Category Archives: First Amendment

One employee walking by sternly asked Greene not to film her. I didnt give nobody permission, she said. A public affairs officer with the hospital stopped them to ask questions about why they were filming, eventually prodding them about what news agency they work for after Dorrell claimed they were gathering footage for broadcast.

Free press, Dorrell responded.

After about 15 minutes, a police officer arrived, saying he had received a call expressing concern about them filming in the hallways. After a short conversation, he told the men they could continue to film as long as they didnt film patients or sensitive areas before walking off, leaving them to their own devices.

Thats exactly what we want, Dorrell said. What would be even better is if we had no contact whatsoever.

After about an hour inside the hospital, and nearly one-dozen interactions with staff and patients alike, the audit ended. And Dorrell, hanging up his camera, was satisfied with what he found.

Big pass, he said. They did great.

There are about a half-dozen auditors with sizable audiences and regular auditing regimens scattered across South Carolina, though the advent of the smartphone age makes the true number impossible to monitor.

And in the years since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the ranks of their movement have been growing steadily, with First Amendment tests becoming a regular feature of municipal life in towns big and small.

Starting in 2020, we've had an increase in First Amendment audit activity in South Carolina, Eric Shytle, general counsel for the Municipal Association of South Carolina, said in an interview. Many South Carolina jurisdictions have had First Amendment auditors come. And many of them are local.

Many of the appearances are benign, with some lasting only minutes. Some auditors dont speak to anyone unless spoken to. Others, when questioned, cite state or federal statutes allowing them to film, and proceed with their activities unmolested until they eventually decide to leave.

Read more:
The amateur cameramen testing the limit of free speech in SC | News - The Post and Courier

For years, the fossil fuel industry has maintained that the First Amendment protects its right to mislead the public about the climate crisis, but that criticism and protest of its operations violates the law. Now, one of the industrys preferred law firms which has long been recognized for its defense of the First Amendment is arguing both sides of this issue in court.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher represents oil giant Chevron in lawsuits brought by dozens of state and local governments to hold the company accountable for deceiving consumers and the public about its products central role in climate change. (You may also recognize Gibson Dunn as the firm that accused U.S. attorney Steven Donziger and his Ecuadorian plaintiffs of racketeering after they defeated Chevron in Ecuadors courts.) As the evidence of Big Oils long-standing campaigns of climate denial piles up, and the cases inch closer to trial, the firm is deploying a defense that seeks to protect its clients ability to mislead the public.

Chevron and other oil companies statements about climate change, Gibson Dunn has argued, constitute First Amendment protected political speech or speech concerning public opinion and policy. The First Amendment bars tort liability based on speech attempting to influence public support for climate policies, reads one motion, authored by Gibson Dunn and local counsel in October 2023, to dismiss a case that the state of New Jersey brought against Chevron and other oil majors.

Under that logic, companies could lie to us about anything, and just say because we think its political, because we think its important to policy, then we get to lie about it, said Amanda Shanor, an assistant professor and First Amendment scholar at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. We would live in a very different and far more dangerous and less prosperous society [if that were the case], which is why in general the courts have been underwhelmed by these types of arguments.

Gibson Dunn is a favorite firm of fossil fuel companies aside from Chevron, it has represented a veritable whos who of the industry, including the American Petroleum Institute, Energy Transfer, Enbridge, ConocoPhillips, Occidental, and many more. But the firm is perhaps even better known for its First Amendment record. Ted Boutrous, the lead lawyer representing Chevron in its defense against climate liability cases, famously represented CNN reporter Jim Acosta when he was thrown out of the White House press room by former President Donald Trump. And his colleague Ted Olson argued and won the most seminal corporate free speech case of the last 20 years, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the floodgates to dark money in U.S. politics.

The firm is not historically known for arguing against free speech rights. But thats exactly what its now doing on behalf of pipeline company Energy Transfer, in a landmark lawsuit intended to silence the fossil fuel industrys critics.

In July 2023, Gibson Dunn began representing Energy Transfer in a case filed in North Dakota against Greenpeace US and individuals who protested against the Dakota Access Pipeline on the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation. The firm had already helped Energy Transfers subsidiary, Dakota Access LLC, defend the pipelines continued construction against separate legal challenges brought by local tribal leadership in 2016. But Energy Transfers suit, initially filed by law firm Kasowitz, Benson & Torres in 2017, took its defense of the pipeline much further, charging pipeline resistors with violating state and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) laws that could have made them liable for nearly $1 billion in damages.

By the time Gibson Dunn took it over in July 2023, Energy Transfers case had already faced major setbacks. In February 2019, a federal judge threw out the companys original lawsuit. A week later, Energy Transfers lawyers from Kasowitz, Benson & Torres filed a new case under state defamation law in North Dakota, which has no anti-SLAPP legislation that defendants can invoke to get suits like these dismissed. Defendants protests and statements against the pipeline, the new complaint argued, amounted to an unlawful, malicious, and coordinated attack that was designed to inflict damage, cause delay, defame Energy Transfer and Dakota Access, and disrupt Energy Transfer as much as possible.

Advocates and experts say the case, which campaigners have been fighting for seven long years, is a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP a tactic oil and gas companies are increasingly using to suppress dissent through lengthy legal processes intended to intimidate critics and diminish their resources.

This isnt just Greenpeace on trial its the movement on trial, Deepa Padmanabha, legal counsel for Greenpeace US, said. The thought is that if they can successfully silence an organization like Greenpeace US, that will have a ripple effect and smaller groups and individuals wont dare speak out. The precedent that the fossil fuel industry is trying to set around protest and protest liability is so dangerous that, if successful, it is difficult to envision how this wont have a chilling effect, she said.

Gibson Dunn did not respond to requests for comment.

In November 2023, Energy Transfer targeted Indigenous and environmental justice activists with third-party subpoenas, requesting documents and appearances at depositions, Padmanabha said. Those subpoenas havent yet been made public.

Greenpeace has become a favorite target of the fossil fuel industry as it fights back against increasing climate protests all over the world; the group has been specifically cited in industry-backed efforts to criminalize protest in Australia, Canada, and the United States. And Gibson Dunn increasingly seems to be the law firm the industry is looking to for help in these efforts. As Gibson Dunn partner Randy Mastro told the American Lawyer more than a decade ago, [w]e are the firm that clients in distress have turned to when they are facing their worst problems, or when they have in fact faced defeat.

Gibson Dunn has long honed the skill of muzzling its opponents. In the early 2000s, the firm defended Dole in a lawsuit brought by Nicaraguan banana workers whod been exposed to a toxic pesticide, DBCP, that rendered them sterile. Gibson Dunn lawyers including Boutrous, who now represents Chevron worked with Dole to develop a strategy Doles general counsel called the kill step: reportedly enticing witnesses to accuse their legal opponents of fraud.

Gibson Dunn revived that strategy for Chevron in 2011, filing a civil RICO lawsuit targeting human rights attorney Steven Donziger and his Ecuadorian plaintiffs after they won a major judgment against the company for its toxic pollution in the Amazon. Relying heavily on the testimony of a witness whom Chevron paid an annual salary, Gibson Dunn argued that Donziger had won his case by committing fraud. While that witness later recanted much of his testimony, Donziger lost the RICO case, was ordered to pay Chevron hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, had a lien put on his house to cover those fees, and was ultimately disbarred and spent more than two years on house arrest and 45 days in prison. Gibson Dunn also helped Chevron file an investor-state dispute against the government of Ecuador, arguing that Ecuador engaged in a pattern of improper and fundamentally unfair conduct by providing support for the Ecuadorian plaintiffs. As a result, the government of Ecuador currently owes Chevron $2 billion. The Ecuadorian plaintiffs a group of Indigenous people and small farmers from the affected area still dont have clean drinking water, have not been compensated, and are barred from collecting the settlement owed to them in the United States, where Chevron is headquartered and where the bulk of its assets are located.

I think that while everybody deserves a lawyer, Gibson Dunn has a reputation of using strategies that many perceive as abusing the legal system to defend the wealthy at the expense of disempowered people and communities, said attorney Lauren Regan, who has defended her clients against a number of lawsuits by the fossil fuel industry including terrorism charges that Energy Transfer filed against two women for damaging pipeline equipment along the Dakota Access Pipeline in Iowa.

Today, Gibson Dunn is using anti-SLAPP statutes intended to protect advocates and whistleblowers from cases like Energy Transfers to try to get climate cases filed against fossil fuel clients dismissed. The firm has filed anti-SLAPP motions to dismiss lawsuits brought by the states of New Jersey and Delaware, and municipalities including Annapolis, Maryland; Hoboken, New Jersey; and Honolulu, Hawaii. A state court in Hawaii rejected the anti-SLAPP motion in the Honolulu suit, and it is now pending before the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals. Its now the last motion to dismiss arguments that the city and county must contend with before the case can move toward trial.

In most of these motions, Gibson Dunn lawyers invoke an anti-SLAPP law in California, where Chevron is headquartered. Californias anti-SLAPP immunity protects Chevron from suits like Plaintiffs that are based on speech on issues of public concern, Gibson Dunn argues in a motion to dismiss Delawares case.

Its the latest chapter in a decades-long effort to expand free speech rights for corporations while restricting them for people a project of which Gibson Dunn is a key architect. While the idea to create corporate personas that could contribute to public debate and to advocate for free speech protections for them was first sketched out by Mobil Oil executives in the early 1970s, Gibson Dunn has played a major role in solidifying it, particularly with the pivotal and notorious 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.

The Citizens United ruling asserted a First Amendment right for corporations to express their political speech through unlimited spending on communications about elections or political candidates. The ruling laid the groundwork for corporations to be on at least equal footing with citizens when it came to First Amendment rights in what Gibson Dunn lawyer Ted Olsen called a victory for the First Amendment and the right of all Americans to participate in the political process.

Shanor, the First Amendment scholar, said that Gibson Dunn has been at the vanguard of developing aggressive First Amendment arguments to protect companies, trying to turn the First Amendment, constitutional law, and free speech principles including things like anti-SLAPP into corporate protective principles. So in many ways, its not surprising that theyre playing both sides of the coin to shield the fossil fuel companies from liability.

Even Boutrous, the lead lawyer representing Chevron in its First Amendment defense, seems to innately understand the fallacy of his own arguments. Freedom of speech does not mean making knowingly obviously dangerously false statements of fact, the attorney posted to X last year.

Boutrous gained a reputation among some as a fierce advocate for press freedom after litigating against and publicly criticizing former President Trump for his efforts to silence public debate. In 2016, Boutrous promised to represent pro bono anyone Trump sues for exercising their free speech rights. Aside from representing Acosta, he also successfully represented Trumps niece Mary against her uncles efforts to block her memoir. Today, Boutrous sits on the advisory boards of the International Womens Media Foundation and investigative reporting outlets like Reveal, and he has consulted on First Amendment disputes for both CNN and the New York Times.

Haley Czarnek, national director of programs and operations at Law Students for Climate Accountability (LSCA), said Boutrouss status and pro bono work has helped Gibson Dunn develop a sheen of progressiveness that doesnt exist with their work in practice. Several years ago, LSCA urged law school graduates to boycott the firm, citing its defense of fossil fuel companies and its role in the case against Steven Donziger, whose imprisonment, the group said, is a direct result of Gibson Dunns unethical and bullying litigation strategies.

In 2020, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) elected Boutrous to its steering committee. Soon after, at a star-studded virtual ceremony also honoring Dark Money author Jane Mayer, the organization handed Boutrous a Freedom of the Press Award, declaring that the lawyer understands the importance of the First Amendment every bit as much as a journalist does. Chevron was a Legacy Champion sponsor of that awards ceremony, meaning it donated at least $50,000 to the RCFP.

When asked about Boutrouss position at RCFP, Donziger replied that members of its steering committee basically are in bed with a man who makes his living violating the core tenants of the organization.

The same year that RCFP handed out those awards, the group also condemned Energy Transfers effort to subpoena the work of journalists covering protests against its operations at Standing Rock. It described the subpoenas, which could provide evidence for the case helmed by Gibson Dunn, as an attempt to intimidate journalists and silence their sources. In November 2023, RCFP and local news outlets filed an amicus brief asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to deny Energy Transfers attempts to subpoena those journalists and to reverse a lower courts order forcing them to produce a privilege log listing unpublished newsgathering materials.

Boutrous and RCFP did not respond to separate requests for comment.

A five-week trial in Energy Transfers case against the Standing Rock protestors and Greenpeace is scheduled for July 2024.

This piece was co-published by DeSmog and ExxonKnews. ExxonKnews is a project of the Center for Climate Integrity, which has filed amicus briefs in support of Delaware, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia, as well as Baltimore, Honolulu, Imperial Beach, Marin County, Maui, San Mateo County, and Santa Cruz County, in their lawsuits against Chevron and other fossil fuel majors. Emily Sanders, the author of ExxonKnews, had no involvement in the creation or filing of those briefs.

Read more:
The Law Firm Helping Big Oil Weaponize the First Amendment - DeSmog

As chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, Joe Gow was once surely to be remembered for a tenure that oversaw unprecedented enrollment growth and increased first- and second-year student retention rates. His stewardship at the midsize university drew acclaim from colleagues when he announced his decision to step down at the end of the current academic year.

Until recently, not many realized that during the 17 years Gow had been chancellor, hed also been creating pornographic content with his wife and other professionals over the past decade.

UW System President Jay Rothman has since let go of Gow before his expected date and is now threatening to review his status as a tenured faculty member, stating that the former chancellor has caused the university significant reputational harm, according to The New York Times. Rothmans actions have provoked the former chancellor and his wife to accuse the university of violating his First Amendment rights.

Under a pseudonym, Gow and his wife, Carmen Wilson, have uploaded content to OnlyFans and YouTube that involved sexually explicit acts with each other and with professional pornstars. However, Gow and Wilson believe the university is undermining their First Amendment rights since none of their videos identify who they are or UW-La Crosse.

Its not what were about in higher ed, to censor people, Wilson said, according to The Times. If they seek [the content], theyre free to do so.

The Foundation For Individual Rights and Expression, in its recent report, makes the case that the institution may be justified in its ability to dismiss Gow from his position as chancellor due to the high-ranking and public-facing nature of a government-paid position.

But Gow may have a stronger case to retain his tenured faculty position, said FIRE Program Officer Jessie Appleby in an email.

Generally, government employers like UW have greater latitude to regulate the private speech of political appointees and other high-ranking officials who publicly represent the university, but universities do not have the same latitude to discipline faculty for their private speech.

The report mentions a similar U.S. Supreme Court case from 2019, in which it held the government could not fire a federal employee based on her publishing a book under a pseudonym about her work as a phone sex operator. Like Gow, this individual had not deliberately linked her book with her government employment.

He has a strong First Amendment case that UW may not terminate his faculty position based on private speech unrelated to his position as a professor.

Previous instances in which courts ruled that employees could be terminated for their off-duty expression about these illicit acts were due to the fact the concerned individuals intentionally associated their government employment with adult content.

Read the original here:
To what extent is this chancellor's First Amendment rights protected? Experts weigh in - University Business

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

More:
His View: The First Amendment is under fire in today's America - Moscow-Pullman Daily News

Original Article Link: Website terms of use lead to First Amendment lawsuit against San Diego health care district | Courthouse News Service

A health district board member says her free speech rights were violated when she was reprimanded for criticizing a websites terms of use.

While many may blindly accept websites terms of use without even reading them, an elected member of the Palomar Health Districts Board of Directors bristled at the prospect of having to agree to a wide ranging set of rules in order to see the districts web page.

But after Laurie Edwards-Tate criticized the terms of use agreement in an interview with local media, the health district reprimanded her. Now, shes suing the San Diego County-based health district, claiming it violated her First Amendment rights.

In August 2023, the health districts administration added terms of use to their site. If users dont agree to the terms, they cant access any part of the site, including public records like meeting minutes and agendas for board meetings.

If users opt in, they agree to let Palomar Health collect their personal information, to resolve any disputes through arbitration, and to waive their right to bring a class action lawsuit against Palomar, among other things.

A reporter for Voice of San Diego, a local nonprofit news outlet, wrote a story about the new user agreement. For a follow-up story, the reporter spoke to Edwards-Tate, who relayed her concerns that it would be a barrier for people to access the Palomar Health Districts website, and that, to her knowledge, the decision to put the agreement on the site was never brought up in a regular board meeting.

The Voice of San Diego story also pointed out the possibility that the terms of use agreement could violate the Brown Act, a state law that governs public access and participation in public meetings, since Palomar is a public health care district, and the new terms of use may impose a restriction to access public records on the site.

Shortly after the article was published, Edwards-Tate received an email from an attorney representing the chief executive office of Palomar informing her that her comments were being investigated for possible violations of the health districts duty of loyalty and their media policy, which prevents employees from giving their personal opinions to the news outlets without permission from the marketing department. The email also said her comments could be considered under the districts policy as being false or misleading.

Edwards-Tate claims in her lawsuit that the districts policies amount to unconstitutional prior restraint on speech and violate the California Constitutions freedom of speech clause.

I think it all boils down to the right of a public official to speak to their constituents, Edwards-Tate told Courthouse News. The constituents have the right to hear from their public official.

Thelawsuitwas filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California in San Diego on Wednesday.

Edwards-Tate said she was aware the board had plans to upgrade their website, but there was never any discussion, or vote, on the terms of use agreement or how it would affect constituents.

People count on us, count on me, to represent them. When it comes to health care, this is a very serious issue, she said, adding that she is also concerned about how it affects her constituents rights to access public record, or make public comments to be considered at board meetings.

She said she gave the Voice of San Diego a very benign statement, that didnt malign the health district itself.

The districts position here flies in the face of the First Amendment. They are trying to sanction an elected official for telling the people she represents about a policy she disagrees with, wrote Karin Sweigart, one of Edward-Tates attorneys, in a press release. It is hard to think of a more blatant infringement on First Amendment speech than the government telling a legislator they cannot tell their constituents they think a government policy is a bad one.

Palomar Health District did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Original Article Link: Website terms of use lead to First Amendment lawsuit against San Diego health care district | Courthouse News Service

Image Credit: Canva

Read more from the original source:
Website terms of use lead to First Amendment lawsuit against San Diego health care district - San Diego News Desk

Veteran Teacher Sues Hartford Board of Education Over Alleged First Amendment Violation

John Grande, a physical education teacher with over 30 years of experience in Hartford schools, is challenging the Hartford Board of Education and several individuals in a federal lawsuit, sparking conversations on free speech and the enforcement of training policies within educational systems. The individuals include Leslie Torres-Rodriguez, the superintendent of Hartford Public Schools; Edward Wilson Jr., the staff attorney and executive director of internal investigations and security; and Tracy Avicolli, the director of arts and wellness.

Grande alleges that the district violated his First Amendment rights and fabricated evidence against him after he criticized a mandatory Identity and Privilege training session. The lawsuit seeks to expunge a letter of reprimand from his file, secure restitution for his paid time off, and claim monetary damages for interference and deprivation of his First Amendment rights.

Further accusations suggest that school officials engaged in a witch hunt investigation against Grande and conducted a kangaroo court to convict him for his exercise of free speech rights. The veteran teacher contends that the training was part of a broader initiative to introduce critical race theory into the school system. Grande also disputes the language attributed to him by the school district and alleges that the Hartford Federation of Teachers failed to address his complaint about the schools training.

In a related development, Abby Zwerner, a former first grade teacher at Richneck Elementary School in Newport News, Virginia, is suing the school for alleged inaction that could have prevented a classroom shooting incident. The event, which occurred on January 6, 2023, left Zwerner with physical and emotional scars. Despite her lawsuit, the school district maintains that the incident falls under workers compensation. Jeffrey Breit, Zwerners attorney, argued that no teacher should expect such violence in the classroom and that the school board needs to address the issue. The trauma has permanently affected Zwerners life, and her lawsuit continues to make progress.

Visit link:
John Grande Sues Hartford Board Over First Amendment Dispute - BNN Breaking

By Avery Redula

TAMPA, FL. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is under fire for raiding journalist Tim Burkes home by the Florida American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The DOJ seized records Burke had regarding the outtakes of the interview between Tucker Carlson and Ye, the singer and songwriter formerly known as Kanye West. Ye made several offensive and antisemitic statements in this report.

The DOJ justified the raid by alleging Burke violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which protects against hacking and improper computer access. The government asserts Burke was unauthorized to access this interview footage, violating the act and rationalizing the seizure of materials.

The federal government also asserts that Burke is not a journalist because he was not working at a news outlet at the time of obtaining interview footage.

However, Burke has stated he was able to view the footage on Fox News in a way that was publicly and legally accessible. Burke also has a long career and history in journalism.

Several organizations partnered with the ACLU to send a letter to the DOJ to defend Burke and demand justification for the raid.

Within the letter, the ACLU calls upon the government to explain whether or not proper procedures were enacted during the raid. Additionally, since the government asserts Burke is not a journalist, the ACLU said there needs to be clarity on why he is not considered as such in order to protect free speech rights for other journalists not working for a traditional news outlet.

The ACLU asserts this information must be made public, or the public will question if the DOJ is abusing its power and undermining journalists freedom of speech.

The ACLU added, one does not need to work full-time as a journalist in order to engage in protected journalism, that the law protects anyone with a purpose to disseminate information to the public, regardless of whether their own byline is attached.

And its quite common for journalists including freelancers, producers, researchers, editors, news services and consultants to provide research and documents for stories they do not themselves write, or even provide written copy without receiving a byline. That does not deprive them of constitutional protection. Courts have rightly warned against limiting the First Amendments press clause to established media.

Additionally, the letter argues the interview footage should be released to the public, noting, Among other things, Ye made anti-Semitic remarks, which are a matter of public concernouttakes also showed that Carlson and Fox News may have intentionally omitted those portions of the interview to cast Ye in a more sympathetic light. Burke has a history of breaking news of national interest during his long career in journalism.

In the final pages of the letter, ACLU and other organizations demand actions of the DOJ to enact oversight on prosecutors and the judge involved in the case, and investigate whether they followed proper discretion in regards to Burkes first amendment rights and for the consideration of protecting journalistic interests and expression.

The ACLU also submitted an amicus brief to the 11th circuit court of appeals in support of Burke, and similar to the letter, argues the search warrant on Burkes property should be released to the public in order to, preserve press freedoms and increase transparency.

The brief formally argues release of the warrant details will show on whether the government knew Burke was a journalist. If this is the case, said the ACLU, then the federal government was violating policy by failing to provide notice to Burke of the raid of newsgathering materials, as journalists are required to be given notice.

The ACLU also argues for the release of the footage and journalistic material gathered to be returned to Burke, so that he may continue his investigation into Tucker Carlson and Ye. The brief argues this is a violation of Burkes First Amendment rights and instills fear into journalists of legal consequences if they choose to investigate powerful figures.

Organizations such as the Freedom of the Press Foundation agree with the assertions of the ACLU and the infringement of First Amendment rights.

Seth Stern, the advocacy director of this foundation, said, A key function of the press is to report news that might embarrass powerful people and companies. If Burke is being investigated for locating and publicizing publicly available interview outtakes merely because Fox News wouldve preferred the footage remain secret, that poses serious First Amendment problems.

It would be extremely problematic and unconstitutional to criminalize access to publicly available information simply because powerful people would prefer it be kept private. It is antithetical to the Fourth Estates constitutionally-protected function to place a burden on journalists to intuit what publicly-available, newsworthy information public figures want kept secret, and to abide by their wishes, the letter to the DOJ argued. The letter by the ACLU and others noted, their interest is compounded by the nationwide outrage following the August police raid of the Marion County Record based on allegations of computer crimes by its reporters. Given these and other investigations, journalists around the country are left uncertain about whether they could be prosecuted for acts of routine journalism on the mistaken grounds that they violated state or federal computer crime laws.

Go here to see the original:
ACLU Charges FBI Raid on Journalist Tim Burke Violates 1st Amendment Rights - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

Engineers Win Landmark First Amendment Cases Against State Licensing Boards

In an era where freedom of speech is under constant scrutiny, two unlicensed engineers have stood up against the system, challenging the authority of state boards in Oregon and North Carolina, and securing a landmark victory for their First Amendment rights. The cases of Mats Jarlstrom and Wayne Nutt have become symbols of resistance against the suppression of free speech and professional opinion in the field of engineering.

In Oregon, Mats Jarlstrom, an engineer unlicensed in the state, was engaged in an uphill battle against the state licensing board. His research on yellow light timing was met with attempts of suppression, as it underscored the potential danger from shortened yellow light times. These times, allegedly manipulated to increase revenue through traffic citations, posed a significant risk to peoples safety. Despite the boards resistance, Jarlstrom persisted, successfully arguing that his research should not be stonewalled.

Meanwhile, in North Carolina, Wayne Nutt, a retired engineer, faced similar challenges. Despite having a career in chemical engineering from 1967 to 2013, Nutt was warned by the Board of Examiners and Surveyors not to offer his expertise on engineering matters without a professional engineers license. This demand came despite Nutt being exempt from the licensing requirement due to an industrial exception.

Refusing to be silenced, Nutt sued the board, securing representation from the Institute for Justice. A federal court ruled in his favor, stating that his expert opinion is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be legally suppressed by the state. The court cited the boards attempts to stifle Nutts testimony by implying he would be breaking the law as a violation of his First Amendment rights.

Both cases culminated in a resounding affirmation of constitutional rights: the government may regulate the act of engineering, but it cannot regulate the speech of engineers. Through their tenacity, Jarlstrom and Nutt have set a precedent that echoes far beyond their individual cases, marking a significant win for the freedom of speech within the engineering community and beyond.

Visit link:
Engineers Triumph in First Amendment Rights Cases - BNN Breaking

Palestine flag. By Sen Kinane/WMNF News.

By Jim Saunders 2023 The News Service of Florida

TALLAHASSEE Gov. Ron DeSantis and the state university system are trying to fend off lawsuits from pro-Palestinian student groups that allege First Amendment violations amid campus debates about the war between Israel and Hamas.

Attorneys for DeSantis and the university system last week filed documents arguing for the dismissal of the lawsuits and requesting that Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker reject preliminary injunctions sought by the groups Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida and Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of South Florida.

Walker is scheduled to hold a hearing Jan. 26 in Tallahassee.

The UF and USF groups filed the lawsuits in November after university system Chancellor Ray Rodrigues on Oct. 24 issued a memorandum to university presidents linking the groups to the National Students for Justice in Palestine. Rodrigues memo said the national group had released a toolkit supporting Hamas attack on Israel that started the war known as Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.

These (UF and USF) chapters exist under the headship of the National Students for Justice in Palestine, who distributed a toolkit identifying themselves as part of the Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, Rodrigues memorandum said. Based on the National SJPs support of terrorism, in consultation with Governor DeSantis, the student chapters must be deactivated. These two student chapters may form another organization that complies with Florida state statutes and university policies.

The lawsuits contend that Rodrigues directive violated First Amendment rights and are seeking to prevent it from being carried out.

But in documents filed last week arguing against a preliminary injunction, attorneys for Rodrigues and the university systems Board of Governors said UF and USF had not disbanded the groups. They also said Rodrigues memorandum is not enforceable, and the Board (of Governors) cannot deactivate student groups.

The chancellors memorandum is akin to an open letter, much like the dozens of statements released by public officials across the country on the same topic over the last 10 weeks, the documents filed in the UF and USF cases said. The chancellors memorandum is no more actionable than these innumerable statements by other public officials.

In his memorandum, Rodrigues pointed to a state law that bars providing support to terrorist organizations. Attorneys for the university system last week wrote that the memorandum does not purport to prohibit, for example, speech or viewpoints critical of Israel or supportive of Palestinian freedom, nor does it support an inference that university regulations or Florida statutes do not apply equally to all similarly situated groups.

Faced with extraordinary tensions and fear on campuses and troubling indicia of disruption from SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine), the chancellor took a reasonable, proactive step based on policies and laws of general applicability: He exhorted universities to follow their existing legal obligations to ensure SJP chapters do not engage in the unlawful tactics that the national SJP encouraged them to deploy, or in other conduct that would violate university policies or state law, the university systems attorneys wrote in arguments joined by DeSantis.

But the lawsuits said the UF and USF groups do not have formal relationships with the national organization. The UF case said Rodrigues memorandum advances unsubstantiated claims that Floridas SJP chapters have violated the states material support for terrorism statute.

By ordering the deactivation of UF SJP on the basis of its constitutionally protected association with an independent group engaged in constitutionally protected speech, the order stifles UF SJPs pro-Palestinian advocacy on campus at a time when the Palestine-Israel conflict is a matter of vital public discourse and concern, the UF lawsuit said. If allowed to take effect, the deactivation order will deprive UF SJP and its members of the resources, platforms and modes of recruitment that enable it to exist and engage in its mission.

The UF lawsuit, filed by American Civil Liberties Union attorneys, said students on public university campuses have the First Amendment right to speak and associate through the formation of student organizations.

The deactivation order denies UF SJP members the right to collectively speak and associate, the lawsuit said. The deactivation order unconstitutionally censors and penalizes UF SJP on the basis of its First Amendment protected association with NSJP (National Students for Justice in Palestine).

During a Nov. 9 Board of Governors meeting, Rodrigues said the next step on the issue was to seek legal guidance to evaluate some of the positions espoused on behalf of the universities and to gather additional information regarding the student groups compliance with laws and policies. Neither the chancellor nor the board indicated an intent or plan to take any further actions in response, the university systems attorneys wrote last week.

But the student groups lawsuits cited fears that deactivation could still occur.

Debates and protests have occurred on campuses across the country after Hamas Oct. 7 attack and as Israel has bombed Gaza in retaliation. Florida leaders have taken numerous steps to show support for Israel during the war.

Read more from the original source:
Florida disputes the First Amendment lawsuits filed by Students for Justice in Palestine at USF and UF - WMNF

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

The rest is here:
Did UW Board of Regents violate former UWL chancellor's First Amendment rights? An expert weighs in - Channel3000.com - WISC-TV3