Category Archives: First Amendment

petitions of the week ByKalvis Golde on Oct 14, 2022 at 6:10 pm

The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions were watching is available here.

In a case that prompted satirical news outlet The Onion to file its first-ever amicus brief in the Supreme Court, an Ohio man sued police for violating his constitutional rights when they arrested him for creating a Facebook page parodying the local police department. This week, we highlight cert petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, whether those officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

Anthony Novak, a resident of Parma, Ohio, created a Facebook page with the same name, cover photo, and profile picture as the city police departments page. In the 12 hours Novaks page was live, it went viral thanks to six satirical posts announcing, for example, a new hiring initiative strongly encouraging minorities not to apply and a no means no fair at which residents could remove their names from the sex-offender registry by completing a series of puzzles.

After obtaining a warrant to investigate the owner of the page, police arrested Novak under an Ohio law that makes it a felony to disrupt, interrupt, or impair police operations. Novak was acquitted at trial. He then sued the officers who arrested him for violating his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and his Fourth Amendment right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit granted the officers qualified immunity. Before taking down the page, Novak had copied a disclaimer posted on the departments real Facebook page decrying the fake account and deleted user comments that his own page was a parody. Because no court case has clearly established that those actions are protected speech, the 6th Circuit held, the officers could reasonably believe that some of Novaks Facebook activity was not parody protected under the First Amendment.

In Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio, Novak asks the justices to clarify when qualified immunity is available if the justification for probable cause relies on speech. He argues that his arrest was retaliation for his speech, and that the officers conduct was an obvious constitutional violation not entitled to qualified immunity. Novak also points out that the 6th Circuit originally sided with him at an earlier stage in the case: Imagine if The Onion, Judge Amul Thapar wrote, were required to disclaim that parodical headlines are, in reality, false.

Answering that call, The Onion filed an amicus brief in support of Novaks petition from the court of appeals subsequent ruling for the officers. In urging the court to take up the case, the magazine tells the justices that the 6th Circuits ruling threatens to disembowel a form of rhetoric that has existed for millennia, that is particularly potent in the realm of political debate, and that, purely incidentally, forms the basis of The Onions writers paychecks.

Donziger v. United States22-274Issues: (1) Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a)(2) authorizes judicial appointments of inferior executive officers; and (2) if so, whether such appointments violate the appointments clause in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Pavlock v. Holcomb22-282Issues: (1) Whether a judicial taking under the Fifth and 14th Amendments is a cognizable cause of action; and (2) whether a property owner who is deprived of property under the authority of a state court decision may seek prospective injunctive relief in federal court to halt encroachment on their property by state officials acting under the authority of that decision.

Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio22-293Issues: (1) Whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for arresting an individual based solely on speech parodying the government, so long as no case has previously held the particular speech is protected; and (2) whether the court should reconsider the doctrine of qualified immunity.

County of Ontario, New York v. Gunsalus22-294Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in refusing to extend the holding ofBFP v. Resolution Trust Corp.to a lawfully conducted tax foreclosure, where New York tax foreclosure law provides for ample notice, opportunity to cure and judicial oversight of the process, and where there is no evidence of a clear and manifest intent by Congress to allow11 U.S.C. 548to impinge upon the important state interests in securing real estate titles and collecting real property taxes.

Visit link:
With The Onions support, satirist asks court to revive lawsuit against police who arrested him - SCOTUSblog

Society of Professional Journalists at Baruch College

The Society of Professional Journalists new Baruch chapter shared planned events and activities for the fall semester in their first meeting on Sep. 8.

During our first meeting we introduced ourselves to participants, we explained the function of SPJ as a national organization to others and let others know what we planned to do as a chapter at Baruch, Malina Seenarine, the vice-president of the chapter, said in an email statement.

Seenarine said SPJ will host events that aims to expose students to experiences they would not otherwise receive within the context of their standard classroom education.

One of our most exciting events will be a film screening, most likely at some point in November, Seenarine said. SPJ provides people with a strong network of like-minded and successful journalists to communicate with in seeking career opportunities.

According to its website, SPJ is the nations most wide-ranging journalism organization dedicated to fostering and educating communities of future journalists for over a century. The organization teaches core principles such as ethics and staunchly defends the First Amendment.

The Tickers former Editor-in-Chief Amanda Salazar and current Editor-in-Chief Emanuela Gallo resonated with SPJs mission and decided to initiate a chapter under the Journalism Department last fall semester.

The whole goal of Baruch College is to help students make it in the real world, Salazar said. SPJ has the ability to help with that, because well be able to connect with professionals in the journalism field.

SPJs Employment and Career Center is dedicated to supporting students of the chapter in joining communities and newsrooms, engaging in essential tutorial and training programs, searching for up-to-date job listings and finding accessible freelancing guides.

Seenarine can attest to the personal and professional benefits of being a part of an organization that is the epicenter of best quality resources to help students pursue a viable journalism career. She referred to their advocacy of ethical principles in the journalism industry.

SPJ resources have been helpful in teaching me how to become a better writer, become more ethical in my writing, and learn about opportunities to help improve my writing, she said.

Dani Heba, the chapters president and Sports Editor for The Ticker, was afforded the opportunity to participate in SPJs Student Leadership Institute in Indiana this past summer.

Emily Johnson is the faculty advisor of SPJs chapter at Baruch. Johnson is an independent multimedia journalist who has done pieces for news organizations like The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and The Jakarta Globe.

SPJ announced Baruchs new chapter on April 22.

Welcome to SPJs newest student chapter the Baruch College Chapter! the post read. The SPJ Board of Directors unanimously voted to approve the chapter today.

Baruchs chapter of SPJ shares information about their organization and events on their Instagram, @spjbaruch.

Continued here:
Club spotlight: Baruch's new Society of Professional Journalists - The Ticker

Baltimore County and the state would each pay $50,000 under a settlement reached with a woman who argued her First Amendment rights were violated when county officials attempted to dissuade her from filing rape charges.

The state Board of Public Works must still approve the states share of the settlement payment. According to an online agenda, the matter will be considered at the boards Oct. 26 meeting. The county is paying $50,000, said Erica Palmisano, spokeswoman for the county executives office.

The settlement was first announced last month, days before the case was set to go to trial in U.S. District Court. But the settlement amount was not made public.

If approved by the board later this month, the settlement would conclude the yearslong legal battle over the handling of rape allegations by the countys top prosecutor Scott Shellenberger and the county police department.

The case stems from an incident in 2017, when the woman was a college student. The Baltimore Sun does not typically identify individuals who say they are survivors of sexual assault.

The woman, then a Towson University student, has said an assault took place when she and another female student were in an apartment with three University of Maryland Baltimore County baseball players.

Daily

Get your morning news in your e-mail inbox. Get all the top news and sports from the baltimoresun.com.

Both women told police they had blacked out or passed out and were sexually assaulted by the men. The men have said the acts were consensual.

The Baltimore County States Attorneys Office declined to bring charges against the men, and so the woman opted to attempt to bring charges against them herself, by filing a statement of charges with the court commissioner. Her first try failed, but after her second attempt, a different commissioner charged the men with rape and sex offenses in 2018.

But before officials could deliver the criminal summonses, Shellenberger dispatched police officers to the womans home, according to her legal filing. Once there, they spoke with her grandmother, and stated that she risked facing criminal charges of her own if she pursued the charges against the men. Ultimately, prosecutors dropped the charges against the men.

The womans account was included in a broader class-action lawsuit filed by several women against Baltimore County and UMBC. But in 2020, U.S. District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow threw out all of the claims except hers.

Her case, focused on possible First Amendment violations, was allowed to go forward. In a rare move last year, Chasanow denied immunity for Shellenberger, opening the door for a trial or a settlement in the womans case.

The three baseball players received $150,000 each from the university in a defamation case, after they were named in an article about the assault allegations by the campus newspaper, The Retriever. The university is under a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into its Title IX compliance and response to sexual harassment complaints.

Shellenbergers record on sexual misconduct allegations was questioned frequently during his recent reelection bid. Ultimately, Shellenberger won a narrow victory over his first primary challenger since his election in 2006.

Go here to see the original:
$100K settlement reached in lawsuit over Baltimore County's handling of sexual assault case - Baltimore Sun

EMILY LIU/The Sun

The Haddonfield School District Board of Education meeting on Oct. 13 was a work session to review the agenda for an action meeting Thursday.

In a response to prior discussions, board member Lynn Hoag said a new form has been released and made available for parents to opt their students out of health, sex-ed, family life and dissections courses. Assistant Superintendent Gino Priolo explained what happens when a parent wants to opt their student out of a course other than what is listed and in accordance with New Jersey law.

Sometimes parents might want to opt out of something that goes beyond the scope of whats required by statute, and the process there is to schedule a meeting with the principal and have an open dialogue about understanding the unique concerns that might be brought and talk factually about what is or isnt part of the curriculum or being presented, Priolo explained.

Once those two views are heard, the principal will follow with what options are available in that case.

The opt-out form is available on the district website under Parents and lists a Parents statement of conflict with conscious form, in addition to the districts position on the right to opt out.

Up for second reading at the next board meeting will be two policies. The first is on bias crimes or bias-related acts that had previously omitted a phrase requiring the district to notify the borough police department and the bias investigation officer for the county prosecutors office when a bias crime or bias-related act has been committed. Though there had been discussion about the ramifications of reporting minors for unintentional acts, the language has been reincluded in the update for the policy.

The resolution on the agenda list(s) reasons that the board might oppose these changes, said Hoag, though none were seen on the draft of the policy available on the district website.

Additionally, the board will vote on an update to Policy 2240 on controversial issues, which was discussed by the equity council in addition to the policy committee.

In response to community feedback, the committee removed the section that read, In the discussion of any issue, a teacher may express a personal opinion, provided the expression is characterized as personal opinion and does not attempt to persuade students to the teachers point of view from the updated policy.

Central to our research surrounds the First Amendment right of teachers, the board wrote in a statement on the matter. We consulted with the school districts solicitor and our policy consultant, Strauss Esmay Associates. Our research concluded that removing the phrase, a teacher may express a personal opinion from the policy would not violate the First Amendment rights of teachers and is supported in case law.

Up for introduction on first reading at Thursdays meeting will be an updated dress code for district and support staff members more specific than what was in place.

(This is) just cleaning up and updating, Hoag noted. We all got a little relaxed during COVID, so this is just to encourage professionalism in attire.

The new regulations deem the following items inappropriate for a staff member to wear: ripped or torn jeans; shorts, sweatpants or workout attire; T-shirts with writing, images and advertising brands; strapless shirts and dresses; beach wear; and hats or head coverings, unless approved for medical or religious reasons.

Board member David Siedell questioned whether teachers wearing shirts that support the l district or other Haddonfield-related attire would be considered advertising or branding, and Priolo suggested a grace period for teachers who might need to make adjustments to their wardrobes.

During the boards committee of the whole meeting, members discussed the purpose and aim of the equity council. While no decisions were made, the board revisited the context behind the councils creation and acknowledged the work it has done to engage the community and lead to more inclusivity and understanding.

Thursdays board meeting will begin at 7 p.m. at the high-school library.

Read more:
Haddonfield board of ed to vote on updated policies at next meeting - The Sun Newspapers

Door County middle and high school students, including students who are home-schooled, are encouraged to participate in the Wisconsin Newspaper Association Foundations editorial writing and cartoon contest, which is now open to all Wisconsin students.

The contest is designed to increase civic education and engagement while celebrating the rights established by the First Amendment, so entries should focus on the importance of the First Amendment. Students are encouraged to draw from personal experiences, current events and historical examples.

For the writing contest, high school students are asked to write a guest column (500 words or fewer) about the First Amendment, and middle school students are asked to write a letter to the editor (200 words or fewer) on the same topic. Students may compete in the editorial-cartoon contests by submitting one First Amendmentthemed editorial cartoon.

The submission deadline is Oct. 24, and winners will be announced in early December. First-place winners in each contest will receive $500, second place $250, third place $100 and honorable mentions $50. Winning entries will also be published by newspapers across the state. If there are winners from Door County, those entries will be published in the Peninsula Pulse.

Another way that the Wisconsin Newspaper Association Foundation seeks to support educational civics initiatives is through the Wisconsin Civics Games. The foundation is gearing up for the 2023 Wisconsin games, which will conclude with the state finals, set for May 12 at the state Capitol in Madison. Regional competitions will be held virtually April 13-14.

Students can sign up now at wisconsincivicsgames.com.

Read more here:
Student Writing and Cartoon Contest Now Open - Door County Pulse

Attorney Joe Miller, left, with his client, Wasilla Republican Rep. David Eastman, listens to judge Jack McKenna during a hearing challenging Eastman's eligibility to hold office and appear on the general election ballot, on Friday, Sept. 9, 2022 in Anchorage. Eastman is a member of the Oath Keepers, a far-right militia group whose leaders have been accused of plotting to storm the U.S. Capitol to overturn the 2020 election. (Loren Holmes / ADN)

Theres a constitutional crisis brewing in Alaskas courts. It revolves around a provision in Alaskas constitution known as the disloyalty clause, which reads: No person who advocates, or who aids or belongs to any party or organization or association which advocates, the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United States or of the State shall be qualified to hold any public office of trust or profit under this constitution. After the Capitol riots on Jan. 6, 2021, it became known that Rep. David Eastman is a life member of the Oath Keepers, a fringe right-wing group with several members who participated in the violence that day and, prosecutors argue, were attempting to overthrow the government by force.

Lets make one thing perfectly clear: Throughout his legislative career, Rep. Eastman has been ineffective, unpleasant and hateful. He has wasted massive amounts of precious time in legislative sessions grandstanding, bickering with the leadership of committees and the House, and offering frivolous amendments often drafted with little apparent purpose other than to bog down the lawmaking process. He has made abhorrent statements about the motivations of women in rural committees who make the agonizing choice to get an abortion. He has made hyperbolic, counterfactual comparisons that reveal a bizarre fixation with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. He has abjectly failed to provide effective representation for his constituents, to the point that he was almost singlehandedly responsible for the formation of a bipartisan majority caucus despite Republicans holding more than half the seats in the House several members of his party recognized that it would be more productive to work with Democrats than try to hold together a caucus with Eastman.

Put simply, there is little reason for voters in Eastmans district to reelect him to another term but they likely will, judging by the results of the primary election. And its entirely possible that, shortly after the election, Eastman will be disqualified from serving the term he was elected to because of a lawsuit over his Oath Keepers membership. That would likely be a positive for the comity of the Alaska State House, but it would set a dangerous precedent that would undermine foundational principles of American democracy. Being truly faithful to democratic principles means realizing that Rep. Eastman is free to have terrible ideas and the people of his district and of any district in the state must be free to pick their elected representative.

The issue is that the Alaska Constitutions disloyalty clause runs squarely against the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitutions protections of freedom of association. Based on all information publicly available, Eastmans ties to the Oath Keepers appear tenuous although he donated to the organization at some point, no evidence has been brought forward showing that he was in communication with the members of the group perpetrating violence in the Capitol, nor has any allegation been made that he has committed any crime. If Eastman is found to be in violation of the disloyalty clause unless some new bombshell emerges that establishes he had a role in the events on Jan. 6 it will be solely because he is a member of the Oath Keepers group. And thats a dangerous road to go down.

Its no coincidence that the Alaska Constitutions disloyalty clause was included near the height of the Red Scare in the mid-1950s, when membership in the Communist Party was seen as sufficient justification for investigation by the FBI, blacklists in Hollywood and Star Chamber-esque hearings by Sen. Joe McCarthy. With the benefit of perspective that the intervening years have given us, its clear that simple membership in a group even a group on the political fringe wasnt sufficient justification for the abuses perpetrated.

Put another way, political pendulums swing in both directions. Were Eastman to be removed from office for his tenuous connection to the Oath Keepers, it would open the door to scenarios such as challenges against supporters of social movements such as Black Lives Matter because of the anti-government statements made by fringe elements who are also members. The insensibility of such a precedent should be apparent to those at all points on the political spectrum.

There are some narrow circumstances that justify the removal of an elected official generally, the high crimes and misdemeanors standard of presidential impeachment is a good guideline. Especially when it comes to removal by the judiciary, the justification should not fall short of the elected official being convicted of a crime. Any lower standard would amount to a disenfranchisement of the voters who chose that person as their representative.

Rep. David Eastman is a bad representative, and he has demonstrated so during his years in the Legislature. But it shouldnt be the courts place to bar him from office when he hasnt committed a crime. Thats a task that lies in the hands of his districts voters and, despite the disloyalty clause, the court shouldnt be in a position to overrule their decision.

Link:
EDITORIAL: The danger at the heart of the Eastman lawsuit - Anchorage Daily News

The News: The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) filed a federal lawsuit against the City of La Crosse on behalf of Joy Buchman, a licensed mental health professional and owner of Kinsman Redeemer Counseling Center, LLC (Kinsman). The suit challenges the citys ordinance that penalizes medical or mental health professionals if they express certain prohibited viewpoints relating to sexual orientation or gender identity when counseling their minor patients.The ordinance would, for example, require professional counselors to either affirm the decision of any minor patient to transition to a new gender identitydespite ongoing, good-faith disagreements among professionals on whether and under what circumstances such transitions should take placeor remain silent.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of the Western District in Wisconsin, urges the court to declare that La Crosse has no authority to prohibit speech it dislikes, forcing medical and mental health experts to choose between advancing the citys perspective or facing financial and professional ruin.

WILL Quote: WILL Deputy Counsel, Anthony LoCoco, said, The City of La Crosse is under the mistaken impression that it can simply punish citizens who dare to voice officially disfavored viewpoints on public issues of critical importance.The First Amendment prohibits exactly this kind of big-government bullying. Attempts to falsely paint as hateful those who share good-faith disagreements on matters going to the core of what it means to be human wont salvage the Citys position.

Client Quote: Licensed counselor and owner of Kinsman, Joy Buchman, said, My mission as a counselor is to provide healing and guidance to anyone who comes to me for help. Government officials should not be allowed to police the private conservations I have with clients in need and then punish me for saying something they dont like.

Background: WILL sent apublic letterto the La Crosse Common Council back in August, warning that Ordinance No. 5220 violates free speech, religious liberty, and due process guarantees in the state and/or federal constitutions, among other legal problems. The letter explained why the prohibitions in the original ordinance unconstitutionally restricted the speech of clergy, parents, and licensed mental health counselors. The broad ban was impermissibly vague and also preempted by state law.

However, the City of La Crosse passed an amended version of the ordinance last month, 8-4 with one abstention. The new ban is limited to medical and mental health professionals but continues to restrict significant amounts of speech on issues of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. If medical and mental health professionals engage in any efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, the Chief of Police and other city officials or employees can issue citations of up to $1,000 per violation. Those who do not follow the ordinance may also face a potential referral to the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services for further investigation and possible sanction.

The Lawsuit: The lawsuit principally alleges that the City of La Crosse has no power to pick and choose which viewpoints are permissible or impermissible in counselor-patient discourse, preventing Ms. Buchman from counseling in a manner consistent with her professional and religious views.The lawsuit also argues that the statute violates free exercise protections, is unconstitutionally vague, and is preempted by state law.

The lawsuit requests the Court enter a declaratory judgement that the Ordinance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Wisconsin Constitution, and is preempted by state law. The suit also urges the court to bar the City of La Crosse from enforcing the Ordinance, and award the Plaintiff nominal damages, costs, and attorneys fees.

Read More:

See the original post:
WILL Sues City of La Crosse Over Ordinance Violating the First Amendment - Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty

Fifteen years ago, while visiting Harvard University, I sat in on a lecture given at the law school on taboo and the First Amendment by famed attorney Alan Dershowitz, with guest appearances by Steven Pinker and Randall Kennedy. Dershowitz was erudite and earnest, utterly in his elementthe word show is in his name, after all. When he quizzed his audience on the purpose of the First Amendment, one student ventured that it protected the right to free speech.

Dershowitz erupted. No. No. No. It does no such thing. As I recall him proclaiming, the First Amendment does not protect you from your boss, whoin most casescan fire you for the words you choose. It does not protect you from the harsh judgments of others, and the repercussions that can ensue. You can still be sued for defamation or charged with breaking the law.

In fact, what the First Amendment actuallydoesis disallow thegovernmentfrom abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. It offers no more protection from the consequences of expression than that experienced by this hapless law student in Dershowitzs classroom.

This tutorial comes to mind in light of the repercussions from speech currently being experienced by Infowars lunatic Alex Jones. In August, a juryorderedhim to pay $49.2 million in damages to the parents of a first-grader murdered in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre of 2012. It is the first of three defamation cases stemming from Joness grotesque claim that the mass killing of twenty children and six educators, in Newtown, Connecticut, was fabricated to drum up support for gun control.

Of course, Jones, who at his trialacknowledgedthe Sandy Hook shooting was 100 percent real, deserves to pay a price for his deliberate lies and cruelty. But sadly, itshighly unlikelythat this awarded amount will stand, due to strict caps on punitive damages in Texas, where the judgment was rendered. Jones, a shameless seller of snake oil to his deluded followers, has anestimated net worthof between $135 million and $270 million. He and other belligerent fabulists, toborrowsome words fromThe New York Times, will go on building profitable media empires with easily disprovable lies.

Wesley Ball, an attorney for the parents, urged the Texas jury to send a message of rebuke to the fabulists. I am asking you to take the bullhorn away from Alex Jones and all of the others who believe they can profit off of fear and misinformation, hesaidin his closing statement. The gold rush of fear and misinformation must end, and it must end today.

But no such relief will likely be forthcoming. Defamation law generally applies only to speech that damages individual persons or businesses; it does not cover lies told about science, history, or the government. As the Associated Pressput it, Holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, and vaccine skeptics are free to post their theories without much fear of a multimillion-dollar court judgment.

The only available counter to misinformation, it seems, is accurate information. Like democracy itself, the preservation of truth involves constant struggle, and allowing all points of view to be heard is helpful to that cause. But it is not a mandate of the First Amendment. Just look at another recent situation involving, of all people, Alan Dershowitz.

In an August 6op-edforNew York Daily News, the now-emeritus Harvard law professor threatened to sue his local library in Marthas Vineyard, Massachusetts, for not including him in its annual lecture series. He insists it was because he had served as a member of Donald Trumps legal team during his first impeachment trial.

Libraries are obviously allowed to exercise discretion, inviting [whomever] they wish, Dershowitz wrote. But in this case, my disinvitation was caused solely by the fact that I defended a President they didnt like. The fact that I voted against him twice didnt excuse my political sin.

Dershowitz declared that the Chilmark Free Public Librarys decision not to include him in its annual lecture series, as it has in years past, amounted to banning a speaker based entirely on partisan and ideological factors. He claimed, without providing evidence, that some prominent supporters of the library dont want my views to be sponsored by their library.

In aletterto the library director, Dershowitz apologized for letting the issue become so personal while repeating his accusation that someone . . . succumbed to political pressures to prevent him from speaking. The library trustees, in a subsequent meeting with Dershowitz, staunchlydisagreed, saying he was not included because he asked to speak after the librarys schedule had already been set. The library board agreed to consider him as a potential speaker in its 2023 lineup; Dershowitz begrudgingly set aside for now his threat of legal action while continuing to assert that his First Amendment rights were somehow violated.

No. No. No. They were not. The First Amendment, in my opinion, does not require that Alan Dershowitz be provided an opportunity to speak at his local library. It just doesnt. And I say that as someone who was awed to see Dershowitz give a lecture, and would love to do so again.

If Dershowitz were being fair in his assessment, he would acknowledge that libraries and librarians areon theof the defense of free speech, often courageously so. He owes more respect to the trustees of the Chilmark library board than to speculatively impugn them. There is no reason to believe they acted because of Dershowitzs representation of Trumpor Harvey Weinstein, or Jeffrey Epstein, or O.J. Simpson, or Leona Helmsley, or any of a long list of other unsavory characters he hasthrough the yearsother than Dershowitzs apparent deep-down longing for victimhood.

But even if it did want to exclude Dershowitz because of what he might say, the library would have been within its rights to do so. Thats part of the discretion he admits it is allowed to exercise. What if the speaker demanding an invite from his local library was, say, Alex Jones? Does the library have to say yes? Of course not. One of the consequences of speech is that people may decide that you are someone to whom they would rather not listen.

Another self-proclaimed martyr for the First Amendment is David Daleiden. Hes the guy who in 2015 released highly edited videos purporting to show that Planned Parenthood was engaged in the harvesting and sale of fetal body parts. The videos were widely discredited and Planned Parenthood wasrepeatedly clearedof wrongdoing. In 2017, the state of CaliforniachargedDaleiden and a fellow anti-abortion activist with multiple felonies, some of whichremain pendi.

In a recent onlinearticleforThe Progressive, I wrote about how the Thomas More Society is using Daleidens pending prosecution to raise money. That drew anemailfrom Daleiden himself, asking to submit a letter to the editor in response to that, and to Helen Christophis investigative report that partly dealt with him inThe Progressives April/May 2021 issue. The magazine agreed, but no letter was forthcoming.

In his email to me, Daleiden urged progressives of good will to oppose the political weaponization of Californias police and judicial power to censor opposition speech. He linked to amotionfiled in July arguing that this prosecution vi olated his First Amendment rights.

No. No. No. It does not. Daleiden and his fellow defendant are charged with criminal eavesdropping and conspiring to invade the privacy of abortion providers. Maybe theyre guilty as charged; maybe not. Maybe the jury will get it right; maybe it wont. But theconductthey are accused of committing is not protected under the First Amendment. Its just not. And I think the courts will agree, even given the U.S. Supreme Courtswholesale embraceof First Amendment protections for things like spending unlimited amounts of money to sway elections. Well see.

Meanwhile, a compelling example of rights that the First Amendment does protect is playing out in Florida. There, the states attention-seeking, culture-war-waging governor, Ron DeSantis,suspendedAndrew Warren, the elected state attorney of Hillsborough County, for pledging to not criminally prosecute people who violate Floridas new fifteen-week abortion ban.

Warren, who has filed a federal lawsuit against DeSantis, wasnotremoved for actually refusing to charge someone, as he could surely have done under the broad discretion granted to prosecutors. He got the hook forsayinghe would not do so, and, the suit alleges, for signing a statement condemning the proposed criminalization of transgender people and gender-affirming health care.

Government is not allowed to punish people for speech, and that seems exactly what DeSantis is trying to do to Warren. The courts should not allow it.

Reasonable people may disagree about what the First Amendment requires or protects, but two things are true: The government is not supposed to infringe on free speech, and no one is ever free of consequences for what they say and do.

See the article here:
First Things First: Speech and Consequences - Progressive.org - Progressive.org

The deadline to register to vote is Oct. 18. Early voting runs from Oct. 26 to Nov. 5. Heres what you need to know.

West Virginians will go to the polls to elect two members of the U.S. House of Representatives, state delegates, state senators, and in many places, new county and city officials. Plus, there are four proposed changes to the West Virginia Constitution. If voters approve them, the amendments will let churches incorporate and give more power to the state Legislature to modify property taxes, set education policy, and conduct impeachment trials without state court interference.

To register to vote in West Virginia, you must:

You can search for your voter registration information on the Secretary of States website by entering your name and date of birth.

The deadline to register to vote is Oct. 18, 2022. You can register online, by mail or in person. You will need a valid ID in order to vote; heres a list of acceptable IDs. Note that first-time voters may be asked to provide additional identification with their current name and address.

You can search for your polling place on the Secretary of States website by entering your name and date of birth.

Deadline to register: Oct. 18, 2022

Early voting starts Oct. 26 and goes through Nov. 5. Heres a list of early voting locations and times.

Election Day: Tuesday, November 8, 2022

Yes, but unlike in recent elections, you have to meet certain requirements before youre allowed to vote absentee in West Virginia. Eligibility requires two basic criteria: (1) confinement or not being present in the county during in-person voting, and (2) a permitted reason/excuse.

Read more on the Secretary of States website.

If approved by voters, this amendment would bar all state courts from interfering with impeachment trials conducted by the West Virginia Legislature.

Background: In 2018, a panel of five circuit judges ruled in a case that halted impeachment proceedings in the West Virginia Legislature against several state Supreme Court justices. Lawmakers who support the amendment have said it is necessary and the legislative branch needs this check on the power of the judicial branch. Opponents argue it would remove some of the existing checks and balances built into the system.

If approved by voters, this amendment would allow the state Legislature to adjust property taxes paid on business inventory; business machinery and equipment; and personal vehicles.

Background: Republicans in the Legislature have wanted for years to eliminate these taxes, which provide hundreds of millions of dollars each year for local services like schools, libraries and emergency services. Theres still no plan to replace the money that local governments get from this tax, although state senators passed a non-binding resolution saying they were committed to [replace] revenue in perpetuity that is above and beyond the personal property taxes to be eliminated.

Almost all local governments have urged people to reject this amendment, which would replace a consistent source of annual funding with one that would be controlled by the state Legislature every year. Gov. Jim Justice has also campaigned against the amendment; he wants to reduce personal income taxes rather than property taxes.

If approved by voters, churches would be allowed to incorporate in West Virginia, which is the only state in the nation that does not allow the practice in its constitution.

Background: This proposed amendment comes after a federal judges ruling in neighboring Virginia that prohibiting a church from incorporating violated its First Amendment rights. The language in the West Virginia Constitution comes from the Virginia Constitution.

If approved by voters, state lawmakers would have the final say over policies and rules created by the West Virginia Board of Education.

Background: The state Board of Education operates independently from the Legislature, with the boards nine voting members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. The board sets policies about what students are taught in K-12 schools, teacher requirements, discipline policy and many other areas of school administration. Currently the board does not have to submit school policies and rules to lawmakers for approval. In 2017, the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled that legislative action that impedes school board policy would be unconstitutional. But this constitutional amendment would usurp that ruling.

You can read the full text of all four amendments here.

Read more frequently asked questions here.

Other West Virginia elected offices including governor, attorney general, secretary of state wont beup for election until 2024. The U.S. Senate seat held by Joe Manchin will also be up in 2024; the states other U.S. Senate seat, held by Shelley Moore Capito, wont be up until 2026.

Also note that West Virginia lawmakers completely re-drew the states legislative maps in 2021. Because of that, your U.S. congressional district, state delegate district and state senate district may have changed.

Read the rest here:
West Virginia 2022 elections voter guide: What you need to know - Mountain State Spotlight

October 13, 2022

Media reports about attempts to pass educational gag orders and ban books with divisive concepts are now surprisingly common with such efforts likely to continue into 2023 and beyond.

UWMadisons Ashley White and Kimber Wilkerson are taking part in a panel discussion about this important topic on Tuesday, Oct. 25, at 12 p.m. (CST).

Sponsored by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), the virtual event is titled, The State of Education Censorship in Institutions of Higher Education and Implications for the Field. A preview for the discussion notes: Education censorship harms learner development and critical thinking and is an escalating threat to First Amendment rights.

This webinar will cover key findings and insights from AACTEs report, authored by White, that is also titled, The State of Education Censorship in Institutions of Higher Education, and Implications for the Field.

A preview of the event adds: As a leading voice in educator preparation programs representing more than 800 postsecondary institutions, AACTE has its pulse on the effects of the censorship climate and legislation on both PK-12 practitioners and teacher educators.

Moderating the webinar will be AACTE President and CEO Lynn M. Gangone, who will be joined by panelists White and Wilkerson.

White is an assistant professor with the School of Educations Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education (RPSE) and is the Fellow for Equity Access and Opportunity with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). She researches the intersectionality of ethno-racial identities and disability across the educational continuum through the consideration of student and educator experiences in P-20 educational settings, applicable federal legislation and policy, and related socioeconomic impact with attention to the historicized context and the sociological construction of race. Most recently, she authored AACTEs commissioned report on education censorship.

Wilkerson is the School of Educations associate dean for teacher education and a professor with RPSE. She has broad expertise in the preparation of teachers to work with students with disabilities and providing instruction to students with disabilities to improve their long-term outcomes. She currently has funding from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to develop and examine virtual coaching and an online community of practice for rural special educators. She also directs a residency program in collaboration with several high-need Wisconsin school districts, funded by a Teacher Quality Partnership grant. Wilkerson was recently a member of an AACTE Networked Improvement Community focused on investigating strategies to address the chronic shortages of special educators and is a past president of the Wisconsin Association of Colleges of Teacher Education.

A preview of the webinar notes: Attendees will walk away with a resource toolkit and have the opportunity to engage in a deep dive with our panel about challenges facing higher education faculty generally, specifically teacher educators, as well as challenges to long-term efforts to address teacher shortages and diversification pipeline efforts.

Register to reserve your spot at this webinar.

Read more:
UWMadison's White, Wilkerson part of panel examining censorship in education - UW-Madison