Category Archives: First Amendment

I recently took the photo that accompanies todays column on Swick Road off Route 89 in Romulus.

A woman contacted the Finger Lakes Times about the property. She found it offensive and thought it might even be illegal in New York. She says the resident claims to be a deer hunter. She has reported it to the town of Romulus and Seneca County officials.

It is likely not illegal, that is, unless it is regarded as a hate crime or hate speech against blacks being a reference to approval of lynching by the KKK. Then it is not just an ordinary rope.

If we give the home owner the benefit of the doubt, then the question is why keep the nooses hanging year-round knowing they might connote negative impressions to others?

For me, its just another instance of a pervasive attitude that seems to be taking shape culturally all over, where people just are going to do what they want regardless of right, wrong or political correctness.

Some might argue that this type of social and political climate is the result of Novembers presidential election. But the reality is what happens locally more often has a greater affect on peoples lives than anything nationally. And that includes politically.

The photo certainly raises First Amendment issues on both sides of the coin.

Briefly the First Amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For me the First Amendment has very much become a focal point for things happening in the Finger Lakes region.

Lets take a look at the Geneva City Council. Not too long ago Mayor Alcock tried to move the public comment portion of the monthly meeting from the beginning of the session to the end. Since no ones knows how long each council meeting takes, often hours, I feel it was a clever way to stifle the voice of the public.

It was ultimately decided, however, to allow comments at the end and at the beginning with strict time limits imposed.

But that is nothing compared to what the Council did a couple of months ago. Its hard for me to wrap my head around the fact that a new rule was put into place that does not allow members of the public to address council members by name with their issues or complaints.

One of the guidelines from the current Rules and Procedures for Geneva City Council requires that All remarks shall be addressed to City Council as a whole and not to any individual member thereof.

I remind everyone it is 2017.

What may be a great example of political hypocrisy happened at a fairly recent meeting. Councilman Paul DAmico raised his concerns and was critical of city resident Jim Meaney and his website Geneva Believer, which often challenges the actions of Geneva city government. This when Meaney, who was at the meeting, was unable to directly address DAmico.

For a more detailed look at this issue go to genevabeliever.wordpress.com/author/geneva believer.

Now lets look at Seneca Falls Town Board meetings. Not only are signs banned from being brought into the meetings but if someone has a visual aid to show at the podium during their allotted time they are prevented from presenting it.

As a way to further restrict the publics right to free expression, they are holding the latest meetings in a room that only fits 80 people.

I have gone to several of the board meetings regarding the landfill issue. People certainly are passionate about the issue but never did I find it out of control nor inappropriate. Since the space in the new municipal building can only hold 80 people why not move the meetings to a larger venue that can accommodate more people if there is that much interest in an issue?

In a move that I feel is solely about control, a new rule also is now in place in Seneca Falls that does not allow anyone to stand unless speaking at the podium.

Again, I remind everyone it is 2017.

In Yates County the race for district attorney is once again getting down and dirty. Free speech is one thing but when one opponent distributes what are being considered false allegations against his opponent is another thing all together. That same candidate filed sworn statements under oath that his residency is at one address, and the petitions he filed state he lives at a completely different address a big no-no.

I cant leave Wayne County out. Even though New York State guidelines clearly state in Article 3 Election Officials, Statewide Provisions that local election officials are to establish rules allowing the admission of news media representatives to the area of the polling place where the canvass of ballots cast can be directly observed, the county Board of Elections has banned photographers from polling places the past few election days.

Once again, I remind everyone it is 2017.

See the article here:
THE BIGGER PICTURE: First Amendment issues - Finger Lakes Times

Many LGBT people who run in leftie circles were pleased with last months ejection of women carrying Star of David pride flags from Chicagos Dyke March. Seeing the intersectionality between lesbian equality and Palestinian rights, they didnt want any hint of support for Israel at their event, even if only vaguely via symbols carried by Jewish women.

Though that clash appeared spontaneous, the coordinators of a Slut Walk in Chicago next month have Tweeted their intention to follow suit: We still stand behind Dyke March Chicagos decision to remove the Zionist contingent from their event, & we wont allow Zionist displays at ours.

These radical lesbian and feminist organizers insist that in a free country they have the right to control their message and theyre correct. Constitutional jurisprudence on this the freedom of association and assembly is clear: any organization has the right to exclude groups and even whole classes of people from its membership and its events if it feels welcoming them would dilute its message.

The irony, though, is that the Dyke March would not have the freedom to expel people it considers Zionists without two important Supreme Court cases from twenty years ago in which get this the people suing for the right to participate were gay themselves.

In 1995, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston that St. Patricks Day officials had the right to exclude gay and lesbian contingents if they felt including them would change their message. Since the organizers were overwhelmingly pre-Pope Francis Catholics, practitioners of a lifestyle they considered sinful were not welcome.

Writing on behalf of all his colleagues, Justice David Souter wrote One important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide what not to say.

The gay groups couldnt cry discrimination. Free expression was more important.

Five years later, in Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, a sharply divided Court found that the First Amendment allowed private organizations like the Boy Scouts to exclude a gay person if the presence of that person affects in a significant way the groups ability to advocate public or private viewpoints.

Again, the Supreme Court found that gay would-be Scouts and Scoutmasters could not hide behind allegations of discrimination in forcing an organization to accept them.

Which bring us back to Chicagos Dyke March. Had those two Court decisions gone the other way, the Jewish lesbians booted from the event could have sued for the right to participate.

Theres been a long-term war between discrimination claims and First Amendment freedoms. Because the gay community lost two battles at the turn of the millennium, LGBT groups are now free to tailor their messages by excluding outsiders.

Heres hoping theyll lose the next battle, too. The Supreme Court is about to consider a third clash between non-discrimination laws and the First Amendment (this time, both free expression and the free exercise of religion). Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission will determine whether the government can force people who service weddings to use their creative endeavors in a way that treats all marriages equally.

As were seeing in Chicago, our civil liberties dont change when the parties switch sides. As the LGBT community ponders its stance on the wedding cake controversy, it might remember that freedoms funny. You never know when youre going to need it.

David Benkof is a columnist for the Daily Caller. Follow him on Twitter (@DavidBenkof) and Muckrack.com/DavidBenkof, or E-mail him at [emailprotected].

Go here to read the rest:
Gays Love The First Amendment Except When They Don't - The Daily Caller

Janine Jackson interviewed Mara Verheyden-Hilliard about the right to protest for the July 14, 2017, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

MP3 Link

Janine Jackson: A recent popular op-ed called on those engaged in resisting the Trump administration to stop counting so much on lawyers. "The fate of the nation cannot be left in the hands of the courts," the piece, written by a lawyer, argued, and that's solid advice. Popular action is what historically has moved the country forward.

But when people do go into the street and are arrested, what then? When they put their bodies on the line and the state creates a new law to criminalize that resistance, what then? Like it or not, the law is still one of the bigger tools in the box for Americans. So what does and doesn't it do for us in the present moment?

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard is an activist and attorney. She's co-founder and executive director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund. She joins us now by phone from Washington, DC. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard: Thank you for having me.

Well, I'd like to start, if we could, with an update on the J-20, those arrested in inauguration protests in DC, who are facing what I've heard called unprecedented charges for demonstrators, felony charges that could lead to 75, 80 years in prison. One of those still facing charges is journalist Aaron Cant, now at the Santa Fe Reporter, who has written for FAIR. We talked about the case in January. What should we know now about this ongoing story?

This case is really of extraordinary proportions, when you look at what the government is doing to people who are engaged in protests on the first day that Trump took office. And it's really in its own context significant, too, because of the major shift in policing in Washington, DC, which we believe is intended to send a signal.

What's happened now is more than 200 people were swept up in a dragnet arrest by the police, and this occurred after the police had followed the demonstration for, by their own account, approximately half an hour, while there were some people who broke windows, only a handful of people. And rather than going in and arresting the people for whom they had probable cause to arrest, the police waited that arbitrary time, tracked and detained 200 people. And so they swept up demonstrators, passers-by, journalists, anyone who's in proximity, anyone who is chanting and protesting.

And then they undertook this mass prosecution with the United States Attorney's Office here in the District of Columbia, in which people are being threatened with, as you've mentioned, jail time that is decades and decades long, really a lifetime of jail time, with these felony charges. They are charging people en masse with crimes that may have happened, in terms of property damage, but charging everyone with crimes without particularized probable cause, without being able to point to a person and say, you committed this act and so we're charging you for this act. They're charging everyone in the vicinity for being in proximity.

This is extremely dangerous; it sets the stage that for any demonstration, if anyone commits a criminal act, an act of property damage, whether that be a protestor or, frankly, a police agent provocateur, the police can now use this as license, or they wish to, to sweep up everyone else around them.

This is what we talked about before. It's not a crime, now, is it, to be in proximity to other people who break the law in conjunction with First Amendment activities?

Of course it's not, and it cannot be. And the First Amendment has always stood for that, in fact, you cannot criminalize a person for the acts of another. And particularly in the context of the First Amendment, when it's an issue where the connection is that there may be a sympathy of political views, one cannot do that. There are cases dating back, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware and others, the courts said you have to act with precision. You cannot say that just because people have a similar point of view, or may have similar political goals, that those who carry out illegal acts or acts of violence in pursuit of those goals, that those acts can be attributed to the others who do not.

Right. These charges, at the level they're at, it feels new, but we know that the effort to repress First Amendment expression is not new. The Supreme Court last month rejected a First Amendment case that dates from years back, Garcia v. Bloomberg. Can you tell us about that and how it relates?

The Garcia v. Bloomberg case comes from the Occupy demonstration of 2011, when 700 people were peacefully marching, compliant with police orders, there was no violence, and as people marched, the police escorted the march. The police themselves closed the Brooklyn Bridge roadway to vehicular traffic. The police and police commanders themselves opened up the roadway to pedestrian traffic. It is the police and police commanders who led the demonstrators onto the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge, and once those demonstrators had flowed and followed behind the lead of the police, the police stopped the march, trapped them from behind, mass-arrested 700 people.

When we litigated this case, we won at the District Court level, we won at the Second Circuit, in fact. And then Mayor de Blasio, who had taken office, frankly, running on an Occupy ticket, had the court reevaluate the ruling, and the court, in an extraordinary measure, reversed itself. And we took this case up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court just last month determined that they would not hear it.

Obviously, lots of folks are taking their lead from this, and kind of joining on this bandwagon. We have a spate of anti-protest legislation around the country, even UN experts are issuing alarmed statements now. Some 20 states have passed or tried to pass laws allowing protesters to be charged with conspiracy, increasing penalties for blocking streets, even protecting drivers who run protesters over, banning masks and hoodies. I mean, is anyone really confused that the intent of these rules is to quash dissent, and doesn't that thinly veiled intent matter?

It's clear that there is an effort around the country to try, through legal means -- although we would consider illegal means -- to curtail people's fundamental First Amendment rights to gather together in the streets, to be able to speak out in unified action.

I do think, as much as we're seeing these kinds of restrictions imposed and these rulings, that at the same time it can obviously have a chilling effect on people, the reality is that people do always come out and people will continue to come out. And while this may be intended to have a chilling effect, it is really crucial that people stand up and speak out for what they believe in. And I do think the reason that we're seeing these is because there is a growing recognition that there really is this fire of people, these embers burning, where we keep seeing people come up and demonstrating for what they believe in. We're seeing so many more people entering political life, even since the election of Donald Trump. People are taking to the streets, protesting, who never protested before.

So while we're faced with what is I think overt repression, both in terms of these felony prosecutions, these state laws, these court rulings, we also are faced with the fact that there are millions of people who are engaging in political protest and political organizing who have never done so before, and that's a force that really can't be stopped.

We've been speaking with Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund. Find them online at JusticeOnline.org. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, thank you very much for joining us today on CounterSpin.

Thank you for having me.

Read the original:
There's an Effort Around the Country to Curtail People's Fundamental First Amendment Rights - Truth-Out

The ACLU of Maine claims Governor Paul LePage is violating the First Amendment with some of his actions on social media. (WGME)

AUGUSTA (WGME) - The ACLU of Maine claims Governor Paul LePage is violating the First Amendment with some of his actions on social media.

The issue is the governor's official Facebook page.

It has posts about the governor and first lady, links to videos of the governor giving speeches, everything you'd expect from the governor on Facebook.

But, the governor's office says they have nothing to do with that Facebook account, which is verified by Facebook.

The page itself says it's run by volunteers who don't work for the governor, or state government at all.

The ACLU says the Facebook page has been deleting comments and blocking people who disagree with the governor's opinion.

They believe those actions are in violation of the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech.

Monday, the ACLU of Maine sent the governor a letter, asking him to stop what they call censorship on his Facebook page.

They say the governor shouldn't get to decide who speaks and who doesn't, but there is often some confusion because social media is a relatively new forum for public speech.

They believe there are court cases that set a precedent.

The ACLU has given the governor two weeks to reply to their letter, they say if they dont respond they may take him to court.

Read the original here:
ACLU claims Gov. LePage is violating First Amendment - WGME

Wrong-headed

The Daily Press Editorial Board's July 23 stance, "Foundation of our freedom," is one of the most vividly foolish analyses of recent times. The thesis that President Donald Trump's criticism of today's press and media is an assault on the constitutional rights of a "foundation of our freedom," the free press.

In fact, President Trump has engaged in no such attack against the First Amendment right of a free press. His criticisms of the press are directed at the content of what many of today's journalists and publishers print, not at the constitutional rights of journalists and institutions to publish what they choose.

If his criticisms of the press threaten the very institution of the free press, then the fusillade of criticism by the press against President Trump threatens the institution of the presidency.

I doubt that any news agency would admit to that outrage.

Randolph Scott

Newport News

Credibility matters

The July 23 editorial, "Foundation of our freedom," taking to task those who undermine one of this country's basic freedoms, was factual, well-stated and critical for citizens to read at this time in our country's continuing efforts to be credible.

By attacking our First Amendment rights, our efforts to remain a beacon to others is threatened. The First Amendment, whether we agree or not agree, allows us to express ourselves through the written word, protests, bumper stickers, yard signs, etc.

Fake news is not included in the First Amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution.

Jo-Ann L. Mahony

Hampton

View post:
July 25 Letters: First Amendment - Daily Press

By Mike Farrell Special to NKyTribune

The Scripps Howard First Amendment Center is looking for a Kentuckian who is a champion of the First Amendment.

The center in the College of Communication and Informations School of Journalism and Media at the University of Kentucky is requesting nominations for its annual James Madison Award. The award, created in 2006, honors the nations fourth president, whose extraordinary efforts led to the passage and ratification of the Bill of Rights.

The Madison Award recognizes someone who has worked in one or more of these areas: open government and open records; promotion of the watchdog role of the press; defense against government or private censorship; or robust debate in the marketplace of ideas.

Nominees must have significant ties to Kentucky, and their efforts must have resulted in the preservation or expansion of freedom of the press and/or freedom of speech. Dedication to the First Amendment principle of free expression is not accomplished in a days work but rather a lifetime. Thus the award recognizes a long-term commitment to such ideals.

The deadline for nominations is Sept. 1.

Honorees do not have to be journalists. Nominees may include, for example, educators, lawyers, judges, scholars, librarians, students or ordinary citizens. The most deserving recipient will be someone who has made a significant contribution regardless of how much public attention it has received.

The nominator should submit a letter identifying the nominee, listing the nominees address, phone number and position, and explain why the nominee would be a worthy recipient. The letter should detail the specific efforts taken on behalf of First Amendment rights and should discuss obstacles and difficulties as well as the impact of the nominees efforts. The nominator may include up to three letters of support as well as other materials such as published or broadcast information.

Entries will be reviewed by a committee that will include previous winners and the director of the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center. The committee will have the option of not selecting a recipient if it does not believe any candidate is deserving.

The award will be presented at the annual First Amendment Celebration, 6 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 28, in the William T. Young Library auditorium on the university campus.

Nominations should be sent to Mike Farrell, Scripps Howard First Amendment Center, School of Journalism and Media, 120 Grehan Building, Lexington, KY 40506-0042, or emailed to farrell@uky.edu.

Mike Farrell is director of the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center and a co-founder of the NKyTribune.

Go here to see the original:
Scripps Howard First Amendment Center seeking nominations for 2017 James Madison Award - User-generated content (press release) (registration)

A lesbian couple says that they were looking for a wedding dress two weeks ago, but all they found in one shop was bigotry.

Shannon Kennedy and Julie Ann Samanas visited W.W. Bridal Boutique in Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, with Julie Anns sister to prepare for their March, 2018, wedding.

They were given a form to fill out, and thats where the bridal shop owner found out that they were a same-sex couple.

We filled out the form that said Brides name, Budget and then where it said Groom, we crossed it out and wrote Bride and put Shannons name down, Julie Ann told Philadelphia Gay News.

They handed the form in to one of the employees, who asked them if the dress was for a same-sex wedding. She said, I dont know if youve heard, but were Christian and we dont believe in that; our faith doesnt let us believe in that, Shannon said.

Then they left the boutique. I think we were kind of in shock, Shannon said.

Julie Ann posted about the discrimination on Facebook and received a lot of support.

The bridal shop also posted a message to Facebook that they have since deleted. According to the Philadelphia Gay News, the message said, The owners of W.W. Bridal Boutique reserve the rights afforded to them by the First Amendment of the Constitution to live out our lives according to our faith. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. We will continue to serve our customers based on the tenets of our faith.

Pennsylvania has no state-wide law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Read more:
Bridal shop refuses lesbian couple and cites the First Amendment - LGBTQ Nation

Underneath the myriad political stories dominating the news sucking up time and energy like traffic on a Los Angeles freeway, a culture war ripples like an earthquake fault line underneath our feet. Religious liberty, however unpretentious and boring it may appear to be, remains a pressing issue on the importance of societal well-being. Last week, there was another victory for schools associated with all faiths.

Joanne Fratello was the principal of St. Anthony School. As such, she led students in religious activities such as prayer, mass, and encouraging religious-based curriculum. The school eventually did not renew Fratello's contract when they determined she was not advancing the school's Catholic values.

So she sued. Her lawyer claimed the school was not allowed to hire a principal who would promote the Catholic faith at St. Anthony School.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the school, announced that a New York court recently ruled St. Anthony School and the Roman Archdiocese of New York "can choose a principal who shares their faith." Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel at Becket, a nonprofit religious liberty law firm, said, "The court saw right through this blatantly anti-Catholic lawsuit, agreeing with the Supreme Court that the church, not the state, should pick religious leaders."

It was clear in the opposing trial lawyer's arguments he was vehemently opposed to religious freedom. He "accused the Catholic Church of being "dangerous to society," the Russian Orthodox Church as "indoctrinating children with Stalinist communism," and the Supreme Court's unanimous decision as an aid to "potential jihadists.'" Such rhetoric is not only divisive, even for a lawyer, but more importantly has no place in a court of law when the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In the decision, which went to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the court ignored the opposing counsel's illogical bluster and instead said there is historical precedent for this case when "a stammering Moses was chosen to lead the people, and a scrawny David to slay a giant." That a New York appellate court would cite centuries-old Jewish history for a 2017 religious liberty case should make any First Amendment fanatic's heart skip with glee even as it no doubt filled opposing counsel with disdain for religious history.

This aligns with a similar decision the Supreme Court unanimously decided five years ago, when the state tried to intervene with a Lutheran school about what kind of leaders the school could choose.

Even though religious liberty cases keep popping up in the court system nationwide, it's heartening to see (for people of all faith or no faith) that the First Amendment remains authoritative and secure.

That said, when cases like this, where a woman sues a religious school because she believes she was unlawfully fired because that school reserved the right to hire someone who promotes their religious values, reaches an appellate court, religious liberty advocates must remain vigilant.

Nicole Russell is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota. She was the 2010 recipient of the American Spectator's Young Journalist Award.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Read more:
Even in (religious liberty) victory, First Amendment advocates must ... - Washington Examiner

When documentary filmmaker Brian Knappenberger set out to make a film about Hulk Hogans lawsuit against Gawker Media, he didnt fully realize the impact of the trial on the future of journalism. It wasnt until the revelation that Peter Thiel was behind thisaka bankrolling Hogans lawsuitthat he realized suddenly this was a very different story, this was about how very wealthy individuals could silence their critics.

Knappenbergers past films, Robert Scheer notes, talk about the possibilities for good and evil in the internet, and his latest, Nobody Speak: Hulk Hogan, Gawker, and the Trial of a Free Press, is no exception. In this weeks episode of KCRWs Scheer Intelligence, Knappenberger sits down with Scheer for a discussion of freedom of the press in the age of Donald Trump, and the future of online journalism.

I found the Hulk Hogan/Gawker case to be really compelling just by itself. It was the first time a sex tape case like this had ever gone to trial, and there was this kind of veneer of tabloid sensationalism to it. You could tell that there were some bigger-picture things going on, Knappenberger says. There were some, I think, really important First Amendment versus privacy issues happening here, and so I thought that was just really, really interesting.

The movie has resonance beyond whether you like Gawker or not, Scheer says. Its really a question of whats going to happening now with the free press, when you have all this money sloshing around that can punish people, and you have a president who seems to be quite hostile to the press.

Knappenberger goes on to explain how Trump has drastically impacted freedom of the press, and notes that Thiel also financially supported Trumps presidential campaign. I think theyre kindred spirits, certainly, in their hatred of the media, he says.

So how does Knappenberger feel about the future of the free press, especially considering the media consolidation happening under companies like Sinclair Broadcast Group?

Theres a lot of examples, and troubling examples, of big money in news and in media. Theres no question about that, he says. I think what were seeing here in the last year, and what Im responding to in the film, is the beginning of this stuff really ratcheting up, and the stakes getting higher and higher.

Listen to the full interview in the player above. Find past editions of Scheer Intelligence here.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

See more here:
'Nobody Speak': How Billionaires Are Silencing the First Amendment - HuffPost

But Candy Lab, maker of the AR game Texas Rope 'Em, sued the county and claimed that the ordinance was a First Amendment violation. They also asked the courts for an injunction of the rule before the lawsuit goes to trial next April, which a district judge granted on Thursday. In the ruling, the judge said, "Greater injury will be inflicted upon [Candy Labs] by the denial of injunctive relief than will be inflicted upon [Milwaukee County] by the granting of such relief."

Milwaukee County has argued that this isn't a First Amendment violation because the game and its makers don't have First Amendment rights. "Texas Rope 'Em is not entitled to First Amendment protection because it does not convey any messages or ideas. Unlike books, movies, music, plays and video games mediums of expression that typically enjoy First Amendment protection Texas Rope 'Em has no plot, no storylines, no characters and no dialogue," said Milwaukee County in its motion to dismiss the case. It also claims that the game isn't protected by the amendment because it constitutes illegal gambling.

The permit Milwaukee County began demanding treats AR gaming like a special event, requiring start and end times, expected numbers of participants, portable restroom supply and fees for things like garbage collection. All of which seem rather ridiculous to ask of a game developer.

In response to the judge's injunction approval, Candy Lab's attorney told Ars Technica, "I think it's a huge win for the medium of augmented reality as a whole. It's a strong affirmation that AR is a medium for creative expression."

Read the rest here:
First Amendment suit halts anti-'Pokmon Go' law - Engadget