Category Archives: First Amendment

By Kate Albers | Published 9 hours ago

Gary Birdsong speaks in the Pit on Monday morning. Birdsong has been preaching on campus since the early 1980s.

Some people come to UNC for the academics, clubs or sports. But Gary Birdsong, commonly known as the Pit Preacher, comes to UNC because of a divine inspiration.

God gave me the desire, he said. If you dont have a desire, you cant do it, especially on college campuses.

Birdsong said he began preaching at UNC in the early 1980s. He has traveled to schools all over the nation, including nearby institutions like N.C. State University and Duke University.

Birdsong said before he was saved and began preaching, he spent time with members of The Brotherhood and Hells Angels biker clubs.

After his religious transformation, he attended Christ for the Nations Institute in Dallas, Texas, and he visited Israel for a few months. He met Brother Jed Smock, who also preaches on college campuses, and started sharing his testimony as well.

Birdsong said hes glad he has the protections under the First Amendment, but he wouldnt stop preaching even if it werent allowed.

I dont care if I have it or not, Birdsong said. If God tells me to do it, Ill do it.

Freshman Bryan Labra said that Monday was his first time listening to Birdsong in the Pit. He said he thinks Birdsong should be allowed to preach on campus and that he does not abuse freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

Here is the original post:
Pit Preacher Gary Birdsong claims First Amendment rights

DANA DiFILIPPO, Daily News Staff Writer difilid@phillynews.com, 215-854-5934 Posted: Tuesday, September 23, 2014, 3:01 AM

WHEN an anti-Islamic group decided to advertise on city buses and billboards this fall with photos of a terrorist poised to behead an American and a Muslim leader smiling at Adolf Hitler, transit officials in New York and Washington, D.C., huffed their disapproval - but allowed the ads to run.

They had no choice, they said, because the ads were protected under the First Amendment.

SEPTA's officials disagreed and rejected the ads.

But the group behind the ads - the American Freedom Defense Initiative - won't surrender quietly. The New Hampshire-based group sued SEPTA in federal court last week, complaining that the transit agency violated AFDI's free-speech rights.

One local First Amendment expert says SEPTA picked an unwinnable fight.

"The most fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that you may never bar any message based upon the content of the message," said Burton Caine, a law professor at Temple University and past president of the Philadelphia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. "This is absolutely prohibited, what SEPTA is doing.

"Everybody has this same idea that they like the First Amendment," Caine said, "but when the speech is offensive, people will make all kinds of excuses why it's not protected. The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect speech that offends. No exceptions."

A federal judge said as much in 2012, ruling that the AFDI could post ads in New York City and Washington, D.C., that compared Muslim jihadists to "savages."

Go here to see the original:
SEPTA's ad refusal sparks free-speech fight

By Katie Kilmartin | Published 10 hours ago

Greg Lukianoff is the presidentof the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and the keynote speaker at UNC's sixth annual First Amendment Day, which is put on by theUNC Center for Media Law andPolicy.

Staff Writer Katie Kilmartin asked him questions about what he plans to talk about, his opinion on UNC's First Amendment climate and more.

DAILY TAR HEEL:What are your thoughts on UNCs ranking as one of the worst 10 universities for free speech?

GREG LUKIANOFF:I was disappointed that I had to include UNC on this years list. I explain my reasons in that piece which you can find here:http://huff.to/1qoIv5M

Im quite sure I will be getting questions about it tomorrow!

DTH:What do you plan to speak about at the Keynote Address for First Amendment Day?

GL:Tomorrow, I plan to talk about, of course, the First Amendment, but beyond that the larger principles of freedom of speech itself and why I believe those principles are under threat. Make no mistake about it, free speech is an eternally radical idea, so it is always under threat at all times in human history.

I will also talk about my first book Unlearning Liberty, and my new short book, Freedom From Speech, in which I lay out my causes for concern for speech going forward.

DTH:What main ideas do you hope people will take away from you address?

Continue reading here:
Q&A with First Amendment Day speaker Greg Lukianoff

Josh Blackman links to an interesting new speech by (retired) Justice Stevens about the Courts campaign finance jurisprudence. Among other things, Justice Stevens argues that there ought to be little protection (or no protection?) for campaign contributions made across state lines. He begins . . .:

In the first sentence of his controlling opinion [in McCutcheon v. FEC] the Chief Justice correctly states that there is no right more basic to our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. 188 L. Ed.2d 468, 482. And in his concluding paragraph he correctly describes that right as the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them. Id., at 507 (Emphases added).

McCutcheons complaint, however, makes it clear that his objection to the federal statute was based entirely on its impairment of his ability to influence the election of political leaders for whom he had no right to vote. He is an Alabama citizen; in the 2012 election cycle he made equal contributions to different candidates, only two of whom were from Alabama. The other thirteen were campaigning in California, Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia. Of primary significance is the fact that his only complaint about the federal statute was its prohibition against his making contributions in 2014 to candidates in twelve other non-Alabama elections Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Minnesota, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin.

To the best of my knowledge in none of the Courts cases prior to McCutcheon has the Court even mentioned a citizens supposed right to participate in elections in which he or she has no right to vote. It surely has not characterized it as a basic right of unparalleled importance.

Among other things, Justice Stevens draws on Bluman v. FEC, an opinion by Judge Kavanaugh that held that non-resident aliens had no right to make contributions or expenditures about American elections, and that was summarily affirmed (unanimously!) by the Supreme Court.

This is an interesting point, although I am not at all convinced by Justice Stevenss analysis. For a different take, here is an excerpt from Jessica Bulman-Pozens recent article, Partisan Federalism:

Bluman v. FEC: Political Engagement Across State Lines

In recent years, political engagement across state lines has increased dramatically. This engagement is not limited to out-of-state spending for federal representatives, but also extends to state electoral contests and referenda. In the 2012 Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, for instance, out-of-state contributions made up a majority of Governor Scott Walkers arsenal and nearly a third of challenger Tom Barretts funds. For South Dakotas 2006 referendum on abortion, a substantial majority of the funds for both sides came from other states. As one commentator puts it: Means of communication, fundraising and also campaigning are becoming nationaland its affecting state and even local races.

Cross-state engagement furnishes powerful evidence of partisan federalism. For one thing, party organizations are among the most active cross-state participants; the Democratic and Republican Governors Associations have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into state races in the past decade.261 Party actors recognize the power of the states as platforms for national conflict. But so too do individuals, who get involved directly in out-of-state politics for many reasons. In some cases, a donor might contemplate moving to a different state to take advantage of a new policy or visiting to benefit from the policy during a briefer stay. In other cases, one states decisions may effectively set policy for the entire nation. But in perhaps the largest number of cases, Americans do not stand to benefit immediately or directly from out-of-state political involvement. Instead, they seek to create momentum for a particular policy or political party, to build a real-life example to inform national debate, or simply to take comfort in knowing that their preferences are actual policyand their partisan group is in control somewhere. By channeling money toward states other than their own and embracing the kind of surrogate representation I have explored in Part III, these individuals are enacting partisan federalism.

If we see cross-state political participation, however, it is not because existing federalism doctrine or theory supports the practice. Instead, it is because such activity has been protected as expression under the First Amendment. Today, only Alaska and Hawaii impose any limits on out-of-state contributions, and no state limits out-of-state expenditures. Although the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the states residency-based limits, citing deep suspicions of the motives and wisdom of those who, from outside its borders, wish to remold Alaska, federal courts have rejected, on First Amendment grounds, attempts by other states to impose similar restrictions. Courts have also largely invalidatedas inconsistent with the First Amendmentstate requirements that petition circulators be state residents. While these courts have focused on the expressive dimensions of cross-border contributions and expenditures and have not considered their validity from a federalism perspective, a recent case raises the question of whether such expressive activity undermines American federalism and may accordingly be proscribed. In Bluman v. FEC, a three-judge panel of the D.C. District Court took up a loose end left by the Supreme Courts holding in Citizens United v. FEC: whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nations political process. In a decision summarily affirmed by the Supreme Court, the court upheld a provision of federal law that prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions or expenditures in connection with federal, state, or local elections. The court reasoned that the case did not turn on the First Amendment questions that have dominated campaign finance jurisprudence but rather a foundational question about the definition of the American political community. It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community, the court maintained, that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government. Recognizing political contributions and expenditures as integral to electoral processes, the court proceeded to define them as both speech and participation in democratic self-government. Accordingly, it reasoned, limitations on foreign contributions and expenditures are all part of the sovereigns obligation to preserve the basic conception of a political community.

Original post:
Volokh Conspiracy: Is there a right to contribute to out-of-state elections?

Joshua doesnt Understand the First Amendment, also Satanists
Note for entire video, I approve of the Satanist group as much as I approve any religious group pushing stuff onto kids. Just thought I #39;d make that clear. An...

By: Deterlucem

See the article here:
Joshua doesnt Understand the First Amendment, also Satanists - Video

The Nackey Loeb School of Communications has announced that general admission and VIP package tickets to its annual First Amendment honors event, with featured speaker Donald Trump, are available at http://www.loebschool.org. A small number of sponsorship opportunities remain as well.

The early evening event is on Nov. 12 at the Radisson in downtown Manchester. The 12th annual honors program, it will highlight individuals or groups that have used their First Amendement freedoms in some important way in the past year.

Previous honorees have included an outspoken school board member, a former state attorney general, and reporters or editors from newspapers such as the Nashua Telegraph, Portsmouth Herald, and Keene Sentinel. This year's honorees are expected to be announced within a few weeks.

Businessman Trump is known as much for his business-reality TV series as for his mega-deals. But he has also been mentioned for political office, from governor of New York to the White House, an address he has not ruled out.

His last New Hampshire appearance, a Politics and Eggs breakfast at St. Anselm College, drew a record crowd.

Tickets for the event, which begins with receptions at 5:30 p.m., range from $75 to $150.

Go here to read the rest:
Tickets on sale for Loeb First Amendment honors with Trump

Ocala Fixes First Amendment Violations; Saggy Pants Allowed

By: Hailey Holloway

Read this article:
Ocala Fixes First Amendment Violations; Saggy Pants Allowed - Video

Larry Flynt and the First Amendment
The controversial creator of Hustler Magazine, Larry Flynt, gives his views on the First Amendment and free speech, in conversation with Newseum Institute Fi...

By: Newseum

Go here to see the original:
Larry Flynt and the First Amendment - Video

Let me start out by admitting my bias. I'm a strong supporter of the First Amendment. With very few exceptions (like child sex abuse images and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), I believe that free speech is an absolute right for people of all ages and it makes me feel good when I learn that others, especially young people, tend to agree.

The reason I love it when young people support free speech is because they are our future.

If people grow up believing in something, they're more likely to continue to hold those beliefs as they get older. So, I'm especially pleased that high school students are even more supportive of free speech than adults, according to a new survey from the Knight Foundation.

The foundation conducted a national study of 10,463 high school students and 588 teachers to coincide with the celebration of Constitution Day, which took place Wednesday. Several of the questions were identical to those of a Newseum Institute survey of adults, which enabled researchers to compare results across age groups.

What the study found is that students are more supportive of free speech rights than adults, with the heaviest consumers of social media showing the strongest support. The study found that only 24 percent of students agreed that the "First Amendment goes too far" compared to 38 percent of adults who responded to similar questions. This is a major shift from most previous surveys such as in 2006 when 45 percent of students felt that way compared to 23 percent of adults.

The study also found that today's students are more likely to agree that people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions with 88 percent agreeing this year compared to 76 percent in 2007 and 83 percent in 2004. There is also increased agreement that "newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of a story," up from 51 percent in 2004 to 61 percent this year.

I was fascinated by the finding that students who more frequently use social media are more likely to support people's right to express unpopular opinions. Among those who use social media more than once a day, 62 percent support other people's rights to express unpopular opinions compared to 54 percent who use it just once a day or several times a week and 49 percent of youth who use social media weekly or less often. More than 7 in 10 students who read news online more than once a day support other people's right of speech, compared to 53 percent of those who read online news weekly.

Of course, correlations don't prove causation. There could be other factors at play, but the fact that social media use does correlate to first amendment support is encouraging, considering how many young people are using social media.

The study looked at such issues as free speech, surveillance and privacy. There is also a correlation between studying about First Amendment rights and support for free speech. Since 2004, the percentage of students who say they have taken First Amendment classes increased from 58 percent to 70 percent, according to the report.

In an interview, Eric Newton, senior adviser to the president of the Knight Foundation, said that interviews with journalism faculty confirmed that "what's really important is news and media digital literacy being taught more significantly in high school. Just mentioning the First Amendment in a social studies class isn't' enough." He said that "the flip side of freedom and responsibility is that you need to not ban digital media but actually teach students all about digital media in school. How to create it, how to navigate it and how to use it."

See more here:
Magid: High school kids show strong support for First Amendment

With his First Amendment challenge pending before the Florida Supreme Court, GOP political consultant Pat Bainter issued a rare statement calling out the court after oral arguments today in which he urged the court to keep secret his emails related to redistricting.

Bainter is now suggesting that the "institutional integrity of the court is at stake" in how they rule.

Here's the statement:

Statement on behalf of Pat Bainter, president and owner of Data Targeting, Inc.

Todays Supreme Court hearing is the culmination of a legal assault and press sensationalism as to whether or not I, a private citizen, have the right to petition my government without fear of a political inquisition into my private matters. After today's hearing, it is clear to me that, as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court, Amendments 5 & 6 are unconstitutional because they criminalize political speech based upon its content.One only need to read theAmendments to see that even its authors knewthey could not stifle a citizen's free speech when they applied the Amendments only to the Legislature, the Amendment title reading Standards for the Legislature in redistricting.

The very institutional integrity of the Florida Supreme Court is at stake in this matter.

The Democratic Party has poured tens of millions of dollars into this legal assault. The Democrats have manipulated a more than willing legal system to coerce me by legal threat to reveal my private internal political opinions, analysis, expertise and even trade secrets, even though I am neither elected to office nor employed by the Legislature.

See the rest here:
GOP consultant threatens court that its 'intrigity is at stake' over his case