Category Archives: First Amendment

She said she came from another country where she had her own culture and own religion, but because of America's First Amendment, she could practice her religion here freely.

This was the sentiment expressed by a student in my First Amendment-related course, The Media: Freedom and Power.

For nearly the past two decades, the first oral presentation assignment has been for students to recite the First Amendment and briefly describe what it means to them. But for some reason her words particularly resonated amid the tremors of the Islamic group ISIS in the Middle East.

ISIS. This one name we had not heard of a year ago now conjures images of unmerciful, cruel brutality. Clad in black, they resemble Nazis rolling their way through Europe in World War II, except ISIS is rolling through Iraq delivering on its promise of death to those who don't renounce their religions and convert to theirs.

Seriously? Who does that in this day and age?

The notion of someone being threatened with death for not believing in the religion of another is something just so out of the realm of our reality in America. While we are not a perfect nation, the idea of being killed for one's religious beliefs is not one of our daily worries.

Now, on the 13th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on America, many Americans once again have the threat of a new group on our collective minds. It is brought more to the fore with the beheadings of American journalists Steve Sotloff and James Foley.

Granted, ISIS has been beheading non-Americans for some time as it campaigned through Iraq and Syria. It has also posted videos of mass executions of captured soldiers and civilians. As it happens so often, it is when the victims are like us in this case Americans and for those in journalism, journalists that the brutality takes on a chillier chill of ice that glazes the soul.

I had purposely avoided seeing the videos depicting the beheadings of Sotloff and Foley. When writing this piece, however, I decided to take a look to see just how horrible the act was. But I could not find it. YouTube pulled the actual depictions of the beheadings. I looked for some time and still did not find it.

I suppose I could have kept looking and I might have found it somewhere on the Internet, but it was somewhat of a relief not to have to brace myself for what was done to them.

Excerpt from:
Do We Want To See Beheading Videos Banned?

Alex Jones Show: Monday (9-8-14) Lew Rockwell
Alex breaks down recent attacks on the First Amendment and the rising hostility between NATO and Russia on this Monday, September 8 edition of the Alex Jones Show. Two Russian strategic bombers...

By: ConspiracyScope

More:
Alex Jones Show: Monday (9-8-14) Lew Rockwell - Video

The Alex Jones Show(VIDEO Commercial Free) Monday September 8 2014: Lew Rockwell
Russians Practice Nuking America -- Date: 09/08/2014 -- --SUBSCRIBE TO PRISONPLANET.TV-- http://www.prisonplanet.tv/ -Today - Alex breaks down recent attacks on the First Amendment and the...

By: Ron Gibson

Originally posted here:
The Alex Jones Show(VIDEO Commercial Free) Monday September 8 2014: Lew Rockwell - Video

Iowa State University submitted a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against employees by two students who said their rights to free speech and due process were violated.

Paul Gerlich and Erin Furleigh, the president and vice president of ISU NORML an organization that advocates for the reform of marijuana laws filed a lawsuit against President Steven Leath and vice presidents Warren Madden and Tom Hill and Leesha Zimmerman, a program coordinator in the trademark office earlier this summer.

Furleigh and Gerlich said their First Amendment rights were violated when Iowa State did not allow them to use the mascot Cy on some T-shirt designs. According to the motion to dismiss, the two students said Iowa State created overbroad and vague trademark guidelines and then arbitrarily used them to reject some of NORMLs T-shirts.

The 13-page motion to dismiss from Iowa State, that was filed on Sept. 4, requested that the lawsuit against the four university employees be dropped for a number of reasons. According to the document, both Furleigh and Gerlich failed to provide facts that showed their First Amendment right to free speech was violated.

According to the document, the lawsuit should be dismissed because Furleigh and Gerlich did not allege sufficient facts to establish any constitutional right in the use of ISUs marks, that they lacked adequate alternative avenues for communicating their message without ISUs marks, that their proposed uses of the marks were fair uses, or that their proposed uses did not cause confusion.

According to the document, fair use allows others to use a trademark if it is used as something other than a trademark, in a descriptive nature or in good faith. The motion to dismiss said using the ISU trademark on the shirt was not claimed as fair use in the lawsuit.

Look for more coverage of this story on iowastatedaily.com.

Follow this link:
Iowa State asks court to dismiss First Amendment lawsuit

Senators opened a historic debate Monday on whether to alter the First Amendment to give Congress the power to squelch free speech in the form of campaign spending, setting up a showdown vote later this week on the first alterations to the founding document in decades.

Democrats say the debate is a referendum on democracy and keeping the wealthy from distorting the system. Republicans counter its a debate about fundamental freedom of speech that all Americans should have.

For Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat driving the debate, its chiefly about two people Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who pour tens of millions of dollars into conservative and libertarian causes.

They are trying to buy America, at every level of government, Mr. Reid said.

Democrats are trying to undo several Supreme Court decisions that have ruled that spending money on issue ads is covered by free speech guarantees that neither Congress nor the states can ban.

Their legislation would give Congress or state legislatures the power to set reasonable limits on how much money political candidates could raise and spend in seeking election and power to prohibit outside groups from spending any money at all on ads.

That would apply particularly to corporations, whom Democrats say are increasingly being granted rights that should be reserved to individuals.

Their proposed amendment would specifically carve out an exemption for the corporations that own the press, which would be allowed to use its reporting to influence elections.

Republicans said Democrats were trying to silence political opponents rather than debate their ideas and accused Mr. Reid of forcing the issue to the floor in order to rally his political base ahead of Novembers elections.

This proposed amendment would be the biggest threat to free speech that Congress would have enacted since the Alien and Sedition Acts back in 1798, said Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican.

More here:
Senate debates limiting campaign cash by altering First Amendment

Several Senate Republicans joined Democrats on Monday to advance a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and the states greater power to regulate campaign finance.

But the bipartisanship ends there.

Many of the Republicans only voted for the bill to foul up Democrats pre-election messaging schedule, freezing precious Senate floor time for a measure that ultimately has no chance of securing the two-thirds support necessary in both the House and Senate to amend the Constitution.

The legislation needed 60 votes to advance and Democrats took a cynical view of the 79-18 tally. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the GOPs tactic was simply to stall because it would eat up limited floor time that Democrats are eyeing for votes aimed at encouraging gender pay equity and raising the minimum wage.

(McConnell for POLITICO Magazine: The Democrats' assault on free speech)

They know were getting out of here fairly shortly and they want to prevent discussion on other very important issues, said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). I would love to be proven wrong. But if the end of this week, we end up getting 67 votes, you can tell me I was too cynical.

But campaign finance is not a debate that Senate Republicans are shying away from and their argument is being led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who penned an op-ed for POLITICO on Monday that portrayed Democrats as fixated on repealing the free speech protections the First Amendment guarantees to all Americans.

Not surprisingly, a proposal as bad as the one Senate Democrats are pushing wont even come close to garnering the votes it would need to pass. But to many Democrats, thats just the point. They want this proposal to fail because they think that somehow would help them on Election Day, McConnell wrote.

Democrats see electoral benefits in their proposal, pointing to Democratic-commissioned polls in battleground states that show bipartisan majorities in support of limiting big donors influence in politics and in opposition to Super PACs. Party leaders and aides believe their campaign finance proposal is popular and places the GOP on the wrong side of public opinion so some Democratic aides said they were happy for the debate to consume the Senate this week and still plan to hold votes on raising the minimum wage and pay equity before breaking for campaign season.

Theyre volunteering to defend the Koch brothers and a campaign finance system voters hate, said one Senate aide.

Read more from the original source:
Constitutional amendment advances

Round Rock open records pick up in reference to Round Rock First Amendment Test. D - 9/5/2014
Picking up public records request from Round Rock police incident, as per the request not all information was given and no letter stating why the information was withheld. The video was missing...

By: The Battousai

Originally posted here:
Round Rock open records pick up in reference to Round Rock First Amendment Test. D - 9/5/2014 - Video

Shit Cops Say - Tom Zebra, Katman, Ricky Munday, Mike Bluehair, The Free Thought Project Foxy
What does the cop say? This is good for people thinking about taking the leap into the cop watch community. Not only is it our first amendment right, it is our responsibility to hold these...

By: Ida "Foxy" Queen

See the original post:
Shit Cops Say - Tom Zebra, Katman, Ricky Munday, Mike Bluehair, The Free Thought Project & Foxy - Video

First Amendment Quiz
Kent State students are tested on their knowledge of the First Amendment and The Simpsons. Which do they know better?

By: Housten Hale

Read this article:
First Amendment Quiz - Video

For the past three weeks, police have been using a municipal code -- which bars people from aggressively pursuing others -- to keep abortion clinics in The City secure in the face of aggressive anti-abortion protesters, according to Police Chief Greg Suhr.

This effort, which is a stop-gap measure awaiting legislation in the works that will permanently deal with the issue, follows a June U.S. Supreme Court ruling that barred buffer zones -- such zones existed in San Francisco -- around such facilities.

In June, the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts law mandating a 35-foot security buffer around abortion clinics. The ruling in McCullen v. Coakley bars such buffers nationwide because it infringes on First Amendment rights.

But Wednesday night, Suhr told the Police Commission that the department has been enforcing a city code in order to keep clinics safe from aggressive protesters. Thus far, he noted, no one has been cited or arrested.

Suhr also mentioned legislation in the works that would allow police to move protesters away from a clinic for a time and then allow them to return. The idea, he added, would be to make sure abortion clinics are safe, can serve clients and that people's First Amendment rights are upheld.

"We have been working on legislation for the last few months in response to the Supreme Court ruling," Supervisor David Campos said. Those efforts, Campos said, have included Planned Parenthood, the Police Department and the City Attorney's Office.

Campos' legislation would be an anti-harassment ordinance preventing the "kind of harassment that we are seeing ... where people are being followed," he said. A similar law in Massachusetts is being used as a model.

"We will be introducing something very shortly," he said, adding that he would be glad to work with anyone on these efforts. To that end, Campos met with the Mayor's Office on Thursday to inform it for the first time of his legislation.

"The mayor and Supervisor Malia Cohen are working with the City Attorney's Office to craft legislation and it will be introduced in a few weeks," said Christine Falvey, a spokeswoman for Mayor Ed Lee. "The mayor wants to make sure that women and families in San Francisco are not denied access to family planning and reproductive health services."

The Mayor's Office said it was working on separate legislation since late July, although it is almost identical to Campos'.

Read this article:
SFPD keeps abortion clinics safe and gives First Amendment rights to protesters