Category Archives: First Amendment

A pro-family organization is encouraging conservative Christians to join its online effort to ask President Donald Trump to defend religious liberty.

A draft memo that outlined a proposed executive order leaked from the White House in early February, ending up in the hands not of religious organizations but homosexual rights groups.

The existence of the memo was first reported by left-wing news website The Nation.

If the content of the memo is true, says a spokesman for homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign, the Trump-led White House is poised to "wildly expand anti-LGBTQ discrimination across all facets of government."

"Discrimination" is common left-wing parlance, along with words such as "hate" and "bigotry," for holding traditional views about marriage and sexuality.

What this memo accomplishes, says American Family Association spokesman Walker Wildmon, is prevent the federal government from "encroaching on the First Amendment rights of Americans of faith, and really it would keep the government from coercing people of faith to violate their religious beliefs."

The fate of the memo in coming weeks is unknown, so Wildmon and AFA are asking Christian conservatives to sign their names to an online petition urging President Trump to sign the executive order. The petition has approximately 109,000 signatures.

Writing at The Daily Signal, researcher Ryan Anderson says the memo suggests protecting federal employees from punishment if they hold traditional views about marriage, citing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Such an executive order would conflict with the pro-homosexual propaganda of the Obama administration, which pushed such "progressive" views within the Department of Justice, the Pentagon, and other agencies.

Beyond the federal government, Ryan writes, the memo suggestsprotecting the nonprofit status of religious organizations that express views about political issues, marriage and sexuality, and abortion.

In all, Ryan writes, there are 10 suggestions outlined in the memo, many of them rolling back Obama-era executive orders that were applauded at the time by homosexual activists and abortion rights groups.

"The executive order is good, lawful public policy," Ryan suggests in his commentary. "And it makes good on several promisesthen-candidate Trump made to his supporters."

Wildmon says the petition is one way tell President Trump that "amongst the people who elected him, voted him into office, this executive order and things like it are very popular."

American Family Association is the parent organization of American Family News, which includes news website OneNewsNow.

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved.

Read this article:
AFA: Help us urge Trump to protect First Amendment - OneNewsNow

As surely as the robins of spring and the swallows of Capistrano, the nay-saying critics who regularly cry racism, xenophobia or Islamophobia, to name a few of their favorite charges, come out to condemn the actions and the motivations of those they disagree with. The latest of course, is the so-called Muslim ban which temporarily suspends travelers to the U.S. from seven predominately Muslim countries.

Never mind that the 85 percent of Muslims who don't live in those countries are not affected, including those in Saudi Arabia where, according to some sources, it's because of Trump's business connections there. As these seven countries were also singled out by President Obama we should logically conclude that his exemption of Saudi Arabia was also based on his personal interests, business or otherwise.

As to the claim that this executive order is unconstitutional, I have yet to see an explanation of just which part of our constitution is being violated. Do the critics really believe that our First Amendment is universal to the whole world in its application, rather than, as spelled out in the constitution's preamble, a contract among the citizens of the United States for themselves and their posterity? Only those arrogant enough to believe that the United States should rule and govern the whole world should try to bestow our constitutional rights on that world.

Read more from the original source:
Letter to the editor: First Amendment only applies to Americans - The Bakersfield Californian

The Knight Foundation, an organization that invests in journalism, the arts and technology, recently released a survey showing high school students support of the First Amendment is the highest it has been in a decade, according to a press release.

In a survey of almost 12,000 high school students and 726 teachers, 91 percent expressed their agreement that people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions, compared to 83 percent who took the survey in 2004, according to the press release.

Over half of students felt normal individuals should have the same publishing rights as professional journalists.

Students also felt that they should be able to document activities involving the police as long as they are not interfering, according to the release.

Both Connecticut high school and University of Connecticut students weighed in on the survey results, giving their opinions about freedom of speech.

Henry Ortiz, a sophomore at the CT River Academy in East Hartford, agreed that people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions.

I feel that people should be able to say what they want. Everyone is allowed to say how they feel, even when they are wrong, Ortiz said.

Second-semester psychology major Juwan Rosa had a similar response.

Everyone thinks in different ways. As a result, everyone has different opinions. Sometimes it is better if someone says an unpopular opinion because those around can understand why the opinion exists, Rosa said.

Both students said they felt freedom of speech was important, and without it, ideas would not be able to be shared.

In response to the survey question about documenting the police, both Rosa and Ortiz also agreed that people should be able to videotape police officers actions as long as they are not interfering.

Police officers are employees of the state, generally things involving state are public. Why shouldnt the way a cop treats an individual be as well? Rosa said.

Continued here:
First amendment receives more support - UConn Daily Campus

Whitaker will be honored next month with a prestigious award for his contribution as a journalist to the protection of First Amendment freedoms

CBS News

Bill Whitaker, the veteran CBS newsman and 60 Minutes correspondent, will be honored with the Leonard Zeidenberg First Amendment Award, the Radio Television Digital News Foundation announced. Whitaker will receive the award at the RTDNFs annual First Amendment Awards dinner on March 14 in Washington, DC.

RTDNF presents this award annually to a radio or television journalist or news executive who has made a major contribution to the protection of First Amendment freedoms. It is named for the late Broadcasting & Cable senior correspondent, Leonard Zeidenberg.

Whitaker joins past CBS News Ziedenberg winners Walter Cronkite, Ed Bradley, Mike Wallace, Bob Schieffer and Cami McCormick, and other notable journalists who have won the award, including Diane Sawyer, Lester Holt and Judy Woodruff.

Whitaker has been wide-ranging and prolific in his 60 Minutes reporting on domestic and international stories since joining the broadcast in 2014. He recently chronicled the vetting process for Syrian refugees coming to the U.S. He has reported from Asia, Africa, Europe, Mexico and the Middle East for the news magazine, including a timely interview with Burmese pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi and an Emmy-winning story on the biggest data leak in Swiss banking history. Domestically, his stories have provided keen insights into the hot-button issue of race and policing in America, the death penalty and Americas heroin epidemic. He has chronicled the epic battle to capture and hold Mexicos infamous drug lord Joaquin El Chapo Guzman, gaining rare access to investigations on both sides of the border.

During his more than 30 years with CBS News, Whitaker has covered three presidential campaigns; the O.J. Simpson case; overseas wars and events; and interviewed several national figures, including First Lady Michelle Obama.

Whitaker began his career at CBS News in 1984 as a reporter based in Atlanta, where he covered the 1988 presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis and received an Emmy for his reports on the collapse of Jim and Tammy Bakkers television ministry. He then spent three years as a CBS News Tokyo correspondent, developing an impressive portfolio as a foreign correspondent. He covered stories throughout Asia, including the pro-democracy uprising in Tiananmen Square.

In 1992, Whitaker was sent to Los Angeles, where he reported for over 20 years on the CBS Evening News and other CBS News broadcasts, including Sunday Morning.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

See the original post here:
60 Minutes' Bill Whitaker to receive the RTDNF First Amendment ... - CBS News

Norwich Universitys Sullivan Museum and History Center will host a lunch and learn program on the First Amendment in conjunction with a national, pop-up exhibit commemorating the 225thanniversary of the Bill of Rights.

OnWednesday, Feb. 22, atnoon, The Sullivan Museum and History Centerpresents, A Living Document: The First Amendment, Past, Present and Future, a talk by Austin Gray, attorney and longtime professor of civil liberties and Constitutional law. The event includes a light lunch and is free and open to the public.

Gray, of law firm Gray Law PLLC in Barre, Vt., has been teaching at the university level for 20 years and is one of the founding faculty of the Master of Law program at Champlain College. He also teaches Civil Liberties and Constitutional Law at Norwich University. A graduate of Temple University School of Law, Gray is a member of the Vermont, Pennsylvania and New Jersey Bar Associations.

This presentation is held in conjunction with a new pop-up exhibition from theNational Archives,The Bill of Rights and You,commemorating the 225th anniversary of the ratification of this landmark document. This exhibit spotlights one of the most remarkable periods in American history,explores the origins of the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution (collectively known as the Bill of Rights), illustrates how each amendment protects U.S. citizens, and looks at how Americans exercise the rights outlined in the amendments. The Bill of Rightsand Youinvites visitors to connect directly with the people, places, and events that mark this historic documents evolution. The exhibit will be on display in the Museums Rotunda throughMarch 15, 2017.

The Bill of Rights and Youco-curator Jennifer Johnson states: "The Bill of Rights represents the Founder's vision that it would be the people, through votes, that could change the Constitution with enough consensus. And when the people desired a Bill of Rights, our first 10 amendments were added to our governing charter."

Visitors are also encouraged to engage in a dialogue by answering the question: What Does Freedom Mean to You? A message board in the Museum Rotunda is available to post your own personal answer.

The Bill of Rights and Youis organized by the National Archives and Records Administration, and traveled by the National Archives Traveling Exhibits Service (NATES). This exhibition was developed in collaboration with the National Archives National Outreach Initiative to commemorate the 225thAnniversary of the Bill of Rights. The exhibition is presented in part by AT&T, Seedlings Foundation, and the National Archives Foundation.

This exhibit is brought to you in collaboration with the Vermont Humanities Council and the Federation of State Humanities Councils. A statewide nonprofit organization founded in 1974, the Vermont Humanities Council strives to make Vermont a state in which every individual reads, participates in public affairs, and continues to learn throughout life.

Norwich Universitys Sullivan Museum and History Center is the only museum in Vermont to be named a Smithsonian Affiliate.Currently, there are two exhibitions focusing on the year leading up the 100thAnniversary of World War One and the 75thAnniversary of World War Two. These exhibits are on display through May 2017 and include various items from the university collection as well as borrowed materials. Some of the artifacts on exhibit include: trench art, World War One and Two posters, patriotic jewelry, artwork, uniforms, medals, objects from the field, weapons and other items from our collection.

The museum is open to the public from 8 until 4 Monday through Friday, but is closed on holidays. Admission is free.For more information about the programs or exhibit, please call802-485-2183or visithttp://academics.norwich.edu/museum.

See the article here:
Lunch & Learn on the First Amendment - The Northfield News

From todays 8th Circuit decision in Gerlich v. Leath:

Iowa State University (ISU) grants student organizations permission to use its trademarks if certain conditions are met. The ISU student chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML ISU) had several of its trademark licensing requests denied because its designs included a cannabis leaf.

ISU [has] approximately 800 officially recognized student organizations. Student groups often create merchandise that contains the groups name and ISU insignia to generate awareness about the groups cause or attract members. Student groups may use ISUs trademarks on merchandise if ISUs Trademark Licensing Office (Trademark Office) determines that the use complies with ISUs Guidelines for University Trademark Use by Student and Campus Organizations (Trademark Guidelines). ISUs trademarks include word marks like ISU and Iowa State, as well as logos, such as the schools mascot (Cy the Cardinal).

NORML ISU at first got permission from the Trademark Office to use a T-shirt that had NORML ISU on the front with the O represented by Cy the Cardinal, with Freedom is NORML at ISU and a cannabis leaf depicted on the back. But after a Des Moines Register article mentioned the T-shirt, a state legislator and someone at the Governors Office of Drug Control Policy heard about this and objected, and the University barred NORML ISU from printing further T-shirts with the design. After that, the Universitys Trademark Guidelines were changed to ban designs that suggest promotion of the below listed items dangerous, illegal or unhealthy products, actions or behaviors; [or] drugs and drug paraphernalia that are illegal or unhealthful.

The 8th Circuit held that the universitys rejection of NORML ISUs designs was unconstitutional:

If a state university creates a limited public forum for speech, it may not discriminate against speech on the basis of its viewpoint. [Rosenberger v. Rector (1995).] A university establish[es] limited public forums by opening property limited to use by certain groups or dedicated solely to the discussion of certain subjects. A universitys student activity fund is an example of a limited public forum. ISU created a limited public forum when it made its trademarks available for student organizations to use if they abided by certain conditions.

The defendants rejection of NORML ISUs designs discriminated against that group on the basis of the groups viewpoint. The state engages in viewpoint discrimination when the rationale for its regulation of speech is the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker. The defendants discriminatory motive is evidenced by the unique scrutiny defendants imposed on NORML ISU after the [controversy arose].

Defendants argue that the political pushback that they received regarding T- Shirt Design #1 did not play a role in their decision making. This argument ignores significant evidence to the contrary. For example, [ISU President Steven] Leath testified that anytime someone from the governors staff calls complaining, yeah, Im going to pay attention, absolutely. Leath also testified that the reason the Trademark Policy was on the presidents cabinet meeting agenda which took place five days after the Des Moines Register article was published was because we were getting pushback. Leath went on to testify that [i]f nobodyd ever said anything, we didnt know about it, it didnt appear in The Register, wed probably never raised the issue.

The record is also replete with statements from defendants regarding their political motives. Leath explained at his deposition that because T-Shirt Design #1 had some political public relations implications, someone should have run it up the chain because there are some issues that are clearly going to cause controversy and its better to manage them on the front end. He also testified that in a state as conservative as Iowa on many issues, it was going to be a problem. [Senior VP for Student Affairs Thomas] Hill stated in an interview with the Ames Tribune that the reason student groups associated with political parties could use ISUs logos, but groups like NORML ISU may not, is because [w]e encourage students to be involved in their duties as a citizen. Such a statement implies that Hill believed that the members of NORML ISU were not undertaking their duties as citizens by advocating for a change in the law.

[ISU Trademark Office Director Leesha] Zimmerman stated in an email to NORML ISUs faculty advisor in May 2013 that the groups design that included the statement Legalize Marijuana was rejected because Legalize Marijuana is a call to action but it does not suggest any specific way your organization is making that happen. Zimmerman went on to say that the groups design applications appear to have a certain shock or attention grabbing sensationalism. Zimmerman further stated that her interpretation is that these do not further your cause as an advocate for change in the laws or trying to change the publics perception of marijuana. There is no evidence in the record of Zimmerman offering advocacy advice to any other student group.

The university also argued that, even if it did engage in viewpoint discrimination, this was permissible because the administration of the trademark licensing regime should be considered government speech. But the court disagreed:

When the government speaks, it is not barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the content of what it says. Walker v. Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. (2015).

The government speech doctrine does not apply if a government entity has created a limited public forum for speech. As noted above, ISU created a limited public forum when it made its trademarks available for student organizations to use if they abided by certain conditions. The administration of its trademark licensing regime therefore did not constitute government speech.

Even if the trademark licensing regime here did not amount to a limited public forum, however, the government speech doctrine still does not apply on this record. The Walker decision considered three factors when determining whether certain speech is government speech. First, it determined whether the government has long used the particular medium at issue to speak. Second, it analyzed whether the medium is often closely identified in the public mind with the state. Third, it determined whether the state maintains direct control over the messages conveyed through the medium.

The first two factors do not apply to the speech at issue in this case. ISU allows approximately 800 student organizations to use its trademarks. Defendants repeatedly stated in their testimony and other record evidence that the university did not intend to communicate any message to the public by licensing ISU trademarks to student groups. Indeed, the university licenses its trademarks to groups that have opposite viewpoints from one another like the Iowa State Democrats and the ISU College Republicans. Even if ISUs trademark licensing regime were to satisfy the final factor, the factors taken together would not support the conclusion that the speech at issue in this case is government speech because ISU does not use its trademark licensing regime to speak to the public.

My students Ian Daily, Eric Sefton and Sydney Sherman and I filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Student Press Law Center arguing in favor of this result.

Read the original post:
Iowa State violated First Amendment by barring pro-marijuana student group from printing T-shirts with ISU logo ... - Washington Post

Education Week (subscription) (blog)

More High School Students Support First Amendment Freedoms ... Education Week (subscription) (blog) The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation's sixth annual study on the topic finds a growing share of students support First Amendment rights. and more »

See more here:
More High School Students Support First Amendment Freedoms ... - Education Week (subscription) (blog)

On Feb. 3, a conservative speaker was slated to speak at the University of California at Berkeley. That's when "Black Bloc" intervened.

According to CNN (cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/), "150 masked agitators caused more than $100,000 worth of damage at UC Berkeley ... when demonstrators gathered to protest Milo Yiannopoulos, who was scheduled to give a speech at the school.

"Black-clad protesters, wearing masks, threw commercial-grade fireworks and rocks at police. Some even hurled Molotov cocktails that ignited fires. They also smashed windows of the student union center on the Berkeley campus.

"At least six people were injured. Some were attacked by the agitators -- who are a part of an anarchist group known as the "Black Bloc" that has been causing problems in Oakland for years ..."

If you haven't hear of Black Bloc, watch the video at usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/02/02/what-black-bloc/97393870/.

We are told by some that Black Bloc is not an organization; rather, it is a "spontaneous coming together of individuals" to act as a "protective shield" for "progressive protesters" against "police brutality." If you buy that, I've got a nice bridge to sell you!

As I watch the USA Today video, I can only come to one opinion: Black Bloc is a criminal conspiracy which engages in overt acts of violence intended to deprive other Americans -- with whom they disagree -- of their Constitutional rights of free speech, peaceable assembly and private property.

So what justifies rioting, the fires, the destruction of property? The left-wing anarchists disagreed with the political opinions of a man scheduled to give a speech.

So how long will the new administration put up with left-wing anarchists clad in black hoods and black masks? Are criminal thugs who run around and do violence in black hoods and black masks any better than the Klu Klux Klan? Are stormtroopers in black masks and robes any more noble than Klansmen in white robes and masks?

In 1870, The Congress, at the behest of President Grant, passed "An Act to enforce the Right of Citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of this Union, and for other Purposes."

The act was a response to terror, force and brutality used by the Klan (KKK) to prevent newly freed blacks from voting and exercising their newly granted Constitutional Rights. Section 6 criminalized "conspiring" or "going in disguise" to "intimidate" or to "hinder the free exercise" of any right granted by the Constitution. Conviction carried up to 10 years imprisonment.

Criminals, anarchists and rioters in hoods and masks -- whether those hoods and masks be white or black -- who riot in the streets to prevent anyone from exercising his First Amendment right to speak freely or assemble peacefully, or the right of any other citizen to own private property, are therefore playing a dangerous game.

The U.S. government virtually wiped out the first wave of the KKK using the Enforcement Acts. If the government decides enough is enough, 150 guys in black hoods and masks, as well as their financiers, may find themselves spending the next 10 years in federal prison.

Any thinking American should be revolted by Black Bloc's wanton destruction of property and attacks on police and bystanders. This rioting is exactly what the Nazi Brown Shirts, aka Stormtroopers, did in Germany in the 1930s.

The riots in Berkeley have the stench of Kristallnacht about them. Kristallnacht occurred Nov. 9-10, 1938. It was the night when Nazi Stormtroopers, wearing civilian clothes, to create the illusion of a "spontaneous demonstration," destroyed 267 synagogues and innumerable Jewish businesses throughout Hitler's Reich. Mobs of SA men roamed the streets, attacking Jews in their houses and forcing Jews they encountered to perform acts of public humiliation.

Our Constitution guarantees free speech. But free speech does not include incitement to riot, or the act of rioting. Attacking police and burning down buildings has never been constitutionally protected.

John Donald O'Shea, of Moline, is a retired circuit court judge.

Read more:
Rioting not protected by First Amendment - Quad-Cities Online

Mauro Grigollo Westend61/Newscom"Today is Jim Stewart's birthday. Reply to post a wish on his Timeline or reply with 1 to post 'Happy Birthday!'" That's the text, from Facebook to Colin Brickman, that launched a legal battle between Brickman and the social-media giant.

You see, Brickman had opted out of receiving texts from Facebook via the platform's notification settings. In response to the unwanted birthday reminder, Brickman filed a class-action lawsuit against Facebook, representing "all individuals who received one or more Birthday Announcement Texts from [Facebook] to a cell phone through the use of an automated telephone dialing system at any time without their consent."

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues that Facebook's sending unauthorized text messages is a violation of the federal Telephone Communications Privacy Act (TCPA). "A valid TCPA claim requires plaintiff to allege (1) a defendant called a cellular telephone number; (2) using an automated telephone dialing system ('ATDS'); and (3) without the recipient's prior express consent," explains lawyer Jack Greiner in the Cincinnati Enquirer. "A text message is a 'call' within the meaning of the TCPA."

In its defense, Facebook alleged that the TCPA in unconstitutional. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Facebook attorneys argued that the TCPA's allowed exceptionsfor emergency communications and debt collectorsrender it an umpermissable, content-based restriction on speech. But the judge, while agreeing that the TCPA's restrictions are content-based (and thus subject to strict scrutiny, legally speaking), found that the law passed constitutional muster nonetheless.

The case will go forward with Facebook defending its text messages on technical grounds; it argues that the texts were not automated because Brickman and others who received them had supplied Facebook with their phone numbers. But, for now, Facebook's argument that it has a First Amendment right to send people text messages against their will has been rejected.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has twice found the TCPA to be constitutional in previous casesMoser v. Federal Communications Commission (1995) and Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez (2016)the Department of Justice pointed out in a memorandum in support of TCPA's constitutionality. In the latter case, the 9th Circuit rejected the idea that the government's interest with the law "only extends to the protection of residential privacy, and that therefore the statute is not narrowly tailored to the extent that it applies to cellular text messages."

"There is no evidence that the government's interest in privacy ends at home," ruled the 9th circuit in Campbell-Ewald. Furthermore, "to whatever extent the government's significant interest lies exclusively in residential privacy, the nature of cell phones renders the restriction of unsolicited text messaging all the more necessary to ensure that privacy."

Read more:
Facebook Has No First Amendment Right to Send Unauthorized Texts, Says Court - Reason (blog)

News Release Norwich University Feb. 10, 2017

Contact: Daphne Larkin 802-485-2886 dlarkin@norwich.edu Follow us on Twitter @NorwichNews

NORTHFIELD, Vt. Norwich Universitys Sullivan Museum and History Center will host a lunch and learn program on the First Amendment in conjunction with a national, pop-up exhibit commemorating the 225th anniversary of the Bill of Rights.

On Wednesday, Feb. 22, at noon, The Sullivan Museum and History Center presents, A Living Document: The First Amendment, Past, Present and Future, a talk by Austin Gray, attorney and longtime professor of civil liberties and Constitutional law. The event includes a light lunch and is free and open to the public.

Gray, of law firm Gray Law PLLC in Barre, Vt., has been teaching at the university level for 20 years and is one of the founding faculty of the Master of Law program at Champlain College. He also teaches Civil Liberties and Constitutional Law at Norwich University. A graduate of Temple University School of Law, Gray is a member of the Vermont, Pennsylvania and New Jersey Bar Associations.

This presentation is held in conjunction with a new pop-up exhibition from the National Archives, The Bill of Rights and You, commemorating the 225th anniversary of the ratification of this landmark document. This exhibit spotlights one of the most remarkable periods in American history, explores the origins of the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution (collectively known as the Bill of Rights), illustrates how each amendment protects U.S. citizens, and looks at how Americans exercise the rights outlined in the amendments. The Bill of Rights and You invites visitors to connect directly with the people, places, and events that mark this historic documents evolution. The exhibit will be on display in the Museums Rotunda through March 15, 2017.

The Bill of Rights and You co-curator Jennifer Johnson states: The Bill of Rights represents the Founders vision that it would be the people, through votes, that could change the Constitution with enough consensus. And when the people desired a Bill of Rights, our first 10 amendments were added to our governing charter.

Visitors are also encouraged to engage in a dialogue by answering the question: What Does Freedom Mean to You? A message board in the Museum Rotunda is available to post your own personal answer.

The Bill of Rights and You is organized by the National Archives and Records Administration, and traveled by the National Archives Traveling Exhibits Service (NATES). This exhibition was developed in collaboration with the National Archives National Outreach Initiative to commemorate the 225th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights. The exhibition is presented in part by AT&T, Seedlings Foundation, and the National Archives Foundation.

This exhibit is brought to you in collaboration with the Vermont Humanities Council and the Federation of State Humanities Councils. A statewide nonprofit organization founded in 1974, the Vermont Humanities Council strives to make Vermont a state in which every individual reads, participates in public affairs, and continues to learn throughout life.

Norwich Universitys Sullivan Museum and History Center is the only museum in Vermont to be named a Smithsonian Affiliate. Currently, there are two exhibitions focusing on the year leading up the 100th Anniversary of World War One and the 75th Anniversary of World War Two. These exhibits are on display through May 2017 and include various items from the university collection as well as borrowed materials. Some of the artifacts on exhibit include: trench art, World War One and Two posters, patriotic jewelry, artwork, uniforms, medals, objects from the field, weapons and other items from our collection.

The museum is open to the public from 8 until 4 Monday through Friday, but is closed on holidays. Admission is free. For more information about the programs or exhibit, please call 802-485-2183 or visit http://academics.norwich.edu/museum.

View post:
Norwich University Hosts Program on First Amendment, National ... - vtdigger.org