Category Archives: First Amendment

LOS ANGELES, CA--(Marketwired - July 12, 2017) - The Hugh M. Hefner Foundation is pleased to announce its 2017 First Amendment Award winners to those who have dedicated their profession, and some their lives, to upholding and exercising their First Amendment rights.

Christie Hefner established the Awards in 1979, in conjunction with Playboy Magazine's 25th anniversary, to honor individuals who have made significant contributions to protect and enhance First Amendment rights for all Americans. A press reception with the winners and judges will be held on August 7, 2017 at the Playboy Mansion.

This year's Lifetime Achievement Award will be bestowed upon Burt Neuborne, the Norman Dorsen Professor of Civil Liberties at NYU Law School, who for 45 years has been one of the nation's foremost civil liberties lawyers. He receives a Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award for his unwavering defense of civil liberties and civil rights and who, as founding legal director for The Brennan Center for Justice, had the vision and foresight to spearhead its establishment.

Highlights of Professor Neuborne's career include serving as National Legal Director of the ACLU from 1981-1986, Special Counsel to the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund from 1990-1996, and as a member of the New York City Human Rights Commission from 1988-1992. He has argued numerous Supreme Court cases and has litigated hundreds of important constitutional cases in the state and federal courts. From 1995 to 2007, he directed the legal program of the Brennan Center, focusing on efforts to reinforce American democracy and secure campaign finance reform. The Brennan Center was established in 1994 to honor Justice William Brennan, Jr.'s monumental contribution to American Law.

"For decades, the First Amendment Awards have honored and celebrated distinguished individuals whose actions support and often fight to preserve the values of the First Amendment," says Christie Hefner, Chairman of the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Awards. "Especially now, it feels like the First Amendment is under assault, so it is more important than ever that we recognize those who fight to preserve this precious right."

Additional award winners, many of whom are unsung heroes, come from various walks of life and include:

Hasan Elahi (Arts & Entertainment), Associate Professor, Department of Art at the University of Maryland. Elahi is an interdisciplinary artist who asks Americans to explore issues in surveillance, privacy, migration, citizenship, technology, and the challenges of borders. An erroneous tip called into law enforcement authorities in 2002 subjected Elahi to an intensive investigation by the FBI. After undergoing months of interrogations before he was cleared of suspicions, Elahi conceived "Tracking Transience" and opened almost every aspect of his life to the public. Predating public knowledge of the NSA's PRISM surveillance program by over a decade, his project questions the consequences of living under constant surveillance and continuously generates databases of imagery that tracks the artist and his points of transit in real-time. Although initially created for his FBI agent, the public can also monitor the artist's communication records, banking transactions, and transportation logs along with various intelligence and government agencies who have been confirmed visiting his website.

Timothy Garton Ash(Book Publishing), Awarded for his book, Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World (Yale University Press, 2016), that encourages us to examine how well-tried liberal principles can be applied and defended in daunting new circumstances. Professor Ash is the author of nine other books of political writing which have charted the transformation of Europe over the last forty years. He is the Professor of European Studies at the University of Oxford, Isaiah Berlin Professorial Fellow at St Antony's College and a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His essays appear regularly in the New York Review of Books and he writes a column on international affairs in the Guardian, which is widely syndicated in Europe, Asia and the Americas. Professor Ash established Free Speech Debate (freespeechdebate.com), a multilingual dynamic website devoted to free speech worldwide.

Jenni Monet (Print Journalism), Independent journalist and member of the Laguna Pueblo tribe. Monet's dispatches for Indian Country Media Network, Reveal, the Center for Investigative Reporting, PBS Newshour,High Country News and Yes! Magazine on the protests opposing the $3.8 billion project and the months-long militarized protection of the Dakota Access Pipeline, which is critical to understanding a volatile, important moment in American history. One of the most consistent voices from Standing Rock, Monet faithfully covered the protests when all other media moved on, providing important detail and context in a fair and accurate manner. She was wearing press credentials when she was arrested in February 2017. She still faces charges for criminal trespassing and engaging in a riot.

This year's distinguished judges and presenters include:

Erwin Chemerinsky, esteemed educator, litigator and legal scholar is Dean and and Professor of Law, University of California Berkeley School of Law. He was the founding dean of UC Irvine School of Law, a position he held for the past nine years. His five-year term at Berkeley began on July 1, 2017. While at Irvine, Chemerinsky also served as the Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law. His areas of expertise are constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He is the author of eight books, including The Case Against the Supreme Court published in 2014, and more than 200 articles in top law reviews.

Lara Bergthold, a Principal Partner at RALLY, is a campaign and communications strategist with a wealth of experience in positions such as philanthropic advisor, political and communications strategist, presidential senior campaign advisor, and PAC director. Since 1997, Bergthold has served as Executive Director of the Lear Family Foundation, a private foundation of Lyn and Norman Lear, where she has directed millions of dollars of grants annually to progressive organizations working on civil liberties, civil rights, the environment and the arts, among others.

Davan Maharaj, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of the Los Angeles Times Media Group, oversees the largest daily newsgathering organization in the West. It includes the flagship Los Angeles Times and latimes.com; Times Community News, which consists of six suburban daily and weekly newspapers and websites; and the Spanish-language Hoy and Fin de Semana newspapers and websites. Maharaj, a 26-year veteran of The Times, added publisher to his title in March 2016. He was named editor and executive vice president in 2011.

About the Hugh M. Hefner Foundation:

The Hugh M. Hefner Foundation was established to work on behalf of individual rights in a democratic society. The primary focus of the foundation is to support organizations that advocate for and defend civil rights and civil liberties with special emphasis on First Amendment rights and rational sex and drug policies. For a complete list of past winners and judges, please visit: http://hmhfoundation.org/site/?page_id=90/

Link:
Hugh M. Hefner Foundation Announces First Amendment Award Winners for 2017 - Markets Insider

The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration by Raymond Diamond and Robert Cottrol Profs. Diamond and Cottrol explore the constitutional and historical roots of the Second Amendment with emphasis on a cultural perspective. "The history of blacks, firearms regulations, and the right to bear arms," they write, "should cause us to ask new questions regarding the Second Amendment."

The Racist Roots of Gun Control by Clayton Cramer Historian Cramer makes the case that the American experience provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws.

The Embarrassing Second Amendment by Sanford Levinson Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas, suggests that the Second Amendment may be an embarrassing contradiction to those who support regulation of firearms and, at the same time, view themselves as committed to zealous adherence to the Bill of Rights.The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms by William Van Alstyne (pdf format) Prof. Van Alstyne discusses how the two clauses of the Second Amendment have been used to reach divergent interpretations of the Amendment`s meaning. He writes: "Until the Supreme Court manages to express the central premise of the Second Amendment more fully and far more appropriately than it has done thus far, the constructive role of the NRA today, like the role of the ACLU in the 1920s with respect to the First Amendment (as it then was), ought itself not lightly to be dismissed."

A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment by Glenn Harland Reynolds Writing in 1995, Prof. Reynolds notes that: "Although the Second Amendment was almost completely ignored by the academic community for the first two centuries of its existence, the past several years have seen an explosion of scholarship." In his article, he summarizes and criticizes that scholarship.The Second Amendment, Political Liberty, and the Right to Self-Preservation by Nelson Lund Prof. Lund writes that civil libertarians have generally shown much less enthusiasm about the Second Amendment than about other provisions of the Bill of Rights. His article includes a brief review of the evidence pertaining to the Second Amendment`s original meaning and the case law that has since developed. He discusses the basic principles that should govern the application of the Second Amendment under modern conditions, sketching a Second Amendment jurisprudence that is broadly consistent with the Court's modern treatment of the Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court's Thirty-five Other Gun Cases: What The Supreme Court Has Said About The Second Amendment by David B. Kopel Most legal scholars contend that the Supreme Court has said almost nothing about the Second Amendment. David Kopel suggests otherwise, writing that while the meaning of the Court`s leading Second Amendment case--the 1939 U.S. v. Miller decision--remains hotly disputed, the dispute about whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right can be pretty well settled by looking at the 35 other Supreme Court cases which quote, cite, or discuss the Second Amendment.

Read more from the original source:
Second Amendment Law Reviews - NRA-ILA | Home

[11/8/10 Update: Andrew Shirvell has been fired for misuse of of state resources, conduct not protected by the First Amendment, and false statements made during the internal investigation of the matter.]

What are the limits of First Amendment protection for government employees? Consider this somewhat surreal story making recent headlines.

Andrew Shirvell is an assistant attorney general for the state of Michigan. He is also an anti-gay activist who is appalled that the recently elected student body president of the University of Michigan, Shirvells alma mater, is openly gay. Shirvellcomplained aboutthe student on a blog created specifically for that purpose.His many postings includeda comment that the student is Satans representative on the Student Assemblyanda picture of the student with a Nazi swastika superimposed on his face.

Once news of Shirvells blog and his in-person hounding of the gay student leader on campus became widely known, many peopleincluding the governor of Michigancalled on state attorney general Mike Cox to fire Shirvell. Cox, on whose campaign Shirvell worked, refused. Cox stated that although Shirvell has been acting like a bully and his behavior is immature, his conduct is after-hours and protected by the First Amendment.

Is he right? Does the First Amendment protect this type of conduct by a government lawyer?

With all due respect to Attorney General Cox, I think hes dead wrong on the constitutional issue.

All government employees voluntarily restrict their ability to exercise free speech when they accept public employment. In fact, for most of the countrys history government employees had no First Amendment rights. Oliver Wendell Holmes summed up that view in 1892 when he observed, A policeman may have the constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.

Thankfully for us government employees, Holmes view no longer controls. As a result of several U.S. Supreme Court decisions, most notably Pickering v. Bd. of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), and Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), its now generally accepted that individuals do not relinquish all of their First Amendment rights simply because they are employed by the government. But the speech in question needs to clear several tests before First Amendment protections apply.

First, the speech must touch on a matter of public concern. Complaints about your boss or your working conditions dont implicate matters of public concern and therefore arent protected by the First Amendment. Comments about issues relating to public safety, public finances and similar big picture issues do justify constitutional protection.

Second, the speech must fall outside of the employees job duties. In other words, your boss has the right to tell you how to conduct your job and what to say while doing it. For example, if your job as general counsel to a state agency involves all matters of legal compliance, the First Amendment would offer no protection if you were fired for repeated complaints to your boss about alleged public record law violations within the agency.

Third, the employees interest in free expression must outweigh the governments interest in the efficient and effective provision of services. Often this balancing test turns on when, where, and how the speech was made. Speech made in the office during work hours can be much more disruptive to the provision of government services than speech made at home on the weekend. But who makes the speech is even more important. The more an employee is involved with policy issues, the more likely that the governments interests in controlling that employees speech will prevail. When senior government employees make statements that contradict official government policy, First Amendment protection is almost non-existent.

Applying these three tests to Andrew Shirvells blog, I think he could be fired without constitutional concern.

First, the public concern test. I very much doubt that the sexual orientation of a college student body president is a matter of public concern. But Shirvell claims that the students radical homosexual agenda is a political issue. Lets give Shirvell the benefit of the doubt and assume that at least some of hiscomments touch upon a matter of public concern.

Second, the job duty test. It is certainly not part of Shirvells job as an assistant attorney general to blog about the sexual orientation of college students, which means the speech could qualify for First Amendment protection.

Third, the balancing of the interests. Here is where I think Shirvells constitutional protections evaporate. As Cox points out, Shirvell made the speech on his own time. But that fact isnt dispositive. I think the fact that these anti-gay comments were uttered by an assistant attorney general who is the legal representative of the state is dispositive. The governments interest in controlling the speech of its legal representatives is extremely high. I think that interest surely trumps Shirvells interest in informing the world that gay people arent fit to lead the University of Michigan student body. If so, then the First Amendment would not protect Shirvells blog postings.

That constitutional conclusion doesnt end the inquiry, however. Michigan, like North Carolina, mandates that some of its public employeescan be disciplined or fired only for just cause. That term is notoriously difficult to define, but in North Carolina unacceptable personal conduct with some connection tothe publicemployees jobcan justify an adverse employment action. For example, a highway patrol officer could be fired for aDUI conviction.

Attorney General Cox himself described Shirvells behavior as immature, bullying, and demonstrating poor judgment, a conclusion which seems to support a just-cause termination for one of the states legal representatives. And Shirvells conduct clearly calls into question hiswillingness to represent all ofMichigans citizens, be they gay, straight or otherwise. That fact alone could justify his termination.

Shirvell is also a lawyer, which means he is subject to ethical constraints on his conduct beyond that applicable to other government employees. Legal ethics prohibit conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, a term the American Bar Association defines to include racist and discriminatory conduct. Shirvells postings that equate gays with Nazis and Satanseeminglywouldconstitute prohibited conduct under the ABAs definition.Attorneys are generally not disciplined for obnoxious speech, but given Shirvells role as a legal representative of the people his conduct couldbean exception.

Clickhere for a more detailed analysis of these First Amendment issues and here for Shirvells appearance on CNN.

Original post:
The First Amendment and Government Employees

The Responding to First Amendment-Protected EventsThe Role of State and Local Law Enforcement Officers videos are designed to assist law enforcement personnel in:

When responding to First Amendment-protected events, whether a planned demonstration or a grassroots-developed protest, law enforcement officers must understand their roles and responsibilities. The Bureau of Justice Assistance, with the support of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative and the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council, developed the Responding to First Amendment-Protected EventsThe Role of State and Local Law Enforcement Officers videos to assist agency leadership in providing training to officers and agency personnel as they prepare for and respond to a First Amendment-protected event, in a manner that diligently protects the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties of persons and groups.

There are two versions of the video.

Training Video: The longer training video (9 minutes in length) is designed to provide an overview to help law enforcement personnel prepare for and respond to a First Amendment-protected event and understand the privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties issues associated with a First Amendment-protected event. At the end of the video is a short quiz, with the option to print a certificate of completion.

Line Officer Roll Call Video: The shorter line officer roll call video (4 minutes in length) provides an introductory overview of law enforcement personnel's roles and responsibilities at a First Amendment-protected event. This version is designed to be used during roll call and pre-event briefings.

In addition to this training video, BJA, with the support of Global, has released numerous resources to assist agencies in the ongoing protection of privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties.

Excerpt from:
NCIRC - First Amendment Online Training

Mary Hogan

The West Peoria Fourth on July Parade, by it nature and history, is a time to wave the flag and celebrate the nation. It is not a place to make a political statement.

Like it or not, Donald Trump is the elected president of the United States and deserves our respect. It is disgusting and deplorable that some use the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to make a distasteful display during the parade to voice displeasure with Mr. Trump.

Fourth of July parades have always been a traditional way to pass on to our youth the meaning of patriotism and respect for our nation. Our children should not have to see this type of vulgar display.

Yes, these dissenters have the right to make a statement, but it is also the responsibility of the parade organizers to set the theme of the parade by previewing the content of exhibits before the parade begins. If parade officials do not monitor the content in the future, I fear the parade will fade.

Mary Hogan

Dunlap

Read more here:
Letter: First Amendment no excuse - Peoria Journal Star

There is a powerful photograph circulating online from the July 8 Ku Klux Klan rally of an African-American Charlottesville police officer stoically standing at a crowd-control barrier, with robed Klansmen milling behind him.

That moment in time is the Constitution in action.

Some activists have been outraged that the city agreed to let the Klan hold a rally on public land and then protected them with law enforcement. Others even see it as a tacit government endorsement or extension of white supremacy.

But as repulsive and morally bankrupt as the Klan is, the city had no choice under the First Amendment.

This is a critical distinction.

The law, the Constitution,mustbe applied equally to all even (perhaps especially) toward those with whom we disagree.

Otherwise, what are we saying? That the law shall beunequallyenforced? That some people or some groups get a pass, while others do not?

This is precisely the kind of bias that the law is designed to prevent.

Ironically, once upon a time it was groups such as the Klan that received favoritism, while civil-rights protesters were met with officially sanctioned, even brutal resistance.

Through liberal, progressive new legislation such as laws banning the wearing of masks (i.e., KKK hoods) and through decades of efforts to ensure that the First Amendment is indeed applied more evenly, we have reached todays pivot point: Now it is the Klan that is the minority and the progressives who are the majority.

And, yes, the Constitution still protects the rights of the minority, even when we are disgusted by minority viewpoints.

Free speech is a two-way street. If we do not, in our time, protect the overriding value of free speech for all, then censorship may be turned againstuswhen the political pendulum next swings left or right.

If the Supreme Court overturned reams of jurisprudence and declared that hate speech was no longer a First Amendment right, conservative-leaning censorship could become law. Flag desecration and blasphemy could be barred, as well as vociferous attacks against government entities like law enforcement and the military.

This isn't all that far-fetched: Louisiana last year became the first state to offer police hate crime protections.

Wearea nation of laws: the Constitution, as well as law and order.

This is no new development. There are decades of U.S. Supreme Court precedents confirming that offensive or even hateful protest speech has First Amendment safeguards, as long as there is no "imminent lawless action."

Some rulings involve the Klan itself, including a 2003 case that overturned most of Virginia's ban on cross burning.

The court summed it up in 1989 over flag burning: "The Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."

If the city refused to grant a permit to the Klan for its rally, when it would grant one to any other group, then officials would assuredly be sued for content-based censorship and bias. The ACLU, which many Trump administration foes gladly donated to after the election, would proudly join as a plaintiff.

Free speech isn't free metaphorically and literally.

Taxpayers may bemoan that police were used for something as abhorrent as a Klan rally and that road closures were imposed.But this is precisely why we have and fund peacekeeping forces: to protect, and to restrain protesters of all stripes from mob rule.

We are not at all saying that peaceful champions of social justice are on the same moral tangent as white supremacists.

But the First Amendment is the best remedy for the First Amendment and that's the way it should be.

Read more:
Opinion/Editorial: First Amendment matters, must be applied equally - The Daily Progress

First Amendment advocates sued President DonaldTrumpon Tuesday, saying it is unconstitutional toblockhis critics from following him onTwitter.

The Manhattan federal court lawsuit from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University cited seven individuals rejected byTrumpor his aides after criticizing the president. BesidesTrump, the lawsuit also named as defendants White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer and Dan Scavino, White House director of social media.

Jameel Jaffer, the institute's director, said dozens of people reached out after his organization told the White House three weeks ago that it wasn't permitted toblockindividuals from following the president's 8-year-old @realdonaldtrump account.

Trumpdoesn't seem to be the only politician trying to limit his audience. Jaffer said numerous people have said they wereblockedfrom the accounts of Republican and Democratic politicians after posting critical comments.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., recently ruled that a local official's Facebook account was a public forum under the First Amendment, but higher courts have not yet addressed the issue, Jaffer said.

"It's fair to say that this is a new frontier," Jaffer said. "The First Amendment principle is well-settled, but the applicability of that principle to this context isn't an issue that the courts have yet had many occasions to address."

The lawsuit asks a judge to stopTrumpand his media team fromblockingcritics from following his personal account, which has 33 million followers, 14 million more than @POTUS and 19 million more than @WhiteHouse.

Dawn Dearden, a spokeswoman for government lawyers, declined to comment.

According to the lawsuit,blockingpeople from followingTrump'saccount was a viewpoint-based restriction the U.S. Constitution doesn't allow.

It noted thatTrumpon July 2 tweeted: "My use of social media is not Presidential it's MODERN DAY PRESIDENTIAL." It also quoted Spicer saying a month earlier at a press conference thatTrump'stweets should be understood as "official statements of the president of the United States."

Federal agencies and courts treatTrump'stweets as official statements, and The National Archives and Records Administration has advised the White House that the tweets must be preserved under the Presidential Records Act, the lawsuit said.

Among plaintiffs was Rebecca Buckwalter, a Washington-based writer and political consultant who wasblockedfrom the account on June 6 after she replied toTrump'stweet saying he would have had "ZERO chance winning WH" if he'd relied on "Fake News" from major media outlets. Buckwalter received over 9,000 likes and 3,300 retweets after posting: "To be fair you didn't win the WH: Russia won it for you," according to the lawsuit.

Others to beblockedincluded Philip Cohen, a University of Maryland sociology professor who calledTrumpa "Corrupt Incompetent Authoritarian," and Holly Figueroa, a national political organizer and songwriter who was cut off May 28 after posting an image of the pope looking incredulously atTrump, along with the statement: "This is pretty much how the whole world sees you," the lawsuit said.

See the original post here:
Trump blocking Twitter critics violates First Amendment, lawsuit says - Chicago Tribune

Common practice for liberals and conservatives now is to take turns calling each other enemies of the First Amendment. The results of this years State of the First Amendment survey gave us the opportunity to consider these insults and after the numbers are crunched, who is the real enemy of the First Amendment?

Well, no one. And, everyone.

Most of our fellow citizens, regardless of their political ideology, are quite fond of the First Amendment, at least in the abstract. The people who think that the First Amendment goes too far are a minority 22.5 percent of us. A majority of Americans (67.7 percent) think that the press plays an important role as a watchdog on government; a slightly narrower majority (58.8 percent) thinks that freedom of religion should extend to all religious groups, even those widely considered extreme or fringe.

Thats the good news: Even in a time of great political turmoil, were generally supportive of the First Amendments protections.

The bad news: When it comes down to specific applications of the First Amendment, were less positive, and also deeply divided along ideological lines. Both liberals and conservatives have certain pain points where they balk at the amount of protection that the First Amendment provides.

Liberals are more likely than conservatives to think:

Colleges should be able to ban speakers with controversial views.

People should not be able to express racist comments on social media.

Meanwhile, conservatives are more likely than liberals to think:

Government officials who leak information to the press should be prosecuted.

Journalists should not be able to publish information obtained illegally, even if it serves the public interest.

Government should be able to determine which media outlets can attend briefings.

Government should be able to hold Muslims to a higher standard of scrutiny.

Worth noting: Some of these differences in attitude may not be a direct result of whether youre a liberal or a conservative; instead, they might be circumstantial. Do more liberals support press freedoms because thats a core value of liberal ideology or because the press is a watchdog on the government, which liberals dont currently control?

Do more conservatives think that colleges shouldnt be able to ban speakers because of a greater commitment to free speech or because most banned speakers, at least in recent years, have tended to be conservative? It will be interesting to see in subsequent years if attitudes change as circumstances change.

One thing that unites the majority of Americans right now: Most of us, liberals and conservatives, prefer to read or listen to news that aligns with our own views.

Thats true even if you think that the news media reports with a bias, as most Americans do (56.8 percent). Apparently, were not inclined to correct that bias by taking in multiple and varied news sources. Instead, were more likely to double down on the news that fits in with our pre-existing ideological perspectives.

This finding is both obvious and disheartening: Everyone likes reading and hearing news that confirms what they already believed. Thats one of the factors that keep us so divided.

Lata Nott is executive director of the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute. Contact her via email at lnott@newseum.org, or follow her on Twitter at @LataNott.

SHARE YOUR VIEWS

The Commercial-News invites readers and organizations to submit columns for this page. Submissions should be 500-600 words and must include the authors name, address and telephone number. Local topics are preferred. Send submissions to newsroom@dancomnews.com; submit them through the Letters to the Editor function on our website, http://www.commercial-news.com; or mail them to: Commercial-News, c/o PO Box 787, Danville, IL 61832.

See original here:
Nott: Our love-hate relationship with the First Amendment | Opinion ... - Danville Commercial News

Common practice for liberals and conservatives now is to take turns calling each other enemies of the First Amendment. The results of this year's "State of the First Amendment" survey gave us the opportunity to consider these insults and after the numbers are crunched, who is the real enemy of the First Amendment?

Well, no one. And, everyone.

Most of our fellow citizens, regardless of their political ideology, are quite fond of the First Amendment, at least in the abstract. The people who think that the First Amendment goes too far are a minority 22.5 percent of us. A majority of Americans (67.7 percent) thinks that the press plays an important role as a watchdog on government; a slightly narrower majority (58.8 percent) thinks that freedom of religion should extend to all religious groups, even those widely considered extreme or fringe.

That's the good news: Even in a time of great political turmoil, we're generally supportive of the First Amendment's protections.

The bad news: When it comes down to specific applications of the First Amendment, we're less positive, and also deeply divided along ideological lines. Both liberals and conservatives have certain pain points where they balk at the amount of protection that the First Amendment provides.

Liberals are more likely than conservatives to think:

Colleges should be able to ban speakers with controversial views.

People should not be able to express racist comments on social media.

Meanwhile, conservatives are more likely than liberals to think:

Government officials who leak information to the press should be prosecuted.

Journalists should not be able to publish information obtained illegally, even if it serves the public interest.

Government should be able to determine which media outlets can attend briefings.

Government should be able to hold Muslims to a higher standard of scrutiny.

Worth noting: Some of these differences in attitude may not be a direct result of whether you're a liberal or a conservative; instead, they might be circumstantial. Do more liberals support press freedoms because that's a core value of liberal ideology or because the press is a watchdog on the government, which liberals don't currently control?

Do more conservatives think that colleges shouldn't be able to ban speakers because of a greater commitment to free speech or because most banned speakers, at least in recent years, have tended to be conservative? It will be interesting to see in subsequent years if attitudes change as circumstances change.

One thing that unites the majority of Americans right now: Most of us, liberals and conservatives, prefer to read or listen to news that aligns with our own views.

That's true even if you think that the news media reports with a bias, as most Americans do (56.8 percent). Apparently, we're not inclined to correct that bias by taking in multiple and varied news sources. Instead, we're more likely to double down on the news that fits in with our pre-existing ideological perspectives.

This finding is both obvious and disheartening: Everyone likes reading and hearing news that confirms what they already believed. That's one of the factors that keep us so divided.

Lata Nott

Executive director

First Amendment Center

Newseum Institute.

Washington, D.C.

Follow this link:
Our love-hate relationship with the First Amendment - Keyser Mineral Daily News Tribune

In a decision in a ripped-from-the-headlines issue, a federal appeals court has held that recording video of police officers in the act of performing their duties is protected First Amendment speech.

The issue is a hot-button one given the recent incidents of officer-involved shootings captured on cell phones and other recording devices.

"[T]he First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public," said a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

It was reversing a district court finding that recording was not a First Amendment activity because it was not "sufficiently expressive."

The panel said the case was not about whether or not the plaintiffs have expressed themselves but about whether there was a First Amendment right of access to information about how public servants operate in public. The panel said there definitely is.

The case involved the Philadelphia Police Department preventing bystanders from recording officers at an anti-fracking protest attempting to make an arrest and/or retaliating for the recording.

"We ask much of our police," said the appeals court panel. "They can be our shelter from the storm. Yet officers are public officials carrying out public functions, and the First Amendment requires them to bear bystanders recording their actions. This is vital to promote the access that fosters free discussion of governmental actions, especially when that discussion benefits not only citizens but the officers themselves. We thus reverse and remand for further proceedings."

Not surprisingly, news outlets had weighed in in support of the plaintiff's appeal to the Third Circuit.

(Photo viaTori Rector's Flickr.Image taken on July 21, 2016and used perCreative Commons 2.0 license. The photo was cropped to fit 3x4 aspect ratio.)

Read more from the original source:
Court: Recording Police Is Protected Speech | Broadcasting & Cable - Broadcasting & Cable