Category Archives: First Amendment

Washington Times

A Colorado 'cake artist' bakes up a big First Amendment case for Supreme Court Charlotte Observer With rookie Justice Neil Gorsuch on board, the high court said Monday that it would consider the highly anticipated First Amendment case in the term that starts in October. The dispute arises from Gorsuch's home state, and will provide an early test ... Supreme Court to hear case of baker's refusal to make wedding cake for gay coupleFox News Supreme Court to Hear Anti-LGBT Bakery CaseEater Supreme Court To Hear Case Of Wedding-Cake Baker Who Refused To Serve A Gay CoupleRefinery29 ABA Journal -The Week Magazine -USA TODAY -SCOTUSblog all 166 news articles »

Here is the original post:
A Colorado 'cake artist' bakes up a big First Amendment case for Supreme Court - Charlotte Observer

In a victory for religious citizens in Mississippi and in a promising sign for all religious Americans the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Thursday in favor of a bill that protects religious-liberty and conscience rights in the realm of marriage.

The bill, the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), allows religious organizations and businesses to operate in accord with their religions teaching on marriage and sexuality, forbids the government from silencing or firing its employees for expressing their religious beliefs, and protects employees from being forced to participate in activities that violate their consciences.

The courts ruling is also a positive sign for those hoping to enact such protections at the federal level. A federal version of FADA has been introduced in both the House and the Senate, and President Donald Trump has pledged to sign it if it crosses his desk.

The ruling means that Mississippis legislation can serve as a template for any state seeking to balance two interests: the conscience rights of those who believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, and the intrinsic dignity and civil rights of LGBT individuals.

The conflict between those two interests has intensified in the last two years, in the wake of the Supreme Courts decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which saw five justices redefine marriage, for the entire country, as a union between two consenting adults regardless of gender. As a result, many Americans, religious and otherwise, who continue to hold the traditional definition of marriage have been marginalized and, in some cases, required by law to sanction same-sex marriages.

For example, in a number of recent, high-profile cases, religious business owners have been sued by customers or fined by state commissions for refusing to provide services for same-sex wedding ceremonies. So far, courts have uniformly sided against the owners, ruling that to deny service to any homosexual person is unlawful discrimination, regardless of religious belief.

Faithful Americans such as these business owners are routinely maligned by left-wing activists and politicians not to mention popular culture, as in this late-night comedy sketch that portrays religious-freedom laws as an expression of hatred many of whom argue that Christian are bigots who deny the humanity of LGBT people.

Such critiques either misunderstand or outright ignore the essential distinction between serving gay or lesbian clients and providing services for their wedding. For religious Americans, this is a crucial distinction, because the latter involves participation in an event that violates their faiths understanding of marriage.

Contrary to what most media reports suggest, the Mississippi bill would not permit anyone to deny service to individuals because of their sexual orientation. In fact, not a single religious-liberty bill has been proposed to allow such discrimination, at either the state or the federal level. To suggest otherwise is supremely dishonest, and it poisons any possibility of finding a reasonable compromise on this issue.

Whats more, bills such as FADA must be understood in the context of our post-Obergefell society, where people who hold the traditional view of marriage are often treated by popular culture as if they were no better than racists. In such a climate, it is essential that religious citizens be given legal protection, especially since the government itself has embraced a conception of marriage in contradiction to the view of a substantial plurality of the public.

The Fifth Circuits legal rationale in upholding FADA provides a helpful context for understanding the best way to balance the two sets of rights at stake in this debate. The court noted, in particular, the plaintiffs lack of standing, due to their failure to assert anything more than a general stigmatic injury or to demonstrate injury-in-fact.

With this explanation, the court seems to point to the fundamental distinction between material and dignitary harms, the first of which merits a higher level of legal protection. Dignitary harm is considered a lesser category: It can sometimes be permitted by law, for the sake of preserving other fundamental rights.

Applied to FADA, the plaintiffs failure to demonstrate injury-in-fact and instead simply stigmatic injury suggests that the right to religious freedom is fundamental enough that states can permit some dignitary harms for the sake of preserving the right. If FADA were to permit religious Americans to perpetrate material harms against LGBT individuals the court argued that the bill does not the ruling would probably have been different.

Regardless of ongoing contention over the definition of marriage, most Americans agree that we ought to be able to coexist peacefully even when we deeply disagree, and this bill works to that end. Progressives must be willing to admit that Mississippis FADA isnt a weapon of discrimination wielded by bigots against LGBT individuals. One can disagree with the bills specific policies and still acknowledge that some legal protection is needed for a minority group whose beliefs have fallen out of favor.

At the same time, those on the right who care about the future of religious freedom must continue to testify to the inherent dignity of LGBT individuals, regardless of ones view of marriage. That will enable more people to understand that religious Americans can fully respect their neighbor even as they are free to live out the tenets of their faith in daily life. Such an understanding, coupled with prudent legal defenses such as Mississippis FADA, is the best path forward for true compromise on this issue.

READ MORE: Obergefells Toxic Judicial Legacy Are Millennials Following the Success Sequence Hey Guys, Put a Ring on It: Married Men Are Healthier, Wealthier, and Happier

Alexandra DeSanctis is a William F. Buckley Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute.

Follow this link:
In Mississippi, a Bill to Protect Religious Liberty Gets the Green Light - National Review

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on Monday in a closely watched religious rights case involving limits on public funding for churches and other religious entities as the justices issue the final rulings of their current term.

The nine justices are due to rule in six cases, not including their decision expected in the coming days on whether to take up President Donald Trump's bid to revive his ban on travelers from six predominantly Muslim countries in which an emergency appeal is pending.

Of the remaining cases argued during the court's current term, which began in October, the most eagerly awaited one concerns a Missouri church backed by a conservative Christian legal group. The ruling potentially could narrow the separation of church and state.

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

A decision in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church, located in Columbia, Missouri, set the stage for more public money to go to religious entities. The church sued after being denied state taxpayer funds for a playground improvement project because of a Missouri constitutional provision barring state funding for religious entities.

Trinity Lutheran could be headed for a lopsided win, with two liberal justices joining their conservative colleagues in signaling support during the April oral argument. It was one of the first in which Trump's conservative appointee to the court, Neil Gorsuch, participated.

The dispute pits two provisions of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment against each other: the guarantee of the free exercise of religion and the Establishment Clause requiring the separation of church and state.

A broad ruling backing the church could hearten religious conservatives who favor weakening the wall between church and state, including using taxpayer money to pay for children to attend private religious schools rather than public schools. President Donald Trump's education secretary, Betsy DeVos, is a leading supporter of such "school choice" plans.

FILE PHOTO: Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts (R) stands with associate Justice Neil Gorsuch during his investiture ceremony at the Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., June 15, 2017. Reuters

The most notable of three immigration-related cases in which rulings are due on Monday is a dispute over whether immigrants detained by the U.S. government for more than six months while deportation proceedings unfold should be able to request their release. The case takes on additional significance with Trump ratcheting up immigration enforcement, placing more people in detention awaiting deportation.

The court also is set to decide a case that could clarify the criminal acts for which legal immigrants may be deported. Another involves whether the family of a Mexican teenager shot dead while standing on Mexican soil by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Texas can sue for civil rights violations.

As the justices look to finish work before their summer break, they must decide what to do with Trump's travel ban, which was blocked by lower courts. His administration has made an emergency request asking for the ban to go into effect while the litigation continues.

The March 6 executive order called for a 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to let the government implement stronger vetting. Trump has said the order is needed urgently to prevent terrorism in the United States.

Follow this link:
US Supreme Court Case First Amendment Battle: Separation of Church and State Vs. Free Exercise of Religion - Newsweek

Documentarian Brian Knappenberger took a keen interest in the lawsuit Hulk Hogan brought against Gawker. Not because of the tawdry details, though there were plenty of those: The wrestler sued the media company for invasion of privacy over a sex tape it published in 2012 featuring him and the wife of his friend Bubba the Love Sponge Clem.

Knappenberger was more interested in what the trial meant for the First Amendment. As soon as the jury sided with Hogan and put Gawker on the hook for an astounding $140million the filmmaker knew he had to get to work on his next movie.

Of course, that was long before he realized how much deeper the story went. It was before the revelation that Peter Thiel, a wealthy entrepreneur with a grudge, bankrolled the lawsuit that put Gawker out of business; before Thiel supported Donald Trump for president; and before Trump, who promised during his campaign to open up our libel laws, became leader of the free world.

Sometimes documentaries come along at the ideal moment. Chalk it up to luck or a futurists understanding of the zeitgeist, but Knappenbergers Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press is right on time as it begins streaming on Netflix on Friday. Its a crucial moment to consider what it means for the First Amendment, not to mention society, that a billionaire with a bone to pick could use his money to get the legal system to do his bidding.

Thiel had despised Gawker ever since it published a story about him in 2007 with the title Peter Thiel is totally gay, people. And he wasnt alone. Gawker had a well-earned bad reputation. A pioneer of online journalism, the company prized speed over fact-checking and became infamous for its questionable news judgment and snarky, cavalier attitude. Its Gawker Stalker feature was the tip of the iceberg, raising privacy concerns with its crowdsourced map that tracked the movements of celebrities.

But Gawker also broke legitimate stories, including one about the many women who had accused Bill Cosby of sexual assault.

As legendary lawyer and First Amendment advocate Floyd Abrams puts it in the movie: We dont get to pick and choose what sorts of publications are permissible.

And yet, Thiel did. He didnt see his court case as a threat to the First Amendment, he explained, because he didnt view Gawker as a journalistic enterprise. The co-founder of PayPal (and an early Facebook investor) declared putting Gawker out of business his most philanthropic deed. He maintained that the company was a singularly sociopathic bully.

But thats an absurd thing to say in a media environment in which Alex Jones basically says Sandy Hook didnt happen, Knappenberger said in a recent interview, referring to the conspiracy-theory-spewing Infowars radio host, who also spread lies about Pizzagate. Gawker is singularly sociopathic for posting this tape of a public person who had bragged about his sex life? Its not necessarily tasteful, but its certainly not sociopathic.

Nobody Speak shows that the Hogan-Gawker case is only one piece of a worrisome trend. In Nevada, for example, another moneyed magnate and Republican donor, Sheldon Adelson, secretly paid $140million to buy the Las Vegas Review-Journal a newspaper that had been critical of him in the past. Adelson, like the man he supported for president, has a history of suing journalists who write unflattering stories about him.

The wealthiest citizens clearly exert outsize power in our society, which becomes more problematic as the gap between the haves and have-nots continues to widen. The Fourth Estates job is to hold the powerful accountable, and yet the distrust of institutions especially the news media puts free speech in a precarious spot.

Technology and other factors like inequality are shifting and changing the ground we walk on, said Knappenberger, whose films The Internets Own Boy and We Are Legion: The Story of the Hacktivists also deal with technology and society. The way those forces are rubbing up against what you might think of as traditional values freedom of speech and democracy and acquisition of power and money that stuff is really shifting, and I dont think we quite know where its going.

Knappenberger said he could tell at the time that what was happening with Hogan and Gawker was connected to what was happening on the campaign trail.

Trump was always in this film from the beginning, he said. There was a palpable hatred of the media in the courtroom. The judge on the case, Jeb Bush appointee Pamela Campbell, had no sympathy for Gawker. Nor, apparently, did the jury.

Theres legitimate criticism, Knappenberger said of journalism. That its too corporatized or too cozy with power. For too long, [journalists] traded softball stories for access, and people are starting to call bulls---.

But the director is heartened by the response to the new presidency as reporters have been energized by a hunt for scoops that has led to seemingly nonstop breaking-news bombshells.

Meanwhile, Trumps ability to change libel laws appears to be limited, despite a menacing tweet after a New York Times story he didnt like.

That doesnt make the threat against free speech and real facts any less real. Lets not forget what happened in that Florida courtroom.

This became something much, much bigger, and it does point to something critical at the heart of whats going on right now, Knappenberger said. If money is leveraged against civil liberties and speech, what else is important? Its not that thats the only important thing. Its that how do you care about anything else? How do you tackle anything else without speech?

See the original post:
A movie about Hulk Hogan's court case shows how the First ... - Washington Post

An Asian-American rock group with an edgy name can now trademark that name thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck a blow for the First Amendment and against federal bureaucrats consumed by political correctness.

In an 8-0 ruling this week, the high court found that the disparagement clause used by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny trademark protection for the Oregon-based band The Slants is quite simply unconstitutional.

The band, of course, can call itself anything it wants, but without trademark protection couldnt safeguard its rights for, say, T-shirts or other items after the patent office found the name offensive. Theyve been fighting this lunatic ruling since 2011

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, found, The clause reaches any trademark that disparages any person, group, or institution. It applies to trademarks like the following: Down with racists, Down with sexists, Down with homophobes. It is not an anti-discrimination clause; it is a happy-talk clause. In this way, it goes much further than is necessary to serve the interest asserted.

Dont you wonder if those ubiquitous Yankees Suck T-shirts were ever covered?

Alito also noted, It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the grounds that it expresses ideas that offend.

Also cheering the ruling were the Washington Redskins, whose appeal of a similar 2014 ruling has been awaiting action on this case.

Redskins owner Dan Snyder has insisted the team name represents honor, respect and pride for Native Americans. Those who disagree are free to not buy tickets or T-shirts and to exercise their own First Amendment rights. They just cant have overreaching government bureaucrats fighting their battles for them.

Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar grounds is hateful, Alito wrote, but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought we hate.

And thank goodness for that!

See the article here:
Editorial: Win for 1st Amendment - Boston Herald

The North Carolina legislature is the counter-argument against the story of the mule and the two-by-four. No matter how often you hit them over the head, and various courts have done it 12 times in the past year, you still don't get their attention. Sometimes, the mule is just dumb.

Getty

From there, we skip up to Wisconsin, where the state's university system remains stubbornly unimpressed with the Republican legislature and with the leadership of Scott Walker, the goggle-eyed homunculus hired by Koch Industries to manage this particular Midwest subsidiary. You may have been following the various fights on college campuses regarding "controversial" speakers and the reaction against them. (If you're a regular reader of right-wing media, you believe that mere anarchy has been loosed upon the world. Just lie down with a cold compress for a while.) There are "free speech" advocates on both sides of the big ditch here, exercising their First Amendment rights at the top of their lungs and, occasionally, exercising their First Amendment right of assembly in a fashion thought to be too vigorous.

Luckily, the Wisconsin Republicans have a solution: Throw out the latter group. From The Capital Times:

The controversial legislation has drawn criticism from those who say it would curb free speech rather than expand it and that it would stand in the way of the UW System's authority to manage its own campuses. Its supporters say its goal is to encourage free expression and to ensure all viewpoints can be heard at public universities. "Today we are ensuring that simply because you are a young adult on a college campus, your constitutional rights do not go away," said bill author Rep. Jesse Kremer, R-Kewaskum.

Watch now as Kremer deftly ties his own shoes together.

Under the measure, students who repeatedly engage in "violent or other disorderly conduct that materially and substantially disrupts the free expression of others" would be subjected to discipline that, on a third incident, would result in expulsion. The bill requires UW System campuses to launch investigations and hold hearings the second time a student is alleged to have interfered with the expressive rights of others. The hearings and their outcomes would be reported annually to a newly formed Council on Free Expression.

You see the joker in the deck there, right? "Other disorderly conduct." As defined by what"a Council On Free Expression."

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

A what? Thought police! Somebody wake up Ben Shapiro. There's work to be done in Madison! Of course, Wisconsin is not the only test case.

Rep. Terese Berceau, D-Madison, said the country has faced free speech struggles throughout its history, but they have been resolved without legislative intervention. "This is really part of a political program," Berceau said. "It's part of the continuing effort to really establish a conservative stronghold in our country on every institution, and now they're going after or universities." The bill is similar to others being considered throughout the country, modeled after sample legislation prepared by the conservative Goldwater Institute, and takes some pieces from a provision members of the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee removed from Gov. Scott Walker's budget proposal.

Of all the techniques of artificial victimization common to modern conservatism, the whole "political correctness" thing is one of the most threadbare, and this attempt at legislating away the parts of the First Amendment you don't like is the best evidence of that we've seen in a while.

And we conclude, as is our custom, in the great state of Oklahoma, where Blog Official Derelict Oil Well Artist Friedman of the Plains brings us the tale of Rogers County Sheriff Scott Walton, who is not working and playing well with others, as the Tulsa World explains.

The telephone exchange stemmed from a May 25 incident in which a deputy with the Rogers County Sheriff's Office drove past Officer Craig Heatherly, who attempted to flag down the deputy for backup in a gun-related traffic stop, according to an internal police email. However, dash cam video allegedly shows the deputy driving past without stopping to help In the cellphone audio, Walton can be heard telling Heatherly that he "handled it wrong" and he "owe(d) the man an apology" in reference to the deputy. Heatherly responded that he and Walton would have to "agree to disagree on that one." "We'll agree to disagree," Walton said, "but I do agree that you're a f---- coward. OK."

I have to agree with FOTP here. What makes it art is "We'll have to agree to disagreeyou fcking coward!" From NPR to Deadwood in one complex sentence. Awesome.

This is your democracy, America. Cherish it.

The Constitution Simply Was Not Built for This

Respond to this post on the Esquire Politics Facebook page.

The rest is here:
First Amendment Battle Brewing in Wisconsin - Esquire - Esquire.com

A Northwestern University professors op-ed in the Los Angeles Times is disturbing - not only in its conclusions, but also its assumptions. Sociologist Laura Beth Nielsen calls for restrictions on hate speech, because she contends that speech is violence.

We are currently seeing the results of confusing speech and political violence. Its not pretty.

As a sociologist and legal scholar, I struggle to explain the boundaries of free speech to undergraduates. Despite the 1st Amendment - I tell my students - local, state, and federal laws limit all kinds of speech, Nielsen writes. We regulate advertising, obscenity, slander, libel, and inciting lawless action to name just a few. My students nod along until we get to racist and sexist speech. Some cant grasp why, if we restrict so many forms of speech, we dont also restrict hate speech.

Shes only partially right there; government doesnt regulate libel, for example, but victims can win compensation from perpetrators in a civil action. Incitement to violence is certainly restricted, but advertisings relationship with the First Amendment is more complicated.

But the real problem with Nielsens piece is her assumptions.

In fact, empirical data suggest that frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences, she writes. Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and requires complex coping strategies These negative physical and mental health outcomes - which embody the historical roots of race and gender oppression - mean that hate speech is not just speech. Hate speech is doing something.

Certainly, harassment is bad. And in many cases, its already illegal. There are remedies in place. But the fundamental truth here is that words are not actions.

The U.S. Supreme Court has time and again reaffirmed the freedom of speech - and ruled that hate speech is covered.

For the purposes of the First Amendment, there is no difference between free speech and hate speech. Ideas and opinions that progressive students and professors find offensive or hateful are just as protected by the Bill of Rights as anti-Trump slogans chanted at a campus protest, writes John Daniel Danielson for The Federalist.

The reason is simple. Once Congress can start banning hate speech, then unpopular political opinions will become illegal.

As Danielson points out, By hate speech, they mean ideas and opinions that run afoul of progressive pieties. Do you believe abortion is the taking of human life? Thats hate speech Concerned about illegal immigration? Believe in the right to bear arms? Support President Donald Trump? All hate speech.

And of course that could be turned against the left. Their ideas and values easily could be labeled hate speech. Think of black lives matter.

Were in the midst of a great confusion in our society. Political violence - from punching Nazis to attacking protestors to shooting conservative members of Congress - seems to be on the rise.

We must get back to the belief that ideas are to be countered with better ideas, not with violence. Words have consequences, but we cant ban them just because we dont like them.

Read the rest here:
Tyler Morning Telegraph - Editorial: First Amendment affirms that ... - Tyler Morning Telegraph

The Detroit News 11:04 p.m. ET June 22, 2017

The court ruling upholds the principle that the First Amendment protects even hateful speech.(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite / AP)

Americans shouldnt need constant reminding that under the First Amendment, they can say what they want, when they want and to whom they want, no matter how hateful or offensive.

And yet as longstanding as is that principle, the U.S. Supreme Court had to affirm it again this week when it ruled unanimously that an Asian rock band could trademark its name the Slants even though it is a derogatory term sometimes used to demean Asians.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had denied the bands request to register and protect its name, deeming it amounted to hate speech. The office similarly stripped the Washington Redskins football team of its trademark because it is offensive to Native Americans.

The courts ruling basically upheld the principle that all speech, including hateful speech, is protected by the First Amendment and should not be restricted.

Thats the right call. The obvious danger of allowing the federal government to be the arbiter of free speech is that restrictions are easily manipulated to suit political agendas.

And offensiveness is very much in the ear they beholder. What shocks one person may not faze another.

The idea that the government may restrict speech expressing ideas that offend strikes at the heart of the First Amendment, Justice Samuel Alito wrote. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.

Alitos opinion provides important clarification for the so-called disparagement clause of federal law, which forbids registration of a trademark that may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute.

Thats an overly broad carve-out that, again, relies on subjective interpretations influenceable by the regulators own experiences and biases.

Its not the appropriate role of the government, according to Justice Anthony Kennedy.

A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all, Kennedy wrote in concurrence. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the governments benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

There are, of course, marketplace consequences when speech oversteps societal norms and broadly offends. Products can be boycotted and individuals shunned. Thats the appropriate regulator.

This court has been a good friend to the First Amendment at a time when there are many who would shred it to stifle dissent and control the national political debate.

That the Slants opinion came on an 8-0 vote is a powerful affirmation of the foundational right of free speech and its sacred role in a democratic society.

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2tUR4iG

Read this article:
Editorial: Court shores up First Amendment - The Detroit News

On May 30, Rep. Darrell Issas San Diego County constituents saw a different side of the nine-term member of Congress.

Angry at peaceful protesters outside his district office building in Vista, California, the congressman took to the roof to express his frustration. Looking down upon the protesters, he phoned a local newspaper reporter to explain he was on the roof because the protesters wouldnt speak to him and blamed the reporter for being in cahoots with the protesters. On Twitter, however, Issa said he spent his morning talking to constituents and then popped upstairs to photograph them from the roof.

While Issas behavior was erratic, it isnt the most concerning aspect to this story. No member of Congress likes to see protests outside his window, but he should vocally defend protesters First Amendment right to do so. But Issas silence has been deafening, even though the city of Vista is trying very hard to crack down on the protests.

For the past few months, Ellen Montanari has organized weekly protests outside Issas office to voice concerns over Issas public policies, including Issas vote to repeal Obamacare. These days, people are eager to express their dissatisfaction with Issas performance and Montanaris protests have given them a platform to do it. So every Tuesday, the protesters show up for an hour-long peaceful rally outside of Issas office, and the city of Vista has taken notice.

Until recently, the protesters gathered on the public sidewalk next to his office building to exercise their First Amendment rights. But under the terms of the citys most recent permit, which is issued in 30-day increments, they have been relegated to a dirt path on the opposite side of the road. Taking direct aim at Montanari, the permit also makes her financially responsible for the behavior of all the protesters who show up.

The actions taken by the city are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that public sidewalks are one of the places where our First Amendment rights are at their most robust. A government restriction on sidewalk protests can be justified only by the most compelling and fact-based need and that reason can never include the government's desire that a protest be less visible or less critical.

Our First Amendment freedoms ensure that anger and political disagreement dont fester into violence.

On June 1, the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties issued a letter to the city of Vista seeking the removal of the unconstitutional restrictions in the permit granted to Ellen Montanari. In our letter, we made it clear that the city cannot ban protest from a public sidewalk or make Ms. Montanari responsible for the conduct of others. We also explained to the city that it cannot bill protesters for any law enforcement response and reminded it cannot ban the use of bullhorns or microphones by protesters. The ACLUs letter is now under review by the city attorney.

Contempt for the First Amendment, however, isnt confined to Vista. Since the election, 22 state legislatures have considered 31 anti-protest bills. Fourteen have been defeated, but 10 are pending and seven have passed including laws in South Dakota and Tennessee against blocking streets during demonstrations.

But the United States commitment to the First Amendment has been on the decline since before the election.

In July 2016, Maina Kiai, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, undertook an official mission to the U.S. to assess our countrys commitment to freedom of assembly and protest. When he completed his trip, he observed that Americans have good reason to be angry and frustrated at the moment.

But he then went on to explain that its our First Amendment freedoms that ensure that anger and political disagreement dont fester into violence. And it is at times like these when robust promotion of assembly and association rights are needed most, he said. These rights give people a peaceful avenue to speak out, engage in dialogue with their fellow citizens and authorities, air their grievances and hopefully settle them.

The local officials of Vista, California, should heed Kiais words and stop trying to block Ms. Montanari and other peaceful protesters from exercising the very rights that have made America an example to the world for over two centuries. And we should all hope Darrell Issa can find his way down from the roof and assure his constituents that he believes they have a right to protest even when hes the target.

View post:
It's Time for Congressman Issa to Come Down From the Roof and ... - ACLU (blog)

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this week, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) said that it was okay for universities to cancel controversial speakers over threats of violence and people got mad at her for trying to silence conservative voices.

But all of those people were missing the point.

Yes, Feinsteins comments do come at a time when speakers invited by conservative student groups have routinely been met with debilitating protests. And yes, a Democratic senators suggesting that colleges have every right to cancel Republican-invited speakers is certainly going to sound the partisan-outrage alarm bell and I cant say Im surprised to have seen so many headlines likeDianne Feinstein Defends Canceling Conservative Speakers on Campus(The Daily Caller) andSenator Feinstein Defends Suppression of Conservative Speakers On College Campuses (Mediaite), and countless similarly scripted tweets.

But the truth is, what Feinstein said shouldnt be upsetting for partisan reasons its much, much bigger than that. The issue here is not that colleges are denying their students the right to hear conservative speakers, because, of course, no such right exists.

The issue is this: Feinsten is saying that students are not free to bring any speaker that they choose to their campuses, because campuses are not safe places for free speech, and that that is totally acceptable and fine. Remove the ideology of the controversial speakers in question, and it becomes clear just how absurdly out of line Feinstein really is.

Student groups choosing and inviting speakers is a normal, acceptable campus protocol, and even offensive speech is protected under the First Amendment. So, basically, what Feinstein is saying is that colleges do not have a duty to make sure that the First Amendment is protected on campus that it is not important for campuses to make sure that the First Amendment is not able to be overridden by threats from violent mobs.

Now, Feinstein tried to argue that colleges simply dont have the resources to deal with this problem, but thats pretty obviously a garbage excuse. Colleges are bloated with wasteful spending, and Im pretty sure that protecting students civil liberties and making sure that a campus doesnt turn into a microcosm of fascism, where violence is used to silence people is a little more important than the annual Microaggressions Awareness Festival Featuring Puppies and Finger-Paint Time, or whatever other trash these schools might spend it on. And, as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh pointed out during the hearing, the police can help too after all, protecting our rights is literally the police forces job.

So, yes, get mad at Senator Feinstein. Get very, very mad but not because youre a conservative. Often, partisan loyalty is the reasonpeople become outraged, but this time, it seems to be the reason that people dont realize just how outraged they should really be.

READ MORE: Anti-Free-Speech Radicals Never Give Up Speech Is Not Violence and Violence Is Not Self-Expression When Speech Inspires Violence, Protect Liberty While Restoring Virtue

KatherineTimpfis aNational Review Onlinereporter.

Read more here:
Senator Feinstein Thinks It's Acceptable for Violent Mobs to Control Speech - National Review