Category Archives: First Amendment

March 31, 2015 7:17 PM

Lisa Fielding is a news anchor and reporter for Newsradio 780....

(CBS) The Amalgamated Transit Union claims the CTA has banned workers from sharing literature and talking about anything related to the 2015 Mayoral Race. As a result, theyve filed a lawsuit claiming a violation of First Amendment rights of transit workers.

As is well known, the locals have endorsed a candidate, Commissioner Garcia, and they want to distribute to their materials to their own members in their break rooms while off duty and the CTA is telling them they cant do that even though these break rooms have been open for a great deal of speech of all types in the past, said attorney Sean Morales Doyle.

Tuesday, ATU filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that CTA is violating the First Amendment Rights of transit workers.

Rahm has essentially installed a free speech red light camera for every public workplace in the city and we are not going to stand for it, said Carlos Azevedo, ATU Local 241.

The union claims CTA posted memos in bus garages and rail terminals barring employees from this kind of communication and warned of fines.

It is our right to have freedom of speech on who we want to support in our training rooms where we are not working and were not going to stand for it. Weve seen this before 30 years ago when Harold Washington was running and were not going to stand for it and thats why were here today, said Ken Franklin, President, ATU Local 308.

The union that represents 10,000 employees has endorsed challenger Chuy Garcia in the race for mayor.

The CTA says there are two state laws that strictly prohibit political activity on government property and on government time. The Mayoral runoff is next Tuesday, April 7.

Go here to see the original:
Transit Workers Union Files Suit Against CTA Over Distributing Campaign Material

CADDO PARISH, LA (KSLA) - One Caddo Parish school principal is in hot water after a complaint was filed to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) regarding a letter that was sent to parents.

The complaint alleges principal Albert Hardison violated the First Amendment.

Hardison reportedly included a reference to Philippians 4:13 in the March newsletter that went to parents and staff.

The newsletter read:

Dear Parents:

As our students prepare to take the state mandated tests, LEAP, iLEAP and PARCC, please pray that our God will give them the strength and mental fortitude, the patience, the wisdom, and the energy to do their best. Please help our children understand the meaning of Phillippians 4:13...I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me.

KSLA News 12 was told the person who filed the complaint doesn't have a child at Walnut Hill but is reportedly afraid that if it's happening at one school, it could spread throughout the parish.

On Monday the ACLU of Louisiana's executive director, Marjorie Esman, sent an open letter to Caddo Schools Superintendent Dr. Lamar Goree saying walnut Hill "has engaged in a pattern of religious proselytization by sending messages to parents invoking prayer, and through a lengthy 'Principal's Message' on the school's website."

The letter stated that Hardison's messages "must stop immediately."

"No school employee may tell a student what religion to practice or even to practice religion at all, nor may a school official tell students or their families to teach any religious texts," Esman wrote.

Original post:
Caddo Parish principal accused of violating First Amendment

Does the First Amendment include a right to gather information using flying drones? The federal trial court decision in Rivera v. Foley (D. Conn. Mar. 23) is to my knowledge the first court decision to consider the matter, and its largely skeptical of the First Amendment claim though of course it wont be the last word on the subject, both because it is just a trial court opinion, and because it mostly holds that any right to use drones wasnt clearly established at the time of the events.

Here are plaintiff Pedro Riveras factual allegations (keep in mind that they are just the allegations):

[Rivera] is employed as a photographer and editor at a local television station. [O]n February 1, 2014, he heard on a police scanner that there was a serious motor vehicle accident in the City of Hartford. [Rivera] responded to the accident site and began operating his personally owned drone, which [he] describes as a remote-controlled model aircraft outfitted for recording aerial digital images, to record visual images of the accident scene. [Rivera] was standing outside of the area denoted as the crime scene by officers responding to the accident in a public place, operating his device in public space, observing events that were in plain view. [F]rom his position, [Rivera] maneuvered his drone into the demarcated crime scene area by causing it to hover over the accident scene at an altitude of 150 feet.

Officer [Edward] Yergeau and other uniformed members of the Hartford Police Department at the scene of the accident surrounded [him], demanded his identification card, and asked him questions about what he was doing. [Rivera] informed Officer Yergeau and the other police officers that he was a photographer and editor at a local television station, but that he was not acting as an employee of the television station at the time. [Rivera] also acknowledged to Officer Yergeau and the other police officers that he does, from time to time, forward the video feed from his drone to the television station for which he works.

Officer Yergeau and the other police officers demanded that he cease operating the drone over the accident site and leave the area. [I]mmediately after he was ordered to leave the accident site, Officer [Brian] Foley contacted [Rivera]s employer and complained to [Rivera]s supervisor that [Rivera] had interfered with the Departments investigation at the accident site and compromised the crime scenes integrity. Officer Foley either requested that discipline be imposed upon the [Rivera] by his employer, or suggested that the employer could maintain its goodwill with the employer [sic] by disciplining the [Rivera]. [A]s a direct and proximate result of Officer Foleys contact with [Rivera]s employer, [Rivera] was suspended from work for a period of at least one week.

Because Rivera was suing for damages, and because he couldnt show any city policy of blocking drone overflights, he could prevail only if he could overcome the police officers qualified immunity he had to show that the officers conduct violate[d] a clearly established constitutional right, and any reasonable officer would have realized this. The court concluded that no right to gather information through videorecording had been recognized under Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent. (Several decisions from other circuits have recognized such a right, but two others have held that no such right was clearly established at the time of those decisions, and in any event the Second Circuit, in which this particular case arose, hadnt spoken.)

But the court went further, concluding that, even if a right to videorecord was recognized, it did not clearly extended to hovering above even 150 feet above the site of a major motor vehicle accident and the responding officers within it, effectively trespassing onto an active crime scene (paragraph break added):

[I]n cases where the right to record police activity has been recognized by our sister circuits, it appears that the protected conduct has typically involved using a handheld device to photograph or videotape at a certain distance from, and without interfering with, the police activity at issue. See, e.g., Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 84 (1st Cir. 2011) ([T]he complaint indicates that Glik filmed the officers from a comfortable remove and neither spoke to nor molested them in any way. Such peaceful recording of an arrest in a public space that does not interfere with the police officers performance of their duties is not reasonably subject to limitation.); Am. Civ. Liberties Union of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 607 (7th Cir. 2012) (While an officer surely cannot issue a move on order to a person because he is recording, he police may order bystanders to disperse for reasons related to public safety and order and other legitimate law-enforcement needs. Nothing we have said here immunizes behavior that obstructs or interferes with effective law enforcement or the protection of public safety.).

By contrast, here [Rivera] directed a flying object into a police-restricted area, where it proceeded to hover over the site of a major motor vehicle accident and the responding officers within it, effectively trespassing onto an active crime scene. See, e.g., U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 266 (1946) (holding that invasions to airspace situated within the immediate reaches of land including airspace so close to the land that invasions of it affect the use and enjoyment of the surface of the land are in the same category as invasions to the land itself). Even if recording police activity were a clearly established right in the Second Circuit, [Rivera]s conduct is beyond the scope of that right as it has been articulated by other circuits.

This is probably the most First-Amendment-skeptical part of the courts analysis, and Im not sure its right. Practically, its not clear to me why videorecording a scene from 150 feet above is any more of an intrusion into a police investigation than videorecording it from 150 feet away horizontally or diagonally (if the drone had been off to the side but looking down at angle), at least unless a police helicopter was nearby or was likely to be nearby.

The rest is here:
Volokh Conspiracy: No drone surveillance of crime scene (even from 150 feet above), police say

Burt Neuborne on His New Book #39;Madison #39;s Music: On Reading the First Amendment #39; - Excerpt

By: Uprising with Sonali

Here is the original post:
Burt Neuborne on His New Book 'Madison's Music: On Reading the First Amendment' - Excerpt - Video

Freedom of the Press in the U.S.
Do reporters have rights on what they report? How has social media impacted our first amendment right? Logan Crawford Mustafa Tabanli Youhuru Williams Paul Levinson Joe Roselius.

By: TheFreshOutlook

Originally posted here:
Freedom of the Press in the U.S. - Video

Friday, 27 March 2015 00:19

ISLAMABAD: The National Assembly on Thursday passed 'The Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance (First Amendment) Bill 2013 aiming to remove the age limit fund beneficiaries from 70 years.

The Bill was moved by State Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sheikh Aftab Ahmed. According to statement of objects and reasons a monthly Benevolent Grant is provided to the family members of an employees, who dies upto the age of 70 years whereas the grants under other schemes including marriage, burial charges and educational stipend are admissible without restriction of any age limit. The purpose of the Bill is to remove the age limit of 70 years.

The Bill offers amendment of section 13 Act II of 1969,in section 13 in sub section (3) (a) after the word " retirement" , the words " before attaining the age of seventy years" shall be omitted and (b) in the first proviso, after the word "years", the words and comma " or upto the date the deceased employees would have attained the age of seventy year, which ever is earlier" shall be omitted.

Visit link:
NA passes Federal Employees Benevolent Fund, Group Insurance Bill

Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment

By: pppoooiipoi

Continued here:
Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment - Video

Indiana law protects Christians from gays+Co Pilot was on drugs
Indiana Governor and likely Presidential contender Mike Pence said Gay Rights are not harmed by the Indiana legislation protecting business owners from attacks on their first amendment rights....

By: Breaking News

Read the rest here:
Indiana law protects Christians from gays+Co Pilot was on drugs - Video

How the First Amendment affects your specialty license plate
Does the state of Texas have the right to issue specialty license plates featuring a Confederate flag? Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal fills in Gwen Ifill on the case being argued...

By: PBS NewsHour

Visit link:
How the First Amendment affects your specialty license plate - Video

The HHS Mandate Violates The First Amendment
This video was a long time coming. Unfortunately the HHS mandate is still a problem. To all politicians, no more word games! The freedom of worship is NOT the same thing as the freedom...

By: Poor Sinner

See original here:
The HHS Mandate Violates The First Amendment - Video