Category Archives: First Amendment

The New Hampshire ACLU has filed a lawsuit that challenges the states ban on sharing photos of completed ballots aka ballot selfies charging that the law violates the first amendment.

There is no more potent way to communicate ones support for a candidate than to voluntarily display a photograph of ones marked ballot depicting ones vote for that candidate, the lawsuit reads.

New Hampshire has long had a law on its books banning voters from taking photos of their ballot, theoretically as a way to stop people from selling their vote. In June, the law was updated to explicitly outlaw taking a digital image or photograph of his or her marked ballot and distributing or sharing the image via social media. Violators can be punished up to $1000.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

(Massachusetts has a similar anti-ballot selfie law on its books, although it rarely if ever has been enforced.)

The law went into place Sept. 1 before the New Hampshires primary elections, and at least three people have already been investigated by the states attorney general for sharing photos of their ballot on Twitter and Facebook. One of those photo-takers, former police officer Andrew Langlois, shared a picture of his ballot in which he wrote-in the name of his deceased dog Akira as his Republican choice for the US Senate.

Another violator, state Representative Leon Rideout of Lancaster, took a ballot selfie and shared it to Twitter to make a statement, he told the Nashua Telegraph.

Langlois, Rideout, and another politician are named as plaintiffs in the ACLU lawsuit, which argues that their ballot selfies were political speech and therefore protected by the first amendment.

What this law ignores is that displaying a photograph of a marked ballot on the Internet is a powerful form of political speech that conveys various constitutionally-protected messages that have no relationship to vote buying or voter coercion, the lawsuit reads.

Read more:
New Hampshire ACLU Files Lawsuit to Make Ballot Selfies Legal

WEAPONIZING THE GOVERNMENT
If someone was trying to limit or suppress your First Amendment rights in America today, what would that Tyrant look like? A dictator in a military uniform? Or a soccer mom in a corner office?...

By: TruthRevoltOriginals

Go here to read the rest:
WEAPONIZING THE GOVERNMENT - Video

Declaring that Florida's open government laws have been "under attack in recent years," the First Amendment Foundation asked the two candidates for governor to answer three questions pledging to reverse recent trends and operate with more transparent practices if they are elected.

Gov. Rick Scott and challenger Charlie Crist were asked if they would agree to conduct all public business on public computer networks and devices, release a detailed schedule of appointments and travel, and pledge that he and staff will not use private email accounts when conducting business.

Crist, a Democrat, responded that he would. Scott, a Republican, did not respond.

The First Amendment Foundation is a non-profit open government watchdog that receives its support from voluntary contributions and many of the state's news organizations.

The governor's failure to respond comes against a backdrop of increasing questions about his commitment to Florida's open government laws.

During his term, Scott has blocked data about his private air travels from public flight tracking records. He has released only superficial details about his daily schedules. He has used, and allows his staff to use, private email accounts when corresponding on public business, creating additional barriers to public access. And his staff has been encouraged to use private cell phone accounts when sending text messages about politically sensitive issues.

In each case, the governor has said he has followed the law but his actions have drawn lawsuits.

He is is being sued by Tallahassee attorney Steven R. Andrews, a Republican, for allowing his staff to alter calendar entries, for withholding documents from public records requests and for failing to say who opened his private gmail accountand the gmail accounts of his staff. He faces another lawsuit, from attorney general candidate George Sheldon, a Democrat, alleging that his financial disclosure forms fail to reflect more than $200 million of his wealth because it excludes assets his wife owns but which Scott remains as the beneficiary.

Here are the responses from Crist:

Q: As governor, will you release a weekly calendar in advance that details your appointments, public meetings, and travel schedule?

Read more:
Open government group: Scott won't commit to reversing practices in second term

Here's the the latest in our ongoing series of some of the crazy things the anti-gay marriage equality opponents are saying and doing around the world.

I Totally Don't Understand What The First Amendment Says

Joe.My.God Points out that Bryan Fischer is mixing up his lies about the First Amendment. Speaking about the Houston pastor subpoenas, he said:

But as Joe so cleverly points out:

What a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.

full story

Matthew Shepard's Death is a Hate Crime Myth

ADF attorney Erik Stanley says the whole Matthew Shepard thing was a myth cooked up by gay activists to advance their agenda:

Unfortunately,some on our side are taking the bait, lending these charges credence, including Andrew Sullivan, who should know better.

full story

Read more:
Seriously? What Marriage Equality Opponents Are Saying - October 30th

Get Breaking News First

Receive News, Politics, and Entertainment Headlines Each Morning.

By Mike Dunn

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) A local activist has filed a federal lawsuit against Philadelphia City Council claiming that Council violates the First Amendment by limiting the topics of speeches made during its weekly meetings.

Activist Patrick Duff has, for the past few weeks, made speeches in City Council that push Councils limits on public speaking. Specifically, youre only supposed to speak about bills that are up for a vote, and Duff intentionally went beyond that. On Thursday, Duff upped the ante by announcing in his speech that he was suing Council over the rules.

I just want to present you with this, he said. This is a lawsuit against the city that I had to file because you dont allow open public comment.

Duffs suit, filed in federal court, alleges that Councils public speaking rules violate citizens rights.

Im sure everybody would like to speak openly in the city, Duff said. What this does is allow people to have open public comment, as the (state) Sunshine Act and the First Amendment allow us to do.

With a different view is Darryl Zaslow, the attorney who four years won a State Supreme Court decision that forced Council to have any public speeches. He says the legality of Councils current rules is unclear and there are arguments to be made on both sides.

It is by no means a clear cut win on either side, Zaslow said. The right to speak is very clear on matters of concern which are coming before the council or are before the council. The courts have interpreted that sometimes very narrowly, which does give City Council the right to make the claim that they do have the right to limit it.

Read the rest here:
City Council Hit With Federal Lawsuit Over Its Rules On Citizen Speeches

Wining and dining under the First Amendment
Lawyers for two companies accused in a corruption probe at Sweetwater schools are arguing they should not have to give back construction contract proceeds because the meals, trips and tickets...

By: Ricky Young

Read this article:
Wining and dining under the First Amendment - Video

The Open Mind: Free Speech and Due Process, Part 1
In this edition of The Open Mind, Burt Neuborne speaks about how the first Amendment is sugar-coated and his perspective on it. (Taped 1-16-97) In May 1956, Richard D. Heffner, American...

By: cunytv75

See more here:
The Open Mind: Free Speech and Due Process, Part 1 - Video

The Fremont City Council approved two of three proposed changes to a zoning code amendment on Tuesday prior to unanimously passing a group of amendments intended to open Fremonts doors wider to home-based businesses and home occupations.

The council heard public opposition and support during first reading of the three zoning codes on Sept. 29, but there was no opposition on Tuesday when the council, with Kevin Eairleywine and Steve Navarrette absent, approved all three amendments.

The first amendment differentiates between home-based businesses and home occupations, a distinction that didnt exist in current codes.

Under the new language, home occupations are operations run only by people who live within the household. A home-based business, on the other hand, can have up to two employees who do not live in the home.

Creating the distinction, interim City Planner Justin Zetterman explained at an Oct. 12 council meeting, allows zoning codes to be more liberally applied to home occupations than to home-based businesses. Home occupations will be allowed in nearly all residential districts, while home-based businesses will be allowed in some districts, and require a conditional use permit in others.

The Fremont Planning Commission, on Sept. 15, voted 4-3 against that amendment, and did not bring to a vote the two ensuing amendments outlining regulations on home-based businesses and home occupations. It was the second of those two ensuing amendments where Councilman Larry Johnson on Tuesday proposed changes before voting on the amendment itself.

Johnsons first change, refining language about allowable signage at home-based businesses, passed 6-0.

His second alteration, adding tattoo parlors to the list of businesses explicitly prohibited in residential districts, passed 4-2 with Jennifer Bixby and Michael Kuhns opposed. Other prohibited businesses include stables and adult entertainment establishments.

Ive talked to no one who wants a tattoo parlor in their neighborhood, Johnson said. If were going to exclude some of those other things, I think we should make it clear that thats not something that we would be approving by our changes here.

Its not necessarily the number of people, its the atmosphere, he said. I happen to drive up Main Street when Im going anywhere, and I look at the tattoo parlor that was on Main and Military, and there are regularly folks outside that just arent enhancing the image of the community, or they wouldnt be enhancing the image of a residential neighborhood.

Read more from the original source:
Code amendments open doors to home-based businesses

Scabby, the giant inflatable union rat so near and dear to the hearts of working urbanites, won its First Amendment rights in a federal ruling Wednesday, after an asbestos contractor sued to have the rat declared a disruptive practice.

[T]he defendants peaceful use of a stationary, inflatable rat to publicize a labor protest is protected by the First Amendment, ruled Judge Joseph Bianco.

Scabby is often sighted before buildings under construction, where it serves as an unavoidable marker of contractors anti-union practices. Per Bloomberg Businessweeks Josh Eidelson the AFL-CIO decided to phase Scabby into retirement last year; one hopes it has a good pension.

[h/t Bloomberg Businessweek] [Image via RoySmith (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons]

>> Follow Evan McMurry (@evanmcmurry) on Twitter

See the original post here:
Giant Union Rat Has First Amendment Rights, Just Like You

Jaunty Anaconda and the Quest for the First Amendment
This is a First Amendment Video Project from the Animas High School senior class of 2015. This video shows the 5 types of unprotected speech through 5 Monty ...

By: ahshumanities12

Continue reading here:
Jaunty Anaconda and the Quest for the First Amendment - Video