Category Archives: First Amendment

Jewish groups are suing over policies enacted by at least 23 Berkeley Law student groups that exclude students from joining or bar guest speakers from presenting if they do not agree to disavow Israel or if they identify as Zionists. They argue that anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism and say that the policies violate the 14th Amendments equal protection clause, the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and more.

Conditioning a Jews ability to participate in a student group on his or her renunciation of a core component of Jewish identity is no less pernicious than demanding the renunciation of some other core element of a students identity whether based on race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual identity, the lawsuit said. No such imposition is required or would be remotely tolerated of other students.

The groups are accusing Berkeley and the UC system of inaction against the policies that betray Jewish students and faculty. They argue that the student group policies violate a university policy that prohibits registered student groups, including law school groups, from imposing membership restrictions based on race, color, national origin and religion.

The Jewish groups want the court to intervene and require the university and university system to enforce their policies and prohibit discrimination against Jewish students, faculty and invited speakers. They say that Berkeley has suggested that the student group policies discriminate on the basis of viewpoint and not race, ethnicity or religion, but campus leaders have also acknowledged that the policies can be deeply upsetting to some Jewish members.

By abdicating responsibility and failing to act as required by UC rules and U.S. law, the university has enabled the normalization of anti-Jewish hatred on campus, the lawsuit said. Jewish students feel compelled to hide their identities.

Additionally, the groups say that the university has failed to address antisemitic incidents on campus following the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks. They said students celebrations of the Hamas attacks resulted in violence against Jewish students. A Jewish student draped in an Israeli flag was attacked by protesters who hit him in the head with a metal water bottle, according to the complaint, and some Jews have received hate e-mails calling for their gassing and murder. Jewish students have also said they are afraid to attend class because of the protests.

Students stated that the school does so little to protect Jewish students, it feels as if the school were condoning anti-Semitism, the complaint said. They added that officials at the university display a general disregard for Jewish students. They have little confidence that UC will protect them from anti-Semitic mobs.

Follow this link:
Jewish groups sue University of California over 'unchecked ... - POLITICO

A Colorado district courts recent opinion may be religious freedoms most significant victory this fall.

Last Spring, Colorado outlawed the provision of abortion pill reversal services. The new law was particularly targeted at medical clinics like Bella Health and Wellness, a Catholic medical clinic in suburban Denver founded in 2014 to provide faith-based, life-affirming health care to women in need. With guidance and blessings from Archbishop Samuel Aquila and the Archdiocese of Denver and the Blessed Sacrament reserved in a chapel adjoining its main lobby Bella Health has long offered abortion pill reversal services as part of its religious mission.

Working with public interest firm Becket,Bella Health challenged the Colorado lawas a violation of the clinics religious freedom. Bella Health also asked for an injunction a special court order preventing Colorado from enforcing the law while the case proceeds.

The Colorado district court issued the injunction, on the basis that Bella Healthwill likely win this lawsuit.

This outcome is a great win for religious freedom, particularly because ofwhyandhowthe court reached its conclusion.

The district courts decision answered an important question that courts had not clearly addressed in the past. This question was whether (and to what extent) the First Amendment holds the government accountable when it enacts a law knowing that the law will predominantly burden religious activities.

The United States Supreme Court has already found that the First Amendment holds the government to the highest legal standard of accountability, called strict scrutiny, in situations similar toBella Health. These cases involved laws that (1)treat secular activities more favorablythan similar religious activities; (2)burden religionbut allow the government to make exceptions, or (3)target religious activitysimply because it is religious.

- Advertisement -

But a gray area existed in situations where a law predominantly burdened religious activity but did not fit into the previous three categories. Supreme Court cases suggested the First Amendment would require government accountability for such laws, but the question was never directly answered.

The district courts decision inBella Healthclarifies that the government must meet the highest standard of legal accountability in these situations where the government enacts a regulation or law knowing it will predominately burden religious activity. The opinion should guide both judges and advocates for religious freedom moving forward.

The courts decision also reemphasized how important it is for faith-based nonprofits to legally establish their religious identities. Before the court even addressed the religious freedom questions, the court evaluated whether Bella Health is a religious organization eligible for such protections in the first instance. The court looked at Bella Healths Articles of Incorporation, particularly the purpose statement. The court also looked at documents signed by employees and volunteers. These documents explained the clinics religious mission and clearly connected the clinics religious beliefs with its activities. Accordingly, the court concluded that Bellawas indeed a religious organization entitled to First Amendment protections, so the case proceeded.

Faith-based nonprofits and friends of religious freedom should useBella Healthto guide advocacy for more robust religious freedom protections and greater government accountability for laws burdening this freedom.Bella Healthalso reminds faith-based nonprofits and their leaders to revisit their organizing documents and policies and ensure their religious freedom is clearly established in writing. Doing so will maximize the impact of this important religious freedom victory.

Mary Margaret Beecher is the Vice President and Executive Director of Napa Legal.

Read the original post:
'Bella Health' Is a Milestone Victory for Religious Freedom - denvercatholic.org

From Arkansas AG opinion 2023-034, issued two weeks ago:

[T]he content-moderation policies for the Arkansas Department of Transportation's "official social media account(s) (such as Twitter, IDRIVE, Arkansas Instagram, Facebook, etc.)" , which describe the Department's social-media accounts as "limited public forums," authorize the Department to "remove or reject" "user generated posts when the content:

The question presented here is not whether a personal social media account operated by an elected official constitutes government action under the First Amendment. Rather, the question here is what First Amendment limitations apply to comment moderation on an official government run social-media account.

The AG notes that constitutionally unprotected "obscenity" and "incitement" can be removed, but as to other matters concludes:

[T]he Department's interactive social media pages are best classified as limited public forums [and thus] the Department's regulation of the comment sections in its social-media platforms "must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral."

Because some speech may be disruptive or even discourage civic participation, the limits and restrictions contained in the Department's policy likely are reasonable to limit that disruption. Further, numerous alternative channels, such as other social-media platforms, are available for anyone in the public to express his or her off-topic views.

[But v]iewpoint neutral implementation or enforcement of broad or vague terms such as "promotes or endorses social causes," "harassing," or "offensive terms" may prove difficult. Further, the policy provides that the "Department reserves the right to remove, and if needed block, anyone who posts inappropriate material." The phrase "inappropriate material," to the extent that phrase is not limited to the aforementioned five speech-areas subject to removal under the policy, is so broad that the Department risks discriminating based on viewpoint.

The opinion also notes that, "In addition to moderating users' posts, the policy also authorizes the Department 'to remove, and if needed block, anyone who posts inappropriate material,'" and notes:

[S]ome courts have held that indefinitely suspending a disruptive person from attending future public forumsa city hall and a state Capitol buildingbecause of past acts is unconstitutional, particularly when no threat to public safety exists. But this is a highly factual question. Therefore, I cannot definitively opine on whether blocking a user permanently or banning a user indefinitely from a public forum is constitutional.

Note that the Supreme Court is currently considering when individual officeholders' moderation of the comments on their accounts is government action (and is therefore constrained by the First Amendment) and when it's private action (and therefore not constrained by the First Amendment). But those cases take for granted that moderation decisions by government bodiesdepartments of transportation, school boards, city councils, and the likeare government action, and thus subject to the First Amendment.

See the article here:
Arkansas AG's Opinion on Government Entities' Moderation of their ... - Reason

A DuPage County woman has filed a lawsuit accusing a west suburban school district of violating her sons First Amendment rights by cutting him from the Hinsdale South High School basketball team. She is alleging retaliation for his complaint against the teams former coach, according to court records.

Erin Savage of Darien filed the lawsuit against Hinsdale Township High School District 86 in federal court Wednesday. The complaint names the interim district superintendent, Hinsdale South principal, current head basketball coach and other employees as defendants.

The lawsuit states that Savage made a complaint on behalf of her son, Brendan, about the former head coach of the Hinsdale South varsity basketball team, Michael Moretti, during the 2022-2023 school year. Hinsdale South officials investigated Moretti for verbal abuse, bullying (and) humiliation and later demoted him from varsity coach to freshman basketball coach, according to the lawsuit.

District investigators described Morettis interaction with Savages son as inappropriate and inconsistent with the high standards of professionalism expected of all (district) employees, according to a June 2023 letter from acting Superintendent Chris Covino to Savage and her husband contained in court records.

The district did not find that Morettis actions constituted bullying, the letter said.

The letter further directed Savage and her husband to notify the investigator immediately if you or (your son) experience any retaliation as a result of your complaint.

Savages son, who is now a senior, was on the schools varsity basketball team for two years before the 2023-2024 school year, according to the suit.

The complaint states that Savages son was considered a standout player on the varsity team for the preceding two seasons. Other court records show that he received all-conference honors during the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years.

According to the complaint, Savages son tried out but was not chosen for the varsity basketball team earlier this month. The team is now coached by Michael Belcaster, according to the complaint and the Illinois High School Association. The complaint describes Belcaster as a close personal friend of Moretti.

The District 86 Board of Education and the districts attorney, Jason Manning, did not immediately return requests for comment.

Originally Published: Nov 27, 2023 at 8:13 pm

See the original post here:
Hinsdale South parent sues after son cut from basketball team - Chicago Tribune

Parents Against Bad Books co-founder Carolyn Harrison (center) talks with people last month outside the public library in Idaho Falls, Idaho, about what she considers obscene books on the shelves. Kim Raff for NPR hide caption

Parents Against Bad Books co-founder Carolyn Harrison (center) talks with people last month outside the public library in Idaho Falls, Idaho, about what she considers obscene books on the shelves.

For months, Carolyn Harrison and a small band of activists have been setting up folding tables with an array of what they call "bad books" outside the public library in Idaho Falls, Idaho. As Harrison, co-founder of the group Parents Against Bad Books sees it, the best way to convince people that the library is stocking inappropriate books is to show them.

"These two books are in the library, if you don't believe it!" Harrison says to one passerby.

"It's very graphic, very detailed," offers Halli Stone, another member of the group.

They point out depictions of what they call obscene sexual encounters, catching many library patrons by surprise.

"Oooh, the graphic pictures!" exclaims one woman. "They're taking away children's innocence. They just don't care."

"No, they don't," Harrison replies.

Halli Stone (center right) of Parents Against Bad Books watches as Donna Park signs a petition during a rally last month outside the Idaho Falls Public Library in Idaho. Stone's group was protesting what they see as obscene literature being available at the library. Kim Raff for NPR hide caption

Halli Stone (center right) of Parents Against Bad Books watches as Donna Park signs a petition during a rally last month outside the Idaho Falls Public Library in Idaho. Stone's group was protesting what they see as obscene literature being available at the library.

Another mom, Natasha Stringam, recalls how her 12-year-old son recently came across a book "about a boy kissing another boy and things that really aren't appropriate at that stage of development for children," she says. "These ideas are going to affect our children in ways that maybe aren't good for them."

As conversations unfold, Harrison offers a pen and asks people to sign a petition supporting her proposal to let parents weigh in on book selections, alongside the library staff whose job it is.

It's one of many efforts around the U.S. to change how decisions are made about which books libraries should have on shelves and in which section of the library they belong.

The process of classifying books can be somewhat inconsistent. Books usually get an initial designation from authors and publishers. Then, professional book reviewers usually weigh in with their own age-bracket recommendation, and distributors and booksellers can do the same. But ultimately, local library staff make the final call about the books they buy and where they should go.

Parents Against Bad Books has been setting up a table outside the public library in Idaho Falls, Idaho, to raise awareness about books they believe are inappropriate for young readers. The group is also collecting signatures for a petition that would allow parents to have a say in which books get selected, alongside the library staff whose job it is. Kim Raff for NPR hide caption

Parents Against Bad Books has been setting up a table outside the public library in Idaho Falls, Idaho, to raise awareness about books they believe are inappropriate for young readers. The group is also collecting signatures for a petition that would allow parents to have a say in which books get selected, alongside the library staff whose job it is.

Harrison wants to change that process by giving parents a voice in that final decision, along with the library staff. But she says libraries are resistant to the idea.

"They've told us here that 'Oh no, you can't have parents involved. You must have experts choosing books for the children,'" Harrison says. "That makes no sense. Parents are the primary stakeholders for children."

For their part, local libraries say parents are already involved, since much of the library staff are parents themselves. They're just not quite on the same page as groups like Parents Against Bad Books, which has so far challenged at least 16 titles, including Flamer, Lawn Boy, What Girls Are Made Of and It's Perfectly Normal. All of those challenges have failed.

PABB also keeps a list of what they call "52 Bad Books." It includes George M. Johnson's memoir, All Boys Aren't Blue, which contains some explicit descriptions of sexual scenes. But as is the case with most books in question, one person's trash is another's treasure.

Halli Stone (left) of Parents Against Bad Books persuades Samantha Neis to sign a petition protesting what the group considers obscene books at the Idaho Falls Public Library. Kim Raff for NPR hide caption

Halli Stone (left) of Parents Against Bad Books persuades Samantha Neis to sign a petition protesting what the group considers obscene books at the Idaho Falls Public Library.

"I found it very enlightening," says Idaho Falls Public Library Director Robert Wright. As he sees it, All Boys Aren't Blue is critical to young people's development, especially those struggling with issues around sexual identity.

"To me, it was a story of a young boy who felt maybe different, but the story that came through to me was how much his family supported him and loved him regardless," Wright says.

Anyway, he adds, that book is already in the library's adult section. And a new tiered library card system allows parents to restrict which books their child can check out, for example, limiting them only to the children's collection, Wright says.

Harrison says this doesn't solve the problem, since kids can read any books while they're inside the library. But Wright counters that if parents want stricter controls on what their children see at the library, that's on them to enforce.

To that end, others around the nation are trying another tactic.

A proposal in Washington state would require libraries to use a universal book-rating system, like the one voluntarily used by the movie industry to designate films "G," "PG," "PG-13" and "R."

"We're not asking for anything unreasonable," says Lewis County Commissioner Sean Swope, who proposed the plan. "This is a tool to provide parents to be able to tell whether this is appropriate book for your child. I mean, that innocence, once it's gone, it's gone."

In Washington state, Lewis County Commissioner Sean Swope has proposed a mandatory book-rating system that would require libraries to put age classifications on books. He says it's inspired by the voluntary rating system used by the movie industry. Kyle Norris hide caption

In Washington state, Lewis County Commissioner Sean Swope has proposed a mandatory book-rating system that would require libraries to put age classifications on books. He says it's inspired by the voluntary rating system used by the movie industry.

Dozens came to speak both for and against the idea at a recent meeting of the Lewis County Board of Commissioners. Kyle Pratt, a writer and grandparent in Chehalis, Wash., read aloud from the book Let's Talk About It: The Teen's Guide to Sex, Relationships, and Being a Human, a graphic novel that contains explicit depictions and descriptions of sexual acts, and is kept in the teen section at the Timberland Regional Library.

"'There is nothing wrong with enjoying some porn, it's a fun sugary treat,'" Pratt quoted from the book, noting, "That's just one book and it's not the worst. There are some parts that I'm not going to be able to read."

Under Swope's proposed plan, librarians would be required to rate books according to criteria that he would set.

"G"-rated books, that are "lighthearted and non-controversial" would be available to anyone, for example, while books with "explicit" or sexual content would be "restricted" to adults only.

Parents Against Bad Books co-founder Tom Harrison grabs a stack of what group members call age-inappropriate books that they checked out from the Idaho Falls Public Library on Oct. 4. Kim Raff for NPR hide caption

Parents Against Bad Books co-founder Tom Harrison grabs a stack of what group members call age-inappropriate books that they checked out from the Idaho Falls Public Library on Oct. 4.

Opponents argue those categories are far too subjective. And they say ratings are already available nationally from multiple websites, ranging from the conservative BookLooks (which was launched by a member of Moms for Liberty though the website is not affiliated with the group) to the more middle-of-the-road approach from Common Sense Media, a nonprofit advocacy group that rates not only books, but also movies, TV shows, games and more.

But those are private groups. And in the case of movie ratings, it's the film industry that's rating itself. Opponents say having the government label books crosses into uncomfortable if not unconstitutional territory.

Dozens of people turned out to testify for and against a proposal in Lewis County, Wash., that would require public libraries to classify books according to age categories defined by County Commissioner Sean Swope. He says his plan was inspired by the rating system used voluntarily by the movie industry. Kyle Norris hide caption

Dozens of people turned out to testify for and against a proposal in Lewis County, Wash., that would require public libraries to classify books according to age categories defined by County Commissioner Sean Swope. He says his plan was inspired by the rating system used voluntarily by the movie industry.

"It is not the place for the government to legislate morality," Lewis County resident Lori Lawson told the Board of Commissioners at its recent meeting.

As a mother of nine, she says she understands wanting to protect kids, but as a 25-year military veteran, she says she also understands protecting the First Amendment. "I didn't give up 25 years of my life for certain people to get to decide what other certain people get to do!"

There are several other ways that people are changing the decision-making process for what books should be in libraries. In Florida, for example, state legislation that critics call the "Don't Say Gay Law" says when a book is challenged, the decision can be appealed to a special magistrate appointed by the state education commissioner. That means a state political appointee now has the power to overrule a decision made by a local school district.

Even before a book is formally challenged, that same Florida law provides a way for people to get that book effectively banned from a school library. Under the law, if someone reads aloud from a book at a school board meeting and is stopped by the chair because they think the book is too explicit, that book automatically must be removed from schools.

In other words, if it's too racy for a public meeting, it's too racy for a school library.

Pastor John K. Amanchukwu speaks at an August school board meeting in Indian River County, Fla. He was just a few words into reading an explicit passage from the book 13 Reasons Why when he was cut off by the board chair triggering the book's automatic removal from the school library. Screenshot by NPR/School District of Indian River County hide caption

Pastor John K. Amanchukwu speaks at an August school board meeting in Indian River County, Fla. He was just a few words into reading an explicit passage from the book 13 Reasons Why when he was cut off by the board chair triggering the book's automatic removal from the school library.

People are already using that law to skirt the formal challenge process, including many in Florida's Indian River County.

At a recent school board meeting, Pastor John Amanchukwu stood up to read an explicit passage describing a sex act from the book 13 Reasons Why. He had gotten only a few words out before he was cut off.

"Sir, I'll stop you there," interjected the school board's then-Chair Peggy Jones, banging her gavel. "I'll stop you from reading. It's going to be removed."

Dozens of books have been pulled from Florida school libraries that way.

And there's yet another tactic that some people around nation are using to get around long-standing library book selection policies.

As Carolyn Harrison and Halli Stone from Parents Against Bad books in Idaho Falls have figured out, they can simply check out whatever books they object to, up to a dozen at a time.

"We kept 'forgetting' to take them back," Harrison says. "Somehow, we kept forgetting."

Halli Stone of Parents Against Bad Books looks at a Banned Book Week display at the public library in Idaho Falls, Idaho. She is among those advocating for more parental involvement in the selection of library books for young readers. Kim Raff for NPR hide caption

Halli Stone of Parents Against Bad Books looks at a Banned Book Week display at the public library in Idaho Falls, Idaho. She is among those advocating for more parental involvement in the selection of library books for young readers.

"So many of them are simply not on the shelves right now," Stone deadpans.

And in case it wasn't clear, Harrison offers, "We're looking at this as a positive."

The immense pressure over books has even led some libraries around the nation to self-censor before any controversy starts.

In Florida, state law now prohibits K-8 classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity and in some cases bars it in high schools. The official word to some schools is to "err on the side of caution." So libraries have simply removed at least temporarily dozens of books dealing with LGBTQ+ themes or characters.

Link:
How are library books selected? Many people want to change it - NPR

(Updated with Lizzo spokesperson statement) The legal battle over assault, harassment and discrimination claims between Lizzo anda trio of former tour dancers and reality show contestants has turned into a constitutional squabble, at least for now.

Can a global celebrity be forever insulated from civil liability because all their conduct is protected as free speech under the anti-SLAPP statute? rhetorically ask lawyers for Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguezin an opposition filing this week to the Grammy winners attempt to have the matter tossed out of court. Defendant Lizzo asks this Court to rule in exactly that fashion. Fortunately for all victims of celebrity malfeasance, the law says otherwise.

More from Deadline

(Read the opposition memo to Lizzos anti-SLAPP filing here)

The recipient of the Record of the Year at the 65th Grammys, Lizzo plus her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc and dance team head Shirlene Quigley have been accused by formerLizzos Watch Out for the Big Grrrlscontestants Davis and Williams, along with Rodriguez, of body-shaming and being put through what the trio call an excruciating audition for their jobs.

Placed in the docket at LA Superior Court on August 1, the suit also alleges that the dancers were forced to attend and participate in sex shows at venues like Paris Crazy Horse cabaret while on tour, had their virginity made fun of, suffered false imprisonment and were subjected to religious tirades. The suit goes on to claim racial discrimination from the all-white management team against Davis, Williams and other non-African American dancers.

Followed in short order by another suit from Asha Daniels, a wardrobe designer who worked on Lizzos 2023 tour and claims of disrespect by Lizzos camp from Oscar nominated filmmaker Sophia Nahli Allison, the nine-claim complaint from Davis, Williams and Rodriguez seeks unspecified damages.

In addition to denials by Lizzos reps, declarations from staffers and other dancers to her good character, and the October 27 anti-SLAPP motion theJuicesinger herself (real name Melissa Jefferson), Lizzo has pushed back against the claims. She went online in early August to deride the allegations as sensationalized and coming from former employees who have already publicly admitted that they were told their behavior on tour was inappropriate and unprofessional.

This week, it is Team Lizzo thats essentially accused of being unprofessional or at least strategically selective.

In an apparent effort to dupe this Court, Defendants either cherry-pick allegations or out-right omit allegations inconvenient to their position, instead sanitizing them with euphemisms, the November 8 filing from the plaintiffs lawyers continues with an implied swipe at Lizzos heavyweight lawyer Marty Singer and his team at Lavely Singer.

None of Plaintiffs claims arise from conduct implicating a public issue or interest, the memorandum from attorneys at West Coast Lawyers APLC goes on to state. The document continues, How exactly does Quigley relaying how she masturbates or performing oral sex on bananas implicate public interest? Or when Lizzo attempted to strike Plaintiff Rodriguez? Or when Plaintiff Davis was deprived of her phone and confined to a room? These acts, which give rise to the claims at issue here, do not implicate public issues, and thus cannot be protected.

In closing, the 19-page filing insists Lizzos Special Motion to Strike should be denied in its entirety as Plaintiffs claims do not rise from conduct that is protected under Code of Civil Procedure.

The celebrity-can-do-what-they-want argument was shut down previously by the Court of Appeal in a case [in which] Marty Singers firm represented Shia LaBeouf, plaintiffs lawyer Ron Zambrano told Deadline today. They should know better.

Last month, 18 independent witnesses stood by Lizzos work ethic and character, a spokesperson for the performer said Friday. It is clear since then, these plaintiff lawyers have come up with exactly zero to refute these facts.

Lizzos Special Tour started on September 23, 2022, and ended on July 30 in Japan. With the exception of receiving the Quincy Jones Humanitarian Award in LA in September, Lizzo has kept a pretty low profile of late.

The anti-SLAPP battle in this case is set for a November 22 court hearing in downtown LA.

Best of Deadline

Sign up for Deadline's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Originally posted here:
Lizzo Accusers Say First Amendment Is No Reason To Throw Out Assault, Sexual Harassment & Discrimination Suit Against Grammy Winner - Yahoo...

(Photo by Brendan McDermid-Pool/Getty Images)

In 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that it is a legitimate exercise of state power to ban trial participants from speech which poses a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a judicial proceeding. That case,Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, involved a ban on attorneys commenting on pending trials. But for 30 years,Gentile has been understood to set the standard for imposing gag orders on all parties to a case, not just the attorneys.

What Donald Trumps appeal of his gag order in the election interference prosecution presupposes is maybe it didnt?

MaybeGentile only applies to lawyers. Maybe the proper test is theBrandenberg incitement standard. Maybe under Supreme Court decisions from 1976 and1978, Trump has the same rights as any member of the press to discuss a pending case. Maybe his status as a presidential candidate allows him to intimidate witnesses at will.

Or maybe not.

These are arguments which Trumps lawyers made at the trial level with Judge Tanya Chutkan. Quite frankly, they sucked then, and they continue to suck now. The only difference is that Trump has became even more brazen in his insistence that prosecutors did not include any evidence that any witness, prosecutor, or court staff had experienced any threats or harassment from third parties after President Trumps statements.

Trump repeats this claim several times, carefully stepping around the fact that a woman named Abigail Shry is under indictment after leaving a voicemail for Judge Chutkan saying Hey you stupid slave n You are in our sights, we want to kill you. Yes,technically, thats not a threat to any witness, prosecutor, or court staff. But its not speculative, as Trump argues repeatedly.

In fact, prosecutors and the trial court both noted that Trumps social media posts provoked waves of harassment for election officials and poll workers in the wake of the 2020 election as he sought to sow the claims of vote fraud which formed the basis of the election interference charged in this case. Trumps lawyers scoff that this was almost three years ago, and long before this case was brought, which is basically like a sealed juvenile record, if you think about it. (But not too hard.)

Trump continues to mischaracterize the hecklers veto, claiming that his free speech rights cannot be abridged just because his goons might hear him say that Gen. Mark Milley ought to be executed and then take it upon themselves to make it happen. Which is wildly offensive, but perhaps less so than Trump likening himself to civil rights protestors wrongly arrested for disturbing the peace by exercising their First Amendment rights. After all, this is a case which charges Trump with violating a Reconstruction Era statute by seeking to toss out 20 million votes on an inchoate theory that there must have been vote fraud in majority-Black cities.

Trump also argues that Judge Chutkans order violates the sacred right of 100 million Americans to hear Trump call Bill Barr a sluggish loser:

The Gag Order violates President Trumps most fundamental First Amendment rights. Even worse, it gives no consideration to the First Amendment rights of President Trumps audience, the American public, to receive and listen to his speech.

Never mind that that statistic includes the 94 million bots and actual users from platforms Trump got booted off of in January of 2021.

These are profoundly unserious arguments, all of which failed at the trial court. Although, to be fair to Lauro, once your client has forced you to defend his right to attack the prosecutors wife on social media, youre a little bit boxed in when you try to argue that he has a fundamental First Amendment right to call Special Counsel Jack Smith Deranged.

Theres also the bad fact that the second Judge Chutkan administratively stayed the gag order, Trump took to Truth Social to complain that cooperative witnesses are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation. I dont think that Mark Meadows is one of them, but who really knows?

And Trumps vicious attacks on Michael Cohen, who testified against him in New York, are a pretty fair indicator of how hell behave in this case if allowed to persist unmuzzled.

The gag order remains stayed through oral argument on November 20. Whether Judges Millet, Pillard, and Garcia will be swayed by the same arguments which failed to convince Judge Chutkan is unclear. But perhaps this brief is aimed a little further down First Street after all.

US v. Trump[Circuit Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

See the original post here:
Trump Appeals Gag To Protect First Amendment Right To Intimidate ... - Above the Law

The streets I used to walk on / Are full of broken glass. Thosewords, ripped from the brand new Rolling Stones album, might well be a metaphor for the shit show going on college campuses when it comes to the Israel-Gaza catastrophe. Whichever way one turns, conflict and chaos seem to be trumping civility and consensus. The marketplace of ideas has become a bazaar of pandemonium. Yes, democracy is messy, but how messy can it become until it ceases to be democratic?

The rise of antisemitism

Things appear to be going from bad to worse: Anti-Defamation League Director Jonathan Greenblatt hasnoted that there has been a 388 percent increase in antisemitism in America since Hamas Oct. 7 surprise attack in Israel that killed more than 1,400. Against that backdrop comes a recentop-ed in the Los Angeles Times,one penned by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky:

I was stunned when students across the country, including mine, immediately celebrated the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel on Oct. 7. Students for Justice in Palestine called the terror attack ahistoric winfor the Palestinian resistance. A Columbia professorcalledthe Hamas massacre awesome and a stunning victory. A Yale professortweeted, Its been such an extraordinary day! while calling Israel a murderous, genocidal settler state. A Chicago art professorposteda note reading, Israelis are pigs. Savages. Very very bad people. Irredeemable excrement . . May they all rot in hell. A UC Davis professortweeted, Zionist journalists . . . have houses with addresses, kids in school, adding they can fear their bosses, but they should fear us more. There are, sadly, countless other examples.

While Chemerinsky is careful to avoid calls for censorship, he justifiably feels compelled to call for the very thing that is certain to fan the flames of conflict: There has been enough silence and enough tolerance of antisemitism on college campuses. I call on my fellow university administrators to speak out and denounce the celebrations of Hamas and the blatant antisemitism that is being voiced.

The rise of repression

Of course, there is more to the free speech story. Enter the ACLUsDavid Cole:

In recent weeks, weve seen a surge in efforts to punish and silence students for their speech. The Anti-Defamation League and The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law issued an open letter last week calling on university leaders to investigate pro-Palestinian student groups, alleging their speech constitutes material support for terrorism, punishable under federal and state law, despite no evidence to support such claims. That is why the ACLU sent its ownopen letterto the administrative leaders of each states public college system, reaching over 650 colleges and universities, expressing our strong opposition to any efforts to stifle free speech and association on college campuses. The letter unequivocally urges universities to reject calls to investigate, disband, or penalize pro-Palestinian student groups for exercising their free speech rights.

And thenthis from Aaron Terr over at FIRE:

[S]ome reactions to opinions about the latest escalation of the conflict have gone beyond counter-speech:

Truth in the marketplace of candor

Colleges are struggling to balance campus safety for their students and free speech concerns amid the hostile rhetoric around the Israel-Hamas war. The Hill (Oct. 31)

So it has come down to this: Antisemitism continues, chaotic clashes persist, repression endures, and, yes, counter-speech remains when possible. And yet nobody seems quite fine with it. The much-hailed marketplace of ideas has become less of an Enlightenment mechanism than a college combat zone. In the process, minds close while tempers flare. This raises a question: What if more free speech is not the answer or is not a meaningful antidote to the menacing disturbances so rampant on college campuses? What then?

Let us not speak falsely: Does anyone really believe that free speech and open debate in the conflict that has engulfed college campuses will win over many minds or quell near-riotous clashes? While this is not a call for censorship, it is a call for some realist truth in the marketplace of candor.

Related: Josh Blackman What about critical curricula on antisemitism?

Anti-Semitism is as old as civilization itself. It never vanishes. In every generation, anti-semitism simply manifests in different forms.

Virtually every law school has courses of critical racial studies. Query how much of that curriculum focuses on anti-semitism? Every law school has a DEI department. Query how much of that programming focuses on anti-semitism? I suspect the answer to both questions is very little. Indeed, in 2021, Stanford's DEI Department said thequiet part out loud. They do not focus on anti-semitism as not to diminish discussion of anti-black racism. And, anti-semitism is not as important because Jews can hide behind their white privilege.

Related articles

How the redefinition of antisemitism has functioned as a tactic to undermine Palestine solidarity

The widespread adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism and the internalization of its norms has set in motion a simplistic definitional logic for dealing with social problems that has impoverished discussions of racism and prejudice more generally, across Britain and beyond. It has encouraged a focus on words over substance.

Erasing Palestinetells the story of how this has happened, with a focus on internal politics within Britain over the course of the past several years. In order to do so, it tells a much longer story, about the history of antisemitism since the beginning of the twentieth century.

This is also a story about Palestine, a chronicle of the erasure of the violence against the Palestinian people, and a story about free speech, and why it matters to Palestinian freedom.

University campuses in North America and Europe are deeply polarized over the character of the Jewish state and the meaning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This book reveals the damage that antisemitism does to the identity of Jewish students, staff, and faculty. It is the first book to ask what the impact has been on the fundamental principles the academy relies on for its identity academic freedom, free speech rights, standards for hiring or firing faculty members and administrators, and the ethics of academic conduct and debate.

WhileHate Speech and Academic Freedom details the chilling challenges we face, it also offers policies to use in meeting them, concluding with detailed chapters on how to use the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism.

Hate speech has been a societal problem for many years and has seen a resurgence recently alongside political divisiveness and technologies that ease and accelerate the spread of messages. Methods to protect individuals and groups from hate speech have eluded lawmakers as the call for restrictions or bans on such speech are confronted by claims of First Amendment protection. Problematic speech, the argument goes, should be confronted by more speech rather than by restriction.

Debate over the extent of First Amendment protection is based on two bodies of lawthe practical, precedent determined by the Supreme Court, and the theoretical framework of First Amendment jurisprudence. InHate Speech is Not Free: The Case Against Constitutional Protection,W. Wat Hopkins argues that the prevailing thought that hate is protected by both case law and theory is incorrect.

Within the Supreme Courts established hierarchy of speech protection, hate speech falls to the lowest level, deserving no protection as it does not advance ideas containing social value. Ultimately, the Supreme Courts cases addressing protected and unprotected speech set forth a clear rationale for excommunicating hate speech from First Amendment protection.

An engaging guide to the most important free speech rules, rationales, and debates, including the strongest arguments for and against protecting the most controversial speech, such as hate speech and disinformation.

This concise but comprehensive book engagingly lays out specific answers to myriad topical questions about free speech law, and also general explanations of how and why the law distinguishes between protected and punishable speech.Free Speechprovides the essential background for understanding and contributing to our burgeoning debates about whether to protect speech with various kinds of controversial content, such as hate speech and disinformation: the applicable legal tenets and the strongest arguments for and against them.

The book focuses on modern First Amendment law, explaining the historic factors that propelled its evolution in a more speech-protective direction - in particular, the Civil Rights Movement. It highlights the many cases, involving multiple issues, in which robust speech-protective principles aided advocates of racial justice and other human rights causes. The book also shows how these holdings reflect universal, timeless values, which have been incorporated in many other legal systems, and have inspired countless thinkers and activists alike.

Without oversimplifying the complexities of free speech law, the book's lively question-and-answer format summarizes this law in an understandable, interesting, and memorable fashion. It addresses the issues in a logical sequence, presenting colorful facts and eloquent language from landmark Supreme Court opinions. It will be illuminating to a wide range of readers, from those who know nothing about free speech law, to those who have studied it but seek a well-organized summary of major doctrinal rules, as well as insights into their background, rationales, and interconnections.

The case isNational Rifle Association of America v. Vullo.The issue raised in it is:

Does the First Amendment allow a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the governments own hostility to the speakers viewpoint or (b) a perceived general backlash against the speakers advocacy?

Professor Eugene Volokh was the counsel of record on thecert. petition.

The Supreme Court handed down some big First Amendment victories last term. What lies ahead for the Court in the upcoming term? FIRE Chief Counsel Robert Corn-Revere and FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London join the show to discuss important First Amendment cases that will be heard during the Court's 2023-24 session.

Related

The Supreme Courtworked hardina pair of argumentson Tuesday to find a clear constitutional line separating elected officials purely private social media accounts from ones that reflect government actions and are subject to the First Amendment. After three hours, though, it was not clear that a majority of the justices had settled on a clear test.

Review granted

Vidal v. Elster

OConnor-Ratcliff v. Garnier

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC/NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton/NetChoice, LLC v. Moody

National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo

Pendingpetitions

Brokamp v. James

Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dept.

Winterville Police Department v. Sharpe

Jarrett v. Service Employees International Union Local 503, et al

Porter v. Board of Trustees of North Carolina State University

Alaska v. Alaska State Employees Association

Speech First, Inc. v. Sands

OHandley v. Weber

Tingley v. Ferguson

State action

Lindke v. Freed

Reviewdenied

Stein v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., et al.

Blankenship v. NBCUniversal, LLC

Center for Medical Progress v. National Abortion Federation

Frese v. Formella

Mazo v. Way

Free speech related

Miller v. USA(pending) (statutory interpretation of 18 U.S.C.1512(c) advocacy, lobbying and protest in connection with congressional proceedings)

Previous FAN

FAN 399:Whats wrong with First Amendment casebooks? Where to begin?

This article is part ofFirst Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the articles author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or of Mr. Collins.

Read more here:
Chemerinsky: 'I am a 70-year-old Jewish man, but never in my life ... - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

The Scripps Howard First Amendment Center awarded Kendall Staton, Paxton Media Regional Editor, the Champion of Open Government Award on Thursday, Nov. 2.

Staton, who joined Paxton Media earlier this year, is the editor of The News-Herald, Grant County News and Cynthiana Democrat.

Director of the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center Kathryn Montalbano said the center created the award for Staton based on the merits of her accomplishments and her nomination for the coveted James Madison Award. Montalbano presented Staton with the award prior to the annual State of the First Amendment Address. She told the audience Statons work dated back to her time as a student at the University of Kentucky.

As assistant news editor at the Kentucky Kernel, Kendall worked with the editorial board to share information about the hazing-related death of Thomas Lofton Hazelwood. The teamwork of Kendall and the editorial board provided the community with over seven pages of a student conduct investigation report after nine months of advocating their open records request, Montalbano read from Statons James Madison Award nomination letter. Kendalls quest to provide accurate information to the public continues into her current role. With only a couple of months under her belt as editor, Kendall has pushed through intimidation tactics from local officials pressuring her to turn a blind eye to county expenses and payroll information.

In August, Staton submitted three open records requests looking to examine the wages of public employees in Harrison County. After receiving these requests, Harrison County Schools Superintendent Harry Burchett, Harrison County Judge Executive Jason Marshall and Cynthiana Mayor James Smith asked to meet with Staton and requested she not publish the requested records or use them in a story.

Staton conducted an investigation into each record, and discovered Burchett earned the 12th highest salary of any Kentucky Public School Superintendent last fiscal year, according to the Kentucky Department of Education.

After the publication of her articles related to wages in the county and the intimidation tactics employed by the men that run the county, Kendall received accolades from the citizens of Harrison County, Montalbano read from Statons nomination letter. The emails she received from citizens stated their appreciation of the information she provided and how it increased their knowledge of how the city and county are being run.

This is the first year the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center has awarded a Champion of Open Government recognition, according to Montalbano. She is not sure if the award will be presented annually.

It is great to know I have the support of the greater Kentucky journalism community for the work we are doing over in Cynthiana. This award just shows that I am doing my job, and plan to continue doing my job for years to come, Staton said.

Original post:
Staton recognized by Scripps Howard First Amendment Center - Pmg-ky3.com

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty)

In the past six weeks, Trump has filed four motions to dismiss his election interference case in DC, as well as throwing a dozen other miscellaneous motion-shaped wrenches in the works as part of a transparent attempt to get his March 4, 2024 trial date postponed.

Last week the government requested to combine its response to Trumps motion to dismiss on statutory grounds and his motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds into one document to avoid the repetition and cross-referencing that pervades the defendants separate motions. Prosecutors sought leave to exceed the 45-page limit for a single reply brief, promising that the combined document would come in well under the 90 pages to which the Government would be entitled if it filed separate opposition briefs.

Trump opposed the motion, because his lawyers are assholes. Ostensibly, he didnt want to allow prosecutors to game the system by spending 60 pages attacking his (idiotic!) constitutional arguments. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted the governments request, sighing in a minute order that the discussion of each Motion therein shall not exceed 45 pages.

In the event, the governments reply is 79 pages, 15 of which are taken up with the caption and tables of contents and authorities. Because Trumps motions were gobbledygook, and no one needed to spend 90 pages refuting them.

The government first tackles the claim that the indictment must be dismissed because it failed to allege that Trump violated the statutes at issue. In the defendants telling, he had a First Amendment right to try to overturn the election by dint of fake electoral certificates. And anyway, all he did was make words, which cant be a crime because have you people even heard of the FIRST AMENDMENT?

In response, the government points out that Trump was not indicted for spewing lies about rampant election fraud. He was indicted for conspiring to defraud the United States, obstruct an official proceeding, and violate the right to vote and have ones vote counted by substituting fake electoral votes for real ones and stopping Congress certifying the winner of the 2020 election.And the First Amendment protects the right to shout ridiculous lies, but the fact that Im a broke Nigerian prince, send me cash is just words wont save you from a fraud charge.

Trump also made a bizarre argument that he was just lobbying Congress, in keeping with his God-given right to petition the government.

That argument fails because the indictment alleges not lobbying or political advocacy, but instead that the defendant engaged in a multifaceted conspiracy aimed at overturning the results of the presidential election by targeting deceit at the federal government function, the special counsel scoffed in response.

Trumps constitutional arguments come in for similar disdain and clock in at considerably less than 45 pages. In chief, he argued that he cant be arrested because he was already impeached, and uh, you know DOUBLE JEOPARDY.

The Impeachment Clause specifies that the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. But Trump argued that hes not a party convicted, and adopting the obverse assumption, he cannot now be tried in a court of law.

But, as the government notes: impeachment is a civil remedy, and has nothing to do with criminal jeopardy; Trump was impeached for incitement, not conspiring to obstruct Congress, and those things are not the same; Congress and the Justice Department are separate sovereigns, and thus the charges are parallel, not overlapping; and, Trumps own Republican allies said that they were voting against impeachment because they thought they lacked jurisdiction to impeach an ex-president, not based on the validity of the charge.

On top of which, thats not how anyone has ever understood the Impeachment Clause to function, looking back to the days of the Founding Fathers although perhaps if theyd consumed a bucket of paint thinner and spent 1,000 hours mainlining Steve Bannons podcast, theyd have come to a different conclusion.

The special counsel requests that Judge Chutkan designate the double jeopardy claim frivolous, which would block Trump from an immediate interlocutory appeal under DC Circuit precedent.

The defendants wholly meritless double-jeopardy claim should not, therefore, divest this Court of jurisdiction in a manner that risks delaying the trial, the prosecutors concluded.

On the plus side for Trump, he did win a partial victory on his motion to extend discovery subpoena deadlines under Rule 17(c). The original cutoff was tomorrow, November 9, 2023, but Trump asked for an extension to February 9, 2024, just three weeks before the scheduled start of this trial. That was never going to happen, of course. But Judge Chutkan did give him two weeks extra to get his homework done, extending the deadline to November 27.

And thats probably the biggest win hes going to get out of this trial court.

US v. Trump [DDC Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Continue reading here:
Prosecutors Mock Trump Attempt To Get Election Case Dismissed ... - Above the Law