Category Archives: First Amendment

The First Amendment doesnt stop companies from cracking down on their employees speech. So your boss can ban you from using work e-mail to share funny cat gifs, or organize a bake sale, or mourn the passing of your favorite celebrity. But now your boss cant ban you from using work e-mail to organize a union.

In a party-line 3-2 decision (pdf), the National Labor Relations Board ruled Thursday that employees who use company e-mail to do their jobs can also use it to organize to improve them. That includes trying to form a union as well as other forms of collective action at work. Under the new ruling, companies can still impose some restrictions on the kind of e-mails they allow on their servers (such as no gigantic attachments), and they can still keep tabs on their employees e-mail activities, though they cant single out union activism for scrutiny. But outside of rare exceptions, companies cant prohibit e-mailing your co-workers to try to transform your workplace.

That new decision overturns a precedent from just seven years ago, when Republicans who then had a majority on the labor board wrote (pdf) that it would be kosher to allow e-mail solicitations for the Salvation Army but not for a labor union. The consequences of that error are too serious to permit it to stand, the three Democrats who now hold a majority on the NLRB wrote. Neither the fact that e-mail exists in a virtual (rather than physical) space, nor the fact that it allows conversations to multiply and spread more quickly than face-to-face communication, reduces its centrality to employees discussions, including their [National Labor Relations Act] Section 7-protected discussions about terms and conditions of employment, they argued. If anything, e-mails effectiveness as a mechanism for quickly sharing information and views increases its importance to employee communication.

In siding with employees yesterday, the NLRB rebuffed arguments that allowing pro-union e-mails would increase the risk of computer viruses; that employees dont need to organize over work e-mail because they have Facebook (FB) and Twitter (TWTR); and that forcing companies to let their Internet servers be used to spread pro-union messages they disagree with would violate employers First Amendment rights. E-mail users typically understand that an e-mail message conveys the view of the sender, the majority wrote, not those of the e-mail account provider.

The NLRBs new approach to organizing over work e-mail accounts echoes a series of decisions in recent years that protect workers right to use Facebook and Twitter to talk about how to improve their jobs. For most other speech, companies have free rein to punish their employees for what they say online, even if they do it on their day off. Chatter about banding together and organizing is one of the only things companies are legally prevented from silencingeven if its something they would most like to choke off.

Read the original:
Your Company E-mail: OK for Union Organizing, Not for Bake Sales

First Amendment Challenge- Thomas Wang
Staff writer Thomas Wang has been nominated by photographer Sydney Trieu for the First Amendment Challenge, which is to say the five freedoms while multitask...

By: SGHSTheMatadorOnline

Read the original:
First Amendment Challenge- Thomas Wang - Video

Police Harassment First Amendment Test Aliso Viejo Orange County Sheriff
Decided to go out and take some video, was questioned and followed by the Orange County Sheriffs Department in Aliso Viejo Ca. I tried to stay polite.... Tried I had a nice conversation with...

By: TheJunkyard News

Continue reading here:
Police Harassment First Amendment Test Aliso Viejo Orange County Sheriff - Video

Justice Brennans Fight to Preserve the Legacy of New York Times v. Sullivan
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the case that changed the First Amendment, has protected the freedom of expression for the past 50 years. Join First Amendment lawyer Lee Levine and veteran...

By: NCC Video

See the original post here:
Justice Brennans Fight to Preserve the Legacy of New York Times v. Sullivan - Video

Police repression / First Amendment Violations in Buffalo, NY

By: Ignite The Youth

More:
Police repression / First Amendment Violations in Buffalo, NY - Video

by Maurice Bobb 7 hours ago

The adult entertainment industry has been arguing against a law that would require porn actors to wear condoms, but they suffered another setback when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles rejected their First Amendment argument on Monday (Dec. 15).

Simply put, the adult entertainment industrys position revolves around the idea that condomless sex is part of their right to free speech. Vivid Entertainment and the other plaintiffs in the suit were seeking relief from the 2012 law (Measure B), which was voter-initiated, in response to the widespread transmission of sexually transmitted diseases among porn industry workers.

While the entertainment industry is indeed content-based though, the 9th Circuit ruled that speech that is sexual or pornographic in nature earns an exception to free speech when the primary motivation behind the regulation is to prevent secondary effects like STDs, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Vivid also argued that condomless sex onscreen is essential because it projects a particular fantasy for viewers, one where sex doesnt have real-life consequences like disease or pregnancy.

But ninth Circuit Judge Susan Graber saw the safe-sex precaution a different way, and explained in part in the ruling:

To determine whether conduct is protected by the First Amendment, we ask not only whether someone intended to convey a particular message through that conduct, but also whether there is a great likelihood that the message would be understood by those who viewed it. Here, we agree with the district court that, whatever unique message Plaintiffs might intend to convey by depicting condomless sex, it is unlikely that viewers of adult films will understand that message. So condomless sex is not the relevant expression for First Amendment purposes; instead, the relevant expression is more generally the adult films erotic message.

The federal courts decision means that the law requiring porn actors wear condoms during their onscreen expressions doesnt conflict with their First Amendment rights.

Outside of the legal ramifications of the ruling and the effect it will have on the porn industrys fanbase, the question we have to admit to wondering about is: Did the justices have to actually watch porn to rule on this matter?

What do you think? Should condomless sex be protected under the First Amendment?

Visit link:
Los Angeles Court Says Condom-less Sex Isnt Protected Free Speech

Would Sony Pictures Entertainment have a legal basis to stop news media from publishing stories about company secrets unearthed in the giant hacking scandal?

As WSJ reported, Sonys lawyer, David Boies, sent a letter Sunday to media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and Bloomberg News, warning them not to publish or use anything discovered in the trove of internal files stolen in last months Sony cyberattack and leaked online.

The effort by Sony to keep a lid on the hacked documents has renewed First Amendment questions over the legality of publishing information stolen by hackers. Legal experts say Sony and Mr. Boies probably wouldnt get very far in court if the company followed through with a lawsuit.

It would be very hard for Sony to block media outlets from publishing most anything thats in the public interest, University of Minnesota Law School professor William McGeveran, who specializes in information law and data privacy, told Law Blog. And courts, he said, are quite deferential to the established media and its judgment about whats newsworthy.

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, over at the Washington Posts Volokh Conspiracy blog, also says that Sony most likely wouldnt have a legal leg to stand on.Thats true, he said, at least as to most of the information that media outlets would want to publish.

He and Mr. McGeveran point to two key legal precedents.

The first is Bartnicki v. Vopper, a Supreme Court case from 2001. The high court ruled 6-3 in favor of a radio broadcaster that aired a cellphone conversation between a teachers union president and a top union negotiator that someone else had recorded illegally. In this situation, in which the station played no part in the illegal interception, First Amendment interests trumped privacy concerns.

A strangers illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern, wrote then-Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority.

The other case is a U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruling from 1969 involving a lawsuit filed by then-U.S. Sen. Thomas J. Dodd against two investigative reporters, Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, over articles they published based on leaked documents that ex-staffers had purloined from the Connecticut lawmakers office.

When information is on a matter of public concern, the court held, the fact that it was illegally leaked doesnt make publishing it an invasion of privacy, writes Mr. Volokh, summing up the decision.

Excerpt from:
Sonys Legal Threats in Hacking Scandal Face First Amendment Hurdle

TRC Breaking the First Amendment.

By: General Ludicrous

More here:
TRC Breaking the First Amendment. - Video

Samanthas first amendment skit
wuz good.

By: kitt_the_kat

See the article here:
Samanthas first amendment skit - Video

First Amendment Challenge- Anthony Yang
Our Multimedia Editor, Anthony Yang, was nominated by copy editor Roland Fang to do the First Amendment Challenge. The challenge is to recite your first amendment rights while multitasking....

By: SGHSTheMatadorOnline

See the rest here:
First Amendment Challenge- Anthony Yang - Video