Category Archives: First Amendment

GREEN COVE SPRINGS, Fla. -

A warning Tuesday night to Clay County leaders from their attorney. End the ban on adult establishments or face a pricey lawsuit.

The Clay County Planning and Zoning Department held a meeting to discuss ways that would allow sex shops to open while keeping residents happy.

The county placed a ban on all forms of adult businesses in 1985. County attorney Mark Scruby told a heated crowd that if that ban remained in place, the county could face a First Amendment lawsuit from someone trying to open such a business because it would violated their constitutional right to free speech.

Many people at the meeting did not agree.

"I'm a mom and I don't think that type of industry brings positive growth," said Joie McGee, a resident who founded the Concerned Citizens Against Adult Entertainment. "The county has stated this will increase crime rate and decrease property taxes. So, we're just very concerned as to why they think it's necessary to make these initiatives.

The initiatives are a three-pronged approach county officials would have to propose to regulating adult businesses in Clay County.

Scruby said the first would be a regulatory ordinance which would regulate how a sex-themed business would operate. The second is a public nudity ordinance which would restrict public nudity. The third is a locational ordinance that would regulate where adult entertainment establishments would be allowed to locate.

One county planner worked along with Scruby and recommended 28 sites that are just south of Fleming Island on U.S. Highway 17, to be designated for these shops.

Clay County Commissioner Ronnie Robinson disagrees with ending the ban.

Read the original here:
County could face First Amendment lawsuit

INFORMUCATE: FIRST AMENDMENT
Search thousands of Informucate Fast Facts videos here: http://www.informucate.com/videos/

By: INFORMUCATE

Continue reading here:
INFORMUCATE: FIRST AMENDMENT - Video

Religious Liberty, 1st Amendment Rights Unlawful Searches: A look ahead for the 2014 Supreme Court
Will the Supreme Court grant religious rights to prison inmates? Does the first amendment freedom of speech protect you from posting violent language on Facebook? Are police subject to the...

By: AnneElise Goetz

See the original post:
Religious Liberty, 1st Amendment Rights & Unlawful Searches: A look ahead for the 2014 Supreme Court - Video

Twitter has filed a lawsuit againt the US Department of Justice yesterday, alleging that the restrictions on what the company can report publicly about the governments national security requests for user data violate the firms First Amendment rights.

In the suit filed in the US District Court Twitter argued that the current rules prevent it from even stating that it has not received any national security requests for user information.

Twitter said the restrictions violate the Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

Tech companies have sought to clarify their relationships with law enforcement and spying agencies in the wake of revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden that outlined the depth of US spying activities.

Twitter's lawsuit follows an agreement between companies like Google and Microsoft with the government about court orders they receive related to surveillance.

The agreement freed the companies to disclose the number of orders they received, but only in broad ranges. A company that offers email services, for example, would be able to say it received between zero and 999 orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court during a six-month period for email content belonging to someone outside the United States.

"The US government has taken the position that service providers like Twitter are even prohibited from saying that they have received zero national security requests, or zero of a particular type of national security request," Twitter said in its complaint.

The Justice Department responded to the lawsuit with a statement on how it has worked with other companies.

Earlier this year, the government addressed similar concerns raised in a lawsuit brought by several major tech companies," Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Pierce said. "There, the parties worked collaboratively to allow tech companies to provide broad information on government requests while also protecting national security."

The American Civil Liberties Union praised Twitter's action, saying in a statement that the company was doing the right thing by "challenging this tangled web of secrecy rules and gag orders."

Visit link:
Twitter sues US Justice for right to disclose surveillance requests

On the evening of June 16, 2010, Northrup was walking down a street in his neighborhood, with his wife, daughter, grandson, and their Yorkshire terrier, and a handgun holstered on his right hip, when Alan Rose drove by on a motorcycle. Northrup and Rose did not know each other, but Rose stopped his motorcycle and began telling Northrup that he could not walk around in public while openly carrying a handgun. Northrup and his wife told Rose that open carry of a firearm is legal in Ohio, but the conversation quickly devolved into an argument. After a few minutes, Northrup and his family continued walking while Rose called 911. A dispatcher with the Toledo, Ohio Police Division sent Officers Comes and Bright, as well as Sergeant Ray, to investigate.

Officer Bright arrived first. He stopped and exited his car and approached Northrup and his family from behind, while on foot. The parties dispute the exact sequence of the events that took place next. Northrup testified his daughter informed him when she saw Officer Brights car driving down the street. Northrups cell phone was clipped to his belt, next to his holster. He took his cell phone off of his belt and accessed the camera feature in order to record the impending encounter with the officer. When Officer Bright approached, he said excuse me to get Northrups attention. Northrup then turned toward Officer Bright with his cell phone in one hand and the dogs leash in the other.

Officer Bright testified he said excuse me and asked Northrup to hand the dog leash to his wife. At this point, Officer Bright states Northrup reached back to remove his cell phone. Officer Bright thought Northrup had made a furtive movement toward his handgun. Officer Bright then placed his hand on his holstered weapon and ordered Northrup to hand his cell phone and the dog leash to his wife. He ordered Northrup to turn around and place his hands above his head while he removed Northrups gun from the holster.

Officer Bright asked for and received Northrups drivers license, before handcuffing Northrup and placing him in the back seat of his police cruiser. While Officer Bright entered Northrups personal information into the computer in his cruiser, Sergeant Ray arrived. Sergeant Ray and Officer Bright discussed the situation before Sergeant Ray contacted the Detective Bureau to determine if Northrup could be charged with committing an offense. Following this phone call, Officer Bright issued Northrup a citation for failure to disclose personal information; this charge ultimately was dismissed following the request of a City of Toledo prosecutor.

[First Amendment:] Northrup alleges the Defendants violated his right to symbolic speech when Officer Bright seized and harassed Mr. Northrup without probable cause and based solely upon his openly carrying a holstered firearm. He contends he was engaged in symbolic speech by openly carrying a firearm in a holster and that this expressed his opinion that Ohioans should exercise their fundamental right to bear arms and educate[d] the public that open carry is permissible in Ohio.

[U]nder Spence [v. Washington], the relevant inquiry is whether there is a great likelihood that those who observed the plaintiffs would understand the message they attempted to convey. Here, it is clear Northrup did not convey his intended message simply by openly carrying a handgun, as he and Rose argued about whether Northrup legally could carry a handgun in that manner. The fact that Northrup had to explain the message he intended to convey undermines the argument that observers would likely understand the message. [Rumsfeld v. FAIR (2000) also supports this conclusion on the courts part. -EV]

Northrup also fails to identify any case in which a court concluded that gun possession alone conveys any message at all. Moreover, the surrounding circumstances on June 16 offer no support to Northrups intended message. As he notes, he simply was walking on a public sidewalk in his neighborhood with his wife, daughter, grandchild, and dog. Northrup fails to show his action of openly carrying a handgun is sufficiently imbued with elements of communication or that the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it. Spence. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Northrups First Amendment claim on the basis of qualified immunity.

[Second Amendment:] [McDonald v. City of Chicago] was not issued until after the events at issue in this case took place. Prior to McDonald, the Supreme Court had expressly held that the Second Amendment prohibited only Congress from infringing on the right to bear arms and left the states free to restrict or protect the right under their police powers. [Moreover, n]either the parties nor my own research has identified any case in which the Second Amendment was held to cover [a right to openly carry a gun outside the home]. Instead, several appellate courts have expressly declined to hold this right exists.

A government official is entitled to qualified immunity from a plaintiffs claims of constitutional violation unless the officials conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. A new constitutional rule simply could not have been clearly established at the time of [the] defendants alleged misconduct. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Northrups Second Amendment claim.

[Fourth Amendment:] The Fourth Amendment requires that a police officer determine probable cause exists prior to making an arrest. The Fourth Amendment also covers a less intrusive category of searches and seizures known as a Terry stop. If an officer has a reasonable suspicion criminal activity is occurring, that officer may briefly stop an individual to make reasonable inquiries designed to confirm or dispel that suspicion. The officer also may undertake this course of inquiry if the officer has a reasonable suspicion the individual previously committed a crime. An officers reasonable suspicion must be supported by specific and articulable facts.

See the rest here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Lawful open carry and the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments

Twitter just sued the federal government over restrictions the government places on how much the company can disclose about surveillance requests it receives.

For months, Twitter has tried to negotiate with the government to expand the kind of information that it and other companies are allowed to disclose. But it failed. Today, Twitter asserts in its suit that preventing the company from telling users how often the government submits national security requests for user data is a violation of the First Amendment.

The move goes a step beyond a challenge filed by Google and other companies last year that also sought permission on First Amendment grounds to disclose how often it receives national security requests for data. In the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks about government spying and the so-called PRISM program, the companies sought to add statistics about national security requests to transparency reports that some of them were already publishing. Up to that point, the reports had revealed only the number of general law enforcement requests for data that the companies received each year, not so-called National Security Letters the companies received for data or other national security requests submitted with a court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court.

The companies asserted that without the ability to disclose more details about the data requests they received, the public was left to speculate wildly that they were providing unfettered access to user data or giving the government information in bulk. If the public knew how few requests for data they actually received, they argued, people would be re-assured that this was not the case.

[G]overnment nondisclosure obligations regarding the number of FISA national security requests that Google receives, as well as the number of accounts covered by those requests, fuel that speculation, Googles Chief Legal Officer David Drummond wrote in a letter to the attorney general and FBI. Googles numbers would clearly show that our compliance with these requests falls far short of the claims being made. Google has nothing to hide.

Although the companies won a partial victory in negotiation when the government agreed earlier this year to let them publish broad statistics about national security requests they received, the statistics turned out to be nothing more than a coy tease. They provided no real transparency. The companies were only allowed to publish a range of the requests they received. For example, they were only allowed to disclose that they had received between 0 and 999 national security requests for data. They also had a six-month delay imposed on them, prohibiting them from disclosing certain sets of information, and a two-year delay for disclosing other sets of data.

In August, Google and Microsoft pressed for the right to release more statistics, including a breakdown of the number of requests specifically targeting user content, versus requests seeking metadata.

Twitter was not part of the legal challenges filed by the other companies but engaged in its own battle for more transparency. Last April, the company submitted a draft of the kind of transparency report it sought to make public.

Twitter sought, among other things, to narrow the scope for reporting statistics. Instead of reporting requests in a range of 0 to 999, it wanted to be able to report actual aggregate numbers for the number of NSL and FISA orders it received and to be able to break down, in smaller batches, each type of request. For example, it wanted to be able to report the number of NSLs and FISA orders it received in a range of 1-99.

The Justice Department responded in September that the proposed report contained classified informationwithout specifying which part of the information was classifiedthat could not be publicly released under the current FISA and National Security Letter laws. These statutes come with a gag order preventing service providers from disclosing the data requests they receive.

Read the original post:
Twitter Sues the Government for Violating Its First Amendment Rights

Twitter has launched a suit against the US Government. The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court of Northern California, demands that Twitter's full transparency report about law enforcement requests be published in its entirety, and that restrictions placed on what may be disclosed are illegal under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Conditions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) prevent companies from disclosing exact numbers of requests it receives in anything but the broadest ranges. Twitter not only wants to disclose more specific numbers, but also wishes to be able to say that they received none, if applicable. The company filed its report, and wanted input on what the government considered classified in July -- in September, the US Government declared that "information contained in the [transparency] report is classified and cannot be publicly released." Twitter disagrees.

Vice President of Twitter Legal Ben Lee wrote that "It's our belief that we are entitled under the First Amendment to respond to our users' concerns and to the statements of U.S. government officials by providing information about the scope of U.S. government surveillance -- including what types of legal process have not been received. We should be free to do this in a meaningful way, rather than in broad, inexact ranges."

Lee goes on to say that "the Defendants' position forces Twitter either to engage in speech that has been preapproved by government officials or else to refrain from speaking altogether." Additionally, the Twitter-filed complaint says that the restrictions are "an unconstitutional prior restraint" and "government viewpoint discrimination" against Twitter's right to discuss what it has received for legal process claims.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, also serving California, is examining the same issue from a different complainant this week. A ruling may not come in this week's similar case for some time.

Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Pierce said of the suit that "earlier this year, the government addressed similar concerns raised in a lawsuit brought by several major tech companies." Referring to the current system of transparency, Pierce claimed that "the parties worked collaboratively to allow tech companies to provide broad information on government requests while also protecting national security."

Twitter FISA complaint to US District Court

By Electronista Staff

See the rest here:
Twitter rails at transparency report conditions, files suit against US

first amendment bi*ches
http://youtu.be/ykljw6bFPgo http://youtu.be/twAzQ2Kjq78 http://youtu.be/rcil3XSW8Kk http://youtu.be/jZ95i7PE-kA.

By: Gary Wishon

Continue reading here:
first amendment bi*ches - Video

The Historical Background of The First Amendment

By: kimmy358love

Read the original post:
The Historical Background of The First Amendment - Video

Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip7

By: HANG ECONOMIC

View post:
Golan v Holder Copyright, the Public Domain, and the First Amendment at the Supreme Court clip7 - Video