and the confidentiality of the Commissions investigative records even after that point, is narrowly tailored.

The States compelling interest would not be served by an impaired system which would permit a judge to say anything on any subject whatsoever without fear of disciplinary reprimand by a body designated to maintain a code of ethics for judges in the State, as would be the case if any judge investigated for speech were able to enjoin the Commissions confidential investigative process as Plaintiff seeks to do here, Osteen explained.

The possibility of a commission ruling against Earls is too speculative at this point in the process, Osteen added.

Plaintiffs argument that her speech is chilled assumes the Commission and the North Carolina Supreme Court are likely to take an adverse, and unconstitutional, action against Plaintiff, he wrote. While the potential for an adverse outcome can be enough to support a First Amendment claim, Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood that any potential discipline would be material or unconstitutional. A plausible claim is not sufficient for this court to order the issuance of an injunction.

Theres no deadline for Osteen to respond to Earls request or for the 4th Circuit to take action on Earls appeal.

See the original post here:
Earls seeks emergency injunction as she appeals to 4th Circuit in ... - Carolina Journal

BY A LOS ALAMOS HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT

Editors note: The following is one of a series of Op-Eds written by students in Adam Daviss English 9 and 10 class at Los Alamos High School on free speech in schools. Some students have chosen to remain anonymous.

If you believe that students freedom of speech disappears when they walk into school because the school plays the role of a temporary parental figure, youre mistaken. The First Amendment right protects everyones freedom of speech everywhere, including in schools. Oftentimes in school, students First Amendment freedom of speech is violated. For this reason, Im going to talk about some examples of students freedom of speech being violated, such as the Tinker v. Des Moines court case, and why its important to protect students freedom of speech and expression.

While recognizing the need for appropriateness, its crucial to realize that constantly restraining students expression can suppress their creativity. Mary Beth Tinker rightly emphasizes that when she states, If we dont encourage young people to use their First Amendment rights, our society is deprived of their creativity, energy, and new ideas. This is a huge loss and a human rights abuse.

The various views of teachers make it unfair to limit student speech based on individual discomfort. Creating and keeping a constant and common understanding within the school and community about acceptable speech is crucial. As the Supreme Court states, In order for a school to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid discomfort and unpopular viewpoint.

Defining inappropriate speech is very important. This can be seen in the Bethel v. Fraser (1986) case when it stated, Matthews speech was filled with sexual innuendo. When he delivered the speech, many students called out, gestured, and laughed, while others looked confused and embarrassed. After the speech, Matthew was told he had violated the schools conduct code. A clearly intelligible code prevents confusion and allows students to handle restrictions responsibly and in a way that was universally agreed upon.

Contrary views, such as Justice Clarence Thomass, want to dispense with Tinkers case, pointing out the tension between parental expectations and school administration. As Justice Thomas argues, if he were given the opportunity, he would dispense with Tinker altogether. He explained that without basis in the Constitution, Thomas argued that Tinker utterly ignored the history of public education and that schools, acting in place of the parents, should be able to govern students behavior, including limiting their speech. A lack of agreement on acceptable speech can lead students to self-censorship, which in turn could affect their willingness to express new ideas and advocate for themselves.

In conclusion, freedom of speech is a nonnegotiable constitutional right, even within an educational setting. Inconsistent limitations based on comfort levels are unjust, accentuating the necessity for a shared understanding of acceptable speech to preserve students ability to express themselves and promote creativity. We need to work harder as a community to further prevent schools from violating students First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression.

Work cited:

Beckwith, Maggie. Free-Speech Rights Upheld in Modern-Day Tinker. Student Press

Law Center, 17 Dec. 2007, splc.org/2007/12/free-speech-rights-upheld-in-modern-day-tinker/. Accessed November 15, 2023

Wheeler, David R. Do Students Still Have Free Speech in School? Article. 7 April 2014. Accessed November 15, 2023

Bethel V. Fraser (1986). Landmark Supreme Court Cases Article. Accessed November 15, 2023

Like Loading...

Follow this link:
Freedom Of Speech Is A Nonnegotiable Constitutional Right Even ... - Los Alamos Reporter

When former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley pitched a terrible (and likely unconstitutional) idea to force social media companies to verify all users and effectively ban anonymous accounts, she drew a sharp rebuke from Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

"Haley's proposal to ban anonymous speech onlinesimilar to what China recently didis dangerous and unconstitutional," DeSantis posted on X (formerly Twitter). He pointed out that some of America's founders, including The Federalist Papers'authors Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison published their essays anonymouslypart of a long tradition of anonymous speech in America.

In the week since those initial remarks, Haley has backpedaled a bit. She now admits that Americans have a First Amendment right to anonymous speech online but continues to support a crackdown on foreigners who "create anonymous accounts to spread chaos and anti-American filth."

DeSantis' campaign has kept the heat turned up. "No matter how she tries to spin it, Haley can't take back her 'Day One' plan to have the government strip Americans of their First Amendment rights," DeSantis campaign spokesman Bryan Griffin said last week.

The stake of this fight, in no small part, is the chance to be perceived as the second-place candidate in the Republican primary field, where former President Donald Trump still holds a wide lead. DeSantis has been slipping in the polls for months, while Haley has steadily climbed after several strong debate performances.

DeSantis is certainly right to take Haley to task over this terrible idea, and he's probably right that doing so will help him regain some lost ground in the GOP primary race.

Still, the whole exchange creates a bit of an awkward situation for DeSantis, who is just a few months removed from making his own attacks on anonymous speech. During a livestreamed event in March, DeSantis criticized the media's use of anonymous sources and suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court might be "receptive" to revisiting its landmark 1964 decision that raised the bar for defamation lawsuits filed by public figures.

Meanwhile, a bill introduced in the Florida Legislature earlier this year and backed by DeSantis aimed to make several changes to how Florida law handles defamation cases filed against news organizations. Among the changes was a provision telling courts to regard as false any content from anonymous sources, unless it could be proven true.

DeSantis even acknowledged that the bill, if passed into law, could have a chilling effect on reporting. "I do think it may cause people to not want to put out things that are false that are smearing somebody's reputation. And you know, I thinkpeople can make a judgment about how they view that," DeSantis said in March, according to Florida Politics.

Seth Stern, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, called the proposal "a brazen and blatantly unconstitutional attack on speech and press freedoms." The bill died in a state House committee earlier this year, but DeSantis' support for the bill sits uncomfortably beside his more recent criticisms of Haley's attack on anonymous speech (to say nothing of his other attacks on free expression by the likes of drag queens and pro-Gaza protesters).

This shouldn't be hard. Anonymous speech should be (and is) subject to the same constitutional protection as any other speech, whether it is something posted anonymously online or offered to a reporter. It's understandable why public figures in positions of power might not like thatbut the Constitution exists to limit the power of government, not as a balm for the thin skin of certain politicians.

Obviously, this is not in any way a defense of Haley, whose terrible free speech proposal has likely cost her whatever small bits of goodwill she'd engendered from libertarians with some important straight talk about the deficit. She should continue backtracking from her proposal to unmask anonymous accounts onlineand probably ought to refresh herself with the constitution of the government that she's campaigning to lead.

But DeSantis' track record on free speech suggests his objections are more about political opportunism than principled concern for the rights of Americans to communicate freely. The First Amendment applies all the time, not just when you want to use it to bash a rival politician.

See the rest here:
DeSantis Rediscovers First Amendment Protections for Anonymous ... - Reason

States hoping to ban undercover investigations on factory farms hit another major roadblock this year. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a decision striking down North Carolinas ag-gag law. Undercover investigations are newsgathering activities, protected by the First Amendment, both the district court and 4th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. But just what was North Carolinas Property Protection Act, and why does it matter for the future of ag-gag legislation in the United States? We explain.

In 2015, North Carolinas state legislature passed a law called the Property Protection Act described as an ag-gag law for its language prohibiting undercover activities documenting workplace conditions, including factory farms. According to the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the law is technically also an anti-sunshine law thanks to language that went beyond agricultural activities.

Under this North Carolina law, undercover employees were prohibited from taking documents from, or recording videos of, inside their workplaces. But the North Carolina law was punitive too property owners could sue undercover investigators and whistleblowers for monetary damages, under the argument that these activities breached a duty of loyalty to their employers.

Other states have implemented similar laws to restrict the ability of activists and journalists to investigate and report on alleged wrongdoing, but North Carolinas law was particularly expansive in its restrictions. The law defined nonpublic areas where employees were forbidden from documenting conditions very broadly, even including fields where animals are grazing, for instance.

A number of groups filed a lawsuit the next year. PETA, the Animal Legal Defense Fund and a number of other advocacy organizations, initiated litigation in federal district court to challenge the laws constitutionality under First Amendment grounds. In particular, the plaintiffs argued that the law should be struck down for violating the First Amendment right to free speech as it applied to newsgathering activities, which the plaintiffs argued that these documenting activities should be considered.

The law would have a chilling effect, the plaintiffs argued. Some of the organizations had plans to conduct undercover investigations in settings that keep animals laboratories, farms and slaughterhouses among them in hopes of documenting and exposing animal abuse and cruelty. The threat of monetary damages and legal consequences were deterring them from these newsgathering activities, which violates their First Amendment rights, the parties alleged.

The district court sided with the plaintiffs, finding the law unconstitutional. And in February, the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed the lower court opinion and sided with the advocacy groups.

The decision was a first for the 4th Circuit a ruling that the ag-gag law was unconstitutional, at least in its jurisdiction, which covers North and South Carolina, Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia.

Yet the case wasnt over. North Carolinas Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein and the North Carolina Farm Bureau then filed an appeal o the U.S. Supreme Court in October, citing that the law was put in place to protect employers from harm and arguing that undercover investigations like the ones planned by PETA could end up revealing unauthorized use of trade secrets.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, which means the appeals court decision stands, joining a host of other decisions striking down ag-gag laws in the U.S.

The future of ag-gag laws isnt a bright one, at least in the United States. Federal courts continue to find that investigations of factory farms are protected by the First Amendment, which means any future laws intending to stop efforts to document conditions on industrial livestock operations are also likely to fail. In the U.S. today, only four states still have ag-gag laws on the books, though Canada is in the process of passing federal legislation.

Jared Goodman, a lawyer with PETA Foundation, told Sentient Media that North Carolinas misguided ag-gag law is just the latest of these laws to fail on First Amendment grounds. Federal courts have ruled similarly on laws passed in Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined a petition filed by Kansass governor and attorney general to review Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Kelly, for instance. In that case, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals broadly struck down an ag-gag law passed in Kansas as unconstitutional.

Although ag-gag laws continue to be struck down across the country, some state lawmakers are still working to pass them. They frequently frame these laws as essential safeguards for trade secrets, personal and business privacy, and the prevention of property damage to businesses.

According to Caitlin Foley, a senior staff attorney with Animal Legal Defense Fund, a few state legislatures, like Iowa, continue to spend significant resources and time to pass several versions of ag-gag laws.

The North Carolina Farm Bureaus general counsel also provided a statement to Sentient Media: The Supreme Courts decision not to hear our appeal in the Property Protection Act case is disappointing and troubling. Farmers and other North Carolina businesses are now more vulnerable to having their farms, offices and facilities infiltrated by fake employees and double agents. Hopefully, the General Assembly will step up again and protect our fundamental rights to privacy and property.

Read More

Animal Rights Activist Wayne Hsiung Found Guilty in Open Rescue Case

What Are Right to Farm Laws?

Ag-Gag Laws: What Are They and Which States Still Have Them?

Here is the original post:
Inside the Fight and Failure of North Carolina's Ag-Gag Law - Sentient Media

Jewish groups are suing over policies enacted by at least 23 Berkeley Law student groups that exclude students from joining or bar guest speakers from presenting if they do not agree to disavow Israel or if they identify as Zionists. They argue that anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism and say that the policies violate the 14th Amendments equal protection clause, the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and more.

Conditioning a Jews ability to participate in a student group on his or her renunciation of a core component of Jewish identity is no less pernicious than demanding the renunciation of some other core element of a students identity whether based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual identity, the lawsuit said. No such imposition is required or would be remotely tolerated of other students.

The groups are accusing Berkeley and the UC system of inaction against the policies that betray Jewish students and faculty. They argue that the student group policies violate a university policy that prohibits registered student groups, including law school groups, from imposing membership restrictions based on race, color, national origin and religion.

The Jewish groups want the court to intervene and require the university and university system to enforce their policies and prohibit discrimination against Jewish students, faculty and invited speakers. They say that Berkeley has suggested that the student group policies discriminate on the basis of viewpoint and not race, ethnicity or religion, but campus leaders have also acknowledged that the policies can be deeply upsetting to some Jewish members.

By abdicating responsibility and failing to act as required by UC rules and U.S. law, the university has enabled the normalization of anti-Jewish hatred on campus, the lawsuit said. Jewish students feel compelled to hide their identities.

Additionally, the groups say that the university has failed to address antisemitic incidents on campus following the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks. They said students celebrations of the Hamas attacks resulted in violence against Jewish students. A Jewish student draped in an Israeli flag was attacked by protesters who hit him in the head with a metal water bottle, according to the complaint, and some Jews have received hate e-mails calling for their gassing and murder. Jewish students have also said they are afraid to attend class because of the protests.

Students stated that the school does so little to protect Jewish students, it feels as if the school were condoning anti-Semitism, the complaint said. They added that officials at the university display a general disregard for Jewish students. They have little confidence that UC will protect them from anti-Semitic mobs.

Follow this link:
Jewish groups sue University of California over 'unchecked ... - POLITICO

A Colorado district courts recent opinion may be religious freedoms most significant victory this fall.

Last Spring, Colorado outlawed the provision of abortion pill reversal services. The new law was particularly targeted at medical clinics like Bella Health and Wellness, a Catholic medical clinic in suburban Denver founded in 2014 to provide faith-based, life-affirming health care to women in need. With guidance and blessings from Archbishop Samuel Aquila and the Archdiocese of Denver and the Blessed Sacrament reserved in a chapel adjoining its main lobby Bella Health has long offered abortion pill reversal services as part of its religious mission.

Working with public interest firm Becket,Bella Health challenged the Colorado lawas a violation of the clinics religious freedom. Bella Health also asked for an injunction a special court order preventing Colorado from enforcing the law while the case proceeds.

The Colorado district court issued the injunction, on the basis that Bella Healthwill likely win this lawsuit.

This outcome is a great win for religious freedom, particularly because ofwhyandhowthe court reached its conclusion.

The district courts decision answered an important question that courts had not clearly addressed in the past. This question was whether (and to what extent) the First Amendment holds the government accountable when it enacts a law knowing that the law will predominantly burden religious activities.

The United States Supreme Court has already found that the First Amendment holds the government to the highest legal standard of accountability, called strict scrutiny, in situations similar toBella Health. These cases involved laws that (1)treat secular activities more favorablythan similar religious activities; (2)burden religionbut allow the government to make exceptions, or (3)target religious activitysimply because it is religious.

- Advertisement -

But a gray area existed in situations where a law predominantly burdened religious activity but did not fit into the previous three categories. Supreme Court cases suggested the First Amendment would require government accountability for such laws, but the question was never directly answered.

The district courts decision inBella Healthclarifies that the government must meet the highest standard of legal accountability in these situations where the government enacts a regulation or law knowing it will predominately burden religious activity. The opinion should guide both judges and advocates for religious freedom moving forward.

The courts decision also reemphasized how important it is for faith-based nonprofits to legally establish their religious identities. Before the court even addressed the religious freedom questions, the court evaluated whether Bella Health is a religious organization eligible for such protections in the first instance. The court looked at Bella Healths Articles of Incorporation, particularly the purpose statement. The court also looked at documents signed by employees and volunteers. These documents explained the clinics religious mission and clearly connected the clinics religious beliefs with its activities. Accordingly, the court concluded that Bellawas indeed a religious organization entitled to First Amendment protections, so the case proceeded.

Faith-based nonprofits and friends of religious freedom should useBella Healthto guide advocacy for more robust religious freedom protections and greater government accountability for laws burdening this freedom.Bella Healthalso reminds faith-based nonprofits and their leaders to revisit their organizing documents and policies and ensure their religious freedom is clearly established in writing. Doing so will maximize the impact of this important religious freedom victory.

Mary Margaret Beecher is the Vice President and Executive Director of Napa Legal.

Read the original post:
'Bella Health' Is a Milestone Victory for Religious Freedom - denvercatholic.org

From Arkansas AG opinion 2023-034, issued two weeks ago:

[T]he content-moderation policies for the Arkansas Department of Transportation's "official social media account(s) (such as Twitter, IDRIVE, Arkansas Instagram, Facebook, etc.)" , which describe the Department's social-media accounts as "limited public forums," authorize the Department to "remove or reject" "user generated posts when the content:

The question presented here is not whether a personal social media account operated by an elected official constitutes government action under the First Amendment. Rather, the question here is what First Amendment limitations apply to comment moderation on an official government run social-media account.

The AG notes that constitutionally unprotected "obscenity" and "incitement" can be removed, but as to other matters concludes:

[T]he Department's interactive social media pages are best classified as limited public forums [and thus] the Department's regulation of the comment sections in its social-media platforms "must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral."

Because some speech may be disruptive or even discourage civic participation, the limits and restrictions contained in the Department's policy likely are reasonable to limit that disruption. Further, numerous alternative channels, such as other social-media platforms, are available for anyone in the public to express his or her off-topic views.

[But v]iewpoint neutral implementation or enforcement of broad or vague terms such as "promotes or endorses social causes," "harassing," or "offensive terms" may prove difficult. Further, the policy provides that the "Department reserves the right to remove, and if needed block, anyone who posts inappropriate material." The phrase "inappropriate material," to the extent that phrase is not limited to the aforementioned five speech-areas subject to removal under the policy, is so broad that the Department risks discriminating based on viewpoint.

The opinion also notes that, "In addition to moderating users' posts, the policy also authorizes the Department 'to remove, and if needed block, anyone who posts inappropriate material,'" and notes:

[S]ome courts have held that indefinitely suspending a disruptive person from attending future public forumsa city hall and a state Capitol buildingbecause of past acts is unconstitutional, particularly when no threat to public safety exists. But this is a highly factual question. Therefore, I cannot definitively opine on whether blocking a user permanently or banning a user indefinitely from a public forum is constitutional.

Note that the Supreme Court is currently considering when individual officeholders' moderation of the comments on their accounts is government action (and is therefore constrained by the First Amendment) and when it's private action (and therefore not constrained by the First Amendment). But those cases take for granted that moderation decisions by government bodiesdepartments of transportation, school boards, city councils, and the likeare government action, and thus subject to the First Amendment.

See the article here:
Arkansas AG's Opinion on Government Entities' Moderation of their ... - Reason

A DuPage County woman has filed a lawsuit accusing a west suburban school district of violating her sons First Amendment rights by cutting him from the Hinsdale South High School basketball team. She is alleging retaliation for his complaint against the teams former coach, according to court records.

Erin Savage of Darien filed the lawsuit against Hinsdale Township High School District 86 in federal court Wednesday. The complaint names the interim district superintendent, Hinsdale South principal, current head basketball coach and other employees as defendants.

The lawsuit states that Savage made a complaint on behalf of her son, Brendan, about the former head coach of the Hinsdale South varsity basketball team, Michael Moretti, during the 2022-2023 school year. Hinsdale South officials investigated Moretti for verbal abuse, bullying (and) humiliation and later demoted him from varsity coach to freshman basketball coach, according to the lawsuit.

District investigators described Morettis interaction with Savages son as inappropriate and inconsistent with the high standards of professionalism expected of all (district) employees, according to a June 2023 letter from acting Superintendent Chris Covino to Savage and her husband contained in court records.

The district did not find that Morettis actions constituted bullying, the letter said.

The letter further directed Savage and her husband to notify the investigator immediately if you or (your son) experience any retaliation as a result of your complaint.

Savages son, who is now a senior, was on the schools varsity basketball team for two years before the 2023-2024 school year, according to the suit.

The complaint states that Savages son was considered a standout player on the varsity team for the preceding two seasons. Other court records show that he received all-conference honors during the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years.

According to the complaint, Savages son tried out but was not chosen for the varsity basketball team earlier this month. The team is now coached by Michael Belcaster, according to the complaint and the Illinois High School Association. The complaint describes Belcaster as a close personal friend of Moretti.

The District 86 Board of Education and the districts attorney, Jason Manning, did not immediately return requests for comment.

Originally Published: Nov 27, 2023 at 8:13 pm

See the original post here:
Hinsdale South parent sues after son cut from basketball team - Chicago Tribune