Category Archives: First Amendment

The city of Seattle has just embarked on an unprecedented experiment in campaign-finance reform that forces property owners, through a new property tax, to sponsor the campaign contributions of other city residents. The city attracted nationwide attention in 2015 when it passed the first democracy voucher program, which is just now under way. The Pacific Legal Foundation, representing two property owners subject to the tax, has sued the city, arguing that the First Amendment forbids the city from compelling property owners to fund viewpoints they oppose.

At the start of this year, Seattle began mailing out four $25 vouchers to registered voters. Non-voters and even non-citizens can receive vouchers, too, upon request to the city. The vouchers can be used for only one purpose: campaign contributions for local elected office.

The idea is to give everyone a voice in politics but at whose expense? Heralding the arrival of the vouchers, The Stranger a left-leaning Seattle paper published a gleeful article: How to Get Your Free Money from Seattles New Public Campaign Financing System. It sported an image of money falling from the sky into the hands of waiting voters.

But that money doesnt rain down from above; it comes from the pockets of property owners, who are designated as the cash cows for other peoples political opinions.

This compelled subsidy for political donations violates the First Amendment. Freedom of speech embodies not only the right to speak, but also its corollary: the right not to speak. This includes the right to refrain from funding the speech of another person. After all, money talks, and when your money goes to promote a cause you dont believe in, youre the victim of political ventriloquism. The U.S. Supreme Court has called this a bedrock principle of the First Amendment that, except perhaps in the rarest of circumstances, no person in this country may be compelled to subsidize speech by a third party that he or she does not wish to support. This speech tax, by forcing Seattle property owners to support the political views of their neighbors, tramples upon this bedrock principle.

The Supreme Court has upheld neutral public campaign funding in the past, but the democracy-voucher program is an altogether different beast. Since voucher recipients decide which candidates get this money based on their political preferences, the speech tax undermines dissenting views and entrenches popular ones. Unlike neutral public campaign-funding schemes, the voucher program smacks of partisan inequality. As the money flows according to the preferences of Seattle residents, candidates who subscribe to the dominant political view will receive the most largesse. Minority candidates will get outfunded. This does not cultivate the equality of ideas that the democracy-voucher program purports to champion quite the opposite, in fact.

Even worse, the property owners compelled to pay for these political donations will tend to be among the crowd with minority viewpoints. Take, for instance, a major political issue in Seattle: rental housing. Seattle is a city of tenants; 54 percent of Seattle households rent. Seattle politicians have catered to this major constituency through recent measures like a renters commission, caps on move-in fees, and the mayors recent proposal to prevent landlords from rejecting renters because of a criminal history. For the most part, these measures clash with landlords political and economic interests.

Yet landlords and other property owners must now foot the bill for political speech that favor these kinds of measures. Take Jon Grants campaign for city council. Grant, the former director of the Tenants Union of Washington State, is a committed tenant advocate. If elected, hell pursue policies such as tenant collective-bargaining rights and rent control that will further undermine landlords interests. Grant has received $129,000 in voucher money, doubtless from many renter constituents. But landlords and other property owners are the real, involuntary source of that money; theyre forced to fund a candidacy at odds with their rights and basic interests.

We shouldnt shrug off this problem just because we might like the viewpoints favored by the vouchers, or because we cant work up sympathy for property owners. Reserving freedom of speech for popular views would obliterate the core purpose of the First Amendment to shelter the dissident. Yet the speech tax forces the dissident to power the megaphone of the majority.

It gets worse. Plenty of mom-and-pop landlords who rent out Seattle property live in surrounding King County. They have a stake in Seattle politics, but as non-residents, they cant receive vouchers themselves. A landlord who has owned a house in Seattle for 20 years cant get vouchers, yet she must pay for the campaign contributions of a University of Washington freshman who moved into the city last month.

We treasure the First Amendment because it upholds human dignity the power to shape our identity by what we believe and express. That dignity is sullied by a government that forces its people to serve as unwilling vessels for beliefs that repel them. As Thomas Jefferson said, To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. The supporters of the voucher program want to force property owners to underwrite partisan political donations in the name of democracy. I dont think that word means what they think that word means.

Ethan Blevins is an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation, representing the challengers to Seattles democracy-voucher program.

See the original post here:
Seattle's 'Democracy Voucher' Plan: Coercive and Unfair | National ... - National Review

The City of Seattle is experimenting with a first-in-the nation program that potentially makes every adult a campaign donor.

Under the democracy voucher program, every resident who is a registered voter has been mailed four $25 vouchers. Only candidates can redeem the vouchers for cash, but first they have to convince people to sign them over, which is why Jon Grant rarely meets someone without asking them for their vouchers.

Under the democracy voucher program, every resident who is a registered voter has been mailed four $25 vouchers. Only candidates can redeem the vouchers for cash, but first they have to convince people to sign them over. (Fox News)

Were funding our campaign through the democracy voucher program, Grant tells a homeowner in the Georgetown neighborhood of Seattle. So far Grants strategy has worked. His campaign has collected more than $200,000. Grant says 95 percent of the money has come from vouchers.

SEATTLE SEDNING VOTERS TAX-FUNDED VOUCHERS TO SPEND ON CAMPAIGNS

I think whats really exciting about this is every voter now has kind of a level playing field, said Grant, each has $100, which is essentially a coupon, that you can give to a candidate that matches your values.

Not everyone is thrilled with the program. Its funded by a property tax worth $30 million over 10 years, which the city calculates will cost the average homeowner $12 per year.

But its not about the amount of money for Mark Elster, a Seattle resident who along with another resident and help from the Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank, has sued to stop the program. Elster does not support any of the candidates running for office and feels his money is providing political speech to those with whom he vehemently disagrees.

With three weeks to go before the primary, only 4 percent of the vouchers have been returned and cashed in by candidates who qualify. (Fox News)

Its a clear violation of First Amendment rights, said Elster. With free speech comes the right not to speak.

SEATTLE GUN TAX FAILURE? FIREARM SALES PLUMMET, VIOLENCE SPIKES AFTER LAW PASSES

Wayne Barnett, executive director of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, would not comment directly on the lawsuit, but defends the voucher program.

Most people have never had a candidate knock on their door and ask them to make a campaign contribution, Barnett said. Its empowering to people in a way theyve never been empowered before.

About 500,000 registered voters were mailed vouchers, but many more people are eligible to receive them if they apply. Non-citizens who are in the country legally cant vote, but they can get $100 worth of vouchers.

Jon Grant makes no apologies for seeking vouchers from everyone. The former director of the Tenants Union, who has been endorsed by the Democratic Socialist party, has collected vouchers from government-subsidized renters, new immigrants and some people living in illegal homeless camps. Its pushed Grant into the fundraising lead and has allowed him to have six paid campaign staffers. Two years ago, when he ran for the same seat against the incumbent, he raised only $75,000 through November and he could pay only one person.

One goal of the democracy voucher program is to reduce the amount and influence of money in politics. In exchange for receiving vouchers, candidates agree to a spending cap. The primary the cap is $150,000, from any combination of vouchers and private donations.

One goal of the democracy voucher program is to reduce the amount and influence of money in politics. In exchange for receiving vouchers, candidates agree to a spending cap. (Fox News)

But the Elections Commission has already lifted the spending cap.

Candidate Teresa Mosqueda, who has raised $100,000 in vouchers and another $85,000 in private donations, asked that the limit be lifted because an opponent who has opted out of the voucher program is raising a lot of private donations. Sarah Nelson, a brewery owner, is supported by the Seattle Chamber of Commerce. Her biggest donor is Amazon.

Four other candidates for City Council want to access vouchers, but havent qualified to receive the money. The bar to qualify is collecting 400 donations of at least $10 and matching signatures. Dr. Hisam Goueli is several dozen signatures short and is frustrated by the system.

I believe in its original intent, Goueli said. The problem is the program has become so cumbersome that its basically tanked our campaign.

With three weeks to go before the primary, only 4 percent of the vouchers have been returned and cashed in by candidates who qualify. Any voucher money that goes unused this year will roll over to the next election cycle.

Dan Springer joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in August 2001 as a Seattle-based correspondent.

See the original post:
Seattle's 'democracy voucher' under fire: 'Clear violation of 1st ... - Fox News

A man is seen with a laptop depicting an image of U.S. president Donald Trump with a Twitter logo displayed in the background in this photo illustration on 2 July, 2017.Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images

President Donald Trump has described himself on Twitter as MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL because of his use of social media. He has extolled the virtues of social media, allowing him to reach 100 million people without being intermediated by the Fake News Media. How presidential, effective, and good for America this novel approach to raw, direct communication is can be debated, but the legality of the presidents blocking Twitter users from receiving or replying to his posts based on their political viewpoints is beyond reasonable debate. It is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

On Tuesday, individuals who have been blocked by the president on Twitter filed a civil action in federal court in New York. That means Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald will soon opine on the presidents unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The complaint alleges that President Trumps Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, has become an important public forum for speech by, to, and about the President and by blocking individuals from receiving and replying to his tweets, the president is engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination prohibited by the First Amendment. Constitution protects certain platforms of communication in order to promote, as the Supreme Court put it, the free exchange of ideas . In a traditional public forum, like a public street or park, or in designated public forums, which are f ms designated by the government as a channel of communication for public debate, speakers can be excluded only when the exclusion is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and the exclusion is narrowly drawn to achieve that interest.

As Ive detailed on the Lawfare blog , although the president has not formally designated the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account as a public forum, this is no mere private account. The presidents own spokesperson, Sean Spicer, has stated that the posts of the president on that account should be considered official statements by the President of the United States . The president uses this account to speak to matters in his official capacitysuch as discussing his meetings with foreign leaders, providing reasons for hiring the FBI director, sharing video of cabinet meetings, and, of course, covfefe. Courts have taken heed; the Court of Appeals cited one of the presidents tweets in determining the purpose of the presidents Travel Ban.

Blocking people from receiving the official statements of the president based on their viewpoints is patently unconstitutional. Moreover, with some 20,000 replies posted to a typical @realDonaldTrump presidential tweet, there is undoubtedly a thriving public forum where citizens are engaging with the president and each other about matters of national importance. To deny an individual or an institution the right to participate in this forum affects not only their right to free speech, but it also affects the rights of the listenersthose individuals and institutions who were deprived of being able to hear the speech that was stifled.

The individual plaintiffs identified in the complaint have all alleged that they have been blocked by the president based on replies they tweeted criticizing the president or his policies. And there are many others that have been similarly blocked. For example, the veteran advocacy group VoteVets, which claims to represent more than 500,000 veterans, reports that it was blocked by the president after it tweeted a criticism of the president and his policies.

The next steps for the president seem clear: Stop engaging in viewpoint discrimination and unblock those individuals and institutions punished for criticizing him or his policies. If he doesnt, the courts will issue a declaration that his actions are unconstitutional and order him to comply. To quote one of the presidents tweets: See you in Court.

Robert M. Loeb is partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, in its Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice, and was previously an appellate counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice. Anjali Dalal is an associate at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, a former judicial law clerk to Judge Sack of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and has published on issues of how the First Amendment applies to Internet postings.

View post:
How President Trump Is Violating the First Amendment - Fortune

In October 2005, I proudly raised my right hand and swore that as a United States Marine, I would defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This oath separated me from my family for long periods of time and took me to dangerous places like Iraq.

I gladly made these sacrifices and would do so again because I believe this idea is worth defending at all costs.

And the thousands of grassroots CVA volunteers and supporters across the country share my commitment.

Founded by combat veterans and led by Executive Director Mark Lucas,an Army Ranger and Afghan war veteran who currently serves in the Iowa National Guard, CVA aims to preserve the freedoms we fought and sacrificed to defend.

Today, we are alarmed when those freedoms come under attack here at home, such as when state governments attempt to limit free speech, Americans most fundamental freedom. In Missouri, New Mexico, South Carolina, and elsewhere, government and elected officials have sought to force private organizations to reveal their supporters personal information.

There is avital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in ones association,theSupreme Courtdeclared in the 1958 NAACP vs. Patterson case.

By invading that privacy, these disclosure laws are a clear assault on freedom of association and speech. These policies silencedissent and chill public debate and that is the goal of their sponsors.

CVA refuses to tolerate such attacks on American freedoms, and for this we were criticized.

Arecent attackcharged that our modest $5,000 online advertising campaign that we launched June 28 as part of our effort to defend the First Amendment was disrespectful to our nations founders and veterans, and further claimed that anonymity in political discourse poses a threat to our democracy.

This is an absurd argument to make at any time, but particularly as we celebrated our nations birthas patriotic displays go, a defense of free speech is right up there with fireworks and parades.

It was Thomas Paines anonymously released pamphletCommon Sensethat sparked the American Revolution. Without the pen of the author of Common Sense, the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain,John Adamsdeclared.

Under the pseudonym Publius, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay eloquently pleaded the case for ratification of the Constitution. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and others also recognized the value of anonymous speech, which allows listeners to evaluate arguments solely on their merits, without a preconceived bias toward the speaker.

Anonymous speech is not dangerous to free people, who are, as theSupreme Courtput it, intelligent enough to evaluate the source of an anonymous writing. Instead, anonymous speech is dangerous to corrupt or oppressive governments, which throughout history, people like Thomas Paine have been able to criticizeanonymously or not at all, as theCourtnoted in 1960.

Whether anonymous or identified, free speech acts as a bulwark, repelling government threats to our liberties. And it has enabled Americans to advance the promise of freedom, from womens suffrage, to the civil rights movement, to the critical issues of our day.

The unfettered and open exchange of ideas has made ours the greatest nation in history a nation that millions have fought and died to protect. The veterans and volunteers at CVA will continue to unapologetically defend free speech across the country.

Dan Caldwell isthe director of policy for Concerned Veterans for America, which says its mission is to promote freedom and receives funding from donors across the country as well as the Charles and David Koch brothers.

The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Go here to read the rest:
Defending the First Amendment is not a 'special interest' - The Hill (blog)

Prominent Harvard law professor and liberal author Alan Dershowitz says Donald Trump Jr.s controversial meeting last year with a Russian lawyer is likely protected under the First Amendment.

Theres a big difference between the act of stealing, or the act of hacking, and the act of using it, Mr. Dershowitz told Fox Business host Neil Cavuto in an appearance Wednesday.

And theres really no difference under the First Amendment between a campaigner using information he obtained from somebody who obtained it illegally and a newspaper doing it, he continued. So I think this is conduct that would be covered by the First Amendment. It is also not prohibited by law. And theres been so much overwrought claim. There are people are talking about treason. I cant believe The New York Times had an op-ed yesterday in which treason was mentioned.

Mr. Trump Jr. on Tuesday released an email chain between himself and a British publicist that arranged a June 2016 meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who, according to the publicist, offered very high level and sensitive information about Hillary Clinton as part of the Russian governments support for Donald Trumps presidential campaign.

The younger Mr. Trump said Tuesday that the meeting turned out to be a waste of time and nothing came of it, but the revelation ramped up allegations from Democratic lawmakers that associates of President Trump may have colluded with the Russian government to influence the U.S. election. Some lawmakers, including Hillary Clintons running mate Tim Kaine, have said it could potentially lead to a treason investigation.

Mr. Dershowitz, however, said he doesnt see any crime at this point in Mr. Trump Jr.s behavior.

Even if the worst case scenario as far as we know now, is the Russians get in touch with Trump Jr. and say, we have some dirt on Hillary Clinton, come well give it to you and he goes and gets the information. Thats what the New York Times did with the Pentagon Papers, thats what the Washington Post did and many other newspaper did with information with Snowden and Manning, he told Newsmax Tuesday. You are allowed legally to use material that was obtained illegally as long as you had nothing to do with the illegal nature of obtaining the information, so at the moment I see no legal jeopardy for Trump Jr.

See more here:
Alan Dershowitz: Donald Trump Jr.'s conduct likely covered by First ... - Washington Times

ABC News Pete Madden and Erin Galloway smeared Christians who believe the Bill of Rights secures religious liberty as a hate group, in an article this week headlined, Jeff Sessions addresses anti-LGBT hate group, but DOJ wont release his remarks. The lede of the story made it clear this was not just the work of a rogue headline writer but the failure of the reporters themselves:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered a speech to an alleged hate group at an event closed to reporters on Tuesday night, but the Department of Justice is refusing to reveal what he said.

First, a note that you can and should read the prepared remarks of the Attorney General here at The Federalist.

Who is this hate group? Alliance Defending Freedom is not a hate group at all, but a civil liberties organization that battles for religious liberty. And theyre not a fringe group either. They just weeks ago won their most recent Supreme Court victory Trinity Lutheran v. Comer 7-2. It was their fifth Supreme Court victory in seven years, during which time theyve had no losses at the high court.

And the group is ranked among the top law firms in the country for its successes at the Supreme Court.

Most recently the non-profit law firm found out that the Supreme Court agreed to hear another one of their cases dealing with artistic freedom and religious liberty.

To characterize such an accomplished civil rights group as a hate group is unacceptable and inexcusable. It boggles the mind why ABC News, in the midst of cratering credibility, would disparage Christian efforts in favor of religious liberty in such a mendacious way.

How in the world did this happen?

Well, for some reason ABC News chose to wholly adopt the Southern Poverty Law Centers framing for the significance of the attorney generals speech to the group. Check it out:

Heres why reporters such as Pete Madden and Erin Galloway should be wary before slightly rewriting SPLC press releases and passing off the work as their own. SPLC previously had a reservoir of credibility based on a history of good work exposing legitimately nefarious individuals and groups. In recent years, however, that reservoir has all but dried up as SPLC has gone after reasonable groups it merely disagrees with politically but labels as hate groups. It engages in this campaign while ignoring serious problems on the left.

SPLC has the gall to list the Family Research Council as a hate group, for instance, even after an SPLC follower used an SPLC hate map to locate the Family Research Council offices in Washington, D.C., and commit an act of terrorism and attempted mass murder against the group. Thankfully, the SPLC-inspired terrorist was stopped by the security guard he shot when he arrived. Read all about that incident here.

The most recent attempted assassination by a left-wing terrorist was also a follower of SPLC. As Jeryl Bier wrote in the Wall Street Journal, The Insidious Influence of the SPLC: Its branding of hate groups and individuals is biased, sometimes falseand feeds polarization.

Last week the SPLC found itself in the awkward position of disavowing the man who opened fire on Republican members of Congress during baseball practice. Were aware that the SPLC was among hundreds of groups that the man identified as the shooter liked on Facebook, SPLC president Richard Cohen said in a statement. I want to be as clear as I can possibly be: The SPLC condemns all forms of violence.

Its not just Christians who SPLC targets. SPLC also faces legal action for placing British Muslim author and counter-extremism activist Maajid Nawaz on an anti-Muslim hate list.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has put my name on a list that calls me an anti-Muslim extremist. I am the only Muslim on the list. This list has smeared my name and possibly put me in physical danger. This is a message to those who think they can throw around damning labels like Islamophobe racist and Nazi without any evidence and simply get away with it.

You can read more about Nawazs plight here at The Atlantic.

ABC News can certainly quote the Southern Poverty Law Centers extreme views, but it shouldnt build a story around the wholesale acceptance of their flawed premises. That turns journalism into anti-religious propaganda on behalf of a partisan group. Media outlets do not want to be perceived as enemies of average Americans. They should avoid giving people reason to view them as just that.

More:
ABC News: Christians Who Believe In The First Amendment Are A 'Hate Group' - The Federalist

Columbia Universitys Knight First Amendment Institute is suing Donald Trump for blocking people on Twitter, claiming that it violates free speech protections. The institute filed suit today on behalf of seven Twitter users who were blocked by the president, which prevents them from seeing or replying to his tweets. It threatened legal action in a letter to Trump in June, and now asks the court to declare that the viewpoint-based blocking of people from the @realDonaldTrump account is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the Southern District of New York, elaborates on the Knight Institutes earlier letter. It contends that Trumps Twitter account is a public political forum where citizens have a First Amendment right to speak. Under this theory, blocking users impedes their right to participate in a political conversation and stops them from viewing official government communication. Therefore, if Trump blocks people for criticizing his political viewpoints, hed be doing the equivalent of kicking them out of a digital town hall.

Trump has definitely used his Twitter account as an official platform. The White House confirmed that his tweets are official statements, and its preserving them as public presidential communications. However, its much less clear that it counts as a public forum, or that being prevented from viewing or participating in a Twitter thread chills free speech. Users can still view tweets by logging out or creating a new account, and as First Amendment lawyer and blogger Ken White told Vox, a successful lawsuit could make it difficult for any official Twitter account to block trolls or spammers without worrying about legal action.

Nonetheless, the Knight Institute has printed statements from its seven plaintiffs, who say they feel measurably impacted by the block. My Twitter following is relatively small, but because my tweets show up in the comment threads under the presidents tweets and can be seen by his millions of followers, my replies could gain traction, says surgery resident Eugene Gu. Now I have extremely limited access to the public forum where I once could be heard. I feel cut off and as though Im being treated like an outsider in my own country.

Visit link:
Trump is being sued by a First Amendment group for blocking Twitter users - The Verge

AUGUSTA, Maine. (WABI) A little rain didn't stop kids from having fun at a week-long summer camp held at Viles Arboretum in Augusta.

Combining a nature camp with hands-on experiences that teach campers about being an active citizen, the 'Speak Your Mind' camp isn't your typical summer getaway.

Campers in Augusta are keeping their minds and bodies active on summer break. While the rain kept kids inside Thursday, they continued working on a mural depicting the five freedoms afforded to Americans by the first amendment.

"There happened to be five kids and five freedoms within the first amendment so they've each chosen a person to represent each of those. So we're in the process of painting that and that's one of our end projects," said Abigail Stratton, amp organizer from Children's Discovery Museum.

Ranging from ages six to eleven, these kids are getting the traditional summer camp experience by meeting new friends, participating in arts and crafts activities, as well as hiking and gaining a stronger appreciation for nature on less rainy days.

But they're also learning more about why the freedom of religion, the press, free speech, and the right to petition and assemble are so valuable as a citizen of this country at this new camp program offered by the Gannet House Project First Amendment Museum and the Children's Discovery Museum.

"It's important because it gives people the freedom to do things without the government telling them they can't or they have to do this or that," said Adelle MacLeay, a 9-year-old camper from Rome.

They're also exploring how to take ownership of their opinions by learning how to write letters to editors on topics and issues that are important to them, such as...

"How girls can change the way boys think of girls and to not let it bother girls," said Shee Sculli, a 10-year-old camper from Pittston.

"My cause is to stop polluting the water because some people like to fish in the water and if we keep polluting the water then there won't be any more fish," said Zuri Voorhees, an 11-year-old camper from Augusta.

Campers also drew themselves however they like accompanied by their favorite hobbies and interests.

"I made it out of tons of animal parts because I really like animals and they're my favorite thing in the whole wide world," said Michael, a six-year-old camper from Winslow.

While the camp's first year was a bit light in attendance, it fulfilled the intentions of organizers by giving kids the opportunity to express their opinions and ideas through storytelling, artwork, and writing.

"I would say it's been a great success so I think we could see this going forward," said Rebecca Lazure, camp organizer from Gannett House Project First Amendment Museum.

The rest is here:
Kids Learn Importance of First Amendment at 'Speak Your Mind' Summer Camp - WABI

Official DHS photo by Jetta Disco.

It is where he inveighs against FAKE NEWS, promotes his television appearances, and trumpets his administrations accomplishments. Its also where he reports on meetings with world leaders, discusses policy positions, and announced his choice for FBI Director. President Donald Trumps Twitter feed is the epicenter of a new-age White House communications strategy that has earned the oft-repeated label unprecedented.

Whether Trumps demeanor in the messages he posts is presidential is debatable, but his own spokespeople have made clear that his tweets constitute official statements. Not everyone, however, can see those statements or participate in the discussion that occurs in the replies.

On Tuesday, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a lawsuit against Trump and two of his top advisors on behalf of seven people who have been blocked from viewing tweets by the presidents @realDonaldTrump account. Attorneys at the Knight Institute argue that Trumps blocking of users who have criticized him amounts to viewpoint-based exclusion, which is not allowed under the First Amendment.

President Trumps Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, has become an important source of news and information about the government, and an important public forum for speech by, to, and about the President. In an effort to suppress dissent in this forum, Defendants have excludedblockedTwitter users who have criticized the President or his policies. This practice is unconstitutional, the federal suit alleges.

The case raises complicated questions about how to apply constitutional principles written in a time of pamphlets and town square debates to the realities of the Facebook and Twitter era. Skeptics might say that blocking someone on Twitter doesnt make it impossible for that person to see tweets. He or she can simply sign out of that account or create a different one. Blocking adds a barrier to entry, to be sure, but its not an insurmountable obstacle. Additionally, as anyone who spends time on Twitter knows, comments on the platform can be crude, distasteful, and even scary, and blocking trolls allows for some measure of control over the people with whom you interact.

But attorneys at the Knight Institute have put forward a series of arguments that make a compelling case for thinking differently. They are not arguing that we redefine Twittera privately owned social media platformwrit large as a virtual town square where all voices are welcome. Rather, they claim that because of the way the President and his aides use the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account, the account is a public forum under the First Amendment.

If the presidents feed is defined as a public forum, citizens cannot be excluded from viewing his statements and engaging in discussions simply because they disagree. The lawsuit alleges that Trump, along with Press Secretary Sean Spicer and Social Media Director Dan Scavino, have violated the First Amendment rights of seven Americans who were blocked soon after criticizing or mocking the president, and that the block infringes on the plaintiffs First Amendment right to petition their government for redress of grievances.

When [government officials] open up a space and allow the general public to come in and comment in that space, whether a city council meeting or a Facebook page, that is a designated public forum, Katie Fallow, a senior attorney at the Knight Institute, tells CJR. The courts have held that when you do that, you cant then exclude people based on viewpoint. The Knight Institute, which has not been blocked by Trumps account, is also a plaintiff in the suit. It argues that users who arent blocked are being deprived of their right to read the speech of the dissenters.

The reaction from legal experts last month to the Knight Institutes letter declaring its intent to sue was mixed, with some supporting the effort and others arguing the plaintiffs had a tough legal hill to climb. But in the weeks since, the Supreme Court issued a decision in which Justice Anthony Kennedy described social media as the modern public square.

Trump recently referred to his use of social media as modern day presidential. It will now be left to the courts to decide whether that requires a modern day update to First Amendment protections.

Continue reading here:
Can Donald Trump block you? A First Amendment group is suing to find out. - Columbia Journalism Review

Two months ago, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri was prepared to take the Hazelwood School District to court for suspending dozens of students who walked out in protest for unionized teachers.

Now, the district and ACLU are holding a community workshop together about the First Amendment in schools.

According to the district's website, the workshop will be held on Monday, July 31 from 6-8 p.m. at the Hazelwood administration building, which is at 15955 New Halls Ferry Road.

The suspensions of about 200 Hazelwood West High students in May sparked outcry from students, parents and civil rights activistswho viewed the incident as a violation of freedom of speech. The district, on the other hand, said the walkout was not peaceful and that students had been running and cursing during it. After three days of heavy community pressure,the district rescinded thesuspensions.

In 1988, Hazelwood was the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case about freedom of speech in schools, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. The court then ruled that school officials could exercise editorial control over the student newspaper and student speech so long as it was "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."

The workshop's speakers include Hazelwood Superintendent Nettie Collins-Hart, ACLU of Missouri Executive Director Jeffrey Mittman and two Washington University School of Law professors: Gregory Maragian and Eric Miller. The event will be moderated by alumnus Reece Ellis, who graduated from Hazelwood East High this year.

Shake off your afternoon slump with the offbeat or overlooked news of the day.

Read the original:
Hazelwood Schools to host First Amendment workshop with ACLU - STLtoday.com