Category Archives: First Amendment

5521821

2017 is certainly a year that has seen the First Amendment challenged from all sides, and it isnt even half way through March. Believe or not, the First Amendment protections that we have all come to enjoy are so far reaching that freedom of conscience debates can pop up in even the most unlikely of policy areas.

Sadly, though, even as the country is accepting the presidency of Donald Trump, the freedom of conscience for many is at risk. Merely, the term at risk is an understatement to an overt, outright attack on the literal definition of the very first components of our Constitutional rights.

The most obvious scene of where we can see many of these challenges is, of course, the American college campus. Public and private higher education institutions have succumbed to a soft despotism of political correctness and academic censorship that ruins the purpose of a college. Simply put, the college campus has become the breeding ground of the modern day narrative of triggered mentalities for Americas young people entering the work force.

Even more uncharacteristic is that the college campus has also become a breeding ground for identity political warfare dotted with safe spaces for both liberal and conservative students and professors refusing to engage in meaningful debate. As it is put, more crassly by many looking from the outside in, the art of civil discourse in the public square is all but lost.

Once you get away from the college campus, the realm of political debate on the national level has become relatively troubling, as well. When state legislatures and policy makers, all over the country, are continually threatening someones free speech, free exercise of religion, or right of association, something needs to be done.

One of the most rancid takeaways from the overall debate is, too often, that the First Amendment is discriminatory to protected classes (i.e. racial groups and the LGBTQ communities for example). By no means should a document protecting all of our rights, with equal application, be deemed defamatory or discriminatory based on the grounds of political disagreement. Though there is legal precedence to argue that anti-discrimination laws in the federal statutes and the First Amendment should not be at odds, the end result typically sees some form of reverse discrimination pushed on the group arguing on the opposition.

To clarify, the fact that reverse discrimination can occur against people wishing to exercise their freedom of conscience (faith, speech, association) is not the proper way to have equal protection under all laws.

One of the most evident sentiments that is often overlooked in the quest for rights befitting of all humans is the fact that having equal rights doesnt entitle a specific group additional rights above those.

In the end, the final remark is that someones self-endowed civil liberties should supersede those types of claims and scenarios. Civil liberties and civil rights should complement each other, not conflict.

More:
The State Of The First Amendment | The Daily Caller - Daily Caller

The Amazon Echo, a voice-controlled virtual assistant, is seen at its product launch for Britain and Germany in London, in 2016. Photo by Peter Hobson/Reuters

After several months of pushback, Amazon has agreed to release user data from an Amazon Echo device involved in a high-profile Arkansas murder trial.

The device, a popular, hands-free artificial intelligence assistant named Alexa that responds to human directives, contains audio recordings that prosecutors say could could provide information in the murder of Victor Collins, 47, who was found dead in his hot tub on Nov. 22, 2015, in Bentonville, Arkansas.

James Bates, 31, was charged with first-degree murder and tampering with evidence in the case.

Benton County Prosecuting Attorney Nathan Smith wrote in an email that prosecutors were pleased with Amazons decision.

I am pleased that we will have access to the data from the Defendants Echo device since the Defendant consented to its release, Smith said. As with any case, our obligation is to investigate all of the available evidence, whether the evidence proves useful or not.

Smith said he could not provide details on the recordings or if they would be used in court because the case is still under investigation.

Amazon had argued against the datas release in February, saying the Echo recordings were protected under the First Amendment. According to a court order, Bates consented to the disclosure, which then prompted Amazon to agree to the release of the data March 3.

Amazon declined to comment for this story, but did provide the official court order to the NewsHour, acknowledging the defendants consent.

Kathleen Zellner, Bates legal counsel, said in a statement to the NewsHour: Because Mr. Bates is innocent of all charges in this matter, he has agreed to the release of any recordings on his Amazon Echo device to the prosecution.

This case depicts yet another legal battle over the use of technology-based evidence and privacy laws. Other similar cases include Apples toe-to-toe with the FBI over the hack of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farooks iPhone.

Carrie Leonetti, an associate law professor at the University of Oregon, said the Bates case highlights an important ongoing open issue in the field of constitutional criminal procedure.

In my mind, as well as the minds of a lot of other privacy experts, the Echo has been a ticking constitutional time bomb, along with a lot of other features of smart homes and the internet of things, Leonetti, who teaches criminal and constitutional law, said.

The same issue has arisen with the NSAs pattern analysis of Americans telephony metadata, cell-site location tracking of suspects via subpoenas to the phone company, and GPS cell-phone tracking, she added.

A hearing set for today on the Amazon Echo case is now canceled following the defendants consent.

READ MORE: How can I stop my TV from spying on me?

Link:
Amazon releases Echo data in murder case, dropping First Amendment argument - PBS NewsHour

Mannie Garcia sued the county after he was arrested while photographing police officers making an arrest in 2011

Published: 2017.03.08 03:30

Montgomery County announced Wednesday it has reached a settlement with photographer Mannie Garcia in a long-running First Amendment lawsuit in which Garcia claimed his civil rights were violated when county police officers detained him while he was taking photos of what he believed to be excessive force applied during an arrest.

The county agreed to pay Garcia $45,000 to settle the case, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt in 2012. However, the federal court still must consider how much the county should pay Garcias attorneys fees and costs in the case, according to the settlement agreement.

The parties believe it is in their best interests, and those of the citizens of Montgomery County, to bring finality to the case to achieve certainty as to its resolution, a joint statement from Garcia and the county said.

Garcia, 63, is an award-winning photographer with more than 30 years of experience who is based in Washington, D.C. and is known for taking the photo of Barack Obama that artist Shepard Fairey later used to create the Hope poster that became an iconic image of the 2008 presidential campaign. Garcia filed the lawsuit after he was arrested in Wheaton on June 16, 2011.

On that day, according to the complaint, Garcia was leaving a restaurant with his wife and a friend when he saw county police officers arresting two young Hispanic men near the corner of Hickerson Drive and Georgia Avenue. Garcia stopped because he was concerned the officers were using too much force.

He began taking photos of the ongoing arrest and when an officer approached him, Garcia identified himself as a member of the press. Despite having done so, according to the complaint, the officer tried to place Garcia under arrest and then placed him in a chokehold and reportedly dragged him across the street to a police cruiser. While he was standing next to the cruiser, an officer swept Garcias legs out from under him, causing the photographer to hit his head against the car before he was placed inside and taken to jail, according to the complaint.

Garcia was charged with disorderly conduct, but was later found not guilty in December 2011 by a Montgomery County District Court judge.

The settlement in the federal case eliminates the need for a trial, which was scheduled to take place this month.

The county had denied Garcias allegations in a response to the complaint. However, the countys police department updated its policies after the Garcia incident to specifically note that the public has a right to record and photograph police officers.

"I think this case helps clarify the law," Garcia's attorney Robert Corn-Revere, said Wednesday. "It makes clear the First Amendment does protect both photojournalists and normal citizens when they document the actions of police in public places."

He added, "Ultimately the county will pay our attorney fees, which underscores the lesson that violating First Amendment rights is not free."

He said the court will determine the amount the county must pay, but he expects it to exceed six figures.

Garcias case also affected national policy. In 2013, the Department of Justice urged the federal court not to dismiss his case after Montgomery County filed a motion to do so.

At the time, the department wrote to the court, The United States is concerned that discretionary charges, such as disorderly conduct, loitering, disturbing the peace and resisting arrest, are all too easily used to curtail expressive conduct or retaliate against individuals exercising their First Amendment rights . Core First Amendment conduct, such as recording a police officer performing duties on a public street, cannot be the sole basis for such charges.

Since Garcias case was filed, video recordings of police made by people using cell phones and other devices have become commonplace. Some videos showing what appears to be police officers using excessive forcein a few cases resulting in fatal shootingshave sparked a national conversation about police brutality and civil rights.

Garcia told the National Press Photographers Associationabout the settlement: Im extremely relieved that its come to fruition after five and a half years. I think this lawsuit has given attention to the fact that police departments need to pay attention in regards to individuals rights.

Incident happened Monday in Howard County, police said

Plus: Electronics and appliance retailer to close in Rockville; Bethesda financial firm celebrates 30th anniversary

Original post:
Montgomery County Settles First Amendment Lawsuit with Photographer - BethesdaMagazine.com

For 250 years, the First Amendment has protected religious freedom in the United States. Its vital to protect these rights for every citizen of any religion, both in the majority and the minority, not just because of a bleeding heart philosophy or calls for empathy or compassion, but because of simple, un-partisan self-interest. To not do this, even when we feel most divided or most fearful, puts everyones rights at risk.

Sustaining our rights, we know, does not come without a price. There are inherent dangers tied to living in a free society, and in our dangerous and uncertain world, accommodating rights can sometimes seem almost too burdensome. Its tempting, especially when national security risks grow more prevalent, to hand the government greater control of these rights, including those enshrined in the First Amendment. Its more tempting still if its not your own religion or members of your own religion who are the targets of current suspicions, or whose rights to practice without government interference might be most affected.

But if its easier for the government to limit the practice of one religion, or treat its members as a separate class, or effectively, if not overtly, keep people out of the country based on their practice of that religion, it will be easier for it to do the same to members of any other religion in the future, given the right circumstances or excuses.

As a Catholic, Im well aware that members of my religion have also been the targets of discrimination and fear-mongering and active political campaigning against them. The Know-Nothing Party of the mid-1800s believed Catholics intended to take over the United States and gained power, in part, by campaigning for private sector business to only employ true Americans, not Catholics; the Ku Klux Klan largely based its resurgence in the 1920s on its opposition to Catholic and Jewish immigrants, calling for one hundred percent American as an antidote to what they saw as American decay.

For that reason, Im also aware of the importance that religious freedom rights be lifted above temporary societal conditions and public opinion. Even if the majority calls for government to reduce or these amend rights, the power of the majority cannot be absolute, because what happens if you find yourself in the minority? Or your children find themselves in the minority? Or your childrens children?

Weakening these protections subjects the rights of all people of all religions to the whims of majority rule and government favor, subject to change depending on demographic shifts and who comes into power, as it was in the Europe from which our nations founding ancestors fled. Of course, fear is a powerful motivator for making this trade: possible limits on rights in exchange for a greater feeling of safety.

And there are, at present, very serious conversations to be had about national security. But allowing fear, over reason and calm logic, to govern those conversations endangers both rights and security. In a nation governed by laws, those laws should neither be created by fears nor fuel them, otherwise its citizens are, in effect, governed by fear, leaving them vulnerable to a government or officials in that government to increase or stoke those fears for increased control or leeway over citizens rights.

Religious liberty, a fundamental American right and ideal, requires the highest level of scrutiny and must be handled with caution and nuance. If we want our rights preserved, its our job as citizens to demand this from our leaders in their treatment of all religions, not just our own.

In his farewell address, George Washington urged citizens to guard our nation and all its liberties with jealous anxiety, and reject the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

Dividing the nations citizens and limiting the rights of some weakens us all. A threat to one persons rights is a threat to everyones rights. The break might not be immediate, but still it will linger, like a small crack in a windshield, more vulnerable to any future blow. Its prudent to guard against those cracks.

Alyssa Morones was born and raised in Bakersfield. She holds a degree in political science.

Continue reading here:
Community Voices: Protecting our First Amendment rights - The Bakersfield Californian

By Richard ReebContributed Content

Congress shall make no law . . . 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.

Surely, the freedom guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution are a timely topic given the lengths to which boorish behavior is being taken by some, while claiming legal protection. Could angry and unreasoning mobs really be what the Founders had in mind when they penned those immortal words?

The key word in the First Amendment is peaceably. As the Constitution establishes a government for the United States of America, it places all discussion within that framework. That is, public oral, written or electronic communications must serve the purposes and follow the procedures laid down by our supreme law and cannot justifiably be in conflict with them.

Put another way, public discussion is justified so long as it is about how, not whether, to achieve our goals as a nation. Speech or publication that aims to undermine or overthrow our form of government is rightly denominated as unconstitutional and certainly seditious.

Our ancestors revolted against a despotic government, engaging in illegal and violent means, including prolonged warfare, to end British imperial authority in the 13 American colonies. But the sequel was the establishment of republican governments in all of them and, ultimately an effective federal government.

The American Revolution was legitimate only to the extent it brought self-government to the North American continent, but not to institutionalize revolution. To forestall that possibility, frequent elections of the peoples representatives were adopted to secure the consent of the governed.

The most severe test of our constitutional framework came in 1860 when seven, ultimately 11, Southern states attempted to secede from the federal union. When rebel forces fired on Fort Sumpter in 1861, the situation changed from one of extreme agitation to full-scale war. Fortunately, that rebellion was crushed. But unless the nation learns the appropriate lessons from the Civil War, we will not have benefited.

Before the conflict began, mostly Southern politicians were not only declaring a right to block the enforcement of federal law and even the Constitution, but asserting that the Declaration of Independence was based on a self-evident lie. In their defense of chattel slavery, they struck at the central idea of the American Republic that held that all human beings are equally endowed by God with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They even said that such a proposition was unscientific, arguing that the emerging idea of the survival of the fittest applied not just to species but to the races of mankind as well.

Slaverys apologists argued that Caucasians had established their superiority and consequent right to rule over inferior races. Accordingly, the Confederate Constitution distinguished itself from the U.S. Constitution by inserting the word slave without apology and avoided the latters more ambiguous word person.

A comprehensive account of our nations greatest crisis is possible only if we recall that open rebellion was preceded by seditious and even heretical speech. If one denies, as Confederates did, the truth of the proposition that all men are created equal, it is just a matter of time and opportunity before our form of government is at risk.

It is striking that the angry left in America, while professing dedication to equality, denies that our ancestors or their descendants shared that dedication. The claim is that the very existence of slavery proved their hypocrisy, if not their evil intentions for persons of African descent.

The steady progress of justice that ended both slavery and compulsory racial segregation gives the lie to that claim. Of course, if the left is wrong in its diagnosis, America deserves not only the benefit of the doubt but our peoples full dedication. Mimicking their Confederate mentors, todays progressive left is arguing that America is based on a lie. Because its minions believe that lie, they feel free to reject any and all authority that stands in their way.

It never made sense to hold that those who speak or write about our Constitution with contempt are entitled to the full protection secured by the First Amendment. The germ of rebellion against it lies with the heresy that acts of the freely chosen representatives of the people can be defied at will.

We should certainly hear the arguments of the Republics critics if we are to know what they are about, but we are not obliged to be shouted down, driven from our public (and even private) places or put in fear of our lives. The First Amendment, properly understood, absolutely favors peaceable speech. The alternative is mob rule.

Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow Community College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of "Taking Journalism Seriously: 'Objectivity' as a Partisan Cause" (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net

Continued here:
What our First Amendment freedoms are for - News - DesertDispatch ... - Desert Dispatch

Apart from the establishment clause, the Supreme Court has for the last decade taken a strong view of the First Amendments protections. Judge Neil Gorsuchs decisions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit align with that trend. In many ways, Gorsuchs opinions in this area are similar to those of the late Justice Antonin Scalia with the possible exception that Gorsuch has been more willing to find not only that the First Amendment has been violated, but also that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity in those cases. It is unclear whether Gorsuch will continue that trend if he is confirmed, because cases in front of the Supreme Court tend to be closer than cases in the courts of appeals, and so qualified immunity is typically easier to get. I focus on cases in which Gorsuch has written a majority opinion, concurrence, or dissent, without regard to whether the decisions in question were precedential, on the theory that Gorsuchs writings will provide the greatest insight into his mindset.

Freedom of speech, the press and assembly

With few exceptions, Gorsuch has been willing to find in favor of First Amendment plaintiffs and against defendants attempting to assert immunity against a First Amendment claim.

In Walton v. Powell, in 2016, Gorsuch wrote a unanimous opinion affirming a district courts decision to allow a government employees Section1983 claim alleging that she was fired for her political affiliation to proceed. The court held that the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework does not apply to First Amendment retaliation claims, which are governed by a more plaintiff-friendly standard. It then applied that standard to uphold the employees claim, and deny the defendants qualified immunity defense.

In 2007, in Casey v. West Las Vegas Independent School District, Gorsuch wrote an opinion finding that a school district superintendents statements to her own school board were not protected citizen speech, but her statements to the state attorney general were. The court further held that qualified immunity was not available because it had been long established that when public employees speak to outside authorities on matters of public concern for reasons that are not job-related, their speech is protected.

In Rounds v. Clements, in 2012, Gorsuch wrote an opinion holding that a state prisoners First Amendment retaliation claim, which sought prospective relief, did not run afoul of the Eleventh Amendment. The prisoner, an electrician by trade, alleged that he suffered retaliation because he had reported to prison superiors that other prison officials were asking him to perform shoddy electrical work. The court held that the prisoner stated a claim, and that the claim fell under the Ex Parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity insofar as the electrician sought to be restored to his former status as a privileged prisoner.

In a notable 2016 dissent in A.M. v. Holmes, Gorsuch argued that a New Mexico statute prohibiting disruption in school did not apply to a seventh-grader who had pretended to burp in class. Distinguishing classroom antics from actions that substantially interfere with the actual functioning of the school, Gorsuch argued that the statute had been interpreted more narrowly than its text suggests, and disagreed with the majoritys decision to read it more broadly. The dissent did not rely on the First Amendment, but it suggests that Gorsuch may be willing to protect a substantial amount of on-campus speech.

Although these decisions all strongly suggest that Gorsuch will happily allow free speech claims to move forward, there are some open questions about how protective he will be of speech at the margins.

In Mink v. Knox, in 2010, Gorsuch wrote a concurrence in a case allowing a Section1983 claim against a deputy district attorney who had pursued a criminal libel charge against the publisher of an Internet-based journal. The court held, and Gorsuch agreed, that because the journal was engaged in parody, the speech was protected even as it related to matters of private concern. Gorsuch wrote separately to argue that the result was compelled by circuit precedent, chiding his colleagues for going further to defend that precedent. Although he did not tip his hand, the separate opinion suggests that Gorsuch may be more willing than some of his colleagues to permit libel claims against a parody.

In 2016, in Alvarez v. Grosso, Judge Gorsuch wrote an unpublished opinion holding that civilians had no right to attend military court-martial proceedings. The court held that commanders have wide discretion to bar civilians from the base, and that civilians have no constitutionally protected right to speak on military bases or to observe court martial trials.

The First Amendment and campaign finance

In Riddle v. Hickenlooper, in 2014, the 10th Circuit struck down a Colorado statute that effectively limited individual campaign contributions to write-in candidates to $200 while permitting donors to give up to $400 to candidates who ran in primaries. The statute had been challenged principally on equal protection grounds, but the First Amendment status of campaign contributions was also front and center. In a concurring opinion, Judge Gorsuch argued that the act of contributing to political campaigns implicates a basic constitutional freedom, one lying at the foundation of a free society and enjoying a significant relationship to the right to speak and associateboth expressly protected First Amendment activities. That language may suggest that Gorsuch is broadly sympathetic to the idea that money in politics is just another form of expression, and would be skeptical of campaign finance limits. On the other hand, Gorsuch cautioned against adopting a level of scrutiny for campaign contribution cases, noting that it wasnt necessary to do so in order to resolve the case, and that the Supreme Courts decisions had been unclear about what level of scrutiny applies.

The petitions clause

In 2007, in Van Deelen v. Johnson, Gorsuch wrote an opinion reversing a grant of summary judgment to county officials who had allegedly retaliated against a taxpayer who had filed appeals and lawsuits to challenge property tax assessments. Defending the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, Gorsuch wrote that [w]hen public officials feel free to wield the powers of their office as weapons against those who question their decisions, they do damage not merely to the citizen in their sights but also to the First Amendment liberties and the promise of equal treatment essential to the continuity of our democratic enterprise. Good luck, President Trump.

The religion clauses

In American Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, in 2010, a 10th Circuit panel had held that 13 12-foot crosses erected on public land to memorialize deceased Utah highway patrol officers ran afoul of the establishment clause because a reasonable observer would regard those memorials as endorsing Christianity. Rehearing en banc was denied, and Gorsuch dissented from that denial. In the dissent, Gorsuch argued both that the 10th Circuit had strayed from the Supreme Courts precedents, which had not recently applied the reasonable observer test to public displays, and that the 10th Circuit had applied the test in an expansive way by treating the reasonable observer as somebody who is biased, replete with foibles, and prone to mistake. The dissent sends a very clear signal that Gorsuch is on board with the more conservative understanding of the establishment clause embraced by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Gorsuchs views on free exercise issues are less clear because, to the best of my knowledge, he has not written an opinion in a case in which a constitutional free exercise challenge was brought unaccompanied by a statutory challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) or Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). In 2013, he wrote a concurring opinion in Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, arguing that the individual owners of the Hobby Lobby stores (the Green family) were entitled to relief under RFRA. Gorsuch explained that because the Greens are the human actors who must compel the corporations to comply with the [Affordable Care Acts contraception] mandate, their own personal religious beliefs were burdened by the mandate. In the process, Gorsuch argued:

No doubt, the Greens religious convictions are contestable. Some may even find the Greens beliefs offensive. But no one disputes that they are sincerely held religious beliefs. This isnt the case, say, of a wily businessman seeking to use an insincere claim of faith as cover to avoid a financially burdensome regulation. See United States v. Quaintance, 608 F.3d 717 (10th Cir.2010) (an example of just that). And to know this much is to know the terms of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act apply. The Act doesnt just apply to protect popular religious beliefs: it does perhaps its most important work in protecting unpopular religious beliefs, vindicating this nations long-held aspiration to serve as a refuge of religious tolerance.

Although this case arose under RFRA, and not the First Amendment, Gorsuch nevertheless signaled that he might take a very strong view of free exercise principles, consistent with the Supreme Court majority that affirmed the 10th Circuits decision in Hobby Lobby.

On the other hand, in 2014, in Ali v. Wingert, Judge Gorsuch wrote an opinion denying relief to a prison inmate who wanted to use only his newly adopted Muslim name on mail envelopes, instead of using both his Muslim name and his former name. The claims were brought under RLUIPA and also the First Amendments free exercise clause. Rejecting the RLUIPA claim, Judge Gorsuch acknowledged that if a prisoners sincerely held religious beliefs forbade any mention of a former name, then there might be a substantial burden on the inmate, but found that the facts in the complaint did not make such an allegation. Federal courts certainly are not arbiters of religious scripture or dogma, but to establish a RLUIPA claim they do require from the claimant some well-pleaded facts suggesting a substantial burden on a sincere religious exercise. The First Amendment free exercise claim failed for the same reason.

Also, in Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, in 2010, Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion in a RLUIPA case where the inmate alleged that a halal diet was not available. Gorsuch acknowledged that the law does not permit an institution to force an inmate to choose between violating his religious beliefs and starving to death. But he made it clear that he would not go further to hold that RLUIPA prohibits the prison from taking action that requires a prisoner to occasionally miss a normal meal because he refuses to eat the food, or that the statute requires any other accommodation for religious diet other than accommodating major religious holidays and the need to eat enough to live.

Posted in Nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, A close look at Judge Neil Gorsuchs jurisprudence, Featured

Recommended Citation: Tejinder Singh, Judge Gorsuchs First Amendment jurisprudence, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 7, 2017, 11:16 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/03/judge-gorsuchs-first-amendment-jurisprudence/

Continue reading here:
Judge Gorsuch's First Amendment jurisprudence - SCOTUSblog (blog)

HAMDEN Journalists and lawyers are teaming up to educate young people about free speech and open government.

The Connecticut Foundation for Open Government launched a pilot program this week pairing media representatives and attorneys to help high school and college students understand the importance of the First Amendment in their lives, said Mitchell Pearlman, secretary of the CFOG board of directors and chair of the new initiatives committee.

Presenters will focus on different topics with each age group. High schoolers may discuss what school authorities can do to limit rights of expression, while college students may discuss respecting free speech among differing viewpoints, Pearlman said.

From this section: Wallingford church tries outreach to lure churchgoers back

On Monday, CFOG debuted its program at Quinnipiac University with Mike Savino, the Record-Journals state Capitol reporter, and William Fish, a Hartford-based attorney with Hinckley Allen. Richard Hanley, Quinnipiac associate professor of journalism, moderated the event.

Savino serves as president of the Connecticut Society of Professional Journalists. He said in the current political climate of threats of press suppression by federal government officials, were on the front line of trying to stand up for the First Amendment.

Pearlman called Fish, who has represented the Hartford Courant in FOI cases, one of the most knowledgeable First Amendment lawyers in the United States.

Fish talked about situations when the government attempts to curtail free speech, starting with the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 and continuing through the Patriot Act after 9/11.

When things gets difficult, we have to be very careful and protective of the First Amendment, he said.

The program is being held in connection with National Sunshine Week, March 12-18. Freedom of Information laws are often referred to as sunshine laws since they shine a light on government information, records and people.

Record-Journal managing editor Eric Cotton and attorney Mary Schwind are scheduled to speak at Lyman Hall High School in Wallingford on Monday. Joy Haenlein, editor of The Advocate/Greenwich Time, and attorney Tom Scheffey are scheduled to talk with students from Maloney and Platt high schools at Platt in Meriden on Tuesday.

Also participating in the pilot program are East Lyme High School, the University of Connecticut at Storrs, Central Connecticut State University and Western Connecticut State University.

LTakores@record-journal.com 203-317-2212 Twitter: @LCTakores

See more here:
Program seeks to educate students about First Amendment rights - Meriden Record-Journal

Amazon has abandoned its legal battle to protect its Alexa assistant with First Amendment rights for now at least. The company filed a motion against a police search warrant in an Arkansas murder case earlier this month, but has now dropped the case after the defendant agreed to hand over the data contained on his Echo speaker to police.

In documents filed last Monday, defendant James Andrew Bates said that he was willing to allow law enforcement officials to review information contained on his Amazon Echo speaker, before the company handed the data over on Friday. Bates has pleaded not guilty to the murder of Victor Collins, who was found dead in Bates hot tub in November 2015.

Amazon said its search results were constitutionally protected opinion

Police had issued a warrant to seize subscriber and account information from Bates Echo, as well as all communication and transaction history from the device. Amazon provided the former, but argued against providing communication data, claiming that voice interactions with Alexa were protected by the First Amendment. That includes Alexas replies to a user Amazon claims that ranked search results are constitutionally protected opinion. Precedent for that argument was set by a 2014 case in which Google search results were classified as free speech by a San Francisco court, after a news website complained that its own pages were too far down the companys listings.

Amazon argued that police didnt have enough of a compelling argument in Bates case for it to hand over the data, with officials unable to prove that any potential information would not be available anywhere else. It remains to be seen whether Bates Echo does indeed have any pertinent information a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday this week. The defendants acquiescence also means that we dont yet have a definitive answer on whether Alexa is indeed protected by the First Amendment.

The rest is here:
Amazon gives up fight for Alexa's First Amendment rights after defendant hands over data - The Verge

'The Bell Curve' Author Charles Murray (Flickr)

Allison Stanger, Professor of International Politics and Economics, was to moderate.However, the event did not proceed as planned; students at the talk shouted Murray down and made it impossible for him to speak.He and Stanger moved the discussion to a different location, where the interview was live-streamed.That, unfortunately, was not the end of it.When they left, Stanger and Murray were confronted with angry protesters who tried to block their way.A melee ensued, during which Stanger was injured.

Stanger posted a commentary about the incident on Facebook.We cannot improve on her words.

I apologize for the impersonal and lengthy nature of this communication, but I wanted to provide a general response to

Posted by Allison Stanger onSaturday, March 4, 2017

Stanger and Middlebury responded appropriately, repudiating the violent and disruptive protests and reaffirming their commitment to the free exchange of ideas. Their improvisation allowed the talk to proceed, albeit in a lesser forum and format.

This incident, and earlier ones at Berkeley, University of Washington, and other institutions, reveal a disturbing trend, and a lack of understanding of what forms of protest the First Amendment does, and does not, protect.

Briefly, the Constitution protects the right to peaceful protests.Institutions and government officials are permitted to adopt neutral rules to regulate where and when such protests take place, as long as they are applied consistently and do not unnecessarily interfere with the ability of protesters to convey their message to their intended audience.

However, the First Amendment DOES NOT allow protesters to prevent someone else from speaking, and it does not sanction violence or intimidation. Middlebury, as a private institution, is not constrained by the First Amendment and has considerable leeway in setting and enforcing its own rules.Even at a public university, however, administrators would be justified in removing and disciplining students who disrupt a public event.Any institution, whether public or private, is entitled to rely on law enforcement to prevent and respond to violence or threats of violence, and protesters who engage in such behavior do so at their peril.

Perhaps more important, protesters need to understand a more basic principle: the right to speech exists for all, or for none. Anyone who wishes to exercise that right is obliged to acknowledge that others enjoy equivalent rights.

Once you violate that principle, speech rights for all are at risk.

Go here to see the original:
Violent Protestors Misunderstand the First Amendment - Blogging Censorship (blog)

The Daily Press was named a finalist Tuesday in the annual Scripps Howard Awards.

The entry, which detailed years of reporting, utilizing and defending access to public information, was honored in the category of Distinguished Service to First Amendment. The Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette-Mail won the category, and the Dallas Morning News was honored alongside the Daily Press as a finalist.

"The mission of a news organization is simple: We are the community's watchdog. We don't work for the government. We work for the people," said Marisa Porto, publisher and editor-in-chief of the Daily Press Media Group. "We keep an eye on what local government is doing and how it is spending taxpayer dollars. That is our responsibility, and we take it seriously at the Daily Press.

"I couldn't be more proud of this team and the work it does every day."

The Daily Press entry included stories in which the reporting hinged on documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Those stories included an attempt to gain access to a compiled database of court records, and investigation into how money was used in an undercover police operation, and an examination of a private loan guarantee made by the local airport commission.

The 375-page entry encompassed more than four years of reporting and included dozens of stories and editorials in which access to public information was essential.

"Recognizing the best journalism in the country is a fundamental mission of Scripps Howard Foundation," said Liz Carter, president and CEO of the foundation, in a news release.

"We commend the work these journalists did in 2016 and the impact their words, videos and interactive elements will continue to have across our communities."

The Scripps Howard Awards have been handed out for 64 years and honor excellence in journalism. The awards ceremony will be held April 12 in Cincinnati.

Excerpt from:
Daily Press a finalist for national First Amendment honor - Daily Press