Page 222«..1020..221222223224..230240..»

Category Archives: First Amendment

NYPD says First Amendment Ends When They Say – Video

Posted: November 9, 2014 at 12:46 am


NYPD says First Amendment Ends When They Say
NYPD says First Amendment Ends When They Say. Police are still abusing their power regardless of the rhetoric coming from NYPD commissioner Bratton. We the community need to continue to ...

By: PeacefulStreetsNYC

Visit link:
NYPD says First Amendment Ends When They Say - Video

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on NYPD says First Amendment Ends When They Say – Video

The continuing collapse of the First Amendment. Do you care?

Posted: at 12:46 am

This nation's leading rescuer of the First Amendment arguing before the Supreme Court, attorney Floyd Abrams, now warns of another rising danger.

Speaking on Oct. 23 at the 15th anniversary of FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), he warned the only organization as actively devoted to the First Amendment as he is about the damage to free speech caused by college campuses retracting invitations to public speakers.

"If litigation (as FIRE is doing) is one necessary tactic to deal with such speech-limiting policies, the other is simply exposure of the misconduct, with the attendant public shame that follows the exposure."

What, after all, other than shame, is deserved by Brandeis University for offering and then withdrawing an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirst Ali for her criticism of Islam; by Smith College for withdrawing an invitation to Christine Lagarde, the first woman to head the IMG (International Monetary Fund); by Rutgers, for so embarrassing former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that she declined to appear.

"And just a few weeks ago, George Will's invitation to speak at Scripps College in California was effectively withdrawn after controversy over the invitation. "

Before continuing, I must proudly acknowledge that Floyd Abrams has been my personal First Amendment mentor for decades.He continues with a concern I've written about often here:

"What's going on? It's hard to resist the conclusion that too many of our college students evidently needed high school civics courses since they seem to have no idea what the basic thrust of the First Amendment -- and free expression more broadly -- is all about."

Abrams continues: "And they are not alone. It shows me how many people -- educated people, including scholars -- seem to believe that the First Amendment should be interpreted as nothing but an extension and embodiment of their generally liberal political views."

Floyd then speaks to all of us, not just the audience that evening at the FIRE anniversary. What he says is not being taught in the great majority of our public schools as he quoted Justice Robert Jackson:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech and religion. "

The rest is here:
The continuing collapse of the First Amendment. Do you care?

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on The continuing collapse of the First Amendment. Do you care?

Center For Disease Control/First Amendment Audit – Video

Posted: November 7, 2014 at 7:48 am


Center For Disease Control/First Amendment Audit
s.

By: HONORYOUROATH

View original post here:
Center For Disease Control/First Amendment Audit - Video

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Center For Disease Control/First Amendment Audit – Video

Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties – Video

Posted: at 7:48 am


Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties
This is a spoken word version of the article: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties Accent: American Sex of the narrator: He edits wi...

By: Spoken Wikipedia

Read this article:
Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties - Video

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties – Video

bruce bruce first amendment – Video

Posted: at 7:48 am


bruce bruce first amendment

By: Nannem Koltum

See the rest here:
bruce bruce first amendment - Video

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on bruce bruce first amendment – Video

Would an Anti-Catcalling Law Afflict the Powerful or the Weak?

Posted: at 7:48 am

Magdalena Roeseler/Flickr

Earlier this week, I argued that verbal street harassment is a serious problem worth addressing but that criminalizing it would do far more harm than good. I also made brief mention of an article by Professor Laura Beth Nielsen, who argued in The New York Times that when the Supreme Court upheld a ban on cross-burning it set a precedent that should inform the catcalling debate.

What follows is correspondence from Nielsen, who was good enough to contact me about our disagreements. Her focus was free speech and who it empowers:

We tend to think of free speech as something that protects the little guy and his unpopular opinions. There is a rich history of that in the United States. But First Amendment jurisprudence as it stands now embodies power inequalities worth exploring. In the context of uninvited speech between strangers in public, we have full protection for the pervasive racial epithets that 81 percent of people of color report hearing on the street every day or often and the sexually harassing speech that 60 percent of women report hearing every day or often. In both examples, the First Amendmentour very Constitutionprotects the powerfuls privilege to harass minority group members.

Maybe thats okay because it is the price we pay to keep our First Amendment strong. But consider that the Supreme Court has never definitively ruled on whether begginganother form of unsolicited street speechis constitutionally protected. Restrictions on begging often are upheld by the appellate courts. When laws prohibiting begging are upheld it is often justified as necessary so commuters can get where they are going without being harassed. So when members of powerful groups in society want free (if annoying, harassing, or subordinating) speech in public, they get to do it. And when powerful members of society want to be able to walk down the street without the inconvenience of being asked for money by people living in poverty, they get that too. This is not about consistent constitutional standards for street speech, it is about the power of the speaker and the spoken to.

Can we at least agree we favor principled consistency?

When can speech be limited without violating the First Amendment? Lots of times! When it is conspiracy to commit a crime, when it incites a mob, when it is obscene, when it is a cigarette advertisement, and when the speech is done with the intent to intimidate. The case that established that rule is Virginia v. Black. The intent to intimidate must be proved to a judge or jury. You may not like that First Amendment jurisprudence, but that is the rule. And yes, that case is about cross-burning which seems very different to ordinary people than mere words but for purposes of our constitution is speech, just like any other speech. And the fundamental First Amendment prohibition is to treat different kinds of speech differently. So if racist hate speech can be restricted when done with the intent to intimidate, so can sexist speech. Can we at least agree we favor principled consistency?

Would this law be enforced? Not much. It would be extremely hard to prove, hard to know who was doing the harassing (as it is often quickly and quietly accomplished or yelled from far away preventing identification), and most women arent going to report this. But the lawour lawshould stand for equality. Would a law be differentially racially enforced? Most certainly. Racial bias in policing is a serious problem that we must remedy. Rather than making this a racism vs. sexism debate, why not try to promote equality in both arenas?

Id start with drug laws. The speech/power dynamic works out in other areas of the First Amendment jurisprudence as well. When campaign dollars were determined to be speech in Citizens United, which invalidated bipartisan campaign-finance laws, the wealthy gained a lot of political power.

While I do passionately expect justice from our law, these First Amendment contradictions are not what drive my zeal to end street harassment. When I began researching street harassment more than 20 years ago, I did not expect to see a vigorous debate about the topic in my lifetime. My lived experience of being viciously, repeatedly harassed and sexualized as a young girl taught me what most Americans know and what The Atlantic article says: Street harassment is a social problem, not just an annoyance. It is an exclusionary tactic.

More:
Would an Anti-Catcalling Law Afflict the Powerful or the Weak?

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Would an Anti-Catcalling Law Afflict the Powerful or the Weak?

Man sues Westminster over his removal from City Council meeting

Posted: at 7:48 am

A man has sued Westminster, claiming his First Amendment rights of free speech were violated when the mayor silenced him during a City Council meeting and had him arrested.

Eric Brandt filed the federal lawsuit Tuesday seeking injunctive relief and compensatory damages and costs, claiming that he has the right to speak about an important public issue: "police abuses."

"Many officers have arrested him due to their personal dislike of him stemming from the fact that wherever he goes in Westminster, he carries a very large, handmade sign that reads: '(Expletive) the cops,' " the lawsuit filed by Denver attorney David Lane says.

On Aug. 11, Brandt began to talk of his concerns about the police during a segment of the meeting in which citizens are given five minutes to speak out.

When Brandt began talking about "police brutality," Mayor Herb Atchison interrupted Brandt and told him to stop talking about police brutality, the lawsuit says.

When Brandt refused to stop speaking about the subject, Atchison ordered Westminster police Officer Paul E. Newton to arrest Brandt.

At that point, Newton arrested Brandt and removed him from the council chambers, the lawsuit says.

Brandt was charged with resisting arrest and obstructing a police officer, which were later dismissed, the lawsuit says.

"He was denied his rights under the First Amendment as he was arrested in retaliation for his protected speech and he was also denied the right to petition his government for redress of grievances," the lawsuit says.

Kirk Mitchell: 303-954-1206, kmitchell@denverpost.com or twitter.com/kirkmitchell, denverpost.com/coldcases

View post:
Man sues Westminster over his removal from City Council meeting

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Man sues Westminster over his removal from City Council meeting

Five Freedoms of the First Amendment – Video

Posted: November 5, 2014 at 10:48 pm


Five Freedoms of the First Amendment
Assignment for EDUC-CI 5585.

By: Wendy Budetti

See the rest here:
Five Freedoms of the First Amendment - Video

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Five Freedoms of the First Amendment – Video

Understanding the First Amendment is essential

Posted: at 10:48 pm

Over the past ten years, there have been numerous world events that have made headlines across multiple media outlets. There have been new presidents elected, votes concerning gay marriage and Ebola outbreaks, just to name a few. But there is something happening that has seized to catch the attention of the world: murderers are walking free.

According to a report issued by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), 90 percent of murderers who have taken the life of journalists have faced no punishment. As many as 370 journalists have been murdered over the last ten years. Statistically, this means that, 9 out of 10 times, there is no conviction in journalist murders. This lack of justice brings light to governments failing to step up. Nov. 2 was deemed International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists as a way to call for justice.

According to The Guardian, UN and regional intergovernmental bodies are urged to take concrete steps to hold member states accountable to their commitments to combat impunity. And journalists are called on to monitor and report on whether these pledges are implemented.

But these attacks are not just simply attacks on human life, but attacks to what these journalists live to protect: press freedom. The Prairie recently held a Town Hall Meeting regarding First Amendment issues because most are confused as to what the First Amendment truly protects. It protects everyone.

The press is just an outlet to educate and inform citizens. Journalists hold this unacknowledged pact with society to serve them, to inform them, to provide them the truth. But its society as a whole that has these rights. Just because a person walks around with a press pass or owns the title of journalist does not mean they have extra rights, or extra protection under the First Amendment.

Here is the original post:
Understanding the First Amendment is essential

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on Understanding the First Amendment is essential

As LGBT rights expand, remember the First Amendment

Posted: at 10:47 pm

By Charles C. Haynes

Conflicts in Texas and Idaho in recent weeks have re-invigorated fears in conservative religious circles that expanding protections for LGBT rights will threaten their religious freedom.

In Houston, city lawyers obtained subpoenas requiring five pastors to turn over sermons and other communications that mention the city's equal rights ordinance. The pastors sued to nullify the subpoenas as overly broad and irrelevant to the case.

Meanwhile, in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, the city attorney opined earlier this year that two Pentecostal pastors who run a for-profit wedding chapel called Hitching Post must offer services to same-sex couples in compliance with a local ordinance banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. A few weeks ago, the owners of Hitching Post also filed suit to prevent city officials from forcing them to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies or face prosecution for violating the city's anti-discrimination law.

In their zeal to uphold non-discrimination, city attorneys in both places were tone-deaf to the protections of the First Amendment.

The Texas controversy centers on an amendment to the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) passed by the city council last May. Opponents attempted to place a repeal on the ballot in November, but their petition was rejected for not having enough valid signatures. Four taxpayers sued the city, claiming that the petition was wrongly invalidated.

As part of the discovery process, lawyers for the city obtained subpoenas for communications relating to the anti-HERO campaign including subpoenas to five Houston pastors opposed to the ordinance, but not parties to the lawsuit.

Religious leaders and civil libertarians have spoken out against the sweeping scope of the subpoenas, pointing out that the First Amendment protects the teaching of religious leaders from government intrusion.

Houston Mayor Annise Parker tweeted that sermons on political topics were fair game. But a few days later, she acknowledged that the subpoenas were overly broad. Parker announced last week that the city would withdraw the subpoenas entirely.

Coeur d'Alene officials also appear to have changed their position or rejected the position attributed to the city attorney by publicly acknowledging that Hitching Post is exempt from the city's non-discrimination law when performing religious marriages.

See original here:
As LGBT rights expand, remember the First Amendment

Posted in First Amendment | Comments Off on As LGBT rights expand, remember the First Amendment

Page 222«..1020..221222223224..230240..»