Category Archives: First Amendment

The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the First Amendment imposes limits on laws that make it a crime to issue threats on the internet, saying that prosecutors must prove that a Colorado man who had sent disturbing messages to a singer-songwriter had acted recklessly in causing emotional harm.

The state must show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence, Justice Elena Kagan wrote for five justices in the 7-to-2 decision.

Justice Kagan acknowledged that true threats, like libel, incitement, obscenity and fighting words, are not protected by the First Amendment. But she said the risk of chilling protected speech warranted imposing an added burden on prosecutors.

The speakers fear of mistaking whether a statement is a threat; his fear of the legal system getting that judgment wrong; his fear, in any event, of incurring legal costs all those may lead him to swallow words that are in fact not true threats, she wrote.

The case arose from the fixation of the defendant, Billy Counterman, with a singer-songwriter identified in court papers as C.W. He sent her many messages on Facebook, opening new accounts when she blocked him.

Youre not being good for human relations, one message said. Die. Dont need you.

Another asked, Was that you in the white Jeep?

Justice Kagan wrote that the messages put C.W. in fear and upended her daily existence, adding, She stopped walking alone, declined social engagements and canceled some of her performances, though doing so caused her financial strain.

Mr. Counterman was prosecuted under a Colorado law that made it a crime to send repeated communications that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and did cause such harm. He was convicted and sentenced to four and a half years in prison.

The Supreme Court vacated the conviction and returned the case to the lower courts, where prosecutors may decide whether to retry the defendant under the more demanding standard.

Lawyers for Mr. Counterman had argued that the law violated the First Amendment because it did not require proof that he intended to cause the distress.

The notion that one could commit a speech crime by accident is chilling, they wrote in a Supreme Court brief. Imprisoning a person for negligently misjudging how others would construe the speakers words would erode the breathing space that safeguards the free exchange of ideas.

Lawyers for the state responded that it was enough to look at the words in question, how they were conveyed and the response they elicited. The speakers subjective intent, they said, does not matter.

Justice Kagan analyzed the question by examining how the Supreme Court had treated other categories of unprotected speech, notably libel. Noting that public figures must show at least reckless disregard of the truth meaning subjective awareness of probable falsity to prevail in libel cases, she said something similar was required in true-threats prosecutions.

In the context of threats, she wrote, quoting an earlier opinion, recklessness means that a speaker is aware that others could regard his statements as threatening violence and delivers them anyway.

But she added that prosecutors were not required to prove that Mr. Counterman intended the harm.

As with any balance, she wrote, something is lost on both sides: The rule we adopt today is neither the most speech-protective nor the most sensitive to the dangers of true threats.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Justice Kagans majority opinion.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined for the most part by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, agreed with Justice Kagans bottom line but for different reasons. She said she would analyze the case as involving stalking rather than threats.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a brief dissent that repeated his call to reconsider New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 libel decision interpreting the First Amendment to make it hard for public officials to prevail in libel suits.

It is thus unfortunate, he wrote, that the majority chooses not only to prominently and uncritically invoke New York Times, but also to extend its flawed, policy-driven First Amendment analysis to true threats, a separate area of this courts jurisprudence.

In a second dissent, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justice Thomas, wrote that an objective standard was sufficient in true-threats prosecutions.

The bottom line is this, she wrote, quoting phrases from Justice Kagans opinion. Counterman communicated true threats, which, everyone agrees, lie outside the bounds of the First Amendments protection. He knew what the words meant. Those threats caused the victim to fear for her life, and they upended her daily existence. Nonetheless, the court concludes that Counterman can prevail on a First Amendment defense. Nothing in the Constitution compels that result.

Justice Barrett suggested that Justice Kagans position in the case, Counterman v. Colorado, No. 22-138, was unprincipled.

The reality, she wrote, is that recklessness is not grounded in law, but in a Goldilocks judgment: Recklessness is not too much, not too little, but instead just right.

Responding in a footnote, Justice Kagan did not appear offended. In law, as in life, she wrote, there are worse things than being just right.

See the original post here:
Supreme Court Puts First Amendment Limits on Laws Banning ... - The New York Times

The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:

The recent flurry of legislation intent on banishing abortion in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision reversing Roe v. Wade epitomizes the unceasing disdain the religious right has long held for the separation of Church and State as set forth in the First Amendment. This foundational principle affirms that competing ideologies are equal in status provided they remain non-intrusively within their own domains without violating the rights of others. But those devoted to the religious doctrine of the Divine origin of life feel justified in overruling this paradigm of democracy, convinced that their intolerant interpretation is divinely sanctioned.

In the crusade against abortion the indispensable assertion most often advanced in support of this assumed moral entitlement is the evidence-starved pronouncement that lifeor soul, in religious vernacularoriginates at conception. Although advocates of this arbitrary claim find it self-evident, they unhesitatingly appropriate for their purposes the mundane scientific fact of genomic uniqueness at conception as proof of personhood. This uniqueness criterion, as well call it, intended to designate definitively an actual, as opposed to potential individual, merely demonstrates that conception creates a singular genetic configuration out of all possible permutations of DNA. Nonetheless, this is taken as sufficient to establish conception as the point of origin for the soul.

Taking them at their word, we can immediately invoke the devastating challenge to their thesis presented by the potential for human cloning. Moral and ethical concerns aside, cloning technology relies on the full genetic complement of the genome of non-reproductive cells to provide the blueprint for new life, bypassing conception altogether. Regardless of whether this capability is ever exploited, its potential to conjure new humans complete with souls out of nowhere delivers a fatal blow to the conception claim.

With this problematic counterexample in full view, questions naturally abound. Where does the soul reside prior to cloning while the donor cell idles in its day-to-day existence? Since it seems that any proper DNA sequence, in principle, can be awakened to release a novel soul, what then are we to make of the uncountable abundance of random digital strings that happen to code for the genomes of purely theoretical humans? Should these be regarded as new life under the uniqueness criterion? Is there a pre-conception Limbo? And while were at it, what about identical twins? Do they somehow share a soul?

There is an outrageous absurdity bellowing forth from these speculations that belies the basis for belief in any special standing for embryos. Attempting to bestow sacred status upon them by arguing from their Divine origins is question begging at its worst. And yet, it is this arbitrarily exalted status founded entirely on religious dogma that presents the controlling impediment to womens reproductive freedom. A proper application of the First Amendment should categorically exclude from consideration such unsubstantiated claims of priority that must be regarded by their very nature as non-secular tenets lacking legitimacy and belonging exclusively to the domain of religious opinion. There is no conceivable constitutional justification that entitles this proselytization to hold sway in deciding matters of ultimate personal privacy.

The true value of human life does not lie in the biochemistry of genetics, or in any arbitrarily defined stage of the life cycle of a cell. Nor does it derive from wishful transcendental designations deeply rooted in cultural indoctrination, but emerges naturally out of the meaning with which life is imbued by us all as full participants pursuing our innate right to self-determination. Its embodiment is the collective expression of our intimate personal experience of the human condition that is so much more than the rudimentary origins of our existence. The reasoning mind readily appreciates that this is the true uniqueness that deserves prioritythe value worth preserving and defending against unjust burdens imposed by unenlightened ideologies. This is the very essence of the First Amendment.

Robert Gavlak is a lifelong Tucson resident.

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

Excerpt from:
Local Opinion: Choice is a First Amendment right. - Arizona Daily Star

The first part in this series provided analysis of the provisions in the Biden Administrations U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism that address anti-Semitism in the context of education. The second part analyzed the proposals plan to combat anti-Semitism in pop culture. This final part discusses the plans approach to fighting anti-Semitism online.

Bidens strategic plan proposes several problematic ideas with respect to combating anti-Semitism online. While there is no doubt bigotry is present online just as it is offline, government pressure on online platforms to censor is not the answer. Perhaps most shockingly, the plan calls on Congress to remove the immunity online platforms enjoy under federal law (Section 230) for content others post on their platforms. The plan states:

Congress should remove special immunity for online platforms. This should include removing immunity if an online platform utilizes an algorithm or other computational process to amplify or recommend content to a user that promotes violence, or is directly relevant to a claim involving interference with civil rights or neglect to prevent interference with civil rights.

This proposal goes far beyond addressing anti-Semitism and represents a full scale attack on Section 230 by fundamentally altering the governments ability to regulate all expression online. After all, it is Section 230s promise of immunity which this plan proposes removing that checks the governments ability to incentivize social media platforms and internet service providers to restrict user speech online.

The Biden Administration issued a strategy document for fighting anti-Semitism in education, sports, pop culture, and online.

Read More

This proposal is also unconstitutional. First, as we have argued in our Statement on Free Speech and Social Media, [a]ny government intrusion into platforms editorial discretion threatens the platforms own expressive rights under the First Amendment and potentially that of other speakers. But also, the proposal suggests that an online platform should lose its immunity if it merely utilizes an algorithm or other computational process to amplify or recommend content to a user that promotes violence, or is directly relevant to a claim involving interference with civil rights or neglect to prevent interference with civil rights.

The government may not selectively strip immunity from platforms for promoting or recommending posts with expressions of viewpoints it doesnt like.

The Supreme Court just held that social media platforms are not liable for violent, terrorist acts perpetrated by others on claims that platforms had aided or abetted the terrorism simply by setting up their algorithms to display content relevant to user inputs and user history.

Whats more even if a social media platform could be held liable for hosting or using an algorithm that promotes illegal content expression that promotes violence does not meet the Supreme Courts exacting test for what constitutes unprotected incitement as stated in the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio. And there is no credible argument that stripping a platform of immunity for recommending content to a user that is directly relevant to a claim involving interference with civil rights content that does not fall into any of the limited exceptions to the First Amendment is constitutionally permissible.

The plan proposes changing the law to allow for the removal of a platforms immunity for amplifying or promoting any content on the topic of civil rights. Platforms have a First Amendment right to use algorithms that promote any speech that is protected under the First Amendment.

Addressing anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry, whether it be ineducation,pop culture, or online, is an important goal, but when a plan relies on censorship, the ends cannot justify the means.

But the strategic plan doesnt stop there. It also asks online platforms to adopt zero-tolerance terms of service for hate speech, including antisemitism. This would apparently mean adopting policies to [p]ermanently ban repeat offenders, both personal accounts and extremist websites. And it calls on them to [e]ncourage and support trusted community moderators who receive dedicated, ongoing training in hate speech and bias, including antisemitism and its tropes.

This series is an analysis of provisions in the Biden Administrations U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism that address anti-Semitism in education, pop culture, and online.

Read More

Who are these trusted moderators who we should all rely on to judge whether speech is sufficiently hateful to warrant banishment? This is inherently unworkable given there is no agreed upon definition of hate speech. Plus, as there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment, the plan essentially amounts to the government urging private actors to censor speech in ways the government cannot directly.

Addressing anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry, whether it be in education, pop culture, or online, is an important goal, but when a plan relies on censorship, the ends cannot justify the means. Its disappointing that this plan, and the Department of Educations track record and latest actions, demonstrate an unacceptable willingness to censor.

FIRE will continue to monitor the administrations actions focused on combating anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry to ensure such measures, however laudable in their aim, do not encroach on fundamental First Amendment rights.

Read the original post:
Biden Administration's plan to combat anti-Semitism online would ... - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

(CN) After a federal judge ordered the court clerk in Columbus to stop blocking access to new complaints an age-old source of news this news service asked another Ohio clerk to stop blocking access.

But the Cleveland clerk kept doing exactly as she had been. As a result, journalists must wait to report on the new filings for a day or more, at which point they have become old news.

The federal injunction against Maryellen OShaughnessy in Columbus was clear. Ms. OShaughnessy is hereby ENJOINED from restricting public access to newly e-filed, non-confidential, civil complaints until after such complaints are processed. Ms. OShaughnessy is DIRECTED to make such complaints available upon receipt.

The author of the order, U.S. District Judge Sarah Morrison, had worked as a lawyer in the courts and she had seen the journalists checking the new filings at the end of the day as part of their beat coverage. She described them in a cubicle behind the counter going through a stack of new cases that had just crossed the counter.

When they were going down and looking at them in a stack, I mean, I remember those days, when they had them there, some sitting in the little cubicle, said the Donald Trump appointee during a status conference. They were there, and thats thats what they did.

That is also what they did in Cleveland, Cincinnati and Youngstown and in courts all around the United States.

But the switch from paper documents to electronic documents allowed the clerk in Cleveland, and many others, to hold the new court complaints in an electronic database until the clerk is ready to release them to the public. The Cleveland clerk, Nailah Byrd, still follows that practice even after the Columbus ruling.

On Tuesday, Courthouse News filed a First Amendment complaint filed against Byrd. It gives a panoramic view of the American tradition of access to court records and the attacks coming in the electronic era.

Since time beyond memory, state and federal courts across the country have provided access to new, non-confidential, civil complaints when the court received the new complaint, said the complaint. Ohios federal and state courts followed that tradition.

The complaint quoted an appellate judge who also remembered how access used to work. There was a time when and some in this room may remember it when you took a pleading to the courthouse and the clerk stamped it physically and it went into different bins and it was available immediately, said Judge Bobby Shepherd from the Eighth Circuit bench last year.

The tradition described by Shepherd was in place throughout Ohio during the era of paper documents filed in person across the clerks counter. In Clevelands state court, the Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas, reporters would work at an empty desk behind the counter to report on the news in those filings. They could also stay after the filing window closed to make sure they saw the last of the late-filed complaints, which often contained the most meaty of controversies.

Those two basic practices letting the reporters work behind the counter and letting them stay late after the counter closed were common in courts across America. But as electronic filing and then software redaction came on the scene, the tradition was broken in many state courts.

The events in Cleveland are like a diorama of the nationwide battle to defend First Amendment access for the press and the public. And the tactic used by the clerk continuing to block access contrary to federal rulings saying the right attaches on receipt is used by government officials in most cities and states where those battles are underway.

Judge Shepherd, for example, is on the federal court of appeals that covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. His panel of judges ruled last year that Courthouse News can proceed in its First Amendment action against the court administrator in Missouri.

The ruling did not change Missouris policy of, in effect, sealing new cases for days and sometimes weeks. It also did not change the same sealing policy enforced by clerks in Iowa, Minnesota and South Dakota, even though they are within the Eighth Circuit.

Another federal court of appeals, the Ninth Circuit, covering much of the West, ruled in 2020 that the right of public access attaches on receipt. As a result, all California courts that require e-filing now give the press and public access when new civil complaints are received in other words, traditional access. Those courts cover 87% of the population in the biggest state in the nation.

Despite that Ninth Circuit ruling, called Planet III, court directors in Oregon and Idaho, both within the Ninth Circuit, continue to deny access on receipt. They block access to the new cases for a day or more until routine clerical work is completed. The clerks and directors do not pay for their defense because it is handled by their states attorney general, who is paid by the public, and if they lose, the public pays any fees connected to the loss.

In other words, the public pays for the officials fight against public access.

Other fields of First Amendment battle are located in Vermont, where the state has appealed a loss to the Second Circuit; Maryland; Virginia, where Courthouse News appealed a loss to the Fourth Circuit; North Carolina; Texas; Missouri, where Courthouse News lost and won reversal; Iowa; New Mexico; Oregon; and Idaho.

On the most recent field of contest, the complaint filed Tuesday in Cleveland fires the big gun of the First Amendment. Its broad and powerful reach includes a constitutional right of access to public records filed in the courts of America at the time they cross into court hands.

In the transition from paper filing to electronic filing ('e-filing'), the federal courts and many state courts have kept the tradition of on-receipt access in place, said the complaint. Defendant has not. Defendant restricts access to new complaints until they have been completely processed. Defendants no-access-before-process policy results in access delays of one day or longer for a substantial portion of new complaints, turning them into old news.

The lawyers who filed the complaint are Jack Greiner and Darren Ford with the litigation firm of Faruki PLL in Cleveland. The matter was assigned to Senior U.S. Judge James Gwin who worked in private practice before he was appointed to the state court in Canton and then to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton.

The press and public have a constitutional right to access new complaints when the clerk receives them, said the Courthouse News complaint. Any restriction on access thereafter is an unconstitutional restriction of the presss and publics First Amendment right, unless Defendant shows the restriction satisfies constitutional scrutiny.

That scrutiny is based on the test laid out in a Supreme Court case, referred to as Press Enterprise II, that says a restriction on the First Amendment right of access must be essential to preserve higher values, and narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

The policy blocking access is not essential to preserve higher values and it is not narrowly tailored because there are less restrictive alternatives, the complaint says. Alternatives include allowing public access and making any clerical corrections afterwards. That is the policy, for example, in federal courts.

To illustrate the speed of access in federal court, Tuesdays complaint in the U.S. Court for the Northern District of Ohio could be read on the courts public access system within roughly a minute of Greiners submission. The view is free at the courthouse and requires registration and payment online. Clerical corrections, which are not uncommon, can be made afterwards.

On-receipt access is the practice followed in almost all federal courts and a growing number of state courts, in New York, Connecticut, Vermont, Georgia (Atlanta courts), Florida, Texas (Austin), Arizona, Utah, California and Hawaii.

In Ohio, however, the courts have put in place a particularly restrictive variation on the black-out policy. The Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland adopted a local rule that declares all new complaints confidential until clerical processing is complete. In many courts, the de facto policy of blacking out new filings is not so boldly declared.

Defendant is not permitted to make judicial decisions, rulings, or findings and is, therefore, not capable of making new complaints confidential, or sealing them, said the Courthouse News complaint, using a second piece of artillery in its arsenal of argument. By marking new complaints as confidential and restricting access thereto, Defendant is thus sealing a document from public viewing without prior court order.

Pointing to the ruling in Columbus against clerk OShaughnessy, the Courthouse News complaint highlighted the fact that OShaugnessy quickly, and without difficulty, complied with the injunction. Journalists now have traditional on receipt access to new electronic complaints filed in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in Columbus.

When a complaint is withheld in effect sealed the news it contains grows stale. The public is left unaware that a civil action has commenced and has invoked the power of the judicial branch of government. Courts that do not withhold public access for processing allow new civil actions to be read and reported when they are received by the court, when the new action is still newsworthy and capable of commanding public attention, the complaint concluded, as reporters and the public did in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in the paper past.

Sign up for the Top 8, a roundup of the day's top stories delivered directly to your inbox Monday through Friday.

More:
New battlefield in war over First Amendment access to courts across ... - Courthouse News Service

Get together with a group of government workers and see how many of them know they arent required to pay union dues as a condition of their employment. You might be surprised how many of them dont know this, even though this has been the law of the land since June 27, 2018.

Five years ago inJanus v. AFSCME, a Supreme Court majority stood up for workers freedoms. In a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the courtsaid,The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them.

Workers can easily opt out of union payments atOptOutToday.com, an online tool that assists workers who want to leave union dues behind.

Taxpayers are the onespaying public employees' wages, not union bosses or lawmakers. And public-sector workers should know they don't need to lower the wages they'repaid or belong to a union that has them financing politics with which they disagree to keep their jobs. Washington voters can also get rid of politicians ifthey feel they aren't treating workers fairly.

Being free from paying a union that advances political causes or sends political messages with which a worker disagrees has been a hit with many. According to the Freedom Foundation, the four largest government unions in the country (AFSCME, SEIU, National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers) have lost 733,745 members, which is a decline of about 10 percent. This is despite schemes like limiting opt-out windows to keep union members, despite continued growth in the public workforce and despite solid communication efforts from unions or governments about the rights of public employees.

For a closer look at how the unions membership numbers have gonedownhill, read the Freedom Foundations Janus v. AFSCME at five: Government union membership at record lows. Maxford Nelsen details numbers reported to the U.S. Department of Labor.

In some non-right-to-work states and among some unions, the percentage was much higher than 10 percent. For example, Nelsen writes thatpayroll data show the percentage of Washington state workers represented by AFSCME Council 28 paying duesdeclinedfrom effectively 100 percent in June of 2018 to only 61 percent as of April 2023.

Some workers love their unions and find great value in them. Its appropriate for them to give them money for their efforts. Others disagree with their unions politics or mindset around competition, innovation and costs to taxpayers.

On this fifth anniversary of the Janus Supreme Court ruling, I want public employees reminded they have a choice: They dont have to hand over a portion of their earnings to a union if they dont want to. And lawmakers and unions should make it simple for workers to exercise their rights, rather thanerect hurdles to keep them as dues payers.

See the rest here:
Help get word out that public employees have First Amendment rights - Washington Policy

Former Michigan gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon joins Fox Across America With guest host Rich Zeoli to discuss a bill that recently passed in Michigans state House of Representatives which could make it a felony to intimidate a person by intentionally using the wrong gender pronouns.

Think about how scary this is. It goes even deeper than that. If you use any language that someone feels threatened by, if you have a meme that has someones face made to look like something different, anything like that, this is a complete attack on free speech. But its really scary because you start to think, okay, wait a minute, If were talking about elections and political opponents, we already see Joe Biden going after his political opponent. Thats really a great way for Democrats to go after their political opponent in Michigan. Its very, very scary. And it is definitely a First Amendment attack.

To hear what else she had to say to Rich, listen to the podcast!

More:
Tudor Dixon Slams Michigan's Bill That Could Criminalize Using ... - FOX News Radio

Rob Hiaasen. Wendi Winters. Gerald Fischman. Rebecca Smith. John McNamara.

Its hard to wrap my head around it, but its been five years.

Five years since a man armed with a shotgun, harboring a grudge against the Capital Gazette shot his way into their newsroom in Annapolis. He killed five people that day: Rob Hiaasen. Wendi Winters. Gerald Fischman. Rebecca Smith. John McNamara.

A woman in the audience grips a newspaper clipping with the names and faces of the victims in the 2018 Capital Gazette shooting during a ceremony memorializing them on Wednesday, June 28, 2023 in downtown Annapolis. On this day five years ago, a gunman with a grudge against the Annapolis newspaper blasted his way into their newsroom, killing five staffers inside. He is serving numerous life sentences with no chance of parole. (Ulysses Muoz/The Baltimore Banner)

But this isnt about the shooter, and it never was. That man will endure whats left of his life in prison while the families, friends, co-workers and loved ones of those taken away that day continue to be there to support each other.

Today, Annapolis leaders held a ceremony at the Guardians of the First Amendment memorial, which was established June 2021. City and statewide leadership was in attendance, as were many of the family members and friends of the victims.

Maria Hiaasen, Robs widow, and Andrea Chamblee, Johns widow, both spoke during the ceremony, to thank the community for continuing to remember and honor our departed friends, and to advocate against gun violence.

Andrea Chamblee, left, the widow of reporter John McNamara, and Maria Hiaasen, widow of editor Rob Hiaasen, sit together at a ceremony memorializing the victims in the 2018 Capital Gazette shooting on Wednesday, June 28, 2023 in downtown Annapolis. On this day five years ago, a gunman with a grudge against the Annapolis newspaper blasted his way into their newsroom, killing five staffers inside. He is serving numerous life sentences with no chance of parole. (Ulysses Muoz/The Baltimore Banner)

At 2:33 p.m. Wednesday the time that the attack started back in 2018 The Baltimore Banner newsroom observed a moment of silence. Others who knew the victims including those who have since moved away from the region and those who didnt were invited to participate as well.

You cannot silence a free press. We survived. We endure.

Banner columnist Rick Hutzell, the former editor of The Capital, wrote these words just a few days ago as he reflected on the various changes our community has gone through over the last five years. And hes right. Time passes, and you dont ever really move on, but you do have to move forward.

Former Capital editor, and current Baltimore Banner columnist, Rick Hutzell, center, listens to a musical performance during a ceremony memorializing the victims in the 2018 Capital Gazette shooting on Wednesday, June 28, 2023 in downtown Annapolis. On this day five years ago, a gunman with a grudge against the Annapolis newspaper blasted his way into their newsroom, killing five staffers inside. He is serving numerous life sentences with no chance of parole. (Ulysses Muoz/The Baltimore Banner)

Back in 2019, then Gov. Larry Hogan declared June 28 to be Freedom of the Press Day in Maryland. So heres what Im gonna do.

Today, Ill celebrate the pen, and the resilience it summons whenever the sword shows up. Ill celebrate the camera, and the thousand words we try to produce with every frame. And Ill remember our absent friends, whom I miss very much.

Sign Up for Alerts

Get notified of need-to-know info from The Banner

Ok

Rob Hiaasen. Wendi Winters. Gerald Fischman. Rebecca Smith. John McNamara.

Ulysses Muoz is a Baltimore Banner photojournalist and worked at The Capital from 2015 to 2017.

A woman in the audience wears a photo pinned to her shirt of Wendi Winters, one of the 2018 Capital Gazette shooting victims, during a ceremony memorializing her and the other victims on Wednesday, June 28, 2023 in downtown Annapolis. On this day five years ago, a gunman with a grudge against the Annapolis newspaper blasted his way into their newsroom, killing five staffers inside. He is serving numerous life sentences with no chance of parole. (Ulysses Muoz/The Baltimore Banner)

Wreaths at a ceremony memorializing the victims in the 2018 Capital Gazette shooting on Wednesday, June 28, 2023 in downtown Annapolis. On this day five years ago, a gunman with a grudge against the Annapolis newspaper blasted his way into their newsroom, killing five staffers inside. He is serving numerous life sentences with no chance of parole. (Ulysses Muoz/The Baltimore Banner)

To the right, former Capital Gazette staffers watch as the audience reacts to Andrea Chamblee, widow of reporter John McNamara, speaking at a ceremony memorializing the victims in the 2018 Capital Gazette shooting on Wednesday, June 28, 2023 in downtown Annapolis. On this day five years ago, a gunman with a grudge against the Annapolis newspaper blasted his way into their newsroom, killing five staffers inside. He is serving numerous life sentences with no chance of parole. (Ulysses Muoz/The Baltimore Banner)

Gov. Wes Moore, right, his Lt. Gov. Aruna Miller and wife, Dawn Flythe Moore, place a wreath during a ceremony memorializing the victims in the 2018 Capital Gazette shooting on Wednesday, June 28, 2023 in downtown Annapolis. On this day five years ago, a gunman with a grudge against the Annapolis newspaper blasted his way into their newsroom, killing five staffers inside. He is serving numerous life sentences with no chance of parole. (Ulysses Muoz/The Baltimore Banner)

Alex Mann, a current Baltimore Sun reporter and former Capital staffer, displays his Capital hat following a ceremony memorializing the victims in the 2018 Capital Gazette shooting on Wednesday, June 28, 2023 in downtown Annapolis. On this day five years ago, a gunman with a grudge against the Annapolis newspaper blasted his way into their newsroom, killing five staffers inside. He is serving numerous life sentences with no chance of parole. (Ulysses Muoz/The Baltimore Banner)

Gator, a therapy dog, poses for a portrait by the Guardians of the First Amendment memorial following a ceremony memorializing the victims in the 2018 Capital Gazette shooting on Wednesday, June 28, 2023 in downtown Annapolis. On this day five years ago, a gunman with a grudge against the Annapolis newspaper blasted his way into their newsroom, killing five staffers inside. He is serving numerous life sentences with no chance of parole. (Ulysses Muoz/The Baltimore Banner)

Andrea Chamblee, the widow of reporter John McNamara, wears a number of bracelets supporting The Capital and anti-gun violence groups at a ceremony memorializing the victims in the 2018 Capital Gazette shooting on Wednesday, June 28, 2023 in downtown Annapolis. On this day five years ago, a gunman with a grudge against the Annapolis newspaper blasted his way into their newsroom, killing five staffers inside. He is serving numerous life sentences with no chance of parole. (Ulysses Muoz/The Baltimore Banner)

From left: Former Capital staffers E.B. Pat Furgurson, Rachael Pacella, and current staff photographer Paul Gillespie watch as the audience reacts to Andrea Chamblee, widow of reporter John McNamara, speaking at a ceremony memorializing the victims in the 2018 Capital Gazette shooting on Wednesday, June 28, 2023 in downtown Annapolis. On this day five years ago, a gunman with a grudge against the Annapolis newspaper blasted his way into their newsroom, killing five staffers inside. He is serving numerous life sentences with no chance of parole. (Ulysses Muoz/The Baltimore Banner)

Five wreaths at a ceremony memorializing the victims in the 2018 Capital Gazette shooting on Wednesday, June 28, 2023 in downtown Annapolis. On this day five years ago, a gunman with a grudge against the Annapolis newspaper blasted his way into their newsroom, killing five staffers inside. He is serving numerous life sentences with no chance of parole. (Ulysses Muoz/The Baltimore Banner)

Original post:
Annapolis hosted a ceremony Wednesday at the Guardians of the ... - The Baltimore Banner

Trump strangely not mentioned during SCOTUS hearing on First Amendment case over encouraging violations of federal law  Law & Crime

Continue reading here:
Trump strangely not mentioned during SCOTUS hearing on First Amendment case over encouraging violations of federal law - Law & Crime

Navigate this Section

The need for the Constitution grew out of problems with the Articles of Confederation, which established a firm league of friendship between the States, and vested most power in a Congress of the Confederation. This power was, however, extremely limitedthe central government conducted diplomacy and made war, set weights and measures, and was the final arbiter of disputes between the States. Crucially, it could not raise any funds itself, and was entirely dependent on the States themselves for the money necessary to operate. Each State sent a delegation of between two and seven members to the Congress, and they voted as a bloc with each State getting one vote. But any decision of consequence required a unanimous vote, which led to a government that was paralyzed and ineffectual.

A movement to reform the Articles began, and invitations to attend a convention in Philadelphia to discuss changes to the Articles were sent to the State legislatures in 1787. In May of that year, delegates from 12 of the 13 States (Rhode Island sent no representatives) convened in Philadelphia to begin the work of redesigning government. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention quickly began work on drafting a new Constitution for the United States.

A chief aim of the Constitution as drafted by the Convention was to create a government with enough power to act on a national level, but without so much power that fundamental rights would be at risk. One way that this was accomplished was to separate the power of government into three branches, and then to include checks and balances on those powers to assure that no one branch of government gained supremacy. This concern arose largely out of the experience that the delegates had with the King of England and his powerful Parliament. The powers of each branch are enumerated in the Constitution, with powers not assigned to them reserved to the States.

Much of the debate, which was conducted in secret to ensure that delegates spoke their minds, focused on the form that the new legislature would take. Two plans competed to become the new government: the Virginia Plan, which apportioned representation based on the population of each State, and the New Jersey plan, which gave each State an equal vote in Congress. The Virginia Plan was supported by the larger States, and the New Jersey plan preferred by the smaller. In the end, they settled on the Great Compromise (sometimes called the Connecticut Compromise), in which the House of Representatives would represent the people as apportioned by population; the Senate would represent the States apportioned equally; and the President would be elected by the Electoral College. The plan also called for an independent judiciary.

The founders also took pains to establish the relationship between the States. States are required to give full faith and credit to the laws, records, contracts, and judicial proceedings of the other States, although Congress may regulate the manner in which the States share records, and define the scope of this clause. States are barred from discriminating against citizens of other States in any way, and cannot enact tariffs against one another. States must also extradite those accused of crimes to other States for trial.

The founders also specified a process by which the Constitution may be amended, and since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. In order to prevent arbitrary changes, the process for making amendments is quite onerous. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification. In modern times, amendments have traditionally specified a time frame in which this must be accomplished, usually a period of several years. Additionally, the Constitution specifies that no amendment can deny a State equal representation in the Senate without that States consent.

With the details and language of the Constitution decided, the Convention got down to the work of actually setting the Constitution to paper. It is written in the hand of a delegate from Pennsylvania, Gouverneur Morris, whose job allowed him some reign over the actual punctuation of a few clauses in the Constitution. He is also credited with the famous preamble, quoted at the top of this page. On September 17, 1787, 39 of the 55 delegates signed the new document, with many of those who refused to sign objecting to the lack of a bill of rights. At least one delegate refused to sign because the Constitution codified and protected slavery and the slave trade.

The process set out in the Constitution for its ratification provided for much popular debate in the States. The Constitution would take effect once it had been ratified by nine of the thirteen State legislatures; unanimity was not required. During the debate over the Constitution, two factions emerged: the Federalists, who supported adoption, and the Anti-Federalists, who opposed it.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay set out an eloquent defense of the new Constitution in what came to be called the Federalist Papers. Published anonymously in the newspapers The Independent Journal and The New York Packet under the name Publius between October 1787 and August 1788, the 85 articles that comprise the Federalist Papers remain to this day an invaluable resource for understanding some of the framers intentions for the Constitution. The most famous of the articles are No. 10, which warns of the dangers of factions and advocates a large republic, and No. 51, which explains the structure of the Constitution, its checks and balances, and how it protects the rights of the people.

The States proceeded to begin ratification, with some debating more intensely than others. Delaware was the first State to ratify, on December 7, 1787. After New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify, on June 22, 1788, the Confederation Congress established March 9, 1789 as the date to begin operating under the Constitution. By this time, all the States except North Carolina and Rhode Island had ratifiedthe Ocean State was the last to ratify on May 29, 1790.

One of the principal points of contention between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the lack of an enumeration of basic civil rights in the Constitution. Many Federalists argued, as in Federalist No. 84, that the people surrendered no rights in adopting the Constitution. In several States, however, the ratification debate in some States hinged on the adoption of a bill of rights. The solution was known as the Massachusetts Compromise, in which four States ratified the Constitution but at the same time sent recommendations for amendments to the Congress.

James Madison introduced 12 amendments to the First Congress in 1789. Ten of these would go on to become what we now consider to be the Bill of Rights. One was never passed, while another dealing with Congressional salaries was not ratified until 1992, when it became the 27th Amendment. Based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, the writings of the Enlightenment, and the rights defined in the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights contains rights that many today consider to be fundamental to America.

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.

The Third Amendment prohibits the government from quartering troops in private homes, a major grievance during the American Revolution.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. The government may not conduct any searches without a warrant, and such warrants must be issued by a judge and based on probable cause.

The Fifth Amendment provides that citizens not be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment without due process. Citizens may not be tried on the same set of facts twice and are protected from self-incrimination (the right to remain silent). The amendment also establishes the power of eminent domain, ensuring that private property is not seized for public use without just compensation.

The Sixth Amendment assures the right to a speedy trial by a jury of ones peers, to be informed of the crimes with which one is charged, and to confront the witnesses brought forward by the government. The amendment also provides the accused the right to compel testimony from witnesses, as well as the right to legal representation.

The Seventh Amendment provides that civil cases preserve the right to trial by jury.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.

The Ninth Amendment states that the list of rights enumerated in the Constitution is not exhaustive, and that the people retain all rights not enumerated.

The Tenth Amendment assigns all powers not delegated to the United States, or prohibited to the States, to either the States or to the people.

Learn more about the Constitution

Go here to read the rest:
The Constitution | The White House

Auditors vow to descend on CT if law passed putting rules on First Amendment  FOX61 Hartford

Read this article:
Auditors vow to descend on CT if law passed putting rules on First Amendment - FOX61 Hartford