Category Archives: First Amendment

Catholic League head Bill Donohue is having quite a day. First, he released two statements arguing 1) Muslims are right to be angry at the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, who were partly at fault for their own deaths, which and 2) that free speech doesnt extend to obscene portrayal of religious figures. Then he was on the receiving end of a pretty pissed-off Hugh Hewitt, who told Donohue that his victim-blaming is an embarrassment to Catholics everywhere.

And tonight, Fox News anchor and lawyer Megyn Kelly took strong issue with Donohues views on free speech and the First Amendment.

Donohue argued the cartoonists are pornographers disguised as satirists in the vein of Larry Flynt, but Kelly pointed out that not only does Flynt have First Amendment rights, but his specific First Amendment rights were upheld by the Supreme Court. She read the actual Supreme Court decision to rebut Donohues argument that freedom of speech is not an end.

Donohue also said, Self-censorship is the friend of freedom, because if we dont have self-censorship were gonna have individuals interpreting their rights in an extreme fashion.

Kelly told Donohue it is no defense to say that the cartoonists offended people, no matter how outrageous it may have been.

Watch the full segment below, via Fox News:

Please enable Javascript to watch.

[image via screengrab]

Follow Josh Feldman on Twitter: @feldmaniac

Follow this link:
Megyn Kelly Schools Catholic Leagues Bill Donohue on the First Amendment

Marlon Wayans Beats Actor #39;s Lawsuit Over Offensive Tweet
Marlon Wayans has successfully defended a lawsuit over an allegedly racially insensitive tweet after a California judge took an expansive view of how the First Amendment covers the creative...

By: WochitGeneralNews

Go here to see the original:
Marlon Wayans Beats Actor's Lawsuit Over Offensive Tweet - Video

Joseph Dobrian, Writers Group 9:51 a.m. CST January 7, 2015

Joseph Dobrian(Photo: Thomas Adam)

In the Press-Citizen, recently, appeared a letter from Iowa state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, in which he declared his intention to find a judge-proof way to criminalize desecration of the American flag. Many people agree with him, of course including, unfortunately, many elected officials but for the purposes of this article I'll regard him as the chief spokesman for that position.

In a single paragraph of that letter, Mr. Kaufmann parrots the three morally bankrupt pronouncements that his allies invariably bring to the argument. Then he tops it off with a coda so hypocritical and vainglorious that I literally turned my face away in disgust: "I value our First Amendment rights but just like you cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded movie theater, you should never, ever, be allowed to spit and stomp on our flag while protesting the funeral of someone who died fighting for our freedoms. count on me to fight with a fiery passion to defend the honor of our flag and our fallen soldiers."

No, Mr. Kaufmann: You do not "value our First Amendment rights." Manifestly, you despise them. A single word "but" reveals your contempt for them.

But nothing, Mr. Kaufmann. BUT NOTHING.

Our First Amendment does not exist to protect expressions that most people approve of. Such speech needs no protection. The laws exist, rather, to protect expressions we abominate: expressions that would be deeply offensive to most sensible people. Without the First Amendment, the rest of the U.S. Constitution doesn't much matter. And yet it's the most universally despised item in the Bill of Rights: constantly attacked from left and right.

When we stand up for the First Amendment, we're almost never supporting noble sentiments. Ninety-nine times out of 100, we're standing up for someone who's desecrating a flag or writing pornography about Jesus. Your position, sir, and the position of your allies, is identical to that of infantile liberals who want to suppress expressions that offend them. Same argument.

If anything, liberals are a little less hypocritical, since most of them are frank in their hatred of free speech and a free press. They make no pretense of respecting the First Amendment.

Don't insult our intelligence with that false equivalency about yelling "fire." The consequences of yelling "fire" if a stampede causes injuries or property damage, for example might be punishable. If no stampede ensues, the worst that will happen is that the fire-yeller will be escorted out. Arguably, that fire-yeller is creating a hazard, but in what way does the flag-spitter create a hazard?

Read the original:
There is no but in our First Amendment rights

MARSHALL, MO -- Did a school violate a student's first amendment rights?

Loyal Grandstaff says he loves reading his Bible and decided to bring it to school before the Christmas break so he could read it during his free time, but the 7th grader says his teacher told him it wasn't allowed.

"I like to read my bible because it's a good book," he said.

The 12-year-old says he wasn't reading out loud and he says he wasn't sharing the Bible with his classmates.

"I was just reading, reading because I had free time. A time to do what I wanted to, so I just broke it out and read."

Was he bothering anybody while reading it?

"I shouldn't have been," he replied.

"I feel like it violated his freedom of religion but also his freedom of speech," said Loyal's father, Justin Grandstaff, who says he is trying to raise his children to honor God, work hard and do the right things.

He can't believe his son was banned from reading the Bible. "There's kids walking around disrespecting their teachers, kids walking around cussing and everything else and they're practically getting into no trouble at all."

Lance Tobin, the Principal at Bueker Middle School, says Bibles are not banned from the school, but he needs to look into the situation to get the details before he elaborates further.

Link:
Student claims he was banned from reading the Bible in school

Erwin Chemerinsky
Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky - Champion of the First Amendment Presentation - The Vanishing Wall Separating Church and State 2014 FFRF #39;s National Convention Los Angeles.

By: FFRForg

Continued here:
Erwin Chemerinsky - Video

Book Review | The First Amendment: Cases - Comments - Questions
BOOK REVIEW OF YOUR FAVORITE BOOK =--- Where to buy this book? ISBN: 9780314904560 Book Review of The First Amendment: Cases - Comments - Questions by St...

By: Nimtech Araki 23845

Read the original here:
Book Review | The First Amendment: Cases - Comments - Questions - Video

Exercise Your First Amendment Rights $FNMA $FMCC
The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gat...

By: David Sims

Follow this link:
Exercise Your First Amendment Rights $FNMA $FMCC - Video

Texas Veterinarian Heads to Federal Appellate Court Tomorrow

With One Of First Amendments Most Important Unanswered Questions

The Texas Veterinary Board punished a disabled veterinarian for giving online advice

Professional, online advice question will ultimately head to Supreme Court

Censorship of online advice grows with national expansion of occupational licensing

NEW ORLEANSDoes the First Amendment apply to licensed professionals who give advice over the Internet? That is the question to be presented to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans tomorrow in a high-profile case that pits a veterinarian against the Texas Veterinary Board.

Dr. Ron Hinesa disabled retiree and Texas-licensed veterinarianhad begun to use the Internet in 2002 to help pet owners from across the the world, often in remote locations and often for free. He uses the Internet to remain productive and share his lifetime of wisdom and experience. But in 2012, Dr. Hines stopped because he discovered that he had been on a decade-long crime spree: In Texas, as in a majority of states, it is a crime for a veterinarian to give advice over the Internet without having first physically examined the animal.

View post:
Is Advice Given Over The Internet Free Speech?

Further Reading Back in 2011, the Supreme Court handed down a momentous decision enshrining video games as speech with full First Amendment protections, invalidating a number of attempts by states to ban sales and rentals of violent games to unaccompanied minors. But if one Justice had voted with her personal feelings rather than with her understanding of the law, things might have gone very differently.

Speaking at a forum hosted by Princeton University back in November, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan called Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association the toughest case she'd ever been part of. Kagan responded to an audience question by saying that she is "not usually an agonizer," but in deciding this case she was "all over the map... Every day I woke up and I thought I would do a different thing or I was in the wrong place."

The problem, it seems, is that Kagan's personal feelings on the law conflicted with the direction the First Amendment and established legal precedent were pointing her decision. Speaking about the decision, Kagan halted numerous times to reassemble her thoughts, saying, "I have to say, everything in myit should be that you should not be ableif a parent doesn't want her kids to buy violent video games, that should be the parents'it should be that this law was OK, I guess is what I'm saying."

"But I could not figure how to make the First Amendment law work to make it OK," she continued. "It's clearly a content-based distinction [and] that's usually subject to the strictest scrutiny. There was no very good evidence, not of the kind one would normally need, that the viewing or playing of violent video games was harmful [to minors]. And so I just couldn't make it work under the First Amendment doctrine that we have and have had for a long time."

While seven justices ended up voting to overturn the law under discussion in California, Kagan was one of just five justices that voted to essentially pre-empt any future legislative attempts to restrict game sales. She said there was no clearly established state interest that satisfied the necessary "strict scrutiny" as a First Amendment matter.

In a narrower, concurrent opinion, Justices Alito and Roberts agreed that California's law was too vaguely worded to pass legal muster, but they seemed more open to the idea that a better-written law might serve a valid state interest in helping parents limit their children's access to harmful games."I certainly agree with the Court that the government has no 'free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed,'" Justice Alito wrote. "But the California law does not exercise such a power. If parents want their child to have a violent video game, the California law does not interfere with that parental prerogative."

Furthermore, Alito and Roberts seemed to think that there could be some reason to treat games as legally different from other works of speech. "There is certainly a reasonable basis for thinking that the experience of playing a video game may be quite different from the experience of reading a book, listening to a radio broadcast, or viewing a movie," Alito wrote. "And if this is so, then for at least some minors, the effects of playing violent video games may also be quite different."

If Kagan had voted based on what she says she felt "should be OK" rather than the state of the law, she could have easily joined with Alito and Roberts (along with Thomas and Breyer, who thought the California law was fine as is) in leaving the door open for future laws restricting game sales to minors. In that world, it's easy to see others states trying to succeed where California had failed, attempting to craft a law that was narrow and specific enough to pass muster for that slim majority of the court.

"I kept on going back and forth and back and forth, and we ended up being sort of 5-4 on that important issue," Kagan said during the Princeton forum. "I was in the five that said that the law should be invalidated. That is the one case where I kind of think I just don't know. I just don't know if that's right."

For all the success gaming has had in establishing its place as an art form and social force in recent years, it's worth remembering just how close the medium came to at least partially losing its most important legal victory in the US courts. Gamers would do well to remember and praise Justice Kagan's apparent decision to vote with her interpretation of free speech law rather than her personal feelings in this landmark case.

The rest is here:
Supreme Court justice second-guesses decisive vote in gaming free speech case

Updated: Monday, January 5 2015, 03:34 PM CST

NEW ORLEANSDoes the First Amendment apply to licensed professionals who give advice over the Internet? That is the question to be presented to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans tomorrow in a high-profile case that pits a veterinarian against the Texas Veterinary Board.

Dr. Ron Hines -- a disabled retiree and Texas-licensed veterinarian -- had begun to use the Internet in 2002 to help pet owners from across the the world, often in remote locations and often for free. He uses the Internet to remain productive and share his lifetime of wisdom and experience. But in 2012, Dr. Hines stopped because he discovered that he had been on a decade-long crime spree: In Texas, as in a majority of states, it is a crime for a veterinarian to give advice over the Internet without having first physically examined the animal.

On March 25, 2013, the Texas Veterinary Board shut Dr. Hines down, suspended his license, fined him and made him retake portions of the veterinary licensing exam because of his Internet advice. Texas did this without even an allegation that he harmed any animal. In response, Dr. Hines joined with the Institute for Justice to file a free-speech lawsuit in federal court to vindicate his First Amendment right to communicate with people about their pets using the Internet.

"This case is bigger than Ron Hines," said IJ Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes. ";It's about protecting Internet freedom and free speech for Americans everywhere. Rons case raises one of the most important unanswered questions in First Amendment law: When does the governments power to license occupations trump free speech?"

The Institute for Justice is currently litigating two similar cases based out of North Carolina and Kentucky. In North Carolina, the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition wants to use its licensing power to shut down a blogger who uses the Internet to give advice about the low-carb "Paleolithic," or "Paleo," diet. In Kentucky, John Rosemond -- America's longest running newspaper advice columnist -- was

Visit link:
Texas vetenarian heads to Appeals Court in free speech issue