Category Archives: First Amendment

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

One of several service providers to sue the government over its gag orders, Microsoft received some good news from a federal judge in its lawsuit against the DOJ. Microsoft is challenging gag orders attached to demands for data and communications, which the DOJ orders is statutorily-supported by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) and, if not, by supposed national security concerns.

As Microsoft pointed out in its lawsuit, the government rarely justifies its secrecy demands and frequently issues gag orders with no endpoint. Microsoft received nearly 2,800 of these gag-ordered requests over an 18-month period, with over two-thirds of them demanding silence indefinitely.

The good news is a federal judge has (partially) waved away the DOJ's motion to dismiss and will allow Microsoft to proceed with its lawsuit, as Politico's Josh Gerstein reports.

U.S, District Court Judge James Robart issued a 47-page opinion [PDF] Thursday allowing Microsoft to proceed with a lawsuit claiming a First Amendment violation when the government restricts internet providers from notifying subscribers about requests for their data.

"The orders at issue here are more analogous to permanent injunctions preventing speech from taking place before it occurs," Robart wrote. "The court concludes that Microsoft has alleged sufficient facts that when taken as true state a claim that certain provisions of Section 2705(b) fail strict scrutiny review and violate the First Amendment."

Section 2705(b) refers to the Stored Communications Act, which allows the government demand notice be withheld under certain circumstances, unless otherwise forbidden to by another section of the same law (Section 2703). Microsoft is looking to have both sections declared unconstitutional, especially given the severe upheaval the communications landscape has undergone in the thirty years since the law was passed.

Microsoft contends that Section 2705(b) is unconstitutional facially and as applied because it violates the First Amendment right of a business to talk to [the businesss] customers and to discuss how the government conducts its investigations. Specifically, Microsoft contends that Section 2705(b) is overbroad, imposes impermissible prior restraints on speech, imposes impermissible content-based restrictions on speech, and improperly inhibits the publics right to access search warrants. Microsoft also alleges that Sections 2705(b) and 2703 are unconstitutional facially and as applied because they violate the Fourth Amendment right of people and businesses . . . to know if the government searches or seizes their property.

Microsoft contends that the statutes are facially invalid because they allow the government to (1) forgo notifying individuals of searches and seizures, and (2) obtain secrecy orders that prohibit providers from telling customers when the government has accessed their private information without constitutionally sufficient proof and without sufficient tailoring.

The DOJ argued Microsoft didn't have standing to bring this complaint, as its Fourth Amendment rights aren't implicated. Only its customers' are. But the court points out that, if nothing else, the company does have standing to pursue its claims of First Amendment violations.

The court finds that Microsoft has sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact and a likelihood of future injury. Microsoft alleges an invasion of its legally protected interest in speaking about government investigations due to indefinite nondisclosure orders issued pursuant to Section 2705(b)... The court concludes that Section 2705(b) orders that indefinitely prevent Microsoft from speaking about government investigations implicate Microsofts First Amendment rights.

The court goes on to point out that frequent use of indefinite gag orders certainly appears to be unconstitutional, given that they act as a "forever" application of prior restraint.

The court also concludes that Microsoft's assertions of further civil injuries aren't speculative, as the DOJ claimed. Judge Robart points to the government's own actions as evidence of continued harm to Microsoft's civil liberties.

Microsoft bolsters its prediction by alleging that over a 20-month period preceding this lawsuit, the Government sought and obtained 3,250 ordersat least 4504 of which accompanied search warrantsthat contained indefinite nondisclosure provisions. In addition, Microsoft alleges that in this District alone, it has received at least 63 such orders since September 2014. Because these orders have been frequent and issued recently, the Government will likely continue to seek and obtain them. Accordingly, Microsofts fears of similar injuries in the future are not merely speculative.

Unfortunately, the court won't grant Microsoft the standing to represent its users for Fourth Amendment purposes. Judge Robart points to a whole bunch of precedential decisions declaring otherwise, but at least takes a bit of time to discuss how denying Microsoft this opportunity likely means denying several of its users any sort of redress.

The court acknowledges the difficult situation this doctrine creates for customers subject to government searches and seizures under Sections 2703 and 2705(b). As Microsoft alleges, the indefinite nondisclosure orders allowed under Section 2705(b) mean that some customers may never know that the government has obtained information in which those customers have a reasonable expectation of privacy... For this reason, some of Microsofts customers will be practically unable to vindicate their own Fourth Amendment rights.

Expect the government to make heavy use of its "national security" mantra as it defends itself in this case. Those magic words have allowed all sorts of civil liberties violations in the past and still tend to move courts to the government's side when deployed in DOJ motions. If the court does side with Microsoft when this is all said and done, it's likely the remedy won't be a restriction on gag orders, but more likely something analogous to the rules that now govern National Security Letters -- periodic review of gag orders by the government and better avenues for raising challenges for companies affected. Then again, the court could simply punt it back to legislators and push them to fix the 30-year-old law whose dubious constitutionality is the source of numerous lawsuits against the federal government.

See the rest here:
Court Says Microsoft Can Sue Government Over First Amendment-Violating Gag Orders - Techdirt

Siding with Google, a federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by search engine optimization company e-ventures Worldwide, which claimed its sites were wrongly removed from search results.

U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson in the Middle District of Florida said in a ruling issued this week that Google has a free speech right to decide which search results to display.

"Googles actions in formulating rankings for its search engine and in determining whether certain websites are contrary to Googles guidelines and thereby subject to removal are the same as decisions by a newspaper editor regarding which content to publish, which article belongs on the front page, and which article is unworthy of publication," U.S. District Court Judge Paul Magnuson in the Middle District of Florida said in a ruling issued this week. "The First Amendment protects these decisions, whether they are fair or unfair, or motivated by profit or altruism."

The decision grew out of a lawsuit filed by e-ventures in late 2014. The company alleged in its original complaint that Google removed 231 sites associated with e-ventures' Webmaster tools. Google allegedly notified e-ventures that the sites would be de-listed because they were "pure spam."

"Identifying what Google believes is 'pure spam," and remedying the problem to remove the "pure spam" designation, without any specificity from Google, is a potentially insurmountable task," e-ventures wrote in the complaint, which accused Google of engaging in unfair and deceptive practices and interfering with business relations and defamation. e-ventures later dropped the defamation claim and added an allegation that Google violated a law regarding unfair competition.

Magnuson noted in his ruling that e-ventures' consultant told the company its sites were spam.

"In its attempts to secure re-listing of its sites on Google, e-ventures admitted that its sites were littered with doorway domains and scraped content -- e-ventures told Google that its single topseos.com site contained 18,000 scraped articles, 46,000 scraped press releases, and more than 28,000 scraped job listings,"Magnuson added.

He said that Google restored 50 e-ventures sites in November 2014, and that e-Ventures "abandoned" 100 others by consolidating them into a single domain.

Magnuson's ruling comes nine months after he rejected Google's request to dismiss the case at a preliminary stage.

Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman, who called attention to Magnuson's decision, suggests e-ventures' lawsuit should have been thrown out earlier.

"Of course Google can de-index sites it thinks are spam," Goldman writes on his blog. "Its hard to believe were still litigating that issue in 2017."

He notes that Google prevailed in prior lawsuits accusing it of wrongly demoting companies in the search results. In 2003, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit about that issue brought by SearchKing; in 2006, a different judge threw out a similar lawsuit by KinderStart.

See the article here:
Google Has First Amendment Right To Remove Sites From Search ... - MediaPost Communications

The Channels Opinion Pages | STAFF COLUMN

Madeline Nathaus, Channels Staff February 10, 2017 115 views Filed under Columns, National, Opinion, Politics, Protest

The First Amendment was included in the Constitution by the founding fathers to guarantee citizens of the United States freedom of the press, religion, assembly and petition. It is this amendment that separates America from more than 40 percent of the worlds population.

Along with this right to freedom of speech comes the right to peacefully protest, march, and to publicly state ones beliefs in hopes of bringing attention to an issue or cause.

Protests and marches have been a vital part of forming modern day America and upholding democracy. Without citizens rising up against the government African Americans would not have civil rights, women would not be able to vote, and gay couples would not be able to get married.

Though most protests and marches remain relatively peaceful, there are times when they take a violent turn and end up disproving the point they are trying to make. For example, in the days following Trumps election, protests broke out among major cities and college campuses across the country. Unfortunately, protests in Los Angeles, Denver and especially Portland became violent in some form.

It is because of the First Amendment and the rights it provides that the Ku Klux Klan can legally march through the streets spreading a message of hate towards non-white citizens. It is why the Westboro Baptist Church can stand on corners chanting God hates fags all in the name of freedom of speech.

However, contrary to these organizations messages of discrimination and unacceptance, the Black Lives Matter movement spreads a message of lawful fairness towards African Americans.

The Womens March, which took place a couple weeks ago, brought attention to the constant sexism that women still face in the 21st century.

There is a reason why Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. advocated for peaceful protests. Imagine a mother yelling at her daughter for neglecting to wash the dishes, the daughter is less inclined to listen to her mothers reasoning if she is being aggressive.

Violent protesters ruin the movement for peaceful and lawful protesters. Peaceful and disruptive protests are the most effective forms of defiance. Vandalism, destruction of property, physically attacking other civilians, setting fires and other violent acts are illegal and indecent.

As long as protesters dont break any laws, police officers are more than happy to defend the rights of citizens. They are not the bad guys. After all, it is their job to prevent unlawful activities.

I respect everyones constitutional rights, as long as [the protests] are peaceful. Thats all that we can ask for, said Paul Espinosa, an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department.

Love sends a stronger message than hate. People will be more open to listening to a message that contradicts their own ideology if their personal beliefs are tolerated and their rights and properties are respected.

Protests and marches are the most effective form of displaying civilians disagreement with certain government choices, but they must be used as a tool, not a weapon. Do not abuse your rights.

Read more here:
The Channels : Keep protests peaceful; don't weaponize First ... - The Channels

Wall Street Journal

Facts, Falsehoods and the First Amendment Wall Street Journal The First Amendment sky is not falling as a result of the recent decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals permitting climatologist Michael Mann's case to proceed against the National Review Online, despite the claims of NRO's attorneys ...

Link:
Facts, Falsehoods and the First Amendment - Wall Street Journal

COLUMBIA In honor of the 225th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the Columbia Public Library will host a panel discussion on Monday examining how the First Amendment applies to modern-day America.

The event, "Examining Free Speech in the Digital Era," will be held from 7 to 8:30 p.m. on Monday in the Friends Room of the library. The library partnered with the League of Women Voters of Columbia-Boone County and the Kinder Institute on Constitutional Democracy to assemble a panel of scholars to talk at the event.

Panelists include Adam Seagrave, the Kinder Institute associate professor of constitutional democracy and associateprofessor of political science at MU; Nicholas Drummond, the Kinder postdoctoral fellow in political science and Jim Robertson, the managing editor of the Columbia Daily Tribune.

Each of the panelists will speak briefly about a topic, and the audience will have an opportunity to ask questions, said Patricia Miller, adult services manager for the library.

"We try to use this as an opportunity to educate ourselves and educate everyone a little bit more about the Bill of Rights and what it says," Miller said. "This will be an opportunity to hear a little bit from the experts."

Seagrave will speak about how the meaning of "freedom of speech" has changed in a technologically-advanced nation, especially with social media usage. He will discuss how the principles outlined in the First Amendment apply today.

"In my opinion, quite a lot is the same, including much of what is most important, Seagrave said.

Drummond will explore how people decide what is truthful, according to a library flier about the event. People today are afraid to discuss topics they consider "too dangerous." Drummond will compare that to political philosopher John Stuart Mill's concept of openly sharing viewpoints to uncover the truth.

Robertson's will talk about journalism within the First Amendment, particularly the day-to-day challenges journalists face and how they can help to separate truth from disinformation.

The panel discussion will complement the librarys 225th anniversary display on the clay brick wall of the librarys first floor. The Columbia Public Library was one of 15 libraries selected by the Missouri Humanities Council and the National Archives to host this exhibit, which will continue until Feb. 28.

In addition to the exhibit, the library has had a childrens book display with materials pertaining to the Bill of Rights, and will be putting up a second display on the librarys second floor, Miller said.

Excerpt from:
Columbia Public Library will host First Amendment event - Columbia Missourian

Unofficial co-sponsors of the bill? Milo Yiannopoulos and Scottie Nell Hughes

Rep. Martin Daniel, left, and Sen. Joey Hensley introduce the "Tennessee Student Free Expression Act," for when the First Amendment just isn't enough.

Sure, the First Amendment is, you know, a constitutional protection and all, but if you're a conservative minority in a sea of big, bad liberals on college campus, sometimes you just need a safe space, you special snowflake you. It can be very hard these days to speak your mind in a country with a Republican president and a Republican majority in Congress and the Senate and a Republican supermajority in both chambers of the Tennessee Legislature and a Republican governor and two Republican senators and seven out of nine Congressional districts represented by Republicans, not counting all the many, many, many, many Republicans in office at the local level across the state of Tennessee. Nope, it is definitely the poor College Republicans and other conservatives on campus who definitely need greater free speech protection than what the First Amendment offers.

At least, that's what state Rep. Martin Daniel (R-Knoxville) and Sen. Joey Hensley (R-Hohenwald) are saying is their justification for filing the "Tennessee Student Free Expression Act," a revamped version of a similar bill Daniel filed last year. However, this year they are nicknaming the bill the "Milo Act," after Breitbart writer/editor and noted white supremacist Milo Yiannopoulos, whose recent appearance at the University of California at Berkeley was cancelled after protests turned violent.

Daniel and Hensley who have both been accused of assault in the past, Daniel during a primary debate last summer and Hensley in 2015 after his ex-wife alleged he hit her with his truck, twice are just horrified, horrified, that students in California would try to prevent Yiannopoulos from speaking and are using those protests as justification for their bill. (Never mind that Yiannopoulos spoke at Vanderbilt University without incident last fall.) At the press conference announcing the legislation, they showed clips from Berkeley, and then they showed a video from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville last fall in which a white male student dressed up as Trump had his wig knocked off by an African-American female student walking past him. The video characterized this as an "assault"; however, the woman keeps walking away with no further incident rude, yes, but nothing even close to assault.

The presser proceeded with Daniel and Hensley talking about the bill, followed by Trump surrogate andFox talking head Scottie Nell Hughes who has stated in the past that "riots aren't necessarily a bad thing," at least, if they are in support of Trump. A member of the UTK College Republicans also spoke, as did the student who had portrayed Trump in the aforementioned video. Someone else read a statement from Yiannopoulos, who said he wished he could be here but was, alas, stuck in Florida. Afterwards, legislative staff on both sides of the aisle seemed flummoxed by the lengthy production. ("What the hell was that?" one staffer texted this reporter.)

The bill itself is not nearly as noxious as last year's version, which stated, in part:

The governing boards of the institutions shall prohibit an institution from:

(1) Establishing safe zones;

(2) Requiring or encouraging the issuance of trigger warnings;

(3) Establishing a system for students or other persons to report incidents of mere bias, where no threats or harassment occurred;

(4) Disciplining students for microaggressions

Several UTK professors contacted by the Scene expressed relief that the newer bill is more vaguely worded, but they still have many concerns.

"The opening of the 'free speech' bill sounds like an insult: as if those of us who work at the university are not already advocates of free speech, as if we haven't spent our entire lives embracing and promoting free speech," says UT-Knoxville English professor and poet Marilyn Kallet. "No thinking person would oppose free speech. But isn't that what we are already doing?"

Another UTK English professor, Lisi Schoenbach, says the legislation raises more questions than it answers.

"Why such a bill would be necessary? And why the legislature should be involved in the governance of the university?" asks Schoenbach. "It appears to me that the bill repeats a lot of very standard language that can be found in any number of places regarding the importance of free expression on campus, except with extra emphasis on how important it is to have disagreeable and unpleasant speech on campus. Wouldnt this be an argument in favor of Sex Week, and lots of other campus speech that the legislature finds disagreeable?"

When asked about Sex Week and other such things on campus to which conservatives in the Legislature have taken exception, Hensley said the issue with that was not the free speech but the university spending money on it. When asked if bringing a speaker like Yiannopoulos would not also cost money, he changed the subject.

Pippa Holloway, a history professor at MTSU and president of the MTSU chapter of the American Association of University Professors, says the bill is completely unnecessary.

"The legislation's claim that 'state institutions of higher education have abdicated their responsibility to uphold free speech principles' has no basis in fact. I would challenge the representative to visit our campuses; meet with our students, faculty, and administrators; and learn more about how Tennessee colleges and universities operate before wading into territory he obviously knows little about," Holloway comments.

"The legislation would require colleges and universities to modify the content of their freshman orientation and send emails every semester during the first week of classes reminding students of their First Amendment protections. What about the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights? Should we send out emails every semester reminding them of their Second Amendment rights also? And what about the Third Amendment? If students are asked to quarter a solider in their house during a time of peace, shouldn't we remind them every semester that they can say no? If those questions sound ridiculous, they should, because such micromanaging of the daily operations of college campuses through state law IS ridiculous," Holloway adds.

The thing is, state campuses already do have free speech policies in place. When asked if they had read UT's policy, for one, the legislators admitted they had not. It's also unclear that they have any idea as to who Yiannopoulos actually is. When introducing the bill, Hensley commented, "We dont want to allow hate speech or offensive speech, but certainly when it comes to political issues, every student should have their right to expression." When asked if that wasn't exactly what Yiannopoulos often incites hate speech Daniel replied, "Were just asking that university administrators abide by and respect the first amendment, thats all."

But Yiannopoulos is a proponent of hate speech, in addition to misogyny, racism, homophobia (despite being openly gay himself) and general meanness. He thinks women shouldn't learn science or math. It is nearly impossible to be so horrible that Twitter will actually permanently ban you, yet Yiannopoulos managed it. It seems likely that the writer has only glommed onto the legislation as part of his never-ending quest for self-promotion, especially given that he has a book coming out in March why legislators who had a problem with LGBT diversity funding at UT want to help promote a man whose book was originally going to be called The Dangerous Faggot Manifesto is, well, odd.

UT itself has only issued a vague statement on the bill, with spokesperson Gina Stafford saying in an email, The proposed legislation would apply to all public universities in Tennessee, including the University of Tennessee. The constitutional right of free speech is a fundamental principle that underlies the mission of the University of Tennessee, and the University has a long and established record of vigorously defending and upholding all students right to free speech.

The ACLU of Tennessee also says it will be keeping an eye on the bill.

"This legislations goal of promoting free speech on state campuses is certainly laudable, and the bill contains elements that indeed foster free expression. However, in areas of campus that are not considered public fora, a public university has multiple obligations not only to free speech but also to preventing creation of a hostile environment. The devil is in the details and we are still in the process of closely analyzing this measure," says executive director Hedy Weinberg.

Meanwhile, says Schoenbach, if Daniel and Hensley really want to know about free speech on campus, they should take a class.

"If only there were a way for them to learn about the difference between facts and opinions, critical thinking skills, evidence based argumentation. There should be some state-provided access to this sort of information!" says Schoenbach.

See the original post:
First Amendment Needs Protecting from Liberals, Say Republican Legislators - Nashville Scene

These days, it seems like the First Amendment is under assault from all sides. President Trump has waged war with news outlets, called to strip citizenship from anyone who sets the American flag on fire, and vowed to broaden libel laws to thwart adversaries.

On college campuses, there has been a sharp rise in the use of trigger warnings, safe spaces and disinvitation protests which are, in turn, portrayed as attempts to suppress opposing viewpoints. Just last week,violence broke out at the University of California, Berkeley, in response to a scheduled speech by right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos.

But a different narrative is playing out in American high schools, where student support for First Amendment protections is the strongest its been in a decade, according to asurvey released this week by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes First Amendment protections and press freedom.

(More from The 74: School Bullying, Civic Engagement and the First Amendment in Donald Trumps America)

Of 11,998 students from 31 public and private high schools nationwide who participated in the survey, 91 percent agreed that people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions, an increase from 83 percent in 2004.

High school teachers are even more likely to support the First Amendment than their students. Of 726 high school teachers surveyed, 95 percent supported the right to express unpopular opinions, a slight decrease from 97 percent in 2004.

But as with any survey of this nature, language matters. Changing the word unpopular to offensive decreased support for free speech from 91 percent to 45 percent among students and from 95 percent to 53 percent among teachers.

Its important to understand the attitudes and perceptions of future generations, because theyre the ones who will ultimately be shaping norms, and norms often have sway on policy and the way the First Amendment is protected, said Jon Sotsky, the Knight Foundations director for strategy and assessment. Its very important to understand how these attitudes are shifting.

Despite the rise in student acceptance for free speech protections, Richard Garnett, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who focuses on First Amendment issues, found the surveys results to be more glass half empty. He said he was troubled by a disconnect between young adults and an American tradition in which the remedy for offensive speech is more speech rather than censorship.

The irony, Id imagine all these high school kids in the survey, if you asked them, Are you for or against diversity, theyd be like, Oh, we love diversity, Garnett said. Well, if youre for diversity, you cant be for censoring stuff that offends you. Thats a two plus two equals five kind of thing.

Beyond perceptions of free speech protections, the Knight Foundation report offered a glimpse into student media consumption. While its no surprise that young adults receive most of their news on mobile devices through social media platforms like Twitter, the report found that students who actively engage with news on social media have stronger support for First Amendment freedoms. And while Americans trust in news is at all-time lows, students were far more likely than their teachers to consider information posted by everyday individuals more trustworthy than content from professional journalists.

High school students are also far less likely than adults to be concerned about privacy. While Sotsky noted that most kids dont have financial privacy concerns, such as credit card numbers, he observed that students, who have grown up in the digital age, are more likely to share personal information.

The surveys were conducted from March to June 2016. They have a margin of error of plus or minus 1 percentage point for students and plus or minus 4 points for teachers.

Excerpt from:
First Amendment Is Strong at Nation's High Schools: 91% of Students, 95% of Teachers Back Free Speech - The 74

February is First Amendment month, and yes, I know that its kind of silly all of the months that we have. Some of them are quite good, like Black History Month, Great American Pie Month, (Im guessing that explains why the VC 4-H has its annual pie auction in February) National Heart Month, and National Macadamia Nut Month.

Can we all agree that the First Amendment is a good idea? In fact, its not just a good idea, its the bedrock foundation of our free society. Right up there with the Declaration of Independence.

And having said that, lets get this silly idea out of the way. The First Amendment says that Congress Shall Make No Laws that abridge the freedom of speech and the press. It doesnt make exceptions for hate speech (whatever THAT is!) or speech that makes you uncomfortable or speech that challenges your dogmas. The First Amendment was specifically designed to provide protection for people you loathe, people you detest and fear. It was invented to protect those who offend you the most. People who advocate dogs and cats living together, people who want to hum happy tunes using nothing but sharp notes, and, worst of all, people who eat purple vegetables.

This appears to be something that our colleges, which used to be hotbeds of freedom of speech, have forgotten. Berkeley University, which was the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s, obviously needs an enema of some sort now since these days its more the home of the Constipated Speech Movement. And spare me your emails. I know that they were protesting someone who is a provocateur, who loves to poke fun at various sacred notions and enjoys outraging people. Doesnt matter. He has the right to speak. His right to speak should certainly be defended from goons in black leotards wearing black masks and wielding iron batons to silence those they disagree with.

The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote defenses of the right of people to burn the flag because it was protected by the First Amendment, even as he admitted that, if he were king, he would prefer to cut their heads off!

So, when you hear that people are not being allowed to speak somewhere because someone considers them to be the moral equivalent of Hitler, and that same someone beats up people, sets fires and destroys store fronts in the name of combating fascism, you may be forgiven for being skeptical. Fascism is as fascism does.

There was only one Hitler, and no one else even comes close. But some of us are trying.

Visit link:
The First Amendment: Not just a good idea - Valley Roadrunner

Cincinnati 12:07 a.m. ET Feb. 10, 2017

John C. Greiner, attorney for Graydon Head Legal Counsel. He's a commercial litigator with an emphasis on communications and media law. He serves on the firm's Appellate Practice Group. (Photo: Provided, Provided)

The social media platform Facebook recently lost a First Amendment challenge to the federal Telephone Communications Privacy Act. While the case is bad news in the short term for Facebook, the rejection of the constitutional challenge could have long-term consequences for the entire industry.

The case concerns birthday messages. Facebook employed computer software to send birthday announcement texts to users. In 2015, Facebook, through its short code SMS number 32665033, texted to Colin Brickman's cell phone number an unsolicited birthday announcement text stating Today is Jim Stewart's birthday. Reply to post a wish on his Timeline or reply with 1 to post Happy Birthday!. Although Brickman supplied Facebook his cell phone number, which is associated to his Facebook page, Brickman indicated in the notification settings of his Facebook account, prior to receiving the text message, that he did not want to receive any text messages from Facebook.

And Brickman apparently was serious about it. On Feb. 2, 2016, Brickman filed a class action suit against Facebook, alleging Facebook violates the TCPA by sending unauthorized text messages. Brickman asked the court to allow him to represent the class of (a)ll individuals who received one or more Birthday Announcement Texts from Defendant to a cell phone through the use of an automated telephone dialing system at any time without their consent.

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. A text message is a call within the meaning of the TCPA.

Brickman alleged that Facebook employs computer software to send birthday announcement texts without human intervention to users. According to his complaint, Facebook's computer system, without any human intervention, reviews user data on a daily basis to identify users who have birthdays on a particular day; identifies the users Facebook friends who will receive the texts for a particular user's birthday; identifies the cell phone numbers of the Facebook friends that will receive the message; automatically inserts the name of the user celebrating a birthday into a form text in the appropriate language for each of the user's Facebook friends, creates the text; compiles a list of cell phone numbers to which it will send Birthday Text Announcements, stores those cell phone numbers in a queue, and then causes the text messages to be sent from that queue.

Facebook argued the text message was triggered by human intervention, in that Brickman signed up for Facebook and linked his cell number to his profile. And in addition to these technical arguments, Facebook contended the TCPA violates the First Amendment. In its view, based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down an Arizona sign ordinance, a law triggered by the content of a message is subject to strict scrutiny a standard that is almost impossible for the government to satisfy.

The good news for Facebook was the court agreed that the TCPA is content-based certain messages, such as emergency messages, are exempt based on their content. Others are not, again based on the content. That meant the court applied the strict scrutiny analysis. The bad news for Facebook was that in this case, the court concluded that the TCPA satisfied the standard.

In order to survive strict scrutiny, the government must prove the restriction furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Here, the court concluded the government has a compelling interest in protecting residential privacy. The TCPA is designed to do just that.

And the court concluded the TCPA is narrowly tailored. In support of its argument, Facebook argued the TCPA was under-inclusive meaning it did not actually address all of the instances necessary to achieve its purpose. In the Supreme Courts sign ordinance case, for example, there were 33 exemptions to the ordinance. But the TCPA has only two exemptions. The court concluded it was not under inclusive.

Facebook also argued that in other respects, the TCPA was over inclusive. That is, it sweeps too much interaction under its provisions. The court rejected this argument as well. In its view, the TCPA is limited to a narrow subset of automated calls made without the recipients consent. It does not restrict individuals from receiving any call they want to receive. Any speech that the TCPA would cover is removed from that coverage once the consumer consents.

The immediate effect of the ruling is that Facebook will have to defend Brickmans suit on fairly technical grounds. The big constitutional defense is off the table, at least for now. And consumers will continue to enjoy protection from unwanted communications.

Jack Greiner is a lawyer with the Graydon Head law firm in Cincinnati and represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues.

Read or Share this story: http://cin.ci/2kai9cH

Here is the original post:
Facebook loses 1st Amendment challenge to federal law - Cincinnati.com