The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Category Archives: First Amendment
New Report Card Gives the First Amendment a C+ in the Age of the Trump Administration – PR Newswire (press release)
Posted: April 21, 2017 at 2:06 am
The right to a free press received the lowest grade point average of all five freedoms. Panelists pointed to the following factors: President Trump's campaign promise to open up libel laws in order to more easily sue media outlets; certain media outlets being blocked from attending White House briefings; the "fake news" phenomenon, coupled with the president using the "fake news" label to attack the media; and the president's general enmity for the press.
Assembly and petition received the highest grades, with panelists noting that recent protests and political marches were classic demonstrations of both freedoms, and that the government took no action to hamper them or the resulting media coverage.
"Rarely in our lifetimes has there been more controversy about the state of our First Amendment freedoms," said Lata Nott, executive director of the First Amendment Center. "It is critically important for our nation to have serious discussions about the threats and opportunities we face in maintaining and trying to enhance our democracy."
The grading was performed by fifteen panelists from across the political spectrum, each of whom have committed to providing quarterly updates of their grades for one year. Panelists were advised to consider the following four elements in their evaluations: legislation, executive orders, judicial decisions and public opinion; and also to consider long-term trends and actions.
ABOUT THE NEWSEUM INSTITUTE'S FIRST AMENDMENT CENTERThe Newseum Institute's First Amendment Center is a forum for the study and exploration of issues related to free expression, religious freedom, and press freedom, and an authoritative source of information, news, and analysis of these issues. The Center provides education, information and entertainment to educators, students, policy makers, legal experts, and the general public. The Center is nonpartisan and does not lobby, litigate or provide legal advice. The Newseum Institute promotes the study, exploration and education of the challenges confronting freedom through its First Amendment Center and the Religious Freedom Center. The Newseum is a 501(c)(3) public charity funded by generous individuals, corporations and foundations, including the Freedom Forum. For more information, visit newseuminstitute.org or follow us on Twitter.
To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-report-card-gives-the-first-amendment-a-c-in-the-age-of-the-trump-administration-300442989.html
SOURCE Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center
Go here to see the original:
New Report Card Gives the First Amendment a C+ in the Age of the Trump Administration - PR Newswire (press release)
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on New Report Card Gives the First Amendment a C+ in the Age of the Trump Administration – PR Newswire (press release)
The First Amendment Gave This Neo-Nazi The Right To Be Vile But Then He Went Too Far – BuzzFeed News
Posted: at 2:06 am
Andrew Anglin Wiki Commons
ID: 10918809
The right to free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution gives Americans broad allowances to say extremely bigoted, mean-spirited and disgusting things online about other people. Perhaps nobody understood just how broad those allowances were than leading neo-Nazi blogger Andrew Anglin who refers to Jewish people on his site as kikes, black people as niggers, gay people or those he perceives as gay as faggots, and has a whole section called The Jewish Problem.
Last last year, the self-proclaimed white supremacist decided to take his hateful rhetoric a step further. On December 16, Anglin authored a post on the Daily Stormer goading his readers to engage in a troll storm. The target: a Jewish realtor in Montana named Tanya Gersh, who Anglin was convinced was extorting Sherry Spencer, the mother of leading white supremacist Richard Spencer.
In the post, titled Jews Targeting Richard Spencers Mother for Harassment and Extortion TAKE ACTION!, Anglin writes, Lets Hit Em Up. Are yall ready for an old fashioned Troll Storm? Because AYO - its time, fam. The post contains a substantial amount of contact information for Gersh who he calls a whore her husband, and one of her sons, a 12-year-old who Anglin calls a scamming kike and creepy little faggot.
Anglin asks his readers to contact the Gershes and make your opinions known. He asks them to call them, email them, tweet them, or if youre in the area, maybe you should stop by and tell her in person what you think of her actions. He explicitly writes that no one should do anything violent, but adds, It is very important that we make them feel the kind of pressure they are making us feel.
And hit em up his followers did, which legal experts said could land Anglin in trouble in court.
In a lawsuit filed this week, Gersh alleges more than 700 instances of harassment directed at her and her family in connection with the troll storm orchestrated by Anglin. These include emails to her reading, Ratfaced criminals who play with fire tend to get thrown in the oven, and This is the goylash. You remember the last goylash, dont you Tanya? Merry Christmas, you Christ killing Jew, and one that simply reads Death to Tanya repeated in the message about 100 times.
In the months after Anglins call for harassment, Gersh also received phone calls at home. According to complaint, when she picked up one caller said, You should have died in the Holocaust with the rest of your people. Another call consisted only of the sounds of guns being fired.
And how did Daily Stormer readers respond to Anglins call to target her son? One person tweeted at him, psst kid, theres a free Xbox One inside the oven and included a photo of an oven.
On a call with reporters on Tuesday, Gersh said that the threats have caused her to gain weight, her hair to fall out, and said shes had to quit her job. At one point during the troll storm campaign, she said she came home to a dark house, her husband waiting inside with the bags packed. We really thought we had to run for safety in the middle of the night, Gersh said.
Since the first post on December 16, according to the lawsuit, he has published 30 posts calling for actions against Gersh. This was really terrorism, Gersh said Tuesday. We didnt get teased, we got terrorized.
According to court records, Anglin has not responded yet to the lawsuit. One of Gershs attorneys, Richard Cohen, the president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, told BuzzFeed News on Wednesday that they havent served Anglin with the suit yet. Anglin is a resident of Ohio, but reportedly could be residing in the Philippines or somewhere in Europe.
When he does respond, legal experts expect Anglin will raise some sort of First Amendment defense. However, in order to win in court, he will have to prove to a jury that the speech he engaged in was not intended to cause harm.
Speech that a reasonable person would construe as harm, thats not protected. In our system, you can hold discriminatory views, you cant act on them, David Schulz, a partner at Levine, Sullivan, Koch, Schulz, who has 35 years of First Amendment litigation experience.
If [Anglin] can say, Im just expressing an opinion and try to pull this into the sphere of free speech, it gets back to what a reasonable person would understand as protected speech Schulz says.
To prove that he was just expressing his opinion, Anglin might argue that he was merely republishing Sherry Spencers Medium blog post in which she accuses Gersh of attempting to extort her as part of a real estate deal to sell off a piece of property in Whitefish, Montana.
In November 2016, according to the lawsuit, Gersh reached out to Sherry Spencer about a planned protest outside a building that Spencer owns in downtown Whitefish. Gersh claims that she informed Sherry Spencer about the demonstrations, which were being planned in response to a viral video of her son, Richard, leading a Hail Trump! chant, and offered to help Spencer sell the building. According to the lawsuit, Gersh and Sherry Spencer began to discuss working together to sell the property. But then a month later, Sherry Spencer apparently had a change of heart, and published the Medium post accusing Gersh of extortion.
Montana Law School Professor Eduardo Capulong points out that if Anglin could prove that he was merely commenting on this purported feud between the Spencers and Gersh, he would be protected. But using it as basis to attack without verifying is reckless, he added.
Its one thing, if Anglin said: Oh, look at this blog post, and fuck them. Thats arguably protected by free speech, Capulong said. But then, you go beyond that and say: target this family.
Asked if Anglins calls for his readers not to be violent would protect him, Capulong said, I dont think so. Given everything that he was doing, and invoking Nazi ideology, images, I think any reasonable person would see that as a call to violence.
In this case, Anglin is accused of four charges invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, malice, and violation of Montanas Anti-Intimidation Act. All four carry the possibility of damages that Anglin may have to pay to Gersh if the case goes in her favor.
But in order to obtain punitive damages meant to punish Anglin in a substantial way that deters others Gersh will have to prove malice, which has a higher standard in court. However, Capulong believes that Gersh has a good case for malice. I was shocked to see those emails. Thats really malicious I think, he said.
Gershs attorneys have called for at least $75,000 in damages for each count the minimum amount necessary to file the case in federal court.
Cohen says that they have no idea how much money Anglin has which could factor into the judge or jurys final decision on how much he would have to pay out. However, if he loses and regardless of the award amount the law dictates two key things. One, Anglin will not be able to seek bankruptcy against a judgment against him. And two, a judge can enforce a judgment for 20 years essentially going after future money he makes off the Daily Stormer.
Well follow him wherever he goes, Cohen said.
Read more from the original source:
The First Amendment Gave This Neo-Nazi The Right To Be Vile But Then He Went Too Far - BuzzFeed News
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on The First Amendment Gave This Neo-Nazi The Right To Be Vile But Then He Went Too Far – BuzzFeed News
DAVID ROSMAN: Supreme Court must uphold the First Amendment – Columbia Missourian
Posted: April 19, 2017 at 9:43 am
It is Easter Sunday, and I cannot sit here on this most holy of Christian holidays without talking about the separation of church and state. More specifically, the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer and actions taken by our governor in an attempt to sway the court in favor of Trinity Lutheran.
For those of you unfamiliar with the case, here is the short summary: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has a program that provides chopped-up used tire rubber to non-profits to help make playgrounds safer for the kids through a grant process. In 2012 Trinity Lutheran Church preschool made application for such a grant, and though "qualified," were denied based on Missouri constitutional law.
"That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship."
Trinity Lutheran is suing on First Amendment grounds. The guiding principle of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause has been made clear in case law and in the writings of those who helped draft the First Amendment to our Constitution that every person has the right to worship the way they feel is correct and the state will not interfere or support any established religion.
According to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, "While the preschool has an open admissions policy, it functions as a self-described 'ministry of Trinity Lutheran Church.'" The DNR believed that because Trinity Lutheran is a religious institution and they expound religious teachings as part of the daily instruction at the preschool, allowing the grant would be in violation of Article 1,Section 7.
Trinity Lutheran's position was that the position taken by the DNR is in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution more specifically, the Establishment Clause. They enlisted the Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious right-wing legal counsel, to represent them in this case.
The alliance claims that 14 other Missouri 501(c)(3) non-profits were awarded the grant for their playgrounds and that Trinity Lutheran, also a 501(c)(3) non-profit institution and otherwise qualified for the grant, was unfairly excluded from the program.
The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, Jeffrey Mittman,said of the case: "Its about settled constitutional law that protects individuals rights to practice their religion from government interference and ensures that tax payers are not forced to support any specific religion or religion over non religion."
Two federal courts have already ruled against the church. This week the case will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, including the newly confirmed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. It will be his first test as a justice to see if he will follow longstanding precedent established by the court or arrive at some other position.
We know that he sided with the religious institutions in two other high profile cases: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell.
Here's the rub. Last week, Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens issued a directive that allowed "religious organizations to apply for state Department of Natural Resources grants," and in turn the DNR is to consider such applications without prejudice. This appears to be an attempt to circumvent the state's long-established constitutional position and the First Amendment. In other words, it's an attempt to influence the court in its deliberations.
Former Missouri Supreme Court Justice Mike Wolff believes it does. He told St. Louis Public Radio that because of Greitens' directive, the court may have nothing to decide, seeing that the position of the state has been reversed.
Nothing can be further from the truth. The governor cannot change the state Constitution simply with a wave of his pen.
This is not a question of anti-Christian sentiment. I am sure that the DNR would have come to the same conclusion if the application came from a Muslim or Jewish preschool that includes the teaching of religious principles as part of the curriculum.
This is a question of state constitutional law concerning an amendment that is clear and direct: There is to be no action by the state to financially support a religious institution.
Go here to see the original:
DAVID ROSMAN: Supreme Court must uphold the First Amendment - Columbia Missourian
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on DAVID ROSMAN: Supreme Court must uphold the First Amendment – Columbia Missourian
First Amendment Day arrives at Iowa State – Iowa State Daily
Posted: at 9:43 am
The 15th annual First Amendment Dayswill take place Wednesday through Friday to celebrate what is arguably the most revered amendment enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.
The First Amendment guarantees five natural rights to the American citizen. It protects freedom of speech and expression, keeps the government from establishing religion and likewiseprotects the free practice of one's religious beliefs. It ensures a free and openpress, thefreedom of association and freedom to petition the government.
Each right is regarded as an integral part of a free Americansociety.
These rights are not onlyestablishedin law,forbidding government infringement, but arealso an ideal to strive toward in widersociety.First Amendment Days celebrate those rights and freedoms.
Events will begin Wednesday with "Depth and Dialog Sessions." Discussion topics will range from "Free Speech vs. Hate Speech," "Free Speech considerations for Faculty and Staff," "Diversity and Inclusion and the First Amendment" and "Think Like a Journalist."
The day will close with "Freedom Sings!" celebrating provocative music.
Festivities will continue Thursday with the "Democalypse March" and "Feast on the First."
Closing the night, keynote speaker Glenn Smith will speak on the importance of individual journalists and news outletsexposing falsehoods, speaking the truth and giving a voice to those who would otherwise wouldn't have one in a time when news is hard to trust and many feel unrepresented.
First Amendment Days 2017 will close with the First Amendment Teaching Workshop seminar on Friday, where faculty and staff ofuniversitiesand high schools will be shown new ways to better teach their students about the value and importance of the First Amendment.
Read the original:
First Amendment Day arrives at Iowa State - Iowa State Daily
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on First Amendment Day arrives at Iowa State – Iowa State Daily
Steps being taken to improve First Amendment rights at ECU – WNCT
Posted: at 9:43 am
GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCT) East Carolina University has come under fire from some who feel as if their First Amendment rights are being violated.
The First Amendment discussion intensified in the Fall after some members of the ECU marching band knelt during the national anthem at a football game. Since then, some students have spoken out about free speech on campus.
On Monday, controversial figure Tomi Lahren spoke to a sold out crowd of 700 people in Hendrix Theatre. The university made the decision to exclude media during the event, prompting more concerns about First Amendment rights.
Later, ECU released a statement on the incident saying, Contracts for speakers do not allow for recordings which is why we asked to have the media availability. Not having media in some events is not unusual at ECU especially for events in Hendrix because its a smaller venue. We did tickets because the venue is small. Our larger venue, Wright was already booked for this date. This event was sold out and requires a valid student ID and ticket to enter.
Lahren was speaking about the importance of free speech to the crowd.
Free speech isnt just saying what you want to say, its also hearing things you dont want to hear, and thats okay, she said before the event.
But some students feel as if this may just be the latest example in their rights being infringed on.
Weve been working with ECU since the fall semester to change these policies, said Giovanni Triana, director of ECUs Turning Point USA.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is national group focusing on maintaining, and expanding, individual rights at universities. They rank universities using a red, yellow and green light based on policies relating to individual rights.
ECU was given a yellow light by FIRE, due in large part because students have to get prior permission to assemble, and once permission is granted, are limited in where they can gather.
This really infringes on students rights to free speech because protests and demonstrations are often spontaneous, said Samantha Harris, VP of Police Research for FIRE. You know something happens and part of the message is the immediacy.
Under new regulations set to be released by the university this week, freedoms would be expanded on campus. ECU Provost Ron Mitchelson said one of the changes would deal with prior permission being required to assemble.
Student groups can in fact express themselves at any time, and anywhere on this campus, he said.
Mitchelson said there would be exceptions, especially if the movement turned violent or disrupted classes.
Free speech at universities is also being debated by state lawmakers. A RepublicanHouse Bill would ensure rights of students werent being infringed on.
To read more about FIRE and see how other schools rank, click here.
Read the original here:
Steps being taken to improve First Amendment rights at ECU - WNCT
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on Steps being taken to improve First Amendment rights at ECU – WNCT
EFF to California Supreme Court: Website Owners Have a First Amendment Right to Defend Content on Their Platform – EFF
Posted: at 9:43 am
A bad review on Yelp is an anathema to a business. No one wants to get trashed online. But the First Amendment protects both the reviewers opinion and Yelps right to publish it. A California appeals court ran roughshod over the First Amendment when it ordered Yelp to comply with an injunction to take down speech without giving the website any opportunity to challenge the injunctions factual basis. The case is on appeal to the California Supreme Court, and EFF filed an amicus brief asking the court to overturn the lower courts dangerous holding.
The case, Hassell v. Bird, is procedurally complicated. A lawyer, Dawn Hassell, sued a former client, Ava Bird, for defamation in California state court over a negative Yelp review. Bird never responded to the lawsuit, so the trial court entered a default judgment against her. The courtat Hassells requestnot only ordered Bird to remove her own reviews, but also ordered Yelp to remove themeven though Yelp was never named as a party to the suit. (If this kind of abuse of a default judgment sounds familiar, thats not a coincidence; it seems to be increasingly commonand its a real threat to online speech.)
Yelp challenged the order, asserting that Hassell failed to prove that the post at issue was actually defamatory, that Yelp could not be held liable for the speech pursuant to the Communication Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. 230 (Section 230), and that Yelp could not be compelled to take down the post as a non-party to the suit. The trial court rejected Yelps arguments and refused to recognize Yelps free speech rights as a content provider. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial courts decision, holding that Yelp could be forced to remove the supposedly defamatory speech from its website without any opportunity to argue that the reviews were accurate or otherwise constitutionally protected.
This decision is frankly just wrongand for multiple reasons. Neither court seemed to understand that the First Amendment protects not only authors and speakers, but also those who publish or distribute their words. Both courts completely precluded Yelp, a publisher of online content, from challenging whether the speech it was being ordered to take down was defamatoryi.e., whether the injunction to take down the speech could be justified. And the court of appeals ignored its special obligation, pursuant to California law, to conduct an independent examination of the record in First Amendment cases.
Both courts also seemed to completely ignore the U.S. Supreme Courts clear holding that issuing an injunction against a non-party is a constitutionally-prohibited violation of due process.
EFFalong with the ACLU of Northern California and the Public Participation Projecturged the California Supreme Court to accept the case for review back in August 2016. The court agreed to review the case in September, and we just joined an amicus brief urging the court to overrule the problematic holding below.
Our briefdrafted by Jeremy Rosen of Horvitz & Levy and joined by a host of other organizations dedicated to free speechexplains to the California Supreme Court that the First Amendment places a very high bar on speech-restricting injunctions. A default judgment simply cannot provide a sufficient factual basis for meeting that bar, and the injunction issued against Yelp in this case was improper. We also explained that the injunction violated clear Supreme Court case law and Yelps due process rights, and that the injunction violates Section 230, which prohibits courts from holding websites liable for the speech of third parties.
As Santa Clara University law school professor Eric Goldman noted in a blog post about the case, the appeals courts decision opens up a host of opportunities for misuse and threatens to rip a hole in Section 230s protections for online speechprotections that already seem to be weakening. If not overturned, as the already pervasive misuse of default judgments teaches, this case will surely lead to similar injunctions that infringe on publishers free speech rights without giving them any notice or opportunity to be heard. The California Supreme Court cannot allow this.
Excerpt from:
EFF to California Supreme Court: Website Owners Have a First Amendment Right to Defend Content on Their Platform - EFF
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on EFF to California Supreme Court: Website Owners Have a First Amendment Right to Defend Content on Their Platform – EFF
Airbnb Sues City of Miami, Alleges Violation of Hosts’ First Amendment Rights – Insurance Journal
Posted: at 9:43 am
The homesharing platform Airbnb is suing the city of Miami, where officials threatened to crack down on hosts who publicly protested regulations prohibiting short-term rentals.
According to the lawsuit filed Friday in Miami-Dade County by Airbnb and five individual hosts, the city violated the First Amendment rights of hosts who spoke up at a March 23 city commission meeting.
At that meeting, commissioners voted 3-2 to reaffirm zoning regulations prohibiting short-term rentals of single-family homes in Miamis residential areas. City Manager Daniel Alfonso then said code compliance officials could start targeting Airbnb hosts who placed their names and addresses on the record to attend the meeting and protest those regulations.
The City is now acting to make good on those threats, the lawsuit said. Airbnb stands together with its Miami hosts in opposing the Citys unlawful efforts, and in particular stands with the brave individuals who have come forward and seek to protect their rights as individual plaintiffs in this action.
Three off the hosts listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit attended the March 23 meeting. Airbnb officials have said the company has 2,300 active hosts in Miami.
Miami Mayor Tomas Regalado, who opposes Airbnb, told The Miami Herald that Airbnb encouraged its hosts to attend the commission meeting, knowing they would have to provide their names and addresses in order to participate.
There is no First Amendment issue here and there is no retribution, Regalado said.
Regalado said the city attorney plans to send cease-and-desist orders to Airbnb hosts who spoke at the commission meeting. They could face fines of $250 per day.
The lawsuit asks the court to declare vacation rentals legal in residential areas of Miami, to stop the city from adopting new ordinances against short-term rentals, to prevent any legal action against the hosts and to deem unlawful the city commissions policy of requiring personal information in order to speak up at public meetings.
More here:
Airbnb Sues City of Miami, Alleges Violation of Hosts' First Amendment Rights - Insurance Journal
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on Airbnb Sues City of Miami, Alleges Violation of Hosts’ First Amendment Rights – Insurance Journal
Eighty-four Years After the Twenty-first Amendment, Are North Carolina’s Liquor Laws Ready for the Twenty-first Century? – The Independent Weekly
Posted: at 9:43 am
On a recent Friday night at Durham's Fullsteam Brewery, founder Sean Lilly Wilson is pointing to a color-coded menu, helping three customers on the opposite side of the bar decide what to order.
"I'm partial to this one," he says, recommending the Brumley Forest porter, "because we all went out and foraged these nuts to make this beer."
Fullsteam is packed with young couples, families, and dogs. And that's just how Wilson, who until recently was president of the N.C. Craft Brewers Guild, wants it. Before opening Fullsteam in 2010, he helped organize the Pop the Cap movement that in 2005 increased the limit on alcohol content in beers brewed and sold in North Carolina from 6 percent to 15 percent, part of a further-reaching effort to make the state's laws more brewery-friendly in order to foster the kind of community that has grown up around his Rigsbee Avenue business.
It's easy to tell here that North Carolina's craft beer scene is alive and well. Since Fullsteam opened, the number of breweries in the state has grown from 45 to 204, making North Carolina eleventh in the nation for beer production. Albeit with less clamor, the state's craft distilling industry has surged as well, from 13 establishments in 2013 to 46 now.
Some craft brewers and distillers, though, say the state's distribution laws are keeping their industries from reaching their full potential. Two bills currently in the General Assembly could change that by putting more leverage in the hands of alcohol producers. HB 500 would increase how much beer breweries can sell without bringing in an outside distributor; SB 155 would give distilleries more opportunities to directly sell liquor to customers. The debate over these bills pits North Carolina's Bible Belt roots against its more progressive metropolitan centers, entrenched political interests against the conservative cry for small government, and the way things were against the way things can be.
"It's economic development, it's innovation, it's tourismit's all the things that North Carolina loves to celebrate," Wilson says. "But at the same time, it comes down to yet another battle between red state, blue city."
In 1908, North Carolina became the first state in the South to ban the sale of alcohol, eleven years before the Eighteenth Amendment was ratified, and it didn't give counties the option to allow liquor sales until two years after Prohibition ended. In fact, when the Twenty-first Amendment came before the states in 1933, North Carolinaalong with South Carolinarefused to ratify it.
It was out of this post-Prohibition era that our current alcohol-control system originated. And like many octogenarians, it does not take kindly to change.
Like most states, North Carolina has a three-tier distribution system for beer sales. Producers and importers are the first tier, distributors the second, and retailers the third. North Carolina breweries that sell fewer than twenty-five thousand barrels of beer per year can get a wholesaler permit and distribute their own product. Once a brewery hits 25,001 barrels, though, it must sell all of its beer through a wholesaler and sign a distribution agreement giving that wholesaler exclusive rights to sell the product in a given territory. HB 500 seeks to raise the cap on self-distribution to two hundred thousand barrels per year, which state representative and bill sponsor Jon Hardister, R-Guilford, says is the middle ground among the fifteen states that allow limited self-distribution.
HB 500 marks the ninth attempt to raise the cap since it was set at twenty-five thousand in 2003. (Before that, it was ten thousand barrels.) With the support of a brewer-backed campaign called Craft Freedom and some suds-loving legislators, HB 500 appears to have momentum. The House Alcohol Beverage Control committee was expected to vote on the bill Wednesday morning.
When the cap was last raised, there were about twenty breweries and one hundred wholesalers to serve them, says Margo Metzger, executive director of the N.C. Craft Brewers Guild. Today, she estimates, there are about forty independent beer wholesalers that each markets about 980 products. For small breweries, this means competing with larger brands for a wholesaler's attention, and therefore tap and shelf space.
Wilson says the barrel cap is "always on my mind" as he projects his company's growth. Fullsteam, which is on track to brew about seven thousand barrels of beer this year, self-distributes and uses a wholesaler, both locally and in three other states.
"The more successful we are as a self-distribution brewery, the more we're actually going to need a wholesaler as well." Wilson says. "Even in our local market, we rely on a wholesaler to penetrate deep because we just don't have those relationships."
For those rallying to raise the cap, HB 500 is a free market issuebreweries should be allowed to decide if and when they want to hire a distributor, not be forced to retool successful business models to make sure the middle tier gets a cut. Indeed, the John Locke Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, and the Civitas Institute have all voiced support for raising the cap, if not eliminating it altogether.
Hardister, the House majority whip, argues that there should be no cap at all.
"Our laws are outdated," he says. "Obviously our laws are not completely terrible, because then there would be no growth in the industry. But there is potential to make these businesses more successful, and that involves getting the government out of the way."
Just three breweries in the stateNoDa Brewing Company, Olde Mecklenburg Brewery (both in Charlotte), and Red Oak Brewery in Whitsettare pushing the current barrel cap. But given the industry's growth, that likely won't be the case for long.
"All you have to do is look at the curvature and the time it takes to change these different complex laws with a lot of entrenched interests to know that you have to be thinking about the future," Wilson says.
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on Eighty-four Years After the Twenty-first Amendment, Are North Carolina’s Liquor Laws Ready for the Twenty-first Century? – The Independent Weekly
Texas lawmaker takes aim at journalists and the First Amendment – Huntsville Item
Posted: April 17, 2017 at 12:33 pm
AUSTIN A state lawmaker wants to make it easier for public figures and officials to sue newspapers and to force reporters to disclose sources, but opponents say his bills would chill important coverage.
Critics of House Bill 3387 and House Bill 3388, authored by Rep. Ken King, R-Canadian, also argued in a State Affairs committee hearing that the proposals, if enacted, would violate the First Amendment.
HB 3387 would require that news reports explain how a particular story on a public official relates to the persons public duties.
King said that his bill would allow public officials to seek justice, but press advocates argued that such a rule would not only make it easier for the subject of the story to win a libel suit, but ultimately cause newspapers not to cover public officials for fear of costly legal judgments.
The bill would make the question of who is or is not a public figure less clear cut, giving officials the opportunity to argue that they were acting as private citizens, not in their official capacity in a particular situation: for example, a county official who protested his tax valuation.
The public/private distinction is important because even if news reports contain false statements, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public figures and officials cannot collect libel damages newspapers without proving actual malice.
Courts have for over 50 years held that actual malice means that a newspaper knew the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth.
Salem Abraham testified in support of the HB 3387.
Abraham was a Canadian, Texas, school board trustee who in 2012 unsuccessfully sued an Internet blog for libel.
Abraham, who supported King in a race for state representative, argued that making him prove actual malice without showing a connection between his board position and the story had nothing to do with free speech.
But, David Donaldson, an attorney who represented the Texas Press Association and the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, said that whether or not plaintiffs are public figures is an issue that has to be determined as a matter of law, by courts.
HB 3388 would alter Texas reporter shield laws, which protects journalists from being forced to testify or turn over sources and materials.
Stacy Allen, an attorney who represented the Texas Association of Broadcasters at the hearing, said that the states reporter shield law is considered a model.
Donnis Baggett, executive vice president of the Texas Press Association, said that as drafted, Kings bill violates the First Amendment.
Under the bill, reporters who had contributed to or worked for political campaigns within the previous five years would be unable to claim the shield protection.
The same rule would apply to reporters who work for media companies or newspaper owners who have made campaign contributions within the five years.
If enacted, it would also penalize those who claim the reporters privilege, but who are subsequently found not to be journalists.
Opponents noted that media companies may well have owners or shareholders who make political contributions, a fact that would limit what their reporters could shield under the law.
As for resolving who is or isnt a journalist, that is best left to the courts, Allen said.
King said that bill is aimed at those who go buy an iPad and call themselves journalists.
He was working on a committee substitute for the bill, King said at the hearing.
But Baggett said that we have grave concerns about where were starting from.
John Austin covers the Texas Statehouse for CNHIs newspapers and websites. Reach him at jaustin@cnhi.com.
Read this article:
Texas lawmaker takes aim at journalists and the First Amendment - Huntsville Item
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on Texas lawmaker takes aim at journalists and the First Amendment – Huntsville Item
The First Amendment Looks Especially Beautiful in Arabic – BillMoyers – BillMoyers.com
Posted: April 15, 2017 at 5:16 pm
Our Constitution in every language is our greatest defense against bigotry.
The First Amendment Looks Especially [...]
(Photo courtesy of the ACLU)
This post originally appeared at the American Civil Liberties Union website.
In 2006, a human rights advocate, who is a friend, wasprevented from boarding his flight from New York to California because of Arabic.
My friend was wearing a T-shirt with the words We will not be silent in both Arabic and English. He was told he could not fly until the offending Arabic script was covered. And lest we think our issues with Arabic have resolved themselves in the last decade, remember that simplyspeaking Arabic on an airplanewas grounds for removal from a flight just last year.
How we got to this point is a complicated matter, but the path forward doesnt have to be.
Lest we think our issues with Arabic have resolved themselves in the last decade, remember that simplyspeaking Arabic on an airplanewas grounds for removal from a flight just last year.
Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Arab-Americans and American Muslims have come to be viewed by some of our fellow citizens and our own government as either victims of hate or potential perpetrators of violence. The latter view dictates we should be seen through a securitized lens and has produced profiling and surveillance of our communities,watch lists and special registry programs, to name but a few programs targeting us.
However, both oversimplifications fail to capture the experience ofbeing Arab or Muslim in post-9/11 America, and last years presidential campaign demonstrated that with extraordinary clarity. We have heard condemnation of thesurge in hate crimesbut little discussion on how the rhetoric during the election contributed to that hate, particularly by leading policy makers and candidates. Instead of challenging bigoted misinformation, some candidates furthered it.
At aNew Hampshire town hall, a voter declared to then-candidate Trump,We have a problem in this country. Its called Muslims. He concluded by asking, When can we get rid of them? Mr. Trumps answer: We are going to be looking at a lot of different things.
One could reasonably suggest President Trumps Muslim bans, inboth incarnations, were the logical continuation of that conversation in New Hampshire. The Muslim ban is a candidate delivering on a campaign promise unlike any we have seen in our lifetime.
Thankfully, it is not that simple in our country.
Standing in the path between bigotry and policy is our Constitution. In this case, specifically the First Amendment.
Standing in the path between bigotry and policy is our Constitution. In this case, specifically the First Amendment.
Among the five freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment are freedom of speech and the right to religious freedom. Thus far, numerous judges have found the bans to be in violation of our First Amendment and their implementation has been stalled. In the guise of keeping us safe, Trump has proposed unnecessary, ineffective policies that sow fear. Americans know it, and responded by showing up at our nations airports with banners and legal pads to defend our Constitution and protect the people most impacted, including those who speak the feared language of Arabic. In addition to winning the first stay of the ban, the ACLU has launched a We the People campaign that features the First Amendment translated into other languages, including Arabic, and is displaying it in ads and billboards. Seeing the First Amendment in Arabic is particularly satisfying at this moment as a fitting reminder that those words apply to all of us.
I worked on Capitol Hill on Sept. 11, and I was in the room when Attorney General John Ashcroft first presented the Patriot Act to congressional leadership. Many at the time asked: Are we striking the right balance between protecting our national security and our civil liberties? We should always remember that if we are told we must choose one or the other, we are being offered a false choice and a shortsighted remedy that will provide neither. The same goes for bigoted, undemocratic policies demanding that we choose between freedom or safety.
Like those who advance them, policy remedies can either move our country forward or take us back.
The slogan on my friends shirt belonged to a resistance campaign led by theWhite Rose, an extraordinary group of young people who were brutally executed for distributing leaflets in opposition to Nazi policies in Germany during World War II. The phrase We will not be silent is how they concluded theirfourth resistance flyer.
Our fear of Arabic or more specifically, of Arabs and Muslims remains a problem for some, including those who currently hold some important positions in our government. It is driving anincrease in incidents of hateand bad policies. We hope they will soon get over that irrational fear but until they do, we too will not be silent and are protected by the words of our Constitution and the judges sworn to uphold them.
After all, remember that my friend who was targeted for the two words of Arabic on his T-shirt is protected by the 34 words of Arabic or 45 in English appearing on a billboard near you.
Daily Reads: Former Goldman Sachs President Enjoys New White House Influence; Is Trump Dropping Big Bombs to Boost Popularity?
Margaret Atwood Reflects on The Handmaids Tale
Go here to see the original:
The First Amendment Looks Especially Beautiful in Arabic - BillMoyers - BillMoyers.com
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on The First Amendment Looks Especially Beautiful in Arabic – BillMoyers – BillMoyers.com