Category Archives: First Amendment

The Tallahassee-based First Amendment Foundation has a new leader. Pamela Marsh took over this month from the retiring Barbara Petersen, who will stick around for a while as a consultant.

Marsh is the former U-S Attorney for the Northern District of Florida. She has more than 20 years of legal experience and is a shareholder at the Ausley McMullen law firm in Tallahassee.

Listen to the interview with Pamela Marsh.

She says her new job shares some similarities with her time as both a private and government attorney. "I will still be helping others with the law and interpreting the law and thinking about applying the law to different sets of facts," Marsh says. "There's a lot of looking at new legislation, thinking of how bills will affect the public and change the law."

In the current political climate, Marsh says it's more important than ever for journalists and news consumers to dig deeper and rely on evidence rather than short sound bites. "That's what our public records law and our open government meetings laws really facilitate."

She says "we have to push back" against those who refuse to acknowledge the truth.

We've become so divided because I think the facts don't mean anything. ~Pamela Marsh

"We've become so divided because I think the facts don't mean anything, and if you say something three times, somebody is going to believe it," Marsh says. "That's why education is so important; real solid professional journalism is so important. If you just want to have an opinion, that's not the same thing."

Marsh is jumping into her new role with the legislative session just weeks away. Petersen will help her navigate these first few months, especially with more efforts at the Capitol to limit transparency. "We are currently looking at about 40 bills that either affect the public records law or the Sunshine Law in some way or have something to do with the First Amendment," Marsh says. She'll also promote membership in the First Amendment Foundation, which is free to students and open to anyone.

Originally posted here:
New Leader Of First Amendment Foundation Ready To Tackle Public Records And Fake News - WFSU

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases on Friday in addition to taking up appeals surrounding President Donald Trumps financial records.

The issue in McGirt v. Oklahoma is whether the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes committed within the historical Creek boundaries is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction. The petitioner, McGirt, is seeking release from incarceration by petitioning the court that Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to convict him for sex crimes committed against a child within Creek boundaries. In the writ of certiorari, Oklahoma argued that Sharp v. Murphy should have rendered the petition moot.

The court is reopening United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. In 2013 the court held that the First Amendment bars enforcement of Congress directive to have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking as a condition of accepting federal funds to combat HIV/AIDS abroad. The current question presented is whether the First Amendment further bars enforcement of that directive with respect to legally distinct foreign entities operating overseas that are affiliated with the Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.The United States Agency for International Development is arguing that the foreign recipients have no First Amendment rights to deny, while the Alliance for Open Society International is arguing that the previous decision should be final because it is the application of settled principles and there is no circuit split or conflict with the current precedent. Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the consideration of this petition.

See more here:
Supreme Court to hear Native American criminal procedure case and First Amendment question for foreign entities - JURIST

EFF has long fought to end the FBIs ability to impose gag orders via National Security Letters (NSLs). They violate the First Amendment and result in indefinite prohibitions on recipients ability to speak publicly about controversial government surveillance powers. Records and data released by the FBI earlier this year confirm that, despite congressional reforms in 2015, the vast majority of NSL recipients remain gagged. Whats more, the FBI has not taking meaningful steps to dissolve those gag orders.

Today, EFF is publishing The Failed Fix to NSL Gag Orders, a new report based on an in-depth analysis of records EFF obtained after we won a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit earlier this year. Our report is based on records we obtained that identified more than 700 NSL recipients that the FBI had freed from lengthy gag orders, the subject of a front-page New York Times story in September.

As the Times reported, those records showed that in addition to Internet companies, the leading credit reporting agencies are frequent recipients of NSLs. But these credit agencies have been entirely silent about NSLs, even after the FBI explicitly permitted them to speak. Today, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Rand Paul, and Ron Wyden sent a letter to Experian, Equifax, and Transunion, expressing alarm about the companies silence and seeking more information about how this frequently used national security investigatory authority affects Americans credit histories and other sensitive records.

EFFs analysis of the records obtained in our FOIA suit concludes that absent further judicial or legislative intervention, the FBI will continue to violate the First Amendment rights of NSL recipients. As we write in the report, when left to its own discretion, the FBI overwhelmingly favors maintaining gag orders of unlimited duration. Our findings suggest even though Congress directed the FBI to reduce the number of these gag orders, the Bureaus internal procedures do not meaningfully reduce the large numbers of de facto permanent NSL gag orders, failing First Amendment scrutiny. They also fall short of adequately safeguarding recipients First Amendment rights. And as the records and data EFF obtained in its FOIA suit show, the FBI is unlikely to make progress in ending those gags without further direction by Congress or the courts.

Accordingly, the report includes recommendations for how to fix this urgent problem. Were pleased that Sens. Warren, Paul, and Wyden are looking into the matter, and we hope Congress takes up the larger issue of NSL reform soon.

See original here:
EFF Report Shows FBI Is Failing to Address First Amendment Harms Caused By National Security Letters - EFF

Image by David Mark from Pixabay.

The front has widened against our constitutionally protected freedoms. In New York and California, the NRA is fighting for its First Amendment rights like never before.

In the latest legal battle in this struggle, a federal judge on December 11 blocked enforcement of a Los Angeles law that requires companies bidding for city contracts to disclose ties they have with the NRA. By granting the NRAs request for a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson took a strong stand in support of all who believe in Americas constitutional freedoms.

This is an important win for the NRA and our members, said the NRA. In a strong rebuke of the citys actions, the ordinance is banned from taking effect. Coupled with the NRAs recent victory against the City of San Francisco, the ruling sends a powerful message to those government officials who would take any actions that are adverse to the NRA because they dislike its political speech.

In his decision, Judge Wilson wrote, It is not within the public interest to subject potential city contractors to a disclosure requirement motivated by political animus and completely unrelated to their ability to perform the job.

Clearly, city officials overstepped. The reality is, if a city is willing to discriminate against companies with ties to the NRA, how long will it be before that city demands to know if its employees are NRA members? How long before that city discriminates against people individually?

Following the courts decision, NRA attorney Chuck Michel said, As predicted, the court confirmed that the 1st Amendment prohibits politicians from censoring the NRAs message of freedom, safety and self-reliance, and the city cannot discriminate against those who support the NRAs efforts.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) has tried similar tactics. At Gov. Cuomos direction, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) issued official regulatory guidance to all banks and insurance companies doing business in New York, urging them to discontinue . . . [business] arrangements with the NRA and other so-called gun promotion organizations.

We must push further to ensure that gun safety is a top priority for every individual, company and organization that does business across the state, Gov. Cuomo said in a press release. I am directing the Department of Financial Services to urge insurers and bankers statewide to determine whether any relationship they may have with the NRA or similar organizations sends the wrong message.

DFS then sent out letters telling companies they would face reputational risk if they do business with organizations such as the NRA.

The NRA believes and alleges that many of these actions amount to a blacklisting campaignan effort to intimidate the NRAs potential business partners, choke off its access to financial services, and retaliate against it based on the viewpoint of its speech.

The NRA filed a lawsuit on May 11, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. On November 6, 2018, U.S. District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy issued a highly anticipated decision in response to the States efforts to have the case dismissed. Judge McAvoy upheld the NRAs First Amendment freedom-of-speech claimsthe crux of its complaint. The court also upheld the NRAs equal protection claims.

James Freeman, an editor of The Wall Street Journal editorial page, writes of the decision, ...no elected official in the country has more aggressively sought to limit free speech rights than Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Now he will have to answer for it in court. There is an enormous interest for all Americans in making sure that a politician like Mr. Cuomo cannot abuse his authority to silence law-abiding citizens with whom he disagrees.

We couldnt agree more. The NRA will continue to advocate for its members and the constitutional freedoms in which we all

More:
A Judge Temporarily Protects the NRA's First Amendment Rights - America's 1st Freedom

First Amendment

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 17, 2019, 2:17 pm CST

Image from Shutterstock.com.

A federal appeals court decision criticized for its potential to chill protests is no longer unanimous.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans had unanimously ruled in April that a Louisiana police officer could sue the organizer of a Black Lives Matter protest for a serious injury caused when a different protester threw a heavy object, the Advocate had reported at the time.

On Monday, one of the panel members, Judge Don Willett, wrote that he had a judicial change of heart and issued a partial dissent. How Appealing and the Volokh Conspiracy noted the Dec. 16 opinion.

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, the Washington Post reported Friday. Civil liberties lawyers have criticized the 5th Circuit decision for its potential to chill protests and impact activists First Amendment rights.

Willett, an appointee of President Donald Trump, said he had changed his mind on the First Amendment issue.

The officers complaint is skeletal, and it does not plausibly assert that [organizer DeRay] Mckesson forfeited First Amendment protection by inciting violence, Willett said. He cited NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., a 1982 Supreme Court decision. The case held that the First Amendment protects fiery words that dont provoke or incite acts of violence, Willett said.

Before reaching the First Amendment issue, Willett said, the 5th Circuit should ask the Louisiana Supreme Court whether Louisiana law imposed a duty on the protest organizer to protect the officer from the criminal acts of others.

If theres no negligence, theres no case, Willett wrote. And if theres no case, theres no need to fret about the First Amendment.

But Willett did consider the First Amendment ramifications with references to pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, tea party protests by American colonists, and civil rights marches by Martin Luther King Jr.

Willett wrote: Dr. Kings last protest march was in March 1968, in support of striking Memphis sanitation workers. It was prelude to his assassination a week later, the day after his Ive Been to the Mountaintop speech. Dr. Kings hallmark was nonviolent protest, but as he led marchers down Beale Street, some young men began breaking storefront windows. The police moved in, and violence erupted, harming peaceful demonstrators and youthful looters alike. Had Dr. King been sued, either by injured police or injured protesters, I cannot fathom that the Constitution he praised as magnificenta promissory note to which every American was to fall heirwould countenance his personal liability.

The officer suing Mckesson had alleged that he did nothing to calm Baton Rouge protesters throwing water bottles and led them onto the highway where he was injured. The protesters were responding to the July 2016 shooting death of Alton Sterling, who was shot by officers investigating a report of a man with a gun.

The 5th Circuit majority responded to Willett in its new opinion, which held that Mckessons speech was not necessarily protected by the First Amendment.

Mckesson should have known that leading the demonstrators onto a busy highway was most nearly certain to provoke a confrontation between police and the mass of demonstrators, yet he ignored the foreseeable danger to officers, bystanders and demonstrators, said the majority opinion by Judge E. Grady Jolly.

Claiborne Hardware doesnt insulate Mckesson from liability for his own negligent conduct simply because he intended to communicate a message, Jolly said.

Read this article:
5th Circuit judge has 'judicial change of heart' in case that could chill protests - ABA Journal

This isnt a first, but I think it will be the first conviction:

The GIF set off a highly unusual court battle that is expected to equip those in similar circumstances with a new tool for battling threatening trolls and cyberbullies. On Monday, the man who sent Eichenwald the moving image, John Rayne Rivello, was set to appear in a Dallas County district court. A last-minute rescheduling delayed the proceeding until Jan. 31, but Rivello is still expected to plead guilty to aggravated assault. And he may be the first of many.

The Epilepsy Foundation announced on Monday it lodged a sweeping slate of criminal complaints against a legion of copycats who targeted people with epilepsy and sent them an onslaught of strobe GIFs a frightening phenomenon that unfolded in a short period of time during the organizations marking of National Epilepsy Awareness Month in November.

Rivellos supporters among them, neo-Nazis and white nationalists, including Richard Spencer have also argued that the issue is about freedom of speech. But in an amicus brief to the criminal case, the First Amendment Clinic at Duke University School of Law argued Rivellos actions were not constitutionally protected.

A brawler who tattoos a message onto his knuckles does not throw every punch with the weight of First Amendment protection behind him, the brief stated. Conduct like this does not constitute speech, nor should it. A deliberate attempt to cause physical injury to someone does not come close to the expression which the First Amendment is designed to protect.

Another article.

*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from Schneier on Security authored by Bruce Schneier. Read the original post at: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/12/attacker_causes.html

See the original post here:
Attacker Causes Epileptic Seizure over the Internet - Security Boulevard

WASHINGTON (TNS) President Donald Trumps executive order this week to consider a specific definition of antisemitism in discrimination cases could prompt a court battle with free speech advocates, who argue that the ability to deny Israels right to exist is protected under the First Amendment.The executive action is likely to please the presidents allies in the Israel advocacy community and, entering the heat of the 2020 presidential race, provide his campaign with a counterpoint to continued criticism that Trump himself has fueled rising antisemitism.The order will direct the Justice Department and the Education Department to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition and its adjoining examples, which state that efforts to demonize, delegitimize or apply double standards to Israel are antisemitic in discrimination cases brought forth under Title Six of the Civil Rights Act.While Trumps order has been in the works for months, its emergence coincides with two Hanukkah receptions at the White House on Wednesday, which gather Republican supporters of his Israel policy.The IHRA definition has been recognized by the US Department of State, Israel, France, Germany and several other European governments, but it is not without controversy.In the United States, for example, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has opposed its usage under the Civil Rights Act on constitutional grounds, while overseas, a debate within the British Labour Party over whether to adopt the definition has embroiled leader Jeremy Corbyn in scandal before Britains parliamentary elections on Thursday.Trumps executive order, crafted by Jared Kushner and his longtime aide Avi Berkowitz, adopts the language of a stymied bill supported by Republicans and Democrats in both houses of Congress.The legislation, titled the Antisemitism Awareness Act, would require the Education Department to consider the IHRA definition under Title Six as a provision of the law that prohibits the flow of federal dollars to programs and organizations that are found to discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin. While the bill was initially drafted by lawmakers from both parties, Republicans introduced it on their own this year, after Democrats requested a pause to consider alternative legislative options.One Democratic author of the House legislation, Ted Deutch of Florida, wants the bill broadened beyond its narrow focus within the Education Department, which began applying the IHRA definition in civil rights cases last year, and to adopt instead a whole of government approach that directs all federal agencies to adopt the framework.Its not that we wont reintroduce it what were considering is what is the most effective way to address antisemitism, a senior aide to Deutch said, noting that his office had not yet seen the text of the executive order.The assistant explained that if the president takes the Antisemitism Awareness Act, turns it into an executive order and applies it to other agencies, that is generally something we would support.The administration worked with Democrats on the order, consulting with David Krone, former chief of staff to former Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, among others.The order supersedes prior guidance and directs all relevant agencies, particularly the Justice Department and the Education Department, to consider the definition, according to one senior official, who said the White House would welcome congressional passage of a law that would strengthen Trumps executive order.Kushner first raised the idea of executive action in the spring when working with the White House Counsels Office and the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department to address concerns expressed last year regarding the congressional effort by the ACLU. Kushner also consulted with Paul Clement, former US solicitor-general under president George Bush, the senior official said.Last year, ACLU argued that Title Six already protects religious minorities such as Jews from discrimination, and warned that the IHRA examples of antisemitism are constitutionally protected statements about Israel, including accusing people of being more loyal to Israel than to the United States, applying a double standard for Israel, or denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.Over the past decade, local and state governments have passed aggressive legislation to combat the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel, withholding critical dollars from organizations that partake in targeting Israel. According to data collected by the FBI and the Anti-Defamation League, such efforts have gained national steam amid rising antisemitism across the country.The administrations action on Wednesday will come on the heels of yet another controversy over Trumps rhetoric toward Jews, after he told an Israeli-American group in Florida last weekend that he expects attendees to vote for him in 2020 in order to protect their wealth.

View post:
Trump antisemitism executive order sets up First Amendment battle - The Jerusalem Post

All together now, everybody sing: Turn, Turn, Turn.

GetReligion.org has been around since Feb. 1, 2004, and in internet years that is a long, long time. Some of us certainly me have gained more than a few gray hairs in the process.

For several years now, I have known that I would retire from full-time work here at GetReligion when the clock struck midnight and we reached Jan. 1, 2020. The question logically enough was whether this weblog would shut down or evolve back into something that I could do part-time, which was how things started out long ago.

The good news is that, well, we aint dead yet. The bad news is that we will have to do some major downsizing, which means well have to make changes in the amount of content that we offer here. After nearly a decade, Bobby Ross Jr. has already put out the word that he is leaving GetReligion and will now be writing a weekly religion-news roundup for Religion Unplugged that will also run elsewhere (including here, we hope).

Readers will not be surprised to know that a sign of the times in which we live the work we will be doing here in the future will require some fundraising. Visitors to the website will see more information about that sooner, rather than later.

But the big news today is that GetReligion will soon have a new home base, one linked directly to First Amendment studies, which means work tied to freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

As of Jan. 1, we will be based at the Overby Center for Southern Journalism and Politics, which is next door to the School of Journalism and New Media at the University of Mississippi. The chairman of the center is Charles L. Overby, for 22 years the CEO of the Freedom Forum, a non-partisan foundation focusing on the press, religious freedom and the First Amendment.

As a part of this move, I will be serving as a senior fellow at the Overby Center (press release here), cooperating with Overby and his team on public events linked to religion, news, politics and, yes, the First Amendment. I spoke at the center in 2012 and look forward to whats ahead. Videos of some of these GetReligion-related events will, I am sure, end up online. (Click here for a recent Overby Center event with David E. McGraw, a top lawyer for The New York Times.)

Let me add one or two personal notes. I have known Overby for a quarter of a century because of our mutual interest in how the mainstream press covers religion. He was a great help to me during my years at the Washington Journalism Center, when my students visited the Newseum during our discussions of journalism history. Over the years, Overby has frequently been a source of encouragement in my work as a syndicated columnist. Also, it helps to know that the dean of the Ole Miss journalism school is veteran newsman and educator Will Norton Jr., with whom I worked on journalism education projects during my tenure with the Council For Christian Colleges and Universities.

What else is ahead?

Lets say journalism, the First Amendment, good friends and barbecue. I can work with that. And I promise not to wear East Tennessee orange when visiting The Grove.

Stay tuned for further developments.

Read more:
Religion news, the First Amendment and BBQ: GetReligion will soon have a new home base - GetReligion

Timothy Zick believes the principles involved in the lessons hes drawing about the First Amendment in the current era are useful for readers to know and to embrace regardless of their political beliefs. (WYDaily/Courtesy of W&M Law School)

Writing his latest book on the First Amendment his fourth in 10 years William & Mary Law ProfessorTimothy Zickdecided to try something a little different. His new volume would be slimmer, more accessible to general audiences, and ripped from the latest headlines.

And as of Oct. 28, its also in eager readers hands.

InThe First Amendment in the Trump Era,Zick, the John Marshall Professor of Government and Citizenship at William & Mary Law School, not only examines the growing number of First Amendment controversies in the past three years, but also connects present concerns to episodes throughout American history. He also relates recent First Amendment controversies to the concept of dissent.

Indeed, dissent looms large, beginning when Zick dedicates his book to all the noisy dissenters past, present, and future.

Zick believes that dissenters deserve a significant amount of credit for doing the hard work of checking governments and influencing citizens, often at considerable cost to their own safety and livelihoods. Although he has not chosen the path of activism, Zicks First Amendment scholarship highlights public contention and dissent.

I am a true believer in the power of dissent to facilitate social, political and constitutional change, Zick said.

Zick wrote his most recent book with minimal legal jargon or extensive discussions of cases or doctrines. He wants it to be read by people whether they support the current president or not.

I think the principles involved in the lessons Im drawing to the current era are useful to know and to embrace regardless of your partisan stripe, Zick said. I didnt want to write a book that was anti-Trump so much as pro-First Amendment.

Cracks in that amendment were forming well before the 2016 election, the result of what Zick refers to as preexisting conditions. Among them were the weakening of the institutional press, heightened political polarization, the rise of the Internet and the distrust of experts and institutionsall of which the President took advantage of when the time arose.

Digitized culture gives you democratic speech cheap and efficient speech, Zick said. But it also gives you a culture that trades on instant conflict, hate and take-downs; its a very mixed bag. Zick added, Trump is an archetype of the erahyper-communicative, hyper-combative and deeply polarizing.

Witnessing increasingly strident speech before and during the 2016 campaign, Zick knew a book was imminent. He noted that candidate Trump incited his supporters to rough up protesters, promised to open up the libel laws, and even proposed shutting down parts of the Internet to thwart terrorists. Many of these themes and patterns continued after Trump became president.

As of a year into his presidency, I thought there was already enough material for a book, Zick said. And the President just kept on talkingand tweeting.

With more and more examples piling up after the publication of the book, and the possibility of a second Trump administration, Zick does not rule out a second edition with, at the very least, an updated introduction or prologue.

I dont know if Trump will emphasize new themes or issues if he is re-elected or just go back to the old attacks, Zick said, So you just might get more examples of things that I point out in the book. Even so, the presidents views on free press and speech, and those of his supporters, are worth examining.

As noted, this book is very different from Zicks previous works. His other books include, Speech Out of Doors: Preserving First Amendment Liberties in Public Places, The Cosmopolitan First Amendment: Protecting Transborder Expressive and Religious Liberties and The Dynamic Free Speech Clause: Freedom of Speech and Its Relation to Other Constitutional Rights. These books were written primarily for academic audiences. The current book is aimed at a much broader audience and is about events happening in real time.

Its happening in front of you, and that poses challenges for trying to write with some dispatch, but it also means that the book connects to current and timely concerns, Zick said.

Pondering an audience beyond the academy, Zick hopes that readers will learn about the many misperceptions people have about the First Amendment. Its one thing, for example, for a president to speak about a subject from a bully pulpit, Zick says, but its quite another for him to coerce others or regulate speech.

And then there is the misunderstanding about the press in general the idea that there is a separate Constitutional provision the Free Press Clause that gives the institutional press a broad set of rights or immunities. The reality is that the institutional press does not generally have any special rights and privileges. The press rests on far shakier constitutional ground than many Americans realize.

I think its important to remember that the press has always been both problematic and essential, Zick says. Its always had excesses like any other institution, but its also been critically important to self-government, the search for truth, and other First Amendment values.

Above all, Zick hopes readers learn about the value of dissent. He notes that noisy dissent has long been considered part of the American ethos, but the reality is that the citizenry have an increasingly low tolerance for opinions that they dont agree with, from those who attend Trump rallies to students on college campuses.

Although headlines seem more clamorous as a new election looms, Zick nevertheless feels cautiously optimistic, particularly given the evidence that people still exercise their right to disagree and disrupt. He cites as examples the March for Life, the Womens March after the 2016 election, and protests at airports after the initiation of the Muslim travel ban.

These were pockets that suggest dissent is very much alive, and people havent caved into efforts to suppress public contention, Zick said.

Early reviews of The First Amendment in the Trump Era have been favorable. Geoffrey R. Stone, the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, says the book makes a truly important contribution to our understanding of the contemporary First Amendment. Nadine Strossen, the John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law at New York Law School and past president of the ACLU, calls the book a must read and says, Zicks book shows how the lessons of the past can helpfully guide us through the unique First Amendment challenges we face today.

Zick says his next project might be about public protests. In the meantime, he is enjoying talking about his latest book and sharing it with others.

I have friends and neighbors who are reading it, and asking questions, Zick says. Those conversations have been gratifying, and I hope others will learn about the First Amendment by reading the book.

Zick graduatedsumma cum laudefrom Indiana University andsumma cum laudefrom Georgetown University Law Center, where he received the Francis E. Lucey, S.J. Award for graduating first in his class. While at Georgetown, he was a Notes and Comments editor of theGeorgetown Law Journal. Following law school, he was an associate with the law firms of Williams and Connolly in Washington, D.C., where he assisted in the defense of congressional term limits in the Supreme Court of the United States, and Foley Hoag in Boston.

Zick served as a law clerk to the Honorable Levin H. Campbell of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He also served as a trial attorney in the Federal Programs Branch of the United States Department of Justice, where he defended the constitutionality and legality of a variety of federal programs and statutes.

A frequent commentator in local, national, and international media regarding public protests and other First Amendment concerns, Zick testified before Congress on the Occupy Wall Street protests and rights of free speech, assembly and petition. He received the Plumeri Award for Faculty Excellence in 2011, 2013 and 2017.

Always be informed. Click here to get the latest news and information delivered to your inbox

Read the original post:
W&M professor's new book examines the First Amendment in the Trump era - WYDaily

NELSON COUNTY, Va. (WVIR/WHSV) Nelson County became the latest locality in Virginia to declare itself a Second Amendment sanctuary on Tuesday afternoon.

In a 4-1 vote, the Nelson County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution, similar to that which has been passed by over 40 other localities, in support of their citizens' Second Amendment rights.

The Nelson County courthouse was packed with people there for the decision, but even before the hearing, the night before, poor weather didnt stop people from packing the parking lot at the courthouse advocating for it in a rally.

"We don't have anybody carrying weapons, nobody's in tactical gear. We're just sane Americans and we just like to hunt we like to shoot guns. Its all legal and we want everybody to know that we're normal folks, organizer Don Heres said.

Nelson County's decision on Tuesday followed multiple similar decisions made Monday night. In the Shenandoah Valley, Shenandoah County's board voted unanimously to adopt a resolution to become a Second Amendment sanctuary.

"They and we want to send a loud signal to the General Assembly and the governor that they do not want these restrictive gun laws to be passed," said Shenandoah County supervisor Brad Pollack.

Also approving similar resolutions Monday night to become Second Amendment Sanctuaries were the city of Galax, the town of Grottoes, the town of Rocky Mount, Rockbridge County, and Bedford County.

This movement has spread across the 5th District, where almost half of the counties already have passed such a resolution, 5th District Congressman Denver Riggleman said.

Riggleman sent out a video message on Monday night urging the board of supervisors to support the resolution.

The Second Amendment is a Constitutional right for all Americans that should not be infringed, and I stand with all those who are exercising their First Amendment right to free speech on this important issue," Riggleman said.

Nelson Supervisor Jesse Rutherford says he feels the discussion is bringing communities across the commonwealth closer together.

For the first time, I feel like we're coming together as a community on the issues that matter, and of course I want to recreate this energy in many other aspects, whether that's education or the drug crisis."

Also voting Monday night to become a Second Amendment Sanctuary were the city of Galax, the town of Grottoes, the town of Rocky Mount, Rockbridge County, and Bedford County.

Democrat leaders have said the concept is unnecessary.

"If you look at what we're doing, I don't think it infringes on anybody's Second Amendment rights," said State Senator John Edwards, a Democrat from Roanoke.

In the Shenandoah Valley, Page County and Augusta County have already voted to adopt similar resolutions in recent weeks.

The Rockingham County Board of Supervisors will hear from the public on the topic on Wednesday, Dec. 11.

The city of Staunton is not planning a specific hearing on the topic, but the city's sheriff recently called on the public to attend an upcoming city council meeting to make their voices heard.

Many other localities are still in the process of discussing taking the step.

The concept of becoming a 'Second Amendment Sanctuary' is essentially one in which counties, cities, or towns vote to adopt a resolution declaring their intent that public tax money in their jurisdiction not be used for any measures that violate the Second Amendment.

The movement a conservative spin on 'sanctuary cities,' which vowed not to work with ICE to deport undocumented immigrants began shortly after the election earlier this month in which Democrats won full control of the Virginia General Assembly for the first time in decades.

Many people in areas that voted along conservative lines believe that their constitutional rights may be threatened under a Democratic-controlled legislature.

Not many bills have been filed for Virginia's 2020 session yet, but one gun control bill has been proposed by a Democrat that's created a stir on social media and pushed the conversation on guns: SB 16, which would make it a Class 1 misdemeanor "to import, sell, barter, or transfer any firearm magazine designed to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition" and expand the definition of "assault firearm" under Virginia law, prohibiting anyone from possessing a gun that meets the new definition of "assault firearm." Possessing or transporting a gun under the new definition of an "assault firearm" would become a Class 6 felony.

Senate Bill 18 would raise the age for purchasing a firearm in Virginia to 21 and require mandatory background checks for any transfer of firearms, instructing State Police to establish a process for people to obtain the background checks.

To counter possible gun control laws, the concept of becoming a 'Second Amendment sanctuary' means that a county expresses its intent that its public funds not be used to restrict Second Amendment rights.

The resolutions aren't legally binding, and any challenge that would result to laws passed next year would go to the courts, but the resolutions put forth a public stance on behalf of counties' or cities' citizens.

Read more from the original source:
Nelson County board joins dozens of others to become a 2nd Amendment sanctuary - WHSV