Category Archives: First Amendment

Shock Video: Cop Protects First Amendment
Sheriff defends free speech rights against airport official during opt out campaign A shocking video has emerged . Deputy Sheriff Stan Lenic, the cop who stood up for the First Amendment...

By: Eddie Doxey

Visit link:
Shock Video: Cop Protects First Amendment - Video

The First Amendment - Episode #11
A weekly show hosted by Frederick Douglass Dixon.

By: UPTV6

More:
The First Amendment - Episode #11 - Video

Life Without The First Amendment (B1 -- Jesus A. Drake G.)

By: cgmsbmcgurk

Read more:
Life Without The First Amendment (B1 -- Jesus A. & Drake G.) - Video

Living Without The First Amendment (B1 -- Paige W., Caleb K., Emily H.)

By: cgmsbmcgurk

See original here:
Living Without The First Amendment (B1 -- Paige W., Caleb K., & Emily H.) - Video

Andrew Napolitano - Free Speech and Government
Judge Napolitano sheds light on the design of the First Amendment and how from the outset politicians have sought to thwart it. http://www.LibertyPen.com.

By: LibertyPen

Original post:
Andrew Napolitano - Free Speech and Government - Video

ACLU suing over Lincoln Prep protest
The Kansas City School District is facing a lawsuit, accused of violating a student #39;s First Amendment rights.

By: 41 Action News

Originally posted here:
ACLU suing over Lincoln Prep protest - Video

Condoms dont violate the First Amendment - judge
Mandating the use of condoms by porn stars does not violate the US Constitution #39;s First Amendment, according to the US Court of Appeals. A judge recently made the ruling after a group of...

By: Fannie Gordon

Read more from the original source:
Condoms dont violate the First Amendment - judge - Video

Rep. Lyons

BOSTON -- Posting false advertisements online can be considered criminal harassment unprotected by the First Amendment, according to a Supreme Judicial Court decision Tuesday, which upheld the conviction of two people who directed "pranks" against an Andover lawmaker.

Rep. James Lyons, a Republican, was not yet a member of the House in 2008 when William and Gail Johnson enlisted their friend Gerald Colton to use personal information about Lyons and his wife to harass them, according to the SJC. Lyons had opposed the couple's plans to develop property abutting their home.

Colton advertised free golf carts at the Lyons' home, posted another ad offering "my late son's" motorcycle for sale with Lyons' phone number, and sent Lyons a message that said, "Remember, if you aren't miserable, I aint happy! Let's Play." William Johnson also committed the crime of falsely reporting Lyons to the Department of Children and Families for alleged child abuse.

In a ruling written by Justice Robert Cordy and released Tuesday morning, the SJC denied an appeal from the Johnsons and found the defendants' speech was not protected by the First Amendment. Cordy said the case is the court's first to consider the "type of conduct at issue here."

The case involves the use of the classified ad website Craigslist to steer unwitting people against a target.

The SJC found that though the "methods were indirect" the phony posts were "intended solely" to cause strangers to contact the Lyons.

"Where the sole purpose of the defendants' speech was to further their endeavor to intentionally harass the Lyonses, such speech is not protected by the First Amendment," the SJC wrote.

"I thought it was a very well written opinion and my wife and I are extremely grateful for the Supreme Court's decision in this case," Lyons told the News Service. "These people literally tortured my wife, my boys and myself, and to this day shown not one ounce of remorse."

Lyons, who was elected in 2010, said the Johnsons are no longer his neighbors and said both were incarcerated as a result of their convictions. The husband was sentenced to serve 18 months imprisonment and his wife was sentenced to serve six months, the SJC stated.

Here is the original post:
SJC: Harassment not protected by 1st Amendment

News that the controversial comedy movie The Interview will be shown on Christmas Day is dredging up a rather complicated, and confused, argument about the Constitutions First Amendment.

As of Christmas Eve day, here is a quick recap of where we stand:

Sony Pictures is now allowing independent theaters to show the movie in more than 200 locations, after Sony and major theaters pulled the film initially. Sonys computers were hacked by folks with alleged connections to North Korea. The hackers also made threats to harm people who attended movie screenings at the theater chain venues.

Then, President Barack Obama called out Sony and the national theater chains.

We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States, Obama said last Friday.

Obamas comments and a huge push back from the entertainment industry were partially driven by concerns that North Korea, or at least its proxy in the form of the hackers, could dictate what companies can publish, in the form of a film, or any other type of digital content.

They also drew a quick response from Sony Pictures CEO Michael Lynton, who said, First, I was surprised by the remark. But, I think actually the president and I are coming from the same place. We are obviously both strong proponents of the First Amendment.

Sony also quickly pointed out that the major theater groups pulled the plug on the movie.

More here:
'The Interview' and First Amendment rights

The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and of the press because the Framers wanted to prevent the creation in America of a license-based censorship. They were deeply opposed to Britains systematic restriction of speech, which treated the right to speak publicly as a privilege conditioned on an express grant of the sovereigns permission. In order to publish books, newspapers, and pamphlets, or even to perform plays, a speaker had to obtain a permit.

American law has firmly rejected this sort of prior restraint on speech. While licenses to engage in potentially dangerous activities like the practice of medicine or even driving are often necessary to prevent great harm, the value judgment represented by the First Amendment is that the harm a license to speak would do to individual liberty is far greater than any potential harm that could be caused by unqualified speakers. It is for this reason that authors, publishers, filmmakers, journalists, and talk-show hosts dont need to pass a test or ask the government for permission before engaging in their vocation.

Unfortunately, several municipalities seem to think that tour guides should be treated differently. Fearing the calamitous consequences of allowing ignorant guides to mislead tourists, these cities have instituted licensing regimes that make it acrimefor tour guides to operate without a license a license which can only be obtained by passing a test of history and culture.

Last year, Cato, joined by First Amendment expert Prof. Eugene Volokh, filed briefs supporting lawsuits challenging the licensing schemes inWashingtonandNew Orleans. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed with us that the law was unconstitutional, the Fifth Circuit upheld the New Orleans ordinance, claiming that it was a content neutral restriction on speech necessary to protect tourists and the citys reputation. Joined again by Prof. Volokh, Cato has filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to take this case and reverse the Fifth Circuits decision to allow the very kind of licensing scheme that the First Amendment was intended to preempt.

Our brief makes three important points. First, the very idea of licensing speakers is incompatible with the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has said time and time again that governments cant restrictwhomay speak in order to improve the quality ofwhatthey say. Second, because the licensing requirement only applies to speech on a particular subject and is explicitly justified by that content, it can only be considered constitutional if it satisfies the requirements of strict scrutiny. That means it must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest a test this law would surely fail (unlike, say, a requirement that bicycle-tour operators maintain safe bikes and observe the rules of the road).

Finally, the other arguments for applying a more lenient test than strict scrutiny are unpersuasive: tour guides, unlike doctors and lawyers, arent professionals whose speech to clients is so important (and potentially dangerous) that it can be regulated without offending the First Amendment. Nor does the fact that tour guides arepaidfor their speech alter the constitutional calculus: writers, pundits, and actors and even think tank scholars or law professors dont gain some special First Amendment rights when theyre volunteering their talents. Tour guides are no different.

The Court will decide whether to take the case, Kagan v. City of New Orleans,early in the new year.

Read more from the original source:
Licensing Speech in the Big Easy