Category Archives: First Amendment

Observer

Artists Join the Fight to Protect First Amendment Rights Observer It's been just over one month since Donald Trump took office, and already messages of protest are popping up in unexpected places. One such example is at Brooklyn's Ground Floor gallery, where organizers are pledging to donate proceeds from a pop-up ... and more »

Continued here:
Artists Join the Fight to Protect First Amendment Rights - Observer

The first amendment to the U.S. constitution is just a few short lines, but it speaks volumes. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This past weekend, more than a hundred people in Floyd, Virginia came out to celebrate those words and explore their meaning. Robbie Harris prepared this report.

In a cathedral-like post and beam auditorium at the Floyd Eco Center, they sang songs, read poems and essays theyd written for the occasion and shared their thoughts about that powerful sentence. The celebration was the brainchild of Alan Graf, a civil rights attorney, activist and lover of blue grass music whod hoped to retire in Floyd and learn to play the banjo.

But in the past few months, he says, hes seen his beloved first amendment coming under attack, and he felt he had to say something. I think our best defense against any grabbing of power is our ability to speak and thats why I wanted to put together this celebration to remind people to use it

Graf explains, he devoted his life to being a watchdog for civil rights because of his own familys story. His grandparents were killed in the Holocaust in Germany during World War II.

So its in my family to fight against totalitarian regimes - and I see the writing on the wall. And so Ive been defending the constitution for 25 years - I feel religious about the Bill of Rights, first, second, third, fourth - well, every amendment, but particularly the first amendment. I see it as the peoples last stand against a totalitarian regime."

Thats in part because it limits the power of government as Floyd County Commonwealth Attorney Eric Branscom points out.

It was in 1791 that the first amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, became part of the Constitution. Its important to note that the first amendment and the freedoms therein are not positive rights, theyre negative rights, which means they exist as limitations on the government rather than rights granted by the government."

And that leaves a lot of room for interpretation, making the Bill of Rights something the legal system has grappled with ever since. And so have the poets, the philosophers and musicians among us.

Heres Kim ODonnel reading a poem she wrote for the first amendment celebration:

There is no such thing as free speech. Soldiers stand and fall, arrive home in a box beneath a flag. We have been given nothing that we did not pay for.

A rich man grabs a woman against her will and she eats her rage and every word she wants to say until she is emaciated from her hunger for truth.

She speaks out and he arrives in our capital, takes an oath beneath our flag.

There is no such thing as free speech. We have been given nothing that we did not pay for.

And just because freedom of expression is protected, that doesnt mean you have to agree with or accept whatever is expressed. Over the years, the legal community has come up with this balancing act; the remedy to any speech you dont like or dont agree with is more speech.

Original Music by Michael Kovick, Silence is Complicity.

I know that things aint just what they ought to be. You and I could turn it around. When we stand up for what we believe in, first amendment rights are found and if you dont like it and you dont stand up how is anybody gonna know where you stand? I want to know. Silence is complicity.

Read this article:
Celebrating the First Amendment in Floyd, VA - WVTF

Christine Emba edits The Posts In Theory blog.

Speech is free, but not consequence-free. Milo Yiannopoulos managed to skirt this reality for years, but eventually it comes for us all.

A quick recap for those who have not been following this sordid tale: MILO, as hes best known (all-caps his own), is an Internet personality and now-former Breitbart News senior editor best known for his glibly offensive remarks about minority groups, his hatred of political correctness and his support of Donald Trump.

Many on the right hailed Milo as a much-needed iconoclast, one of the few brave enough to defend free speech, speak uncomfortable truths and push back against the simpering social justice warriors of the left. After his charmingly titled Dangerous Faggot speaking tour was met with protests at college campuses, including some most notably at the University of California at Berkeley this month that turned violent, he was invited to speak at this years Conservative Political Action Conference.

This weekend, however, video emerged of Milo joking about pedophilia and molestation. In short order he was disinvited from CPAC, his book deal was canceled, and he resigned from Breitbart.

[If college liberals are so naive, why did the campus right fall for Yiannopoulos?]

It is interesting to consider that while the right championed his racist, misogynist invective as a much-needed tonic for our stifled public discourse, discussions of child sex abuse were not seen the same way. The defense of free expression seemed to go only so far as be free to insult those we already disagree with, but please, no further than that. For all the invocations of the First Amendment, there is apparently still a line. Milo crossed it, the end, goodbye. I, for one, do not look forward to his apology tour and inevitable transformation.

Yet the fact that a line exists at all brings to light a point often overlooked when free speech is bandied about as a hallowed but somehow threatened ideal. Yes, speech is free, but not free from dissent. You can say what you like, but no one has to listen to you. The fact that you have spoken something controversial in public does not make your provocation correct or worthy of acclaim.

The First Amendment guarantees that Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech. That is all. It does not say that private companies such as Facebook must promote all kinds of content equally, or that Simon & Schuster is obliged to hand out book contracts to everyone who wants one. It should not be stretched to imply that institutions must provide a platform for every opinion that comes their way. And while the First Amendment often makes it possible for individuals to challenge the dominant discourse, it gives them no more help than that.

Some myself included have argued that the best remedy for hateful speech is more speech, not less. But it is worth pointing out that more speech can take a number of forms. It could be the addition of other, opposing speakers to a lineup featuring a contentious guest. It could be a petition asking for the guest to be disinvited. It could be protesters telling said speaker to shut up and get off of their campus, or even calling the speaker a racist or Nazi. Some of these methods are far more productive than others, and some are less likely to promote useful discourse. But free speech also means that such responses must be allowed to occur and may well bring about consequences that the original speaker might not enjoy.

[At CPAC, conservatism betrayed]

Positive freedom relies on prudence. If the things you say provoke an intense and unpleasant reaction, it may be worth wondering whether your critics have a point. And if youre in favor of free speech when it comes to some topics but not others, perhaps you should investigate why your limits lie where they do.

The Milo debacle helpfully illustrates the limitations of invoking free speech to cast a benevolent glow on any and every injudicious statement, and the bind created when any opposition is cast as unjust, illiberal silencing. It may finally be time to stop flogging the First Amendment as some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card for foolish talk. Were wonderfully free to say whatever we want to. But that doesnt mean we should.

View original post here:
Milo learns the First Amendment isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for foolishness - Washington Post

The Constitution does not allow the state to muzzle doctors who wish to inquire about gun safety.

Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by iStock.

In recent years, most states have been clever enough to dress up unconstitutional statutes in pretext that might just fool courts into affirming their legality. But apparently the Florida legislature did not get this memo, because in 2011, the state passed a law that did not really pretend to be anything other than what it was: a blatant act of censorship.

Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, struck down the bulk of Floridas Firearms Owners Privacy Act (FOPA) last Thursday in an emphatic and near-unanimous ruling. But the law, as well as the decision in Wollschlaeger v. Governor of Florida that has invalidated it, are worth examining at length because this fight is far from over. FOPA gagged doctors who wished to discuss gun safety with patients based on the contents and viewpoints of their speech. In defending it, pro-gun advocates have concocted a clash between the First and Second Amendments, hoping that the Second Amendment wins out. Just because they lost this battle does not mean they have given up on the broader war.

Some background: The sponsors of FOPA, frequently referred to as the docs vs. glocks bill, claimed they were responding to anecdotal evidence of Florida doctors talking to patients parents about gun safety in the home, which they felt constituted an egregious invasion of privacy. (You may remember one sponsor, Greg Evers, as the state senator who raffled off an AR-15.) In reality, the bill was peddled by the National Rifle Association, which donates significant sums to Floridas GOP state legislators and routinely requests favors in return. This particular gift was designed as a rebuke to the medical groupsincluding the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physiciansthat encourage physicians to talk to parents about childproofing firearms. These groups and their members believe firearm safety education is critical, especially in a country with so many gun accidents involving children.

The NRA does not want physicians to talk to patients about firearm safety. It considers a mere question about gun ownership, as well as advice about childproofing guns, to be a privacy violation meant to advance a political agenda, according to the courts majority opinion. FOPA prohibits doctors from asking patients or their parents about guns in the home; recording the answer to such questions; harassing a patient about firearm ownership during an examination; and discriminating against patients on the basis of gun ownership.

In a lengthy ruling, the 11th Circuit struck down all these provisionsexcept the nondiscrimination ruleas a violation of the First Amendment. The issue of free speech protections for professional expression, particularly in the course of medical treatment, is notoriously thorny. Courts typically give the government more leeway to regulate speech issued in the course of professional conduct: For instance, states can, without infringing upon the First Amendment, ban harmful treatments that involve speech, like conversion therapy. But the court found that FOPA is a different beast: It takes direct aim at doctors speech on the basis of its content, one of the most insidious kinds of censorship.

Protecting the Second Amendment right of Floridians from private encumbrances may, as Florida claimed, outweigh constitutional protections for free speechbut there was no evidence whatsoever, the court noted, that any doctors or medical professionals have taken away patients firearms or otherwise infringed on patients Second Amendment rights. As the court wryly added, This evidentiary void is not surprising because doctors and medical professionals, as private actors, do not have any authority (legal or otherwise) to restrict the ownership or possession of firearms by patients (or by anyone else for that matter).

Florida may generally believe that doctors and medical professionals should not ask about, nor express views hostile to, firearm ownership, the court explained, but it may not burden the speech of others in order to tilt public debate in a preferred direction.

Next, Florida argued that the legislature passed FOPA to protect patient privacy. (This, by the way, is the same legislature that also passed a law granting the state broad access to patient recordsat abortion clinics.) But as the court noted, there is no evidence that doctors or medical professionals have been improperly disclosing patients information about firearm ownership. Moreover, patients are fully empowered to not answer doctors questions about firearms. So any patients who have privacy concerns about information concerning their firearm ownership, the court writes, can simply refuse to answer questions on the topic.

Several other judges then took turns clobbering the law on different grounds. Judge Stanley Marcus, writing for a majority of the court, explained why FOPAs anti-harassment provision is also an unconstitutionally vague restriction on speech. Judge Charles R. Wilson, joined by Judge Beverly B. Martin, slammed that act as a subversive attempt to stop a perceived political agenda [that] chills speech based on not only content but also a particular viewpoint.

And even the extreme conservative Judge William Pryor felt moved to concur, expressing his belief that the profound importance of the Second Amendment does not give the government license to violate the right to free speech under the First Amendment. Only one judge, Gerald Bard Tjoflat, disagreed, devoting his dissenting opinion to a bizarre attack on the Supreme Courts current free speech jurisprudence.

Top Comment

. More...

These multiple writings all drive home the same critical point: FOPA marked an attempt to limit the protections of the First Amendment by expanding the scope of the Second Amendment. Floridas radical defense of FOPA held that the Second Amendment is so powerful that, in order to safeguard it, the state should be allowed to diminish other constitutional rights. The 11th Circuit was right to reject this argument. Florida already does a great deal to protect the rights of gun owners in the name of the Second Amendment. But the Constitution does not allow the state to muzzle doctors who wish to inquire about gun safety.

In recent years, a considerable amount of ink has been spilled criticizing the American left for allegedly censoring speech it finds offensive. But FOPA is one of the most censorial pieces of legislation to emerge from a state in this decadeand it is the work of Republican legislators, and a Republican governor, whose intentions were to shield gun owners, those delicate snowflakes, from experiencing a brief moment of mild discomfort. There are real threats to free speech in America today. But they are more likely to emerge from Republican statehouses than from liberal college campuses.

See the original post here:
Docs vs. Glocks Shows the Threat to Free Speech Is the Pro-Gun Right - Slate Magazine

The First Amendment of our U.S Constitution gives the press freedom of speech. I firmly believe this refers to commentary on the editorial pages only, which I believe is sacred, but even then it doesn't protect the press from libel for commentary (through the use of lies, distortions and outright fabrication) designed to hurt, distort and/or mislead the readers in some way.

As for the rest of a newspaper, I believe it is reserved for truthful news free of the author's opinion. Any opinion and bias blended into "news articles" should not be constitutionally protected. Beware of descriptive adjectives, descriptive adverbs and descriptive phrases blended into news articles to bias the reader for or against the topic being written about.

Also, some people read only the headlines to get the "gist" of the article. Others read a few paragraphs, then move on. Others read the entire article as continued onto other pages. For example, refer to the following article in Sunday's Reporter-Herald, "Trump's America after a Month."

Read the headline and write down how you understand what the article is about. Then read the first few paragraphs and do the same. Then read the entire article and do the same. Now go back through the article and cross out all descriptive adjectives, adverbs and phrases, then reread the article and document how you understand what has been written. Is your understanding of what has been written the same as before? If not, you now understand why the press has such a low rating among the American readers.

Try this on several different articles on different days.

Dennis Carr

Loveland

Read the original post:
First Amendment shouldn't protect biased news articles - Loveland Reporter-Herald

In news that will surprise no one, police officers decided they must do something about someone filming the police department building from across the street. That's where this Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision begins: with a completely avoidable and completely unnecessary assertion of government power.

Phillip Turner was filming the police department. He was accosted by two officers (Grinalds and Dyess). Both demanded he provide them with identification. He refused to do so. The officers arrested him for "failure to identify," took his camera, and tossed him in the back of a squad car. Given the circumstances of the initial interaction, it's surprising the words "contempt of cop" weren't used on the official police report. From the opinion [PDF]:

Grinalds asked Turner, Hows it going, man? Got your ID with you? Turner continued videotaping, and Grinalds repeatedly asked Turner if he had any identification. Turner asked the officers whether he was being detained, and Grinalds responded that Turner was being detained for investigation and that the officers were concerned about who was walking around with a video camera. Turner asked for which crime he was being detained, and Grinalds replied, I didnt say you committed a crime. Grinalds elaborated, We have the right and authority to know whos walking around our facilities.

Grinalds again asked for Turners identification, and Turner asked Grinalds, What happens if I dont ID myself? Grinalds replied, Well cross that bridge when we come to it. Grinalds continued to request Turners identification, which Turner refused to provide. Grinalds and Dyess then suddenly and without warning handcuffed Turner and took his video camera from him, and Grinalds said, This is what happens when you dont ID yourself.

Turner asked to speak to their supervisor. Given that this happened right across the street from the department, Turner didn't have to wait very long. A supervisor arrived and came to at least one correct conclusion:

Lieutenant Driver identified himself as the commander. Driver asked Turner what he was doing, and Turner explained that he was taking pictures from the sidewalk across the street. Driver asked Turner for his ID, and Turner told the lieutenant that he did not have to identify himself because he had not been lawfully arrested and that he chose not to provide his identification. Driver responded, Youre right.

Texas police officers love to misread the state's "failure to identify" statute. It doesn't say what they think it does or what they want to believe it does. A former cop-turned-law student has a full explanation here, but suffice to say, cops cannot arrest someone for refusing to ID themselves -- at least not in Texas. The charge can be added after an arrest (if the refusal continues), but it can't be the impetus for an arrest.

After some discussion between the officers, Turner was released and his camera was given back. Turner filed a civil rights lawsuit. The lower court granted immunity to the officers on all allegations. The Fifth Circuit, however, refuses to go as far. And in doing so, it actually takes it upon itself to address an issue it easily could have avoided: whether the First Amendment covers the filming of public servants, specifically law enforcement officers.

First, the court asks whether the right to film police was "clearly established" at the time the incident took place (September 2015). It can't find anything that says it is.

At the time in question, neither the Supreme Court nor this court had determined whether First Amendment protection extends to the recording or filming of police. Although Turner insists, as some district courts in this circuit have concluded, that First Amendment protection extends to the video recording of police activity in light of general First Amendment principles, the Supreme Court has repeatedly instructed courts not to define clearly established law at a high level of generality: The general proposition, for example, that an unreasonable search or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is of little help in determining whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established. Thus, Turners reliance on decisions that clarified that [First Amendment] protections . . . extend[] to gathering information does not demonstrate whether the specific act at issue herevideo recording the police or a police stationwas clearly established.

The court doesn't leave it there, although it could have. The court notes that there's a circuit split on the issue, but just because the issue's far from decided doesn't mean courts have not recognized the right exists. It points to conclusions reached by the First and Eleventh Circuit Appeals Courts as evidence the right to film police has been acknowledged. Even so, there's not enough clarity on the issue to remove the officers' immunity.

We cannot say, however, that existing precedent . . . placed the . . .constitutional question beyond debate when Turner recorded the police station. Neither does it seem that the law so clearly and unambiguously prohibited [the officers] conduct that every reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates [the law]. In light of the absence of controlling authority and the dearth of even persuasive authority, there was no clearly established First Amendment right to record the police at the time of Turners activities.

This is where the opinion gets interesting. While many judges would leave a trickier, somewhat tangential issue open and unanswered, the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court decides it's time for it to set some precedent.

We conclude that First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

[...]

To be sure, [s]peech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. Filming the police contributes to the publics ability to hold the police accountable, ensure that police officers are not abusing their power, and make informed decisions about police policy. Filming the police also frequently helps officers; for example, a citizens recording might corroborate a probable cause finding or might even exonerate an officer charged with wrongdoing.

In the Fifth Circuit -- joining the First and Eleventh Circuits -- the First Amendment right to film police has been asserted. Unfortunately, the issue still remains mostly unsettled, and there's currently nothing in front of the Supreme Court that would set national precedent. Unfortunately, the decision doesn't help Turner with his First Amendment claim, but it will help others going forward.

The court also reverses immunity on one of Turner's Fourth Amendment claims. While it finds the officers were justified in questioning him, they went too far when they arrested him. First, as pointed out above, the "failure to identify" law can't be used to predicate an arrest. And, after questioning him, the officers still had nothing approaching the probable cause they needed to make a warrantless arrest. Even though Turner was detained in the back of the squad car for only a short period of time, the fact that he was obviously not free to go makes it an arrest under the Fourth Amendment.

Strangely, the dissent, written by Judge Edith Brown, claims the Appeals Court has no business setting precedent. In her opinion, the nation's second-highest courts should stand idly by and wait for the Supreme Court to do the work.

The majority asserts, unconnected to the particular facts and unnecessary to the disposition of this case, that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The majority derives this general right to film the police from First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent. But the Supreme Court has repeatedly reversed attempts to define clearly established law at such a high level of generality. White, 137 S. Ct. at 552.

The judge narrowly defines Turner's filming to ensure it would never fall under this supposedly "broad" definition of the right. She says the Appeals Court defines the protection as covering "filming police." But Turner wasn't doing that.

To the extent there is any consensus of persuasive authority, those cases focus only on the narrow issue of whether there is a First Amendment right to film the police carrying out their duties in public. E.g., Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir. 2011). Turner did not allege that he filmed police officers conducting their public duties, but rather that he filmed a police station.

Somehow, filming police officers as they enter and exit a public building is not "filming police carrying out their duties in public." Remarkably, Judge Brown says there may be "reasonable" security concerns that could Constitutionally prevent Turner's actions.

The majority does not determine that the officers here violated Turners First Amendment rightsperhaps because it would be reasonable for security reasons to restrict individuals from filming police officers entering and leaving a police station.

If police officers are entering and exiting a building from doors clearly viewable by the public from a public area, the officers obviously aren't that concerned about their "security." If so, they would use an entrance/exit members of the public can't see or don't have access to. If the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect the privacy of citizens in public areas, the same public areas can't be given a heightened privacy protection that only covers public servants.

Unsurprisingly, Judge Brown thinks Turner's involuntary stay in the back of a squad car could reasonably be viewed as Turner just hanging out there waiting to speak to a supervisor:

Because Turner himself requested a supervisor, a reasonable police officer in that situation could believe that waiting for the supervisor to arrive at the scene did not transform Turners detention into a de facto arrest. At the very least, Officers Grinalds and Dyess did not act objectively unreasonably in waiting for the requested supervisorespecially because Lieutenant Driver had to come from the Fort Worth Police Station across the street.

Except that most people "waiting for a supervisor" don't do so while:

a.) handcuffed

b.) sitting in the back of a locked squad car

The length of the detention doesn't matter. And it was ultimately the supervisor's arrival that sprung Turner. If not for the arrival of the supervisor -- who immediately recognized Turner couldn't be arrested for refusing to ID himself -- Turner would undoubtedly have spent an even longer period being detained, if not taken into the PD and processed.

The good news for Turner is that his sole remaining Fourth Amendment claims -- the wrongful arrest -- lives on. But the bigger win -- the First Amendment protections confirmation -- helps everyone else but him.

Read more from the original source:
Appeals Court Says Filming The Police Is Protected By The First ... - Techdirt

Monday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh said the reaction of the media to President Donald Trumps tweet labeling them an enemy of the American people was because some journalists believe the First Amendment gives them immunity from criticism.

I want to thank F. Chuck Todd of NBC for opening my eyes to this. For the longest time Ive been genuinely curious why it is that media people think that they cannot be criticized.

And they really do. They really think they can go out and research people and they can dig up dirt from anybody they want, their pasts, and they can broadcast it all over. And if somebodys life, somebodys marriage, somebodys relationship, somebodys kid gets destroyed or ruined, fine and dandy.

They can do all of that they want, but you turn it around and you start investigating your favorite journalist to find out how many illegitimate kids he or she might have had in college or how many DUIs they had, you know, or how many communist sympathizer meetings they went to, then all hell breaks loose and they start squealing like stuck pigs, You cant do that! Were journalists!

I said, Where does this come from? Its more than just hubris. I finally found out. You know what it is, Mr. Snerdley? These clowns actually believe that since they are recognized in the First Amendment that they have constitutional immunity.

Criticizing them is attacking the First Amendment. They really believe this. Criticizing them is akin to attacking the Constitution, and thats un-American, and thats why you hear these journalists say. Its un-American to criticize. Its un-American for Trump to be destabilizing. Its un-American for Trump to be going out there and trying to do damage to the media. Weve got First Amendment protection.

Well, so does the president, and the president happens to be mentioned in the Constitution before the media. The presidents mentioned in Article 2. The media doesnt make it til the First Amendment. But yet the media thinks theres nothing bad about running around and trying to attack political figures and destroying them.

This is what it is, folks. They are so far gone, they really think that they are the last line of defense between freedom and democracy and tyranny. And attacking them and challenging their reputation is no more and no less than attacking the Constitution and trying to destroy America and democracy. Thats what they think. That explains why you cant go after them.

Anyhow, lets take another brief break here.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Look, the only thing the First Amendment does for the press is the same thing it gives everybody else. They can say what they want to say. Thats essentially what the First Amendment says for the press like it says it for you and me. It singles them out and references them in terms of their importance, a free and unintimidated, whatever, unattached media. And nobody objects to that, but it does not grant them immunity from criticism. It does not grant them freedom to be disagreed with. It does not grant them freedom from opposition.

They seem to think that it does. And I think it all falls under the notion of how really poorly constitutional education, American history educations been for decades in this country. Not to mention the kind of poison thats injected into the young skulls full of mush populating journalism schools all over the United States. But really, folks, its the one thing that, as far as the medias concerned, justifies what theyre doing.

Now, as I say, you wont even get them to admit what theyre doing. You wont even get them to admit theyre trying to destroy Trump. They come up with some, No, no, no, no. It is the job of the media to hold powerful people accountable. Yeah. Right. Why doesnt that apply to powerful Democrats? And dont tell me that it does, because everybody knows you give em a pass. Each and every time something comes up with em, you cover for em. Its a joke.

(h/t Mediaite)

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

See the rest here:
Limbaugh: The First Amendment Doesn't Give the Press 'Immunity ... - Breitbart News

A freedom of speech lawsuit against the city of Chiloquin has been settled out of court and a motion to dismiss the suit was approved Friday.

Plaintiff Richard Twamley confirmed Monday his lawsuit against the city was resolved through a settlement agreed upon by both parties. Twamley said he found the terms of the settlement agreeable, but said specific details were under seal and wont be made public.

Twamley said he would need to contact his attorney before offering further comment.

Story continues below video

He sued Chiloquin and former Mayor Joe Hobbs Oct. 27, 2016, for an incident Dec. 15, 2015, during which Hobbs allegedly denied Twamley an opportunity to speak during public comment at a city council meeting. Twamley sought $1.7 million for the denial of his First Amendment rights as well as emotional distress.

According to the lawsuit, Twamley intended to speak to the council that night regarding a 2014 legal settlement between the city and the Chiloquin Rodeo Association, which Richard Twamley said occurred without proper authority. Twamley said his comments were ruled out of order by Hobbs and the plaintiff was not allowed to continue speaking on the topic.

At the beginning of council meetings in Chiloquin, a disclaimer is read saying officials will rule out of order comments of a discrediting nature, as well as personal attacks on officials and city personnel.

A response to Twamleys allegations was not filed in court by Chiloquin. A representative of City Hall could not be reached Monday for comment due to the federal holiday.

Twamley has been an outspoken critic of Chiloquin along with his wife, former Mayor Patricia Twamley, and Dennis Jefcoat, who acted as Patricia Twamleys adviser. In addition to letters to the editor printed in the Herald and News, the three each filed lawsuits against Chiloquin, though Patricia Twamleys suit was settled in the citys favor in 2014 and Jefcoats suit was dismissed for lack of evidence in 2016.

When asked Monday if he will continue to voice criticisms of the city, Richard Twamley said he would need to consult his attorney before responding to the question.

See the article here:
Chiloquin settles First Amendment lawsuit | News | heraldandnews ... - Herald and News

Please enable Javascript to watch.

Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show today that the press reaction to President Trumps attacks on the media is giving him the impression that journalists believe they have immunity from criticism.

Limbaugh, who said on Fox News Sunday yesterday that the media wont be able to destroy Trump, picked up in particular on Chuck Todds reaction to Trumps media-bashing:

Limbaugh said that this gives the appearance of journalists thinking they can do whatever they want to public figures but also that since they are recognized in the First Amendment they have constitutional immunity.

The First Amendment, he argued, does not grant them immunity from criticism. It does not grant them freedom to be disagreed with. It does not grant them freedom from opposition.

And if this is all about holding powerful people accountable, Limbaugh added, how come there isnt this kind of brave declaration when it comes to powerful Democrats.

Listen above, via The Rush Limbaugh Show.

[image via screengrab]

Follow Josh Feldman on Twitter: @feldmaniac

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

Here is the original post:
Limbaugh: The First Amendment Doesn't Give the Press 'Immunity from Criticism' - Mediaite

In many ways, free speech is the right that protects all others, reinforcing every freedom that we hold dear and that so many have fought and died for.

This Presidents' Day, we should reflect on the reasons our Founding Fathers enshrined this right in our First Amendment. And we must acknowledge that this fundamental right is under attackeven for those who have fought to protect it.

Brandon Coleman, a Marine Corps veteran, began working as a therapist at the VA hospital in Phoenix to provide care for his brothers and sisters in arms. When he found that veterans there were dying due to negligence, he spoke upand for that, he was punished. When he told management what was going on, they told him thats how people get fired. They even tried to use his own personal medical records against him, and issued a gag order to silence him.

Colemans VA experience reminds of President Abraham Lincoln, who famously said that we as a nation will never be destroyed from the outside. "If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher, he said if the United States loses its freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.

Veterans like Brandon fought to defend us against external threats, but more and more are realizing that the biggest threat to our freedom is a government that is quick to limit our inalienable rights. The oath servicemen and women take to support and defend our Constitution doesnt end when we hang up our uniforms and return to civilian life.

Brandons case is one of many instances in which the very same government thats supposed to be protecting the right to free speech has tried to suppress it. Its not just happening at the VAlook at the way the government has intimidated religious groups by leaking donor lists, or the scandal at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in which the agency targeted certain groups because of their views on public policy.

Time and again, the government has silenced those it disagrees with by using citizens private information against them. Which makes it all the more concerning that a growing number of states are now trying to get more information about Americans who exercise their First Amendment rights.

In South Carolina, legislation was recently filed in the state Senate that would force essentially every nonprofit organization that educates citizens about public policy to disclose to the government the names, addresses, and employers of supporters who donate more than a certain dollar amount. Similar efforts have surfaced in both Nebraska and South Dakota. Touted under the banner of transparency, these so-called disclosure laws are nothing more than thinly-veiled attacks on free speech.

Throughout our history, the First Amendment has allowed citizens to challenge the government and powerful groups in all sectors, rooting out fraud and corruption. It has allowed marginalized groups to speak out against injustice, spurring progress toward equality. It has allowed millions of Americans to contribute to a marketplace of ideas, fostering a free society, a thriving culture and the largest economy in the world.

All too often today, our free speech right that was designed to hold the government accountable is being used by the government to harass, intimidate, and silence the very citizens the right is meant to protect.

With a new administration and a new Congress, there may now be a real opportunity to scale back and prevent further threats facing our First Amendment rights. But during these turbulent political times, we cant take that for granted.

Abolition, the womens movement, civil rights the inalienable right to free speech is what gave the foot soldiers in all of these movements the ability to speak up for themselves. Now that free speech is under attack, will we speak up for it?

Mark Lucas is the executive director of Concerned Veterans for America.

The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

See the original post here:
This Presidents' Day, defend the First Amendment - The Hill (blog)