Page 163«..1020..162163164165..170180..»

Category Archives: First Amendment

White House Media Access By President: Is First Amendment …

Posted: February 25, 2017 at 2:56 pm

The White House prevented certain media outlets from participating in the daily press briefing, Friday, but President Donald Trump's administration was not alone when being accused of limiting the press' access in similar circumstances.

A handful of so-called left-leaning news outlets, including BBC, CNN, the Hill, The New York Times, Politico and RealClearPolitics, were told they could not enter the White House press briefing room Friday afternoon to listen to White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer deliver his daily media address, the New York Daily News reported. The move prompted outrage from proponents of the First Amendment and the freedom of the press.

Spicer previously told Politico, one of the outlets barred from Friday's briefing, that he would never ban specific new organizations.

Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, who served under President George W. Bush, said the decision by the White House Friday was perfectly in line with protocol.

Fleischer may just be right, as the move has historical precedence, especially as it relates to presidents themselves holding press briefings.

Former President Barack Obama was generous with his time in terms of allowing reporters to interview him individually, but his Q&A sessions were far fewer compared to Bush. Obama held just 107 of them during his first term, compared to 355 for Bush, according to Vanity Fair.

But that may be beside the point.

Trump has long called the media "crooked" and "dishonest," among other negative adjectives, and the president echoed that sentiment Friday during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Maryland. The day after Trump won the White House in November, he was accused of preventing the press from traveling with him for a White House meeting. In other words, Friday's actions by the White House fell right in line with Trump's views of the press.

But that was apparently no solace for some members of the media and White House reporters who missed out on Spicer's daily press briefing.

Continued here:
White House Media Access By President: Is First Amendment ...

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on White House Media Access By President: Is First Amendment …

First Amendment Victory In Portland: Judge Tosses First Subpoena Of Reporter By Trump Administration – Patch.com

Posted: at 2:56 pm


Patch.com
First Amendment Victory In Portland: Judge Tosses First Subpoena Of Reporter By Trump Administration
Patch.com
In a significant victory for the First Amendment, a federal judge in Portland told prosecutors that they could not force a reporter to testify in an ongoing criminal trial. The subpoena had been the first issued to a reporter by the Trump Justice ...

and more »

Read this article:
First Amendment Victory In Portland: Judge Tosses First Subpoena Of Reporter By Trump Administration - Patch.com

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on First Amendment Victory In Portland: Judge Tosses First Subpoena Of Reporter By Trump Administration – Patch.com

Crowd attends event celebrating the First Amendment – Southwest Virginia Today

Posted: at 2:56 pm

Organizers of a Celebration of the First Amendment Saturday afternoon at Floyds Eco-System had to set up extra chairs for the additional attendees who heard speeches, panel discussions, songs and poems about the Constitutional amendment that protects freedom of speech, the press and other such freedoms.

Designed to speak out against what many see as assaults on such freedoms, the crowd applauded and cheered when speakers discussed the right to protest against the government and freely express opinions. Floyd Countys Commonwealths Attorney Eric Branscom kicked off the speeches with a history lesson that talked about a President who wanted to suppress freedom of speech and the press and jail those who did not agree and was backed by the political party that controlled Congress.

Turned out he was talking about President John Adams in 1794 and control of the Federalist Party over Congress then. Branscom said it took Virginians Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who followed Adams, to implement a version of states rights and pardons to get those who disagreed with Adams out of jail and protest the then-new First Amendment.

Even so, Branscom said, it would take 165 years before the U.S. Supreme Court would fully overturn the legal challenges from the 1700s in the Times v. Sullivan case that reaffirmed freedom of the press and the other freedoms of the amendment.

Radford University media professor, author and former newspaperman Bill Kovarik introduced himself to the audience as an enemy of the people, citing a term used by current President Donald Trump, and then brought applause and cheers in a speech where he called for strong opposition and protest against the head of state.

We are friends of the people, Kovarik said, adding that the media must questions those elected to office locally, statewide and nationally.

I work in the tradition of Ben Franklin, Joseph Pulitzer, Ernie Pyle and Woodward and Bernstein, Kovarok said.

The press is not perfect, he said. Were watchdogs.

He said that being called an enemy of the people is dangerous speech.

The press is the Constitutions best friend, he added.

A panel on free speech included Branscom, Floyd County Sheriff Brian Craig, activist Tree Gigante and attorney and columnist Alan Graf, who answered questions from the floor and talked about protest.

Craig praised organizers of events like the Womens March in January for working with his department.

We know the people involved in these events, and we work with them, he said.

Graf said that he, as an attorney, has represented people charged with crimes because they protested legally.

When I came to Floyd, I told the sheriff that I also had sued the police over handling of protests, he said.

As a living, Craig answered with a laugh.

Gigante said protests in many cases are not only a right but should also be considered a duty.

Sometimes, she added, it may be necessary to violate the law to carry out that right.

Brancom said law enforcement must establish where the line is drawn between peaceful and violent protest.

What are the boundaries? Sometimes the limits must be it comes back to pushing against the government, he said.

A panel on freedom of religion consisted of Graf, who told the audience Im Jewish and I come from a holocaust family, Imam Abdullah Ferrom of Roanoke Mosque and Quaker Kim ODonnell.

ODonnell said her religion considers relationship with God a deeply personal thing. Our right to practice is a something we strive to protest.

Ferrom said Muslims work to peacefully co-exist with other religions but face a lot of distrust from others who cite their religion as justification for violence against his beliefs.

He cited threats of having a Muslim registry required in America as a threat.

If there such a thing as a Muslim registry, I will register as a Muslim, Graf said, which brought applause and comments of so will I from members of the audience.

The event also awarded youth and adults for essays, poems and songs about the First Amendments and threats against the freedoms it is designed to protect.

First place winners who were present read their essays or poems to the audience and sang their songs.

Michael Kovick closed the event with his second-place winning song.

Linville M. Meadows, Second Place

Will Bason, Honorable Mention

Andrew Finn, Honorable Mention

Alex Hicks, Honorable Mention

Leah Pierce, Honorable Mention

Kaci Marshall, Honorable Mention

Greg Arens, Honorable Mention

Jillian Greenhalgh, First

Cameron Callahan, Third Place

Julian Hensley-Buzzell, Honorable Mention

Isaac Byrd, Honorable Mention

Stella Sessions, Honorable Mention

Read the rest here:
Crowd attends event celebrating the First Amendment - Southwest Virginia Today

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Crowd attends event celebrating the First Amendment – Southwest Virginia Today

Amazon Says First Amendment Protects Alexa Data – Entrepreneur

Posted: at 2:56 pm

Prosecutors in an Arkansas murder trial claim that anAmazon Echocould hold data crucial to the case, but Amazon says that data is protected by the First Amendment and is refusing to give it up.

The case involves a Bentonville, Ark., man accused of first-degree murder. It received national attention in December when authorities issued a warrant for data stored on the defendant's Echo, powered by Amazon's Alexa voice assistant. In a lengthycourt filinglast week, Amazon said that Echo voice commands as well as Alexa data stored on the company's servers cannot be subject to a search warrant, Forbesreports.

In the filing, Amazon explains that it records Echo users' voice commands and a transcript of Alexa's responses. "Both types of information are protected speech under the First Amendment," Amazon's lawyers write.

Because of that protection, the government must show a compelling need for the data. It failed to do so in this case, Amazon writes, arguing that the judge should quash the warrant. "Such government demands inevitably chill users from exercising their First Amendment rights to seek and receive information and expressive content in the privacy of their own home, conduct which lies at the core of the Constitution," the company says.

An Amazon spokespersontold PCMag in Decemberthat it will not release customer information without a "valid and binding legal demand properly served on us."

As Amazon wrangles with the government over Alexa in court, the voice service's features continue to grow, withWiredreporting this week that more than 10,000 Alexa skills are now available, just a year and a half after Amazon opened the platform to third-party developers.Alexa skillsallow users to tap a variety of external services using voice commands, from controllingsmart light bulbsto accessing smartphone notifications.

Tom is PCMag's San Francisco-based news reporter.

See the original post here:
Amazon Says First Amendment Protects Alexa Data - Entrepreneur

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Amazon Says First Amendment Protects Alexa Data – Entrepreneur

Donald Trump: The First Amendment Gives Me The Right To Criticize ‘Fake News’ – Huffington Post

Posted: February 24, 2017 at 6:01 pm

President Donald Trumpcriticized the media again on Friday while speaking at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland.

Trump claimed it was wrongly reported that hecalled the media the enemy of the people last week, saying hed actually called fake news the enemy. But he has branded such reputable media outlets as the The New York Times, CNN, NBC and others fake news.

The president argued that the First Amendment gives him the right to criticize fake news and criticize it strongly.

[The media] say that we cant criticize their dishonest coverage because of the First Amendment, Trump said.

I love the First Amendment. Nobody loves it better than me, he added.

Trump also said he thinks news outlets should not use anonymous sources, despite using them himself to make claims that have been proven false.

The presidents comments were likely a thinly veiled jab atCNN. The news outlet recently wrote that the FBI had rejected a White House request to dispute reports that Trumps campaign team had contacted Russian officials prior to the election.

Trumps war with the media is going to get worse, Trump adviser Steve Bannon said Thursday at CPAC.

Every day is going to be a fight, Bannon said.

See the original post:
Donald Trump: The First Amendment Gives Me The Right To Criticize 'Fake News' - Huffington Post

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Donald Trump: The First Amendment Gives Me The Right To Criticize ‘Fake News’ – Huffington Post

Protecting free speech: House bill would protect students’ First Amendment rights on campus – Richmond Register

Posted: at 6:01 pm

The following might be offensive to some.

But that's okay, according to Rep. Wesley Morgan, R-Richmond. It's free speech and protected by the First Amendment of our nation's constitution.

A right, he said, that is being infringed upon on many of Kentucky's college campuses.

Morgan is trying to change that with Kentucky House Bill 127, or the Campus Free Expression (CAFE) Act, which will prohibit publicly-funded universities and colleges from restricting a student's right to free expression.

"I filed the bill because I believe in it, whole-heartedly," Morgan said. "You need to have the freedom of speech on college campuses. Students shouldn't be restricted to a circle 50 feet from the sidewalk."

Morgan said many state universities have policies that restrict student's First Amendment rights by forcing them into so-called "free speech zones."

The representative said these zones are often small areas hidden away from public view.

The CAFE Act will prohibit schools from imposing those types of zones, and defines any "outdoor areas of an institution's campus" as "traditional public forums."

"Students should have the right to express themselves in an open space and have the opportunity to have people listen to what they have to say," Morgan said. "It's a matter of fairness. Students have a right and it should be protected. There are public institutions of higher education that are not allowing students the right to have an open dialogue. You don't want that to continue in the state."

Kentucky House Bill 127 states clearly colleges "shall not restrict the right to free expression." In line with the Constitution, colleges can only place "reasonable" restrictions on the "time, place, and manner" of student expression. Even still, these restrictions must be "narrowly tailored... based on published, content-neutral, and viewpoint-neutral criteria... [and must] provide for ample alternative means of expression."

Inspired by Morgan's efforts to protect students' rights, Eastern Kentucky University's student government association (SGA) passed a bill endorsing HB 127 and encouraging other student governments across the state to do the same.

Sebastian Torres, EKU SGA executive vice president, said the bill passed unanimously and the organization has been working closely with Morgan and others to educate universities about the bill.

"It is a real issue on Kentucky campuses that needs to be addressed," Torres said of the fight to keep free speech. "It's not just Kentucky that has these policies that restrict students' First Amendment rights. At a university in Indiana, a group of students were arrested for passing out copies of the Constitution. This is real and it's happening."

In fact, on a recent trip to Murray State University, Torres said he and other SGA members had difficulty locating the campus' free-speech zone. After a search of the grounds, the students were directed to a small cement circle tucked away out of sight. Torres added students have to apply for a chance to speak in the zone and applications can be denied.

The EKU student said limiting an open exchange of ideas to a certain area on a college campus was "ridiculous" and goes against not only a right protected by the Constitution, but also the nature of higher education.

"Students come here to learn and grow and expand their ideas. We are trying to educate a workforce at this university and create productive citizens, but college is also a chance to have your ideas challenged and see if they stand up against facts," Torres said. "If it doesn't happen on a college campus, where do we expect it to happen."

Torres said you don't have to agree with everything said and you don't have to listen if you don't want to. He added free speech can be uncomfortable for some, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be said.

Torres said EKU's student government felt it was especially important to support Morgan's bill, due to the fact that EKU is the first "green light" school in the state.

The university earned that distinction from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which awards institutions of higher learning with a green, yellow or red categorization based on the constitutionality of speech policies.

In 2012, the university worked with FIRE attorneys to bring the campus into compliance with the Constitution and make the campus more First Amendment friendly.

Some of the important steps taken by the university included modifying vague wording in the student handbook and policies.

One example was the phrase in the student handbook that stated students should not "engage in a course of conduct intended to harass, seriously annoy and alarm another person." FIRE suggested the university amend the phrase "seriously annoy," as it goes against the First Amendment to regulate student speech in that manner.

Another part of the handbook read: "No one should either offend the wider community or infringe upon the rights and privileges of others."

"Sometimes people might find what you say offensive," Torres said. "However, I think what is becoming prevalent in today's society is the idea that if they find it offensive or uncomfortable then it should be stopped. That's infringing on free speech.

"Why should certain kind of speakers be banned from campus. That shouldn't be allowed, especially if a student group is sponsoring that speaker. Those that don't agree with the speaker don't have to listen to the lecture or they can bring in their own speaker who has a different viewpoint."

Another reason Torres said the SGA is promoting the bill is the fact that while the CAFE act protects students it also will protect universities. He said with budget crunches, it is not a good time for universities to get sued because it didn't have the forethought to not infringe on a student's right to free speech.

Torres said he hopes that other universities step-up and make their campus' more First Amendment friendly, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be happening.

"I wish that universities and colleges would do it on their own, but that is why it is so important for the state house to step in and go ahead and do it for them," he said. "Our SGA feels that this is an important issue for students and we feel compelled to let our legislators know that we are invested in our First Amendment right. I'm very proud of the SGA for endorsing this and we encourage every other student government to jump on the bandwagon."

Both Morgan and Torres said the new bill does not do away with university protections against hate speech, harassment or incitement of violence.

The CAFE Act provides universities with the ability to enforce certain restrictions on acts of free speech in an outdoor area of campus regarding reasonable time, place and manner. The bill makes it very clear these restrictions must have a clear, defendable basis, Torres said.

Torres said in no way does the bill encourage or enable hate speech and harassment by promoting the right of free speech for students.

"You are protected from any kind of violence or mistreatment," he said. "That doesn't mean you are protected against different ideas, views, cultures or opinions that you might not like."

Reach Ricki Barker at 624-6611 or follow her on Twitter @RickiBReports.

Continue reading here:
Protecting free speech: House bill would protect students' First Amendment rights on campus - Richmond Register

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Protecting free speech: House bill would protect students’ First Amendment rights on campus – Richmond Register

They make up sources – VICE News

Posted: at 6:01 pm

President Trump gave a vigorous defense of the First Amendment in his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference Friday morning and invoked his right to free speech to bash the fake news media.

Nobody loves the First Amendment more than me, Trump told the crowd at the annual convention, held outside Washington, D.C. But [the media] never will represent the people, and were going to do something about it, he added ambiguously.

Trump criticized journalists for using anonymous sources in news stories that caused turmoil in the early days of his administration. Several recent stories quoting anonymous officials forced the resignation of Trumps national security adviser, Michael Flynn, when they revealed that Flynn had discussed economic sanctions with the Russian ambassador before taking office. Trump has repeatedly accused members of the intelligence community of leaking information to the press, as he did again Friday morning on Twitter.

Even if there are real leakers, Trump maintained that journalists make up sources. They have no sources, he said. If the sources are real, theymustbe named, he demanded.

The morning CPAC crowd whooped at the presidents attacks on the Fourth Estate, and Trump continued. The president criticized polls from CBS, ABC, NBC, and the Clinton News Network (or CNN), which brought more whoops of delight. When Hillary Clinton came up a second time, some of the crowd indulged in a Lock her up chant.

Red Make America Great Again hats dotted the sea of blue and black sport coats filling the ballroom wall-to-wall. In years past, Trump enjoyed a smallbutfervent fan base at CPAC but the young, grassroots conservative crowd tended to cheer loudest for Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a libertarian favorite, or for Sen. Ted Cruz, a champion of conservatives. Skepticism of Trump ran so hot last year during the presidential campaign that he skipped the 2016CPAC, prompting Cruz and other GOP primary opponents to lambast him for the snub.

But Trump returned to CPAC Friday a happy, boastful warrior. He pledged that he would oversee one of the greatest military buildups in American history. He declared that the Republican Party will now be the party of the American worker, in seeming contrast to past Republican orthodoxy that highlighted business executives and entrepreneurs.

America is coming back and its roaring and you can hear it, Trump said. Its going to be bigger and better and stronger than ever before.

See original here:
They make up sources - VICE News

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on They make up sources – VICE News

These Emerging Artists Are More Than Ready To Defend The First Amendment – Huffington Post

Posted: at 6:01 pm

I love the First Amendment, President Donald Trump proclaimed on Friday at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference.Nobody loves it better than me, he added.

The effusive remark comes from the same person who called venerable media outlets like The New York Times and NBC News long considered pillars of the same free press protected by the First Amendment the enemy of the American people. Other phrases he and his staff have used to describe journalists prone to criticizing his administration:out of control, opposition party, dishonest and fake news.

Weeks before Trumps CPAC speech, curators at Ground Floor Gallery in New York City a space dedicated to emerging artists decided it was time for genuine First Amendment defenders to speak out. They began soliciting artwork for a show they calledMarked Urgent, inviting artists to submit workassociated with any and all types of correspondence and communication.

Ground Floor Gallery

Now, more than ever, we need to empower journalists to hold our government accountable and to provide us with the facts we need to remain informed and involved citizens, the gallery wrote online. As passionate arts professionals vested in critical thought and freedom of expression, we feel compelled to respond.

Marked Urgent opened on Friday, Feb. 24, the same day Trump chastised news outlets for using anonymous sources, despite having used them himself to make claims that have been proven false. The pieces on view at Ground Floor are on sale for$75, $25 of which will be donated to the Committee to Protect Journalists, an independent, nonprofit organization that promotes press freedom worldwide and defends the right of journalists to report the news without fear of reprisal.

Ground Floor Gallery

Every Friday, HuffPost's Culture Shift newsletter helps you figure out which books you should read, art you should check out, movies you should watch and music should listen to. Learn more

We were thrilled that our artist network was just as enthusiastic about this concept as we were, Ground Floor co-founders Krista Saunders Scenna and Jill Benson told The Huffington Post.

We received over 70 submissions in just under three weeks and selected 39 artists for the show, they added. With submissions ranging from embroidered newsprint to collaged envelopes and sculpted stationery, the work is as inventive as it is topical. All in all, its been an incredibly empowering show to organize and gratifying to know we can help an organization doing such important work every day.

Marked Urgent will run through Sunday, Feb. 26. To see a full list of the participating artists, head to Ground Floors website here.

Ground Floor Gallery

Read the rest here:
These Emerging Artists Are More Than Ready To Defend The First Amendment - Huffington Post

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on These Emerging Artists Are More Than Ready To Defend The First Amendment – Huffington Post

Amazon Argues Alexa Speech Protected By First Amendment In Murder Trial Fight – Forbes

Posted: February 23, 2017 at 12:54 pm


Forbes
Amazon Argues Alexa Speech Protected By First Amendment In Murder Trial Fight
Forbes
Amazon is sticking to its guns in the fight to protect customer data. The tech titan has filed a motion to quash the search warrant for recordings from an Amazon Echo in the trial of James Andrew Bates, accused of murdering friend Victor Collins in ...
Amazon cites First Amendment protection for Alexa in Arkansas murder caseTechCrunch
Protecting AlexaVICE News
Amazon argues AI assistant Alexa has free speech rights in murder trialThe Independent
TechnoBuffalo -GeekWire -Consumerist
all 27 news articles »

Follow this link:
Amazon Argues Alexa Speech Protected By First Amendment In Murder Trial Fight - Forbes

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Amazon Argues Alexa Speech Protected By First Amendment In Murder Trial Fight – Forbes

IMDb likely has First Amendment right to display people’s ages – Washington Post

Posted: at 12:54 pm

A recently enacted California law, AB 1687, requires websites that provide employment services to an individual for a subscription payment to stop publishing a subscribers age whenever the subscriber so demands. In practice, this law was aimed at IMDb, which lets people in the entertainment industry post various rsum information online (via its IMDb Pro service) but also publishes biographical information about people subscribers or not including their ages. The law wasnt limited to information that IMDb learned through its relationship with subscribers; it also covered information that IMDb independently acquired.

Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria temporarily blocked the enforcement of the law, ruling that IMDb was likely to succeed in its First Amendment claim:

Its difficult to imagine how AB 1687 could not violate the First Amendment. The statute prevents IMDb from publishing factual information (information about the ages of people in the entertainment industry) on its website for public consumption. This is a restriction of non-commercial speech on the basis of content. Therefore, the burden is on the government to show that the restriction is actually necessary to serve a compelling government interest. [Footnote: The government has not argued that birthdates or other age-related facts implicate some privacy interest that protects them from public disclosure, and its doubtful such an argument would prevail in any event.] The government is highly unlikely to meet this burden, and certainly nothing it has submitted in opposition to the preliminary injunction motion suggests it will be able to do so.

To be sure, the government has identified a compelling goal preventing age discrimination in Hollywood. But the government has not shown how AB 1687 is necessary to advance that goal. In fact, its not clear how preventing one mere website from publishing age information could meaningfully combat discrimination at all.

And even if restricting publication on this one website could confer some marginal antidiscrimination benefit, there are likely more direct, more effective, and less speech-restrictive ways of achieving the same end. For example, although the government asserts generically that age discrimination continues in Hollywood despite the long-time presence of antidiscrimination laws, the government fails to explain why more vigorous enforcement of those laws would not be at least as effective at combatting age discrimination as removing birthdates from a single website. Because the government has presented nothing to suggest that AB 1687 would actually combat age discrimination (much less that its necessary to combat age discrimination), there is an exceedingly strong likelihood that IMDb will prevail in this lawsuit.

[Footnote: The government casts AB 1687 as ordinary economic regulation falling outside First Amendment scrutiny. But IMDb Pros commercial relationship with its subscribers has no connection to IMDbs public site, which relies on data obtained from third parties or from the public record. The government would perhaps be on stronger ground if AB 1687 were limited to preventing IMDb from misappropriating the data furnished by subscribers to its industry-facing site.]

Sounds right to me, though Id go further and say that such a restriction on publishing truthful information would be unconstitutional even if it did combat age discrimination more effectively than other alternatives would. (Note that I signed on to an amicus brief in the case that supported this position; the brief was written by M.C. Sungaila, and was signed by, among others, noted liberal professor and University of California at Irvine dean Erwin Chemerinsky, our own David Post and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Read more:
IMDb likely has First Amendment right to display people's ages - Washington Post

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on IMDb likely has First Amendment right to display people’s ages – Washington Post

Page 163«..1020..162163164165..170180..»