Category Archives: First Amendment

ROGER WICKER

The First Amendment to our Constitution is a powerful expression of our right to the free exercise of religion. Americans can practice their faith without fear of persecution a freedom that is not found in all parts of the world.

For Christians in the United States, the prevalence of religious persecution worldwide is especially heartbreaking as we approach Easter Sunday. We are reminded of the suicide bomber who targeted Christians on Easter Sunday last year in Pakistan, killing more than 70 and injuring hundreds. Sadly, this violence is not isolated. Pakistan ranks fourth on this years World Watch List created by the nonprofit group Open Doors USA. The list names 50 countries that have extreme, very high and high persecution of Christians. North Korea ranked first.

I currently serve as chairman of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, an agency comprised of members of Congress and federal officials to promote security and human rights in 57 countries in North America, Europe and Eurasia. The persecution of Christians and religious minorities remains a significant concern for the commission. In Syria, the Islamic State has waged a genocide against Christians, forcing thousands from their homes and destroying religious sites. In Russia, the governments recent attempt to ban Jehovahs Witnesses from practicing their faith is yet another affront to religious freedom in a country known for trampling human rights. Russias actions refute the international agreement that the U.S. Helsinki Commission seeks to uphold.

I have consistently supported legislative measures to protect Americans constitutional freedoms, including the exercise of religion. Political agendas should not encroach these rights. During the Obama administration, for example, I championed legislation that would allow military chaplains to refrain from performing marriage ceremonies if it would violate their conscience to do so. The religious expression of our military men and women is deserving of respect.

The same respect should be afforded to all Americans by our government agencies. I am encouraged by recent reports that President Trump is considering an executive order that would require federal agencies to protect the freedom of religion in their actions and policies. Earlier this month, I sent a letter with 17 other senators to President Trump expressing our support for this executive action and the need for federal agencies to follow the rule of law.

The letter reminds the President of attempts by the Obama administration to infringe on the rights of faith-based charities like the Little Sisters of the Poor. Obamacare forced the group either to pay a fine or offer services that they opposed for deeply held religious reasons. A Supreme Court ruling reaffirmed the religious liberty of the Little Sisters, just as it did for the owners of Hobby Lobby, who also raised religious objections to the health-care law.

Our founding documents built a foundation for religious liberty that is admired around the world. It is up to us to ensure that this foundation does not crumble.

Roger Wicker is a U.S. Senator from Mississippi. Contact him at 330 W. Jefferson St., Tupelo, MS 38803 or call (662) 844-5010.

Read more from the original source:
ROGER WICKER: Celebrate First Amendment religious freedoms ... - Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal

As we have noted several times before, American Family Radios Bryan Fischer holds an utterly incoherent view of the First Amendment that allows him to continually insist that it only applies to Congress except for all the times when he insists that it applies to all sorts of other government entities.

Amazingly, Fischers theory regarding the scope and meaning of the First Amendment grew even more incoherent when he said on his radio program yesterday that a failure by the Supreme Court to strike down a provision in a state constitution prohibiting the use of public funds to aid religious institutions would be a violation of the First Amendment.

Fischer was discussing the upcoming Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley case, which The Atlantic summarized thusly:

At first glance, Trinity Lutheran is about resurfacing childrens playgrounds. Missouris Scrap Tire Program offers state funds to nonprofit groups that replace playground surfaces with recycled rubber. The church applied to the program in 2012 to replace the gravel surface of its playground, but the state rejected its application, citing a clause in Missouris state constitution that bars the use of state funds directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion.

Trinity Lutheran Church argued that that provision violates the U.S. Constitutions First Amendment by discriminating against religious organizations. Missouri countered that because it does not favor or disfavor any church over another, it meets the Establishment Clauses standards.

In the past, Fischer has repeatedly stated that the First Amendment applies to Congress and Congress alone Since Congress is the only entity restrained by the First Amendment, Congress is the only entity that can violate it. He has also argued that states are allowed the freedom under the Founders Constitution to regulate religious expression anyway they choose.

Despite the fact that just last year, Fischer insisted that the First Amendment only applies to Congress and that states are free to regulate religious expression in any way they would like without any interference from the federal government, he is now bizarrely demanding that the federal government, via the Supreme Court, strike down this clause in the Missouri constitution on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment.

The First Amendment is addressed to Congress, Fischer said, and Congress has all legislative power, so this is essentially an amendment that applies to all of the federal government. The whole federal government is covered by the First Amendment. What is Congress not allowed to do, according to the First Amendment? It is flatly prohibited from doing what? From prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So what is the Supreme Court forbidden to do in the case of Trinity Lutheran Church vs Pauley? It is absolutely, totally, as an instrument of the federal government, it is forbidden by the Constitution to limit, to prohibit, to restrict the free exercise of religion in any way. What are they doing if they say to the school, Youre not eligible for any public help because you engage in religious expression? You cannot find a more direct and more egregious violation of the First Amendment than for the Supreme Court, an agency of the federal government, to prohibit their expression of religious liberty.

Not only is Fischer insisting that the First Amendment applies to entities beyond Congress, despite repeatedly asserting exactly the opposite in the past, he is now also declaring that the federal government must nullify a provision in a state constitution pertaining to religious expression despite having previously proclaimed that states are free to regulate religious expression in any way they would like without any interference from the federal government.

See the original post:
Bryan Fischer's Incoherent Theory Of The First Amendment Grows ... - Right Wing Watch

Photo courtesy the MTHS Hawkeye

For the fourth year in a row, the Mountlake Terrace High Schools student newspaper The Hawkeye has won the First Amendment Press Freedom Award from the Journalism Education Association (JEA) and National Scholastic Press Association (NSPA). The paper was given the award during an opening ceremony at a JEA/NSPA conference on Thursday night in Seattle.

The award recognizes free and responsible student media that thrive at the school. While members of the Hawkeye, it is also an accomplishment for the district and school administrators. Board Member Ann McMurray was also in attendance Thursday night to accept the award.

Its an award that is earned by having a community that believes in and values the principles of the First Amendment, a school administration that values and protects students rights, and thriving student media where students are in full control of editorial decisions, Hawkeye teacher adviser Vince DeMiero said. That starts at the community level, so this is as much an Edmonds School District award as it is an MTHS award or a Hawkeye award.

The award was given to ten other schools from across the country.

(I am) incredibly humbled, but also terribly sad that everypublic school in America isnt a First Amendment Press Freedom Award winner, DeMiero said.

Schools compete for the title by answering questionnaires submitted by an adviser and at least one editor. Publications that advanced to the next level were then asked to provide responses from the principal and all media advisers and student editors, indicating their support of the First Amendment. In addition, semifinalists submitted their printed policies.

Those who were selected showed a strong commitment to the First Amendment and student media.

Mountlake Terrace High School has won the award several times, and was among the first to win the award in 2000.

Read the original:
MTHS Hawkeye wins First Amendment Press Freedom Award for fourth year in a row - MLT News

Highline

Science

Education

Weird News

Business

TestKitchen

Tech

College

Media

Pollster

Heroin Epidemic

Donald Trump

Racial Inequality

US Senate

Election Results

HuffPost Hill

Police Brutality

Hate Crimes

Supreme Court

Congress

So That Happened

Entertainment

Comedy

Celebrity

TV

Arts + Culture

Backspace

Movies

Healthy Living

Travel

Style

Taste

Black Voices

Latino Voices

Women

Fifty

Queer Voices

Parents

ALL SECTIONS

Arts + Culture

Black Voices

Books

Business

Candidate Confessional

Celebrity

College

Comedy

Crime

Divorce

Dolce Vita

Eat the Press

Education

Election Results

Entertainment

Fifty

Good News

Green

Healthy Living

Highline

Home

Horoscopes

HuffPost Data

HuffPost Hill

Impact

Latino Voices

Media

Newsletters

Outspeak

Parents

Politics

Pollster

Queer Voices

Religion

Science

Small Business

So That Happened

Sports

Style

Taste

Tech

Teen

TestKitchen

Travel

TV

Weddings

Weird News

Women

FEATURED

OWN

Paving the Way

The Power Of Humanity

Retire Well

Sleep + Wellness

What's Working: Purpose + Profit

WorldPost

04/07/2017 11:44 am ET

For the past year, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE, the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization where I work) has been building up resources in our new First Amendment Library. This week, weve added a feature that I hope will help anyone interested in First Amendment issues understand the terms commonly used in legal and academic discussions about these rights: the First Amendment Glossary.

With over 75 terms included, FIREs First Amendment Glossary is meant to be a quick guide for those who are interested in free speech advocacy but may not have the time or inclination to pore over academic literature and case law in order to understand issues such as the the difference between public forums and limited public forums.

The glossary gives visitors brief definitions for terms that commonly emerge when discussing civil liberties issues, and it additionally directs readers to other areas of FIREs First Amendment Library that offer extended commentary and primary documents, such as Supreme Court opinions that have colored the jurisprudence surrounding particular terms.

For example, if a reader views the term prior restraint in our glossary, they will be directed to the portion of FIREs Guide to Free Speech on Campus that discusses how prior restraint has been interpreted through the yearsfrom the Supreme Courts argument for why the publication of the Pentagon Papers did not necessitate prior restraint, to the battle college journalists have faced to keep the precedent set by a high school student newspaper case allowing for prior restraint from being applied to their campus newspapers.

Read the original post:
A First Amendment Glossary to Help Readers Understand Key Legal Terms - Huffington Post

Media Matters for America (blog)

NRA Readies Next Attack Against The First Amendment Media Matters for America (blog) He then played a preview of a message featuring NRA's CEO Wayne LaPierre in which LaPierre claimed the media has weaponized the First Amendment against the Second, and that America would have fallen long ago had people placed their trust in the ...

Originally posted here:
NRA Readies Next Attack Against The First Amendment - Media Matters for America (blog)

Creativity

The First Amendment Appears in Arabic in Campaign From the ACLU Creativity This bold campaign from the American Civil Liberties Union sets out to show how powerful the First Amendment is -- in any language. Conceived out of New York-based Emergence Creative, the out-of-home effort simply, in black and white, features the ...

More here:
The First Amendment Appears in Arabic in Campaign From the ACLU - Creativity

CHICAGO (CN) The Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments Friday about whether Chicago police officers tattoos are protected by the First Amendment or whether they can be required to cover them up.

In mid-2015, former police superintendant Gary McCarthy implemented a policy requiring Chicago police officers to cover up any visible tattoos while on duty. Tattooed officers were required to wear long sleeves, even during the hot summer, or wear cover-up tape.

Three officers filed a federal lawsuit challenging the policy on First Amendment grounds.

Lead plaintiff Officer Daniel Medici, an Iraq War veteran, has a wings-and-halo tattoo in remembrance of his fallen comrades. The two other plaintiffs, Officers John Kukielka and Dennis Leet, each have a religious tattoo of St. Michael, the patron saint of police.

At oral arguments Friday, U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Posner wanted to know, How does a halo with wings communicate something about people killed in combat?

The officers attorney Linda Friedman said, The symbol is one recognized in the military, but would not go so far as to say it would be readily recognized as a war memorial by a person on the street in Chicago.

The judges were skeptical that the officers could recover any monetary damages for emotional injuries allegedly caused by the policy, which was only enforced for nine months before an arbitrator found that it violated the police unions contract.

The Chicago Police Department scrapped the rules in September, citing the need to boost morale.

But the Seventh Circuit panel also questioned the citys stated interest in preserving the uniformity and professionalism of the force.

Dont you have to say why uniformity is important? Judge Kenneth Ripple asked city attorney Stephen Collins. Uniformity and professionalism we hear that a lot, and it strikes me like a buzzword. What does the city gain by making an officer wear long sleeves in the summer to cover up a halo with wings?

Posner proposed that perhaps a citizen, seeing an officers tattoo of St. Michael, might suppose they were being pulled over for violating the policemans religious sensibilities.

But that has to be in the record, Ripple said.

Judge Diane Sykes sought to compare the tattoo policy to a prohibition on jewelry with a religious connotation, such as a crucifix, but Collins was not familiar with the departments policy.

Judge Ripple said he would be concerned if he was pulled over by an officer wearing a Masonic ring.

In rebuttal, Friedman informed the panel that the uniform policies allow officers to wear up to three rings, and do not regulate the content of those rings.

So an officer could wear a KKK ring, but not a tattoo of St. Michael? Ripple asked.

That is correct, Friedman said.

She repeatedly told the judges that no citizen had ever complained about an officers tattoos, and the policy was simply a result of the former superintendants personal dislike of tattoos.

Friedman asked the panel to reverse the dismissal of the case on standing grounds and allow the officers a trial on the question of damages.

It is unclear when the Seventh Circuit will rule in the case.

Original post:
Appeals Court Hears First Amendment Tattoo Case - Courthouse News Service

by: Mark Boxley Updated: Apr 6, 2017 - 11:39 PM

ORANGE PARK, Fla. - The owner of a video game store in Orange Park has filed a federal lawsuit against the town over a 9-foot inflatable Mario that officials say is a sign code violation.

Mario, the iconic Nintendo character, has caused a visible increase in foot traffic and even became a local attraction, Gone Broke Gaming owner Scott Fisher said in the suit.

Fisher opened his store in 2015 on Kingsley Avenue in Orange Park, a suburb of Jacksonville.

After getting the OK from his landlord and neighboring businesses, Fisher decided to put up the towering inflatable Mario character in July.

The impact on his business was immediate, he said.

People who came in often commented to Scott that they never knew the store was there until they saw Mario, the lawsuit said. Others said that Mario made it much easier to find Gone Broke Gamings small storefront on the otherwise busy road.

By the end of the month, though, an Orange Park Code Enforcement officer issued a notice of code violation, saying the inflatable display was an illegal portable sign.

If he left the Mario in front of the store, Fisher could have faced fines of up to $250 a day.

Fisher pointed out in his lawsuit that the towns sign code allowed inflatable displays, specifically if it constitutes a creative idea that lacks a commercial message.

Under (the creative idea) category, a business could display the same exact inflatable Mario that Gone Broke Gaming was displaying, so long as that business was not selling Mario-related products, the lawsuit said.

Fisher claims the towns prohibition of the inflatable Mario under its sign code constitutes discrimination and a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech.

The lawsuit is seeking the court to declare the Orange Park sign code unconstitutional, a permanent injunction prohibiting the town from taking enforcement action against the store for displaying the Mario, attorneys fees and $1 for the violation of Fishers constitutional rights.

As of Thursday, Orange Park leaders had not filed a response to Fishers lawsuit.

2017 Cox Media Group.

Here is the original post:
Florida video game shop owner claims First Amendment violation over town's inflatable Mario ban - WFTV Orlando

Some Ricochet readers may already be familiar with the First Amendment Library, launched last November and maintained by the non-partisan non-profit Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE, where I work). Today, weintroduced a First Amendment Glossary to the library. Featuring definitions and explanations for over 75 terms commonly associated with First Amendment law, we hope this glossary gives people the resources to feel confident entering discussions related to free speech.

For those interested in going beyond the definitions featured, our glossary also serves as a great jumping off point for conducting additional research. Many of the meanings and applications for the terms featured in this glossary have evolved over time, so we have included links that take readers to other parts of the library which offer further explanations and added context.

For example, clicking on obscene material points readers to the portion of FIREs Guide to Free Speech on Campus which provides further analysis of the Miller v. California (1973) test for obscenity. If readers are interested in viewing Miller or any other Supreme Court opinion related to obscenity, the links included in the definition direct readers to related opinions in the librarys First Amendment Case Database.

Here at FIRE we are uniquely understanding of the fact that most people, especially students busy with class work and extracurriculars, do not have the time to sit down and read through the seemingly endless amount of First Amendment scholarship and case law available. Now though, understanding the difference between expressive association and intimate association just a few clicks away. We hope this glossary, along with other library resources, gives readers the foundation required to intelligently argue for and protect their civil liberties.

Read more here:
Making Academic and Legal First Amendment Issues More Accessible - Ricochet.com

If you find yourself in Times Square between now and June, look up. You may catch a glimpse of the First Amendment in Spanish, English, and Arabic.

The ad on the Reuters Digital Tower at 3 Times Square is part of an ACLU campaign to raise awareness about First Amendment rights and remind people that the Constitution is for all of us, no matter who you are or what language you speak.

In addition to the Times Square billboard, the ads were unveiled at 30 bus shelters across Washington, D.C. The First Amendment in all three languages is also displayed on a fence in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn and will appear on a wall in the arts district of downtown Los Angeles.

Additional ads may appear in other cities and in other languages in the coming days and weeks.

The idea for the campaign came about shortly after Donald Trump was elected president on a wave of anti-immigrant hysteria and a pledge to ban Muslims from entering the United States. It was conceived of by the agency Emergence Creative, which approached the ACLU with the idea in December 2016.

In addition to protecting freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom to peaceably protest, the First Amendment protects the right to practice your religion and not be discriminated against for doing so.

Because so much of the ACLUs work involves protecting First Amendment rights, and because we now have a president that openly disdains such freedoms, it seemed like a good time to point out the We the People means everyone.

Several advertising vendors refused to run the campaign. Representatives who handle advertising space for New Yorks Metropolitan Transit Authority and Washingtons Metropolitan Area Transit Authority declined, saying they did not accept issue oriented advertising.However, the vendors who did offer space did so at a substantial discount in part because they wanted to support the effort.

The First Amendment ads will run in Times Square through June, appearing twice an hour for 15 seconds on the electronic billboard at Reuters Digital Tower, 3 Times Square. The ads in Washington will appear on 30 bus shelters across the city for four weeks.

Any advertisers who would like to donate space should contact the ACLU.

Continue reading here:
The First Amendment Looks Beautiful in Any Language | American ... - ACLU (blog)