Category Archives: First Amendment

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was initially adopted is 1791 and simply states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since then, a great many interpretations and Supreme Court decisions have used this amendment as a highly controversial instrument to foster a wide variety of social programs. Most recently, arguments by some federal judges have been used to oppose the immigration rules issued by President Trump on the grounds that those rules are in conflict with the First Amendment since they target the Islamic religion. Lets review what the U.S. Supreme Court has had to say, in the past, on a few key cases:

In 1878, one clarification was made: Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order. In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while state or federal laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (such as human sacrifices). The court stated that to rule otherwise, would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Therefore, the government would exist in name only, under such circumstances.

Another, more recent, argument can be found in 1998, when the Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, seeking to restore the compelling interest requirement applied in Sherbert and Yoder. In the City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the court declared: that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere, when religious principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. Notably, while a religion may hold opinions contrary to U.S. law, they are not free to act on those opinions without suffering the consequences of breaking the law.

While I am not a lawyer, the problem yet to be resolved, seems to be: Can the USA act against statements made by a religion in which they threaten to do something that is contrary to U.S. law, or is it necessary to first, allow such actions to take place before it is allowable to take legal action?

Lets try and construct a hypothetical example so as not to upset or offend any of the more than 14 recognized religions in the world with more than 35,000 organized denominations, or subsets, of the known religions. Then lets decide what rational and legal actions are permissible under U.S. law to deal with the problem of religious fanatics from a hypothetical group seeking to entering the USA.

Assume some religious denomination, called the Red Rabbit religion and located primarily on Rabbit Island, have stated their intent to come to the USA to kill all people with red hair because they believe that they are, in some way, offensive to their god. We recognize, in the First Amendment, that they have the right to hold this strange opinion but they do not, according to Supreme Court rulings, have the right to take actions, on that belief, resulting in the death of innocent people, at least within the USA.

To cope with this hypothetical situation, we have some of the following options:

1. We could require all red-haired people in the USA to dye their hair so as not to offend this fanatical group of people. But this would violate the general freewill provisions of the Constitution.

2. We could impose a travel ban on all people from Rabbit Island. But this would restrict the rights of the nonbelievers in the Red Rabbit religion, and inconvenience others.

3. We could open the boarders to all Rabbit Island people and try to protect red-haired citizens within the USA from being attacked. But this would be impractical, expensive and would likely result in the death of numbers innocent people.

4. We could require an in-depth examination, or vetting, of anyone seeking to enter the USA from Rabbit Island. But since extremists are likely to lie about their intent or enter illegally, this is not a complete protection option.

5. We could try to convert the radical Red Rabbit people to follow a more acceptable religious view. But they have vowed to attack anyone who speaks of another religion on Rabbit Island.

Are we then doomed to wait for some overt action to take place within the USA before we can take any effective legal action or do we have a moral duty to do our best to prevent such actions? If the Red Rabbit group clearly intends to conduct overt acts, in violation of peace, social duties and subversive to good order, the imposition of regulations to prevent people holding such a declared intent seems fully justified. Freedom of religion means freedom to hold even peculiar ideas, however, freedom to act on those ideas is not granted by any normal reading of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in my opinion.

In addition, it seems clear that the president has the duty and authority to ban immigration from any country or any group of people who he deems to be a threat to the safety and security of the people of the USA. It is possible for a federal judge to delay and attempt to justify his actions, based on the First Amendment, but it is most certainly not logical nor in the interest of the people in the USA to allow this to continue for any length of time.

Orville Moe is one of several community columnists who regularly contribute to this page.

More:
COLUMN: Controversy over the First Amendment - Crow River Media

SiriusXMis looking to have a California judge reject a lawsuit over its decision not to accept advertisements for escort services. On Monday, the satcasterbrought First Amendment arguments in its legal fight with InfoStream Group.

InfoStream was founded by an MIT grad, and its websites including WhatsYourPrice.com and SeekingMillionaire.comhavegotten a lot of press for unapologetically connecting "sugar daddies," or wealthy men, with "sugar babies," or younger women. Between 2011 and 2014, the company advertised on SiriusXM channels including MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and Howard Stern, but the relationship ended when Sirius revised its Standards and Practices policy.InfoStreamsubsequently filed legal claims.

According to InfoStream's complaint (read here), SiriusXMhas breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by applying its Standards and Practices in a "dishonest and unfair manner, singling out InfoStream for termination while allowing others in similar businesses to continue to advertise."

The company considers the websites it operates as online dating sites and sees the satellite radio company's decision as "pretextual,"making the suggestion that SiriusXM cut ties "in order to garner favor from Sirius' Preferred Customers, who would be more apt to pay increased broadcasting fees if they did not have to share the airwaves with InfoStream."

In reaction, SiriusXMlooks to use California's SLAPP statute to kill a suit it argues is premised on its First Amendment activity.

The defendant says "the broadcast of radio advertisements is a classic form of speech protected by the First Amendment," and it doesn't matter that what's in question is commercial speech. "Moreover, the First Amendment plainly protects not only SiriusXMs affirmative broadcast of radio advertisements, but also its decision not to air InfoStreams ads."

Read more: SoundExchange CEO Points to SiriusXM's Growth for Royalty Rate Increase Optimism

After pointing to a number of news articles about InfoStream'swebsites and addressing why this is a matter of public concern, SiriusXM argues why InfoStream is unlikely to prevail on its claim. Specifically, the plaintiff says InfoStream is not entitled to benefits because there's no operative contract between the parties nor can there be deemed any "right of renewal" to the expired advertising contracts.

"In addition, SiriusXM is not a 'common carrier,' and thus has no obligation to allow 'members of the public' to 'transmit [content] of their own design and choosing,' adds SiriusXM's papers (read here).

SiriusXM also contends that the "pretext" issue is phony because it "did not need an excuse to terminate the Agreements those contracts had already expired by their own terms," and as far as whether it has applied standards "unevenly," SiriusXM says it is under no obligation to apply them evenly.

"Moreover, InfoStream is wrong that SiriusXM continues to advertise for 'escort business' after 'terminating its relationship with InfoStream,'" continues SiriusXM attorney Daniel Petrocelli. "InfoStream presumably is referring to Ashley Madison.com a different online dating website whose advertisements SiriusXM has previously broadcast and against whom InfoStream has frequently litigated. But Ashley Madison is not an 'escort service' at all, nor do members pay women to go on dates with them, as is the case with InfoStreamsservices. Instead, Ashley Madison is a traditional dating website, like Match.com, for people who are in relationships and looking to have a discreet relationship with others who are also in relationships. There is no commercial exchange between the daters. That distinction makes the difference under SiriusXMs internal standards and practices set forth."

This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.

Read the rest here:
SiriusXM Says First Amendment Protects Decision Not to Air Ads for Escort Sites - Billboard

The American Civil Liberties Union defended Ann Coulter's right to speak at the University of California-Berkeley, The Hill reported.

The ACLU said the "heckler's veto" is a shameful way to deprive someone of their First Amendment rights.

The hecklers veto of Coulter's Berkeley speech is a loss for the 1st Amendment. We must protect speech on campus, even when hateful.

ACLU National (@ACLU) April 26, 2017

However, the advocacy group called her speeches "hateful," but maintained that her rights should still be protected.

Trump: I'm 'Absolutely' Considering Breaking Up 'Outrageous' 9th Circuit Court

Ellison: Trump WH 'A Dictatorship' That 'Wants to Control What People Learn'

'I Need Some Popcorn': How Will Bernie & Warren React to Obama Wall St. Speech?

Coulter announced Wednesday that her speech would not go forward as planned because her main sponsor "joined the other team."

The ACLU joins other common Coulter critics in defending the New York native's right to speak on a college campus.

Earlier this week, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Coulter should be allowed to speak and that her critics should simply not attend.

Bolling: 'The 9th Circuit, Which Is Notoriously Liberal, Has It In for Donald Trump'

Spicer: Sanctuary Cities Have the 'Blood of Dead Americans on Their Hands'

Judge Nap: Why Trump's 'Defeat' on Sanctuary Cities Is a Temporary One

Read more:
ACLU Defends Ann Coulter: 'A Loss For The 1st Amendment' - Fox News Insider

On MSNBC yesterday, former Vermont Governor and DNC Chair Howard Dean elaborated on his argument that Ann Coulters upcoming speech at Berkeley does not have to occur because hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment:

Okay, several things to think about. One, the United States has the most far-reaching protections on speech of any country in the world. Two, its not absolute. Three, there are three Supreme Court cases you need to know about. One, the most recent, a John Roberts opinion, the Phelps people, that church out in Kansas, had a right to picket horrible offensive signs at military funerals. Well, two, in 2002, the Supreme Court said cross burning was illegal because it could incite violence. And three, Chaplinsky, the Chaplinsky case in 1942 said that speech was not permitted if it included fighting words that were likely to incite violence.

This is not a clear-cut carrying on the way the Right does. The Right loves to be able to say anything they like, no matter how offensive it is. Well, Ann Coulter has used words that you cannot use on television to describe Jews, blacks, gays, Muslims immigrants, and Hispanics. I think that theres a case to be made that that invokes the Chaplinsky decision, which is fighting words, likely to cause violence. I think Berkeley is within its rights to make the decision that it puts their campus in danger if they have her there. Ill be the first to admit its a close call.

Actually, its not a close call; Dean is making the wrong call under the Constitution. Deans entire answer piles wrong argument atop wrong argument until he completes a Dagwood sandwich of wrong.

Dean cites three court cases, and he mischaracterizes the decisions in all of them. The first case he references, Snyder v. Phelps, was an 8 to 1 decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist Churchs freedom to chant the horrible slogans and hold up the horrible banners it favors at a military funeral. If the church is free to protest at a military funeral, it makes no sense to argue that Ann Coulter is not free to give a speech at Berkeley. Dean is perhaps unknowingly citing a case that argues the reverse of his position.

The second case Dean cites, Virginia v. Black, struck down a state law that deemed cross-burning a prima facie attempt at intimidation. The decision was complicated, with multiple justices concurring in part and dissenting in part, but its upshot was that if prosecutors wanted to charge someone with a crime for burning a cross, they had to prove that the cross-burner intended his action as a threat.

Criminal threats, intimidation and criminal harassment are already crimes on the books in many states. If Ann Coulter explicitly threatens an individual in her speech, she can be charged with a crime for that. But whatever her flaws, Coulter is unlikely to make an explicit incitement to violence in a speech at Berkeley.

The third case Dean cites, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, has come up a bit more frequently as of late. Eugene Volokh points out that while the Chaplinsky precedent hasnt yet been struck down, subsequent decisions have drastically narrowed its definition of fighting words. In 1971, the court ruled that a vulgar phrase on a jacket didnt fall within said definition because it was unlikely that any individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words to be a direct personal insult. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Court struck down a hate-crime statute, decreeing that the state can restrict speech to a certain time, place, or manner, but only if those restrictions were justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech. (I.e., the government can ban flag-burning by, say, banning all outdoor fires in certain areas, but not explicitly because it dishonors the U.S. flag.)

Without knowing what Coulter would say in her speech, Dean suggests that it would contain fighting words, given her history of using words you cant say on television to describe minorities. Given the words you cant say on television have no bearing on the constitutionality of an (as-yet-undelivered) speech at Berkeley, the one-time front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination seems to be insisting that just by being offensive, Coulters words incite violence and must be restricted and banned. It is fair to ask Dean and his ilk why they are so focused on restricting and punishing speech that supposedly incites violence and much less focused on punishing those who actually commit violent acts.

If Deans real desire is to ban speech that he doesnt like, he should just say so.

Jim Geraghty is National Reviews senior political correspondent.

Visit link:
Ann Coulter Berkeley Address: Howard Dean's Legal Argument ... - National Review

On Wednesday, officials of the University of California-Berkeley announced they were canceling a speech to be given by conservative writer Ann Coulter scheduled for April 27. Then on Thursday, facing the prospect of a lawsuit, caught between the First Amendment and the fear of violence, university officials proposed Coulters speech be moved to May 2 a move she and her supporters quickly rejected, pointing out there would be no students on campus, as it coincided with a reading period before final exams.

This was a low point for the birthplace of the free-speech movement.

Ive known Ann Coulter for years, and Ive gone to great lengths truly great lengths to disagree with her. After she published a book called Godless, which accused liberalism of being a godless religion, I wrote a book called Soulless, which attacked the right-wing church of hate. I even donned her trademark sleeveless black dress, added about 10 inches of long blonde hair and posed for a cover that looked almost as sexy as hers.

We agree on almost nothing, except for the importance of free speech and public discourse. And we always have gotten along just fine.

Last summer, when a reporter went to her for comments about me, she could not have been more gracious. Thats how it should be in a democracy.

Our Founding Fathers understood something that seems to be getting lost in the ugly partisanship that has gripped our country. You dont deal with speech you dont like by shutting it down. You deal with it by speaking up yourself. Speech is powerful; it is protected not because it is harmless but because the alternative is even worse. And that alternative is what were facing now.

It is not just at Berkeley that this issue is rearing its ugly head. In response to the cancellation of a speech at Claremont-McKenna College by Heather Mac Donald, the president of Pomona College (part of the Claremont Colleges consortium) wrote an open letter defending the principle of free speech. To my shock, frankly, a group of black students went on the attack, claiming white supremacists (Mac Donald is a fellow of the conservative Manhattan Institute, not the Klan) have no right to free speech. Come again? Who is supposed to decide who gets to speak? Do these students not understand it is precisely oppressed minorities who have historically needed the protection of the First Amendment the most? Do they really think that if speech is regulated, they will be the beneficiaries? On which planet? Under which president?

For those who disagree with Coulter, shutting down her speech only elevates her position. Instead of speaking before a group of students two weeks before exams, the cancellation has brought her national attention and brought Berkeley the criticism it must surely have expected.

But blaming Berkeley is the easy way out. One way or another, the great majority of Americans who support the Constitution must stand up to the minority who think violence and censorship is the answer to speech they dont like. You cannot pick and choose which civil liberties to support, which opinions deserve protection.

As a writer myself, I get more than my share of ugly emails from people who disagree with me. No one enjoys reading those. And as a woman and a Jew, I have sharply felt the sting of hatred. But unless there is a threat of violence (the Constitution provides for shutting down speech if it poses an imminent threat of violence or an imminent threat to national security), the way to handle such ugly emails is simply hitting the Trash button, or better yet, responding with more speech. Because if you shut down free speech this time, next time, the one who is shut down might be you.

Susan Estrich is a columnist,

commentator and law and political science professor at USC.

See the original post here:
Is the First Amendment dead? - Hays Daily News

Censorious students slapped down by First Amendment legend Mary Beth Tinker

She was a child. And speech was all she had

Its tough being a liberal Democrat who supports free speech on campus these days, like the University of PennsylvaniasJonathan Zimmerman.

The history professor recently shared his gloom in The Philadelphia Inquirerthat hes become a de facto conservative in the realm of the campus,wherestudents believe they have a moral imperative to silence viewpoints they consider racist.

As Zimmerman says, thats a view at odds with every great champion of African American freedom in our history, including Frederick Douglass, who once said speech suppression is the equivalent of theft.

He has some interesting theories about this growing intolerance for diverse ideas, including thedecreasing stigma around mental health problems and the rising use of social media:

Arriving on campuses made up of diverse groups, students are warned that their comments and behavior could cause psychological distress to any of them.

But whats really interesting about his op-ed is Zimmermans description of his students recently meeting a woman whose name is a major Supreme Court precedent, Mary Beth Tinker.

MORE:Angry mob shuts down Blue Lives Matter speech

As a student during the Vietnam War, Tinker wore a black antiwar armband to school and won the right for students to express themselves as long as they didnt create a substantial disruption in school.

She has continued to get involved in First Amendment issues, arguing for the right of California students to wear American flag-themed clothing during Cinco de Mayo, and even startingan educational Tinker Tour with the Student Press Law Center.

Zimmermans students clearly didnt know what they were getting into when they tried to defendtheir censorious attitudes to Tinker, as the professor recounts:

All of my students said they should be allowed to engage in antiwar demonstrations, of course, but they drew the line at racist or sexist speech that causes yes psychological injury. But Tinker wasnt having it. Surely, she said, parents whose children were fighting in Vietnam or, especially, students whose parents had died there were profoundly wounded by her very public act of protest. Yet that wasnt a good enough reason to silence her, or anybody.

You get the feeling that if Mary Beth Tinker were invited to speak on campus by a College Republicans chapter, she would be shouted down and denounced as a white supremacist colonialist imperialist blah blah blah:

Other students argued that free speech is really a matter of power, which has become another popular line on our campuses. In a society marred by racial inequality, the argument goes, speech is used by whites to oppress minorities. Hence white speech must be restrained, so that minorities can be protected.

But Tinker wasnt buying that, either. Historically, free speech has been a weapon often, the only weapon of the powerless, not the powerful. At the time her case began, Tinker reminded us, she was a child. And speech was all she had.

Its amazing that Zimmermans students and thousands of others are so blind that they cant see all of their anti-racist, anti-classist, anti-fascist advocacy is speech and its just as vulnerable to censorship when an administrator decides itis psychologically injuring someone else.

MORE: First Amendment legends demand students right to wear the flag

LikeThe College Fixon Facebook/Follow us on Twitter

About the Author

Associate Editor

Read the original here:
Censorious students slapped down by First Amendment legend Mary Beth Tinker - The College Fix

Even after almost two days of experts attempting to explain it, Howard Deanapparently stilldoesnt understand how the First Amendmentworks.In fact, the former Vermont governorcited anirrelevant Supreme Court decision when doubling-downed on his argument thathate speech isnt protected by the Constitution. First, though, lets review the timeline of Deans mistake. Then lets see where he went wrong.

This whole thing started Thursday night, when he made this claim.

This references something awful Ann Coulterreportedly said in 2002: My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.

Does it meet colloquial definitions of hate speech? No. Is it terrible? Yes. Is it Constitutionally protected? Yuuuuuuuuuup. So is hate speech, sadly. Thats what commentators tried to drill into Deans head. Politifact got in on it. So did Vices Sarah Jeong,and others.

One counterargument caught Deans attention, however. AFriday op-ed from UCLA law Professor Eugene Volokh. This constitutional scholar and First Amendment expert took pains to explain how Free Speech works. Whats moreimportant, and possibly useful to non-lawyers, is his explanation of fighting words. [Emphasis mine]

To be sure, there are some kinds of speech that are unprotected by the First Amendment. But those narrow exceptions have nothing to do with hate speech in any conventionally used sense of the term. For instance, there is an exception for fighting words face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. But this exception isnt limited to racial or religious insults, nor does it cover all racially or religiously offensive statements. Indeed, when the City of St. Paul tried to specifically punish bigoted fighting words, the Supreme Court held that this selective prohibition was unconstitutional (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)), even though a broad ban on all fighting words would indeed be permissible.

He also pointed out other exceptions, like true threats of illegal conduct or incitement intended to and likely to produce imminent illegal conduct i.e., illegal conduct in the next few hours or maybe days, as opposed to some illegal conduct some time in the future. But the fighting words exception is key here because of how Dean later responded.

Howard Deana former presidential candidate, and long-time power player in Vermont politicstried to prove that hate speech isnt protected, but instead cited a Supreme Court case that absolutely has nothing to do with hate speech.

1942s Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire turned on fighting words. In a unanimousruling, justices upheld the conviction, under state law, of a man who used abusive language to provoke the listener to an act of violence.

From the holding:

2. The Court notices judicially that the appellations damned racketeer and damned Fascist are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace.

Now this is where I may lose some of you. What about racial slurs? Yes, if someone hurls a bunch of insults in such a way as to provoke a fistfight, then its outside of the First Amendments protection.But it wouldnt be unprotectedbecause its a slur. Its unprotectedbecause it, specifically, would cause violence soon, if not here and now. Volokhs explanation must be repeated here: Fighting words are face-to-face personal insults addressed to a specific person, of the sort that are likely to start an immediate fight. It has nothing to do with the speech being bigoted. Its all to do with the immediate incitement to violence.

Volokh wrote a rebuttal essayto Deans second tweet on Saturday morning. One line sums it up.

So Chaplinsky doesnt hold that Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment.

And even after all that, heres the governors most recent tweet on the matter.

Its unclear if Deanhas read Volokhs rebuttal.

[Screengrab via MSNBC]

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

Read this article:
Howard Dean Doesn't Get That First Amendment Protects Ann Coulter's 'Hate Speech' - LawNewz

First Amendment Day, which will be celebrated at Iowa State on Thursday, is a time to appreciate some of the freedoms that Americans possess every day.

The First Amendment is one of the founding principles of the United States. It provides five essential freedoms: religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. College campuses provide settings where these freedoms, especially freedom of speech, can be exercised.

[Iowa State University] is a governmental agency, so we have to act within the bounds of both the federal and Iowa Constitution, meaning we arent allowed to put in place restrictions that would violate the First Amendment, said Michael Norton, Iowa States legal adviser who oversees the universitys counsel office.

Iowa States Facilities and Grounds Use policy states that ISU embraces the sharing of knowledge and ideas through public discourse and free speech.

And even though what someone says might be rude, disgusting or upsetting, it can still be said legally, according to the Constitution.

Hate speech is absolutely protected by the First Amendment, said Ken Paulson, dean of the College of Media and Entertainment at Middle Tennessee State University and president of the First Amendment Center.

Free speech is not entirely inclusive, however.

Over the years, the U.S. courts have found that obscene speech, speech that incites action to harm others, speech that promotes illegal drug use at school events and articles in student newspapers objecting the school administration are not allowed.

Iowa State has run into its own issues regarding free speech.

There have been two separate incidents at the university where posters were found on campus, each featuring messages that could be interpreted as hateful, yet that alone did not cause them to violate free-speech rules.

The content of the posters, while repugnant and personally reprehensible, are clearly protected speech, so if [the university] were to act on that speech based on content, that would violate First Amendment rights, Norton said.

The university does, however, have some right to place policies restricting the time, place and manner of any speech that happens on campus, Norton said.

[Iowa State] is allowed to restrict speech that interferes with the regular responsibilities of the university, not based on the content alone, such as speaking with a bullhorn outside of a classroom, Norton said. There are no restrictions on what you can say. It's only where, when and how you say it."

Natasha Oren, multicultural liaison officer for the Iowa State Police Department, said hate speech can still have real consequences.

In Iowa, you cannot threaten violence toward another legally, or you could be charged criminally, Orensaid.

Orenadded that harassment is illegal as well.

If what youre saying causes fear for someone else, and they believe you can carry out what youre saying, that isnt allowed, Oren said.

While what one says may be free speech, if what they're saying is considered assault, harassment or a discriminatory threat toward someone else, they could face criminal charges.

The Iowa State Police Department strives to help and protect people, Oren said, and even if something is said that is legally free speech, the department will try to make any party feel safe if need be.

Freedom of speech continues to play an integral role on campuses, and during the 2016 presidential election cycle, posters and messages could be spotted all across Iowa State.

Free speech needs to be protected above all else, Paulson said. Schools often need to act as an epicenter of free thought and expression. With the polarization of the country right now, it takes more and more effort to find the truth, because anyone can say what they believe."

One problem that surfaced during the last election cycle was fake news, which is an issue students must sift through to determine what is correct in the media.

Fake news is completely protected by free speech, but consumers of news have to think for themselves, Paulson said. I believe fake news is a product of intellectual laziness.

At Iowa State and other colleges, Paulson urges students to read the news and understand for themselves what is going on.

We cant have news portrayed through memes," Paulson said. "You have to put in effort and consume real news sources. It worries me when people say their main news source is social media."

Free speech extends to social media and internet platforms the same way it does anywhere else.

Iowa State doesnt constantly monitor social media use by students and staff, but it is still responsible for keeping an eye on any harm that may arise from what someone says online.

If free speech crosses lines that make it harassment or discrimination and social media is used as the tool for that harmful speech, [Iowa State] would investigate and respond if appropriate, Norton said.

Norton said police have a bigger role in monitoring any harmful speech that may happen online, and they report it to the proper offices for handling of the situation.

Oren said the main goal of the police, and certain policy restrictions by the university such as the time, place and manner rules, are ultimately in place to protect students.

There is a reason free speech is protected, and speaking out against anothers speech is the best way to disagree with it, but speech, both with criminal and civil repercussions, can affect the campus climate negatively, which isnt good for the community, Oren said.

The goal of the university, Norton said, is never to restrict speech, especially not to restrict speech based on the content of what is said.

We have to be able to run the school in a way that allows people to achieve their educational goals as well, Norton said.

Read the rest here:
Understanding the First Amendment and its role on campus | Politics ... - Iowa State Daily

Malik Newson, junior in journalism and mass communication, asked a crowd of students gathered on Central Campus, "What does the First Amendment mean to you?"

Let me put that in a simpler way, do you know what the First Amendment means? If you know all five of them, raise your hand, Newson said.

Awkward silence fell upon the crowd as some hastily sat on haystack seats, while others stepped closer to the podium. It gradually dawned on each of them them that Feast On the First had begun.

Celebrated with soap boxes, sidewalk chalking and free food, the event was organized by the Greenlee School of Journalism and Mass Communication to honor the First Amendment.

The amendment recognizes the freedoms of speech, press, religion, petition and assembly. Newson provided facts that he thought were vital for people to think about.

This survey had been done since 1997, and it reported that 86 percent of those who responded have favor protecting speech, while 10 percent have favor limiting speech and protecting people from hearing things that offend them, Newson said.

In the religious freedom aspects, Newson believes there should be an improvement in the current numbers.

Fifty-nine percent believe they should be allowed to freely practice the religion they want," Newson said. "I believe there are lots of religions out there, so I dont know why people would want to limit that.

Before leaving the podium, Newson left his audience with a final message that he believes all Americans should hear.

We are united under this flag because we believe that all Americans are incongruent, not similar but congruent, Newson said. Not everyone knows whats going, but we need to know that we have the First Amendment for a reason.

Jen Coppoc, professor of American Indian Studies, approached the soap box podium with a guitar.

After a three-minute acoustic performance of Cheers to Someday, a song she wrote to commemorate the regrets of losing those who were once dear to us, Coppoc recounted her time at the Dakota Access pipeline protests.

I knew better as an outsider than to insert myself and so I wasnt going to participate in this direct action, and I didnt know what it was because I had just arrived to camp," Coppoc said. "I wasnt yet oriented, so I wasnt going to be a part of it.

Those who did participate went to the far side of camp where there was a little body of water [that] had burial sites on it. So the group of water protectors came together to build a bridge across this body of water to get to the island, to bring elders to do the ceremony.

However, above the protesters stood law enforcement officers with guns and rubber bullets, ready to fire upon them.

Its important to remember that this was happening on Thanksgiving Day, Coppoc said. They continued building, crossed the island and held the ceremony against the instructions and threats of law enforcements.

As a result of the protesters persistence, the camp was alerted by Lakota horse riders that law enforcement officers threatened a raid upon the camp.

And it was beginning to snow that day," Coppoc said. "And I ran because they said your life depended on this. I ran to the dome and I stood there with native and non-native women and children. But the rest of us, especially those who have knowledge of Native American history, stood there weeping because we were remembering Wounded Knee.

For Coppoc, the experience was eye-opening and taught her some valuable things about time and history.

The event further welcomed other speakers at the soap box, including Austen Giles, who was president of the group ISU 4 Trump.

Giles emphasized the significance of challenging ones mind in terms of freedom of speech.

My neighbor votes for someone else, and then Im pissed at him? I just dont get that, Giles said.

Giles said voting for a candidate should not interfere with how people treat one another.

He also recounted the times that people had thrown insults, cusses and other abusive language on social media.

Giles was supposed to host a Milo Yiannopoulosevent on campus that was later cancelled.

The university didnt want to cancel my event but they want to use mafia tactics, Giles said. Im just asking you to take the time to listen to my ideas and challenge yourself.

Michael Norton, university counsel, also took over the soap box.

He said the university respects the freedom of speech and encourages it for every individual.

He further addressed the Milo event cancellation, which was supposed to occur at a reasonable fee because the organization was not student based.

They chose to not to pay the fee," Norton said. "If they had paid the fee, the event will definitely had happened."

More:
Greenlee School celebrates First Amendment Rights by utilizing them - Iowa State Daily

College is often talked about as grounds for pushing boundaries, being exposed to new perspectives and sticking up for what you believe in. Its a place where many start to identify that some of their beliefs dont align with their parents, friends or peers. Its a place where many identify where their political, religious or social views stand. Its a place where we are bombarded with diverse thinking and life experiences that help educate us.

But it is not the space of a public university itself that enables such opportunities, but rather the First Amendment and its freedoms accessible across the United States.

Today, Iowa State once again celebrates these freedoms through the annual First Amendment celebration. The event is meant to remind us that most of us use our freedoms of religion, press, speech, assembly and petition on a daily basis, but often take advantage of them. As a matter of proof that we often take advantage of them without knowing, statistics from a survey conducted by the Newseum Institute show that most Americans cant name all five freedoms.

In some ways it is sad that many Americans dont know the five freedoms because then we can never truly appreciate the value they provide us. The First Amendment is so ingrained in our society that protests, watchdog journalism and religious practices are just common practice. But if we dont take the time to think about what our nation would be like without them, we risk the chance of not knowing what there is to miss until its gone.

In essence, thats the very purpose of the First Amendment celebration: to recognize and celebrate our freedoms, while also recognizing that it is our duty as Americans to stand up and protect those freedoms.

Beyond this, the celebration on campus today is meant to remind us that the First Amendment is not in place simply so we can express ourselves, but so that others even those we strongly disagree with may do so as well. The celebration is just as much about the fact that we can express ourselves as it is about living in a society where we are constantly exposed to differing perspectives that help enrich our nation.

It is because of the First Amendment that we can stand up and fight in the face of injustice without fear of the government prohibiting us from doing so. It is also because of the First Amendment that we can stand up and say that we want to keep our traditional values without the government prohibiting us from doing so.

The First Amendment is arguably the most necessary part of an effective democracy and an American society that all citizens can participate in. It's necessary for all American communities, including the Iowa State and Ames communities, to function to their fullest potential.

But if we dont take the time to celebrate this, to think of our lives without these freedoms and to understand that each day we face opposition to holding these freedoms we could lose them without even knowing.

Follow this link:
Editorial: Celebrate the First Amendment - Iowa State Daily