Category Archives: First Amendment

Since then, the anti-free-speech charge, applied broadly to cultural criticism and especially to feminist discourse, has proliferated. It is nurtured largely by men on the internet who used to nurse their grievances alone, in disparate, insular communities around the web mens rights forums, video game blogs. Gradually, these communities have drifted together into one great aggrieved, misogynist gyre and bonded over a common interest: pretending to care about freedom of speech so they can feel self-righteous while harassing marginalized people for having opinions.

At the online video conference VidCon a couple of weeks ago, the feminist cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian took the stage for a panel on womens experiences online, only to find the first two rows of seats stacked with her online harassers, leering up at her, filming her on their phones.

Ms. Sarkeesian has been relentlessly stalked, abused and threatened since 2012, when she started a Kickstarter campaign to fund a series of YouTube videos critiquing the representation of women in video games.

In retaliation, men have threatened to rape and murder her, dug up and disseminated her personal contact information, called in mass shooting threats to her public events and turned their obsession with shutting her up into a competitive sport. All of this, they insist, is in defense of freedom of speech, to which Ms. Sarkeesian, with her precise, rigorously argued opinions about the relative loincloth sizes of male and female video game avatars, somehow poses a threat.

It is not an enviable position to be in.

There are women who have said to me, or to people in my circles, that they dont want to be me, Ms. Sarkeesian told me. They dont want what happened to me to happen to them, and so they keep their head down and they stay quiet. Absence is invisible. We dont even know who has been lost how many were scared away before they even started. What about their speech?

Refusing to quit, as Ms. Sarkeesian has, yields often invisible professional consequences as well. Our videos on YouTube dont get promoted and supported in their algorithms the same way that hate videos about us do, because we cant have comments open, she said. That punishes us.

You can find disingenuous rhetoric about protecting free speech in the engine room of pretty much every digital-age culture war. The refrain has become so ubiquitous that its earned its own sarcastic homophone in progressive circles: freeze peach! Nothing is more important than the First Amendment, the internet men say, provided you interpret the First Amendment exactly the same way they do: as a magic spell that means no one you dont like is allowed to criticize you.

The law does not share that interpretation. The First Amendment only regulates the government, explained Rebecca Tushnet, a professor of First Amendment law at Harvard. Does she think there is any merit in telling a person that her critique of your art is infringing on your free speech? No.

Its been a surprisingly effective rhetorical strategy nonetheless. Americans are fiercely proud of our culture of (nearly) unfettered expression, though often not so clear on the actual parameters of the First Amendment. To defend speech is to plant a flag on the right side of history; to defend unpopular speech is to be a real rogue, a sophisticate, the kind of guy who gets it.

Freedom of speech is such a buzzword that people can rally around, Ms. Sarkeesian said, and that works really well in their favor. Theyre weaponizing free speech to maintain their cultural dominance.

The goal of Ms. Sarkeesians detractors was never really to protect the First Amendment. If it were, more than 8,000 of them wouldnt have signed an online petition to have her and the GamerGate target Zoe Quinn arrested that is, detained by the state in retaliation for speech for addressing the United Nations about online harassment. But they did. (Ms. Sarkeesian and Ms. Quinns crime, according to someone who is definitely a lawyer: pushing for a U.N. intervention (Foreign Agents) with the intent to limit internet free speech which violates the First Amendment of the U.S.)

If their goal was really to protect the First Amendment, they would have at least blinked when the White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, confirmed that President Trump is considering amending libel laws, presumably so he can prosecute journalists who hurt his feelings.

If the goal was really to destroy political correctness, as Mr. Trump promised was his top priority, they would have rallied behind Kathy Griffin and Stephen Colbert and Johnny Depp instead of by their own definition censoring them with at least as much fury as they generated on behalf of Milo Yiannopoulos and his suspended Twitter account (which was perfectly legal, as per the Twitter corporations speech rights).

If their goal was really to foster free public discourse, we would have seen deafening bipartisan support for Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, the Princeton African-American studies assistant professor and author of From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation, who canceled two speaking engagements in late May after Fox News aired video of her calling President Trump a racist and sexist megalomaniac. Professor Taylor received more than 50 hate-filled and threatening emails, many racially charged, some containing specific threats of violence, including murder, she wrote in a statement.

Where were the brave knights of free speech when Professor Taylor was being intimidated into silence?

They were nowhere, of course (except, perhaps, on the other end of some of those emails), because their true goal has always been to ensure that if anyone is determining the ways that we collectively choose to restrict our own speech in the name of values, they are the ones setting the limits. They want to perform a factory reset to a time when people of color and women didnt tell white men what to do. And only one 2016 presidential candidate promised such a reset.

The election of Donald Trump and crying free speech to end any discussion of cultural sensitivity are not unrelated. Casting the dissent of marginalized groups as a First Amendment violation is the kind of pseudo-intellectual argument that seems reasonable to people who dont have enough skin in the game to bother paying attention. Discourse is good! Sunlight is the best disinfectant! The more airtime we give to irrational bigots on high-profile platforms the more assiduously we hear both sides, stay fair and balanced the sooner theyll be rejected by the public at large!

Unfortunately, as any scientist can tell you (for as long as we still have those), more often than not, sunlight makes things grow. Conflating criticism with censorship fosters a system in which all positions deserve equal consideration, no bad ideas can ever be put to rest, and lies are just as valid as the truth.

Its not hard to draw a straight line from internet culture warriors misappropriation of free speech to our current mass delusions over climate change, the Hyde Amendment, abstinence-only education, health care as a luxury and class as a meritocracy. Free speech rhetoric begot fake news, which begot alternative facts.

The right cannot lay claim to the First Amendment when its own president is actively hostile to it. Sometimes disinfectant is the best disinfectant.

More here:
Save Free Speech From Trolls - New York Times

This article first appeared on the Cato Institute site.

The New York Police Departments Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) reported that over a three-year period NYPD officers threatened, blocked, and otherwise tried to prevent individuals from recording them in public in the performance of their duties.

Almost 100 of the 346 allegations made between 2014 and 2016 were substantiated by the board, not counting the many cases that may not have been reported.

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

To be fair, there are many thousands of contacts between police and individuals that happen in New York City. Although there is no way to know how many of those interactions are recorded, its fair to assume that many of them have been as cell-phone recording capabilities have become ubiquitous.

However, there is clearly a segment of officersperhaps very small, but nevertheless realwho feel that they may violate the First Amendment rights of people who record them.

To alleviate this, the CCRB suggested that a new entry should be included in the Patrol Manual to reassert the publics right to record police interactions. That insertion is fine, but more could and should be done because it is extremely unlikely that every officer who disrupted lawful, public recording was ignorant of the right to do so. Any officer who already knew the law was committing misconduct.

Police keep guard outside of Trump Tower on May 10, 2017 in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty

Police officers should be held accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, New York State law prohibits the Department or the CCRB from releasing the names of officers who have complaints lodged against them, whether or not they are sustained, or what the outcomes of any disciplinary actions taken were short of termination.

As I testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2015:

According to an investigation of New York Citys Civilian Complaint Review Board records, about 40 percent of the 35,000 NYPD officers have never received a civilian complaint, but roughly 1,000 officers have more than 10 complaints on file. One officer has over 50 complaints but retains his position.

Institutionally, the NYPD knows these 1,000 officers are repeat offenders several times over. Multiple complaints against a single officer over a period of months or years implies the officer must, at times, operate too close to the line of impropriety.

Those 1,000 officers represent fewer than three percent of NYPD officers but can damage the reputation of the rest of the department. Clearly, some portion of these 1,000 officers are abusing their authority, and the NYPD is unwilling or unable to remove these officers from duty.

And because the public cant know their names and records, we cannot measure how effectively the NYPD addressed these incidents with any given officer. (internal citations omitted)

The lack of transparency is not limited to New York, by any means, but the NYPDs institutional dedication to data collection at least gives us a glimpse of what is going on.

Getting the right to record in the Patrol Manual is a good start, but the State of New York should repeal the anonymity granted to misbehaving officers. Such laws punish the best officers by making them indistinguishable from those who intentionallyand sometimes repeatedlyviolate the rights of the people they are supposed to serve.

Jonathan Blanks is a Research Associate in Catos Project on Criminal Justice and Managing Editor of PoliceMisconduct.net.

Blanks writes: For a robust First Amendment analysis of the right to record, read this opinion by 2014 B. Kenneth Simon Lecturer Judge Diane Sykes . You can read my 2015 USCCR testimony on police transparency and the use of force here . Finally, you can check out the 2014 panel we hosted on recording the police here.

Here is the original post:
Yes, It's Legal to Record Cops. It's In the First Amendment - Newsweek

*Clarification appended

The Texas Supreme Court on Friday upheld the states ban on direct corporate campaign contributions, denying a challenge fromaTea Party group that called it unconstitutional.

In the unanimous opinion, Texas highest civil court also upheld state requirements that campaigns report contributions and expenditures, and ruled that private groups can sue over alleged violations.

The long-running case highlighted the tension between the warp and weft of First Amendment rights and state powers to regulate elections, Justice Eva Guzman wrote in her majority opinion.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

In 2010, the Texas Democratic Partysued Houston-based King Street Patriots, accusing the Tea Party-backed group that trained poll watchers of 1960s style intimidation during voting. Democrats called the group a sham domestic nonprofit corporation used to funnel support to Republican candidates, andalleged the group violated state campaign finance laws by illegally accepting and spending political contributions that it failed to disclose.

King Street Patriots, which called itself a group of concerned residents from the Houston area, countered that it formed to provide education and awareness [to] the general public on important civic and patriotic duties. It denied being a political committee bound by Texas election law and denied making political contributions or expenditures. Further, the group filed a countersuit challenging a slate of state campaign finance laws, calling them an unconstitutional assault on the right of political association.

On Friday, the Supreme Court resolved the broadest questions in the case, upholding the state's ban on corporate contributions, laws creating disclosure requirements and the right to sue over alleged violations as constitutional.

The King Street Patriots sought to further upend Texas election laws in the wake of a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling known as Citizens United that removed state and federal restrictions on how much corporations and unions can spend in campaigns but left intact restrictions on direct donations to candidates.

In her opinion, Guzman noted Citizens Unitedleft intact a previous Texas Supreme Court decision that called laws barring corporate political contributions consistent with the First Amendment.

Our role is simply to 'say what the law is,' not prognosticate how the law could change, Guzman wrote.

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.

Chad Dunn, an attorney for the stateDemocratic Party, called the ruling "an important victory."

Secret money in politics is corrosive to our democracy, which the Texas Legislature recognized decades ago," he said.There are a lot of political organizations out there that frankly have just flaunted disclosure rules under the belief that they werent constitutional. Folks should now understand that disclosure of campaign funds is the law.

Some questions in the case remained unresolved Friday, such as the Tea Party group's narrower challenge to the state's definition of a political committee.

The justices ruled that King Street Patriots was not a "political committee" under Texas law, based upon the "limited record" before the court, a determination that could change if Democrats presented more evidence.

The record is silent as to whether those donating to King Street Patriots do so with the intent that their donations be used to defray officeholder expenses or used in connection with a measure or a campaign for elective office, Guzman wrote. Nor is there evidence that King Street Patriots has a principal purpose of accepting such contributions.

Catherine Engelbrecht, who founded King Street Patriots and a separate group called True The Vote, said Friday she needed more time to digest the ruling before commenting.

Clarification: This story has been updated to more fully explain a piece of the court's opinion dealing with the state's definition of a political committee.

Read related Tribune coverage:

Houston-area Rep. Ron Reynolds, who's been sued by the state after not filing a campaign finance report in a year, says he's started a payment plan. [link]

The Texas Ethics Commission fined Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller a total of $2,750 to resolve two complaints accusing him of improper campaign accounting. [link]

Commissioners are trying to open so-called campaign in a box disclosures, where candidates report their spending on consultants but not on the specific campaign services those consultants are providing. [link]

Read more:
Texas Supreme Court rejects Tea Party challenge to campaign finance laws - Texas Tribune

A federal judge has refused to dismiss a $100,000 lawsuitfiled by apolitical candidatewho claims his free speech rights were violated during the 2013 election campaign.

David J. Mongielo, who has a long history of run-ins with the town government, ran for Lockport town supervisor as a Conservative in 2013. He lost to the Republican incumbent, Marc R. Smith, who is now the town's economic development director.

During the race, Mongielo self-published a free newspaper that accused Smith of "ballot manipulation."

The paper also carried an advertisement for a fundraising event to benefit the South Lockport Fire Company, of which Mongielo was then a member.

But not for long.

According to the lawsuit, the fire company's then-president, Peter Smith - no relation to Marc Smith - suspended Mongielo on Election Day 2013 after Marc Smith threatened to cut the fire company's aid from the town. Mongielo immediately resigned from the fire company and has never been reinstated.

The town did not reduce its funding for the fire company.

His lawsuit contends his resignation was forced and resulted from retaliation for Mongielo's exercise of freedom of speech.

"He was suspended. That's the retaliation," said James M. Ostrowski, who's Mongielo's attorney. "Whether they carry out a threat doesn't matter."

Mongielo filed suit in U.S. District Courtlast November, three years after the allegedincident,against Marc Smith, Peter Smith and the South Lockport Fire Co., seeking $100,000 plus punitive damages.

U.S.District Judge Michael A. Telescarejected the defendants' effort to have the case dismissed in a May 16 ruling.

The case may turn on a text message Peter Smith sent to Mongielo on Election Day 2013.

According to the lawsuit,the textsaid, "I hate to do this but I feel I need to suspend u until Friday when we have a special ex meeting. I ts over the articles/ad in the community news. Judt got off phone with marc smith and his council is all over this. If we dont act Im afraid the situstion will only worsen. So for now please stay away per your suspension. We will discuss it further on Friday."

Peter Smith's lawyer, Eric M. Gernant, acknowledged in his written answer to Mongielo's complaint that Peter Smith sent a text to Mongielo, but denied that Smith told Mongielo that the supervisor had threatened the fire company's town funding.

Daniel T. Cavarello, attorney for Marc Smith, denied in a court filing thatthe then-supervisorthreatened South Lockport's funding.He argued that Smithcouldn't have taken unilateral action against the fire company, and at any rate, the fire company had a binding contract with the town to receive its annual stipend.

"The legal relationship between the Fire Company, Marc Smith, and the Town Board may ultimately foreclose (Mongielo's) claim against Marc Smith," the judge noted.

See the original post here:
Judge refuses to dismiss Lockport candidate's First Amendment lawsuit - Buffalo News

justgrimes/FlickrSeattle homeowners are tired of being forced to contribute tax dollars to candidates they do not support, some of whom campaign to further restrict their property rights.

A Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit challenges Seattle's Democracy Voucher program, which has so far dispensed $233,175 in special tax contributions to fund vouchers of up to $100 for city voters to contribute to their favorite local political candidates.

"When you are forced to give a certain amount of money to someone who then uses it to contribute it to a candidate," Ethan Blevins, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, says, "that's compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment."

Blevins is representing Mark Elster, a Seattle homeowner and self-described "robust supporter of free markets," who objects to being made to underwrite any part of a campaign for candidates, none of whom warrant his support.

So far, the voucher program isn't quite as democratic as envisioned by its progressive sponsors. More than half of the total amount of contributions has gone to Jon Grant, a candidate for an open city council seat and someone who could charitably be described as left-of-center.

A former head of the Washington Tenants Union, Grant has endorsed a range of left-wing housing policies including rent control, mandating affordable housing units in new developments, caps on move-in fees, and giving collective bargaining privileges to tenants.

His opponent, Teresa Mosqueda, and the incumbent candidate for city attorney, Pete Holmes, are the only other candidates who have met the eligibility requirements for the vouchers.

Grant is a strong proponent of Democracy Vouchers, having received 93 percent of all his campaign donations from the program. Prior to the program, "only 1.5 percent of Seattleites donated to a local campaign. This lawsuit clearly demonstrates that the Pacific Legal Foundation is only interested in protecting the interests of the 1%," Grant wrote in a blogpost on his campaign website.

A good deal of his field outreach has been directed at getting homeless people to sign up for the vouchers, and then give that money to him, a practice his campaign manager assures Seattle Weekly is not "exploiting the homeless."

Grant has called the Foundation lawsuit "anti-democratic" and "desperate."

The voucher program, Blevins said, has allowed Grant to do something remarkable. He has "pretty much drawn all his campaign money from a constituency that is inherently opposed to his positions," Blevins said.

Few of the 410,000 registered voters in Seattle can make use of the Democracy Voucher program, even if there were candidates they wanted to support. The tax dollars that fund the vouchers is first come first serve, and not nearly enough is collected each year to ensure that each Seattleite gets a chance to participate.

The funding is capped at $3 million a year, meaning 30,000 or 7 percent of eligible Seattle voters are allowed to make campaign contributions in an election year. As the Seattle Times noted when it editorialized against the 2015 ballot initiative that created Democracy Vouchers, "the proposal counts on people not participating."

In this first election since the program launched, it remains to be seen whether Grant's manipulation of it will be followed by other candidates. The City Council designed the program for a review after 10 years.

Blevins hopes the court recognizing the vouchers for the constitutional abominations they are will end the program years before a review.

"When you are forced to become an unwilling vessel for a message you disagree with," Blevins says, "that violates human dignity and it certainly violates the First Amendment."

Read more here:
Lawsuit Calls Seattle's "Democracy Vouchers" Compelled Speech and a First Amendment Violation - Reason (blog)

Miami Herald

Do we still believe in free speech? Only until we disagree Miami Herald I do think the First Amendment tradition is under siege, said Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Pamela Geller, a firebrand commentator and founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, added, Freedom ... and more »

Continued here:
Do we still believe in free speech? Only until we disagree - Miami Herald

The Jewish Federation of Greater Chattanooga invites the Chattanooga community to its 10th annual First Amendment Dinner on Thursday, July 13 at 6 p.m. at the Jewish Cultural Center, 5461 North Terrace Road.

"This event educates us about our first amendment rights and honors local veterans for their military service," officials said.

The keynote speakers will be Pam Sohn and Clint Cooper opposing editors of the Chattanooga Times Free Press.

We felt that Sohn and Cooper represent the Chattanooga Times Free Press statement attributed to Adolph Ochs To give the news impartially, without fear or favor," said Michael Dzik, executive director of the Jewish Federation.

The cost for this annual event is $12 (free for veterans and current military personnel) if reserved before July 11. After July 11, the cost is $14 for both veterans and non-veterans. RSVP to 493-0270 ext. 10 or rsvp@jewishchattanooga.com. Space is limited.

The First Amendment Dinner was started ten years ago as a way to honor veterans as well as military personnel and inform the public of their First Amendment Rights. Past speakers have included Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Hedy Weinberg of the ACLU, Pulitzer Prize winning political cartoonist Clay Bennett, among others. It is increasingly important for the public to understand the importance of keeping the freedoms we have grown to enjoy and to respect those who serve our country in order to keep these freedoms. said Mr. Dzik.

The Times Free Press publishes two editorial pages. On the left side, the Times opinion page offers a more liberal perspective and commentary. On the right, the Free Press editorial page presents a conservative viewpoint.

Mr. Cooper, a writer and editor in Chattanooga for 37 years and Chattanooga native, is a graduate of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He began his journalism career in 1980 as sports writer for the Chattanooga Free Press. For 20 years, Mr. Cooper was sports news editor for the Free Press, and was named assistant sports editor in 1999. Until taking this editorial post,, he was a feature writer primarily covering the faith beat.

During Mr. Cooper's time in the sports department, the Free Press received the Tennessee Sports Writers Association award for Best Section. He has been honored by the Southern League Baseball association for team coverage of the Chattanooga Lookouts. Mr. Cooper is a well-known figure in Chattanooga's faith community, having written a weekly column on religion for more than a decade. Mr. Cooper represents the conservative right side of the editorial page.

Pam Sohn has been an award-winning reporter and editor in Chattanooga for more than 30 years. Ms. Sohn began her journalism career at the Anniston (Al.) Star before coming to work for the Chattanooga Times and later the Chattanooga Times Free Press. In those years, she has been a reporter, assistant lifestyle editor, wire editor, city editor, Sunday editor, projects team leader, and now opinion editor

Ms. Sohn has won numerous writing and editing awards in both Alabama and Tennessee, including first-place honors for breaking news, investigative news, public service, features, reporting without a deadline, and editorials. During her tenure as Sunday editor at the Chattanooga Times Free Press, the paper received the 2002 first-place honors for Best Sunday editions and Sweepstakes Award -- best paper in the state. Ms. Sohn represents the liberal left side of the editorial page.

Originally posted here:
Jewish Federation's Sets 10th Anniversary First Amendment Dinner ... - The Chattanoogan

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute released the results of its State of the First Amendment survey, which examines Americans' views on freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition, and samples their opinions on contemporary First Amendment issues. The survey, conducted this year in partnership with Fors Marsh Group, an applied research company, has been published annually since 1997, reflecting Americans' changing attitudes toward their core freedoms.

The results of the 2017 survey show that, despite coming out of one of the most politically contentious years in U.S. history, most Americans remain generally supportive of the First Amendment. When asked if the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees, 69 percent of survey respondents disagreed.

However, there are ideological divisions in attitudes toward the First Amendment, with liberals and conservatives disagreeing on the amount of protection the First Amendment should provide in certain scenarios. Conservatives were more likely than liberals to believe that those who leak information should be prosecuted and that the government should be able to hold Muslims to a higher level of scrutiny. However, liberals were more likely than conservatives to think that colleges should be able to ban speakers with controversial views.

This year, 43 percent of Americans agreed that news media outlets try to report the news without bias a significant improvement from only 23 percent in 2016. However, a majority of Americans (53 percent) expressed a preference for news information that aligns with their own views, demonstrating that many Americans may not view "biased" news in a negative light. The 2017 survey also attempted to assessthe impact of the "fake news" phenomenon. Approximately 70 percent of Americans did not think that fake news reports should be protected by the First Amendment, and about one-third (34 percent) reported a decrease in trust in news obtained from social media.

Regarding freedom of religion, 59 percent of Americans believe that religious freedom should apply to all religious groups, even those widely considered as "extreme" or fringe. The age group least likely to agree with this is Americans between the ages of 18 and 29: Just 49 percent of them supported protection for all religious faiths, compared to over 60 percent for every other age group.

On free speech, 43 percent of Americans felt that colleges should have the right to ban controversial campus speakers.Those who strongly agreed or disagreed with this tended to be current students and/or activists (people who had participated in political actions over the past year, such as signing a petition or attending a protest) on both sides of the political spectrum.Other Americans even those in the 18 to 29-year-old millennial demographic were more lukewarm on this issue.

"We were glad to find that most Americans still support the First Amendment, although it's troubling that almost one in four think that we have too much freedom," said Lata Nott, executive director of the First Amendment Center. "It's also troubling that even people who support the First Amendment in the abstract often dislike it when it's applied in real life."

The 2017 survey was conducted and supported by Fors Marsh Group, and contributing support provided by the Gannett Foundation.

Click here to view the complete survey.

ABOUT THE NEWSEUM INSTITUTE'S FIRST AMENDMENT CENTERThe Newseum Institute's First Amendment Center is a forum for the study and exploration of issues related to free expression, religious freedom, and press freedom, and an authoritative source of information, news, and analysis of these issues. The Center provides education, information and entertainment to educators, students, policy makers, legal experts, and the general public. The Center is nonpartisan and does not lobby, litigate or provide legal advice. The Newseum Institute promotes the study, exploration and education of the challenges confronting freedom through its First Amendment Center and the Religious Freedom Center. The Newseum is a 501(c)(3) public charity funded by generous individuals, corporations and foundations, including the Freedom Forum. For more information, visit newseuminstitute.org or follow us on Twitter.

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/first-amendment-center-releases-2017-state-of-the-first-amendment-survey-results-300481542.html

SOURCE Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center

http://www.newseuminstitute.org

See more here:
First Amendment Center Releases 2017 State of the First Amendment Survey Results - PR Newswire (press release)

Local Blogs

By Tim Hunt

E-mail Tim Hunt

View all posts from Tim Hunt

I was saddened to read of the passing of Dick Baker, the long-time president and CEO of Ponderosa Homes. He died May 25 at the age of 73. I have known Dick for many years, particularly through his leadership of the homebuilders charity arm, HomeAid of Northern California. Many years ago, Dick was chairman of the group and initially rejected an application from Shepherds Gate for help with its Livermore campus that just had one residence hall and the offices built. I was serving on the board of Shepherds Gate at the time. I joined our Steve McRee, the Shepherds Gate CEO, when we met with Dick asked for reconsideration. He changed his mind about partnering with our organization. That partnership resulted in three key facilities on the Livermore campus: the second residence hall, the five cottages and last year, the long-awaited Life Center. HomeAid did have a policy of only helping a non-profit once, but modified it for Shepherds Gate and ended up building more than half of the campus. Dicks leadership led to the first commitment and those three buildings and the thousands of women and children who have been served there are a legacy to his vision in partnering with a faith-based organization that never has taken government money.

Comments

View post:
Supreme Court stands up for First Amendment - Pleasanton Weekly (blog)

A City of Seattle Democracy Voucher belonging to the wife of Mark Elste, a plaintiff in a new lawsuit challenging Seattle's first-in-the-nation voucher system for publicly financing political campaigns. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

A new lawsuit is challenging Seattles first-in-the-nation voucher system.

Under the program, Seattle voters in 2015 decided to tax themselves $3 million a year in exchange for a $100 in vouchers that they can sign over to candidates.

The cost of the system is estimated to be about $11 and 50-cents per homeowner each year. A federal lawsuit filed on Wednesday by the Pacific Legal Foundation says it forces people to pay taxes to support candidates they dont necessarily agree with.

Part of human dignity is controlling what we believe, said Ethan Blevins, Attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation. So when we are forced to support values that grade against our own sense of right or wrong that strikes at the core of who we are. Thats what the First Amendment seeks to protect.

They call it a violation of the First Amendment, which guarantees not just right to speak freely but not speak. They feel that forcing homeowners to pay for these political donations is forcing them to speak politically with their money.

Supporters say its a novel way to counter the effect of big money in politics and gives lesser-known candidates a chance to be heard.

More here:
Lawsuit: Seattle democracy vouchers violate First Amendment - MyNorthwest.com