Category Archives: First Amendment

First Amendment Under Attack? MVI 2258
It appears that many of my video #39;s that I post on YouTube, and Facebook are not being posted by either one of these sites. I assume that Google might be doin...

By: Gabor Zolna

Go here to read the rest:

First Amendment Under Attack? MVI 2258 - Video

The Kansas state attorney general approved a revised policy that states any employee at a public university in the state can be fired over improperly using social media, raising questions that their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon.

"It's too broad; it's too vague, and it's already causing people to chill themselves in the way that they use social media," Doug Bonney, the legal director for the ALCU of Kansas, told Think Progress.

The Kansas Board of Regents approved last week an amended version of the new social media policy. The Wichita Eagle reported that the new policy allows a university's chief executive to fire any faculty member who uses social media and posts a comment that could incite violence, disclose confidential information or otherwise damage the university.

One of the elements of the new policy that has legal experts confused is the part that says a faculty member can face disciplinary action for "speech contrary to the interests of the university."

"Unless you had access to every piece of information pertaining to the university, you would never know what affects its interests," Ken Paulson, the president of the First Amendment Center, told Think Progress.

The regents developed the social media policy after an anti-NRA tweet in September 2013 by David Guth, a University of Kansas journalism professor. He reportedly tweeted, "blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters."

The tweet caused an uproar over the bounds of social media.

Under the policy, social media covers blogs and social networking sites.

Kirk McClure, a professor in the Department of Urban Planning at Kansas University, said the social media policy would hamper the ability for Kansas schools to compete for top faculty.

"The social media policy makes it even harder to sell KU to top faculty candidates. A new faculty member can be disciplined, even terminated for a tweet," McClure said.

Read the original here:

ACLU blasts Kan. university social media policy

A St. Paul judges ruling will level the playing field for political donations in Minnesota, halting a law that plaintiffs argued dishes out First Amendment rights on a first-come, first-served basis.

Only weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal limits on campaign donations in McCutcheon v. FEC, U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank on Monday applied that precedent to a Minnesota campaign finance law that allowed some Minnesotans to donate more than others to the same candidate in state elections.

The federal court directed Minnesota officials to halt enforcement of the states special sources limit law. Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, initiated the case.

The government should not be using campaign finance laws to play favorites, said Anthony Sanders, lead attorney for IJ in the constitutional challenge. This ruling means that all Minnesotans who want to support political candidates will enjoy the same rights, no matter when in the election they make their contribution.

Under the law, 12 contributors could donate up to $1,000 to a candidate for the state House. The 13th contributor, however, would be restricted to a donation of $500, due to a $12,500 special sources limit for large contributions. Similar limits with larger dollar amounts applied to candidates for state Senate and constitutional offices.

Click for more from Watchdog.org

The rest is here:

Federal court puts MN campaign finance limits on hold

First Amendment Radio Judea and Samaria
Ezra Ridgley appears on the show "Barry Chamish Presents" on "First Amendment Radio" Ezra talks about the new Documentary by the Jewish Heritage Project. htt...

By: Ezra Ridgley

Read more here:

First Amendment Radio Judea and Samaria - Video

Kids speak at OAS
Child comments on his other friends being afraid to come down and exercise their first amendment rights.

By: ZFG Street-Art

The rest is here:

Kids speak at OAS - Video

Dear readers, we need to review this First Amendment thing again.

Since former Wolfeboro Police Commissioner Bob Copeland admitted calling President Barack Obama the n-word in public (Copeland resigned under pressure this week), some have claimed that demanding his resignation violates his right to free speech. Thats not how the First Amendment works.

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, the amendment states. The 14th Amendment then applied that restriction to the states as well. Copeland was an elected government official who said something awful (he called President Obama the n-word), stuck by it, and doubled down on it. The Founding Fathers would hardly have objected to the idea that the people should hold elected officials accountable for what they say.

The First Amendment is not a shield to deflect all barbs tossed in response to ones words. It protects against government censorship and punishment, not the reproach of the people. Copeland remains free to call people names as often as he wishes. And the people of Wolfeboro remain free to hold their elected officials to higher standards of behavior.

View original post here:

Copeland's rights They were not violated

If the court sides with the meat industry, the fallout could have far-reaching consequences, as it would potentially undermine a wide range of labeling laws, particularly COOL regulations, which require companies to disclose where their products and ingredients are produced and manufactured through the display of packaging labels. Most American consumers are familiar with common COOL labels like "Made in China" or "product of the United States" from everything from sneakers to frozen hamburger patties, even if they are not aware of how exactly they are regulated.

The meat industry made its case during Mondays en banc review -- an uncommon type of proceeding conducted before all 11 judges on the court rather than the typical three-judge panel --that the COOL laws as revised in 2013 infringe on companies First Amendment rights by compelling speech.

Chief Judge Merrick Garland said that in order to decide that First Amendment rights were being violated under the regulations, the court would have to strike down at least half a dozen statutes on the books since the 1930s, according to Politico. He also pointed out that many products far beyond the scope of the meat industry, including the razor he shaved with Monday morning, are required to display COOL labels, Politico reported.

As such, a decision by the court that the COOL labels infringe on companies free speech rights could mean changes for industries that rest far beyond the food realm.

A three-judge panel of the court handed down a decision on March 28 suggesting that the en banc hearing on just the First Amendment issues be held at a future date, but otherwise affirming a district courts decision not to allow a preliminary injunction against the 2013 COOL laws. The case is known as American Meat Institute vs. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

We suggest that the full court hear this case en banc to resolve for the circuit whether, under Zauderer, government interests in addition to correcting deception can sustain a commercial speech mandate that compels firms to disclose purely factual and non-controversial information, the three-judge panel wrote in the March 28 decision.

The National Farmers Union and other American farmers and food production industry groups like the U.S. Cattlemens Association and the Consumer Federation of America continue to support the laws, which provide clarity about food origins.

The information required by the regulation to be provided is factual and noncontroversial, NFU President Roger Johnson said, according to the Ohios Country Journal agricultural publication. I am hopeful that the full Circuit will affirm the panels prior decision and continue to deny the preliminary injunction requested by appellants.

But the American Meat Institute has consistently argued that the laws will have serious negative impacts on the meat industry.

It is incomprehensible that USDA would finalize a controversial rule that stands to harm American agriculture, when comments on the proposal made clear how deeply and negatively it will impact U.S. meat companies and livestock producers, AMI Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and General Counsel Mark Dopp said last year. This rubber stamping of the proposal begs the question of the integrity of the process: many people spoke, but no one at USDA listened.

View original post here:

Food Labeling Laws Could Be Undermined By First Amendment Court Challenge

Sex and the First Amendment: Jessica Mitford on How Society Deals with Sexual Matters (1991)
Jessica Lucy Freeman-Mitford (11 September 1917 -- 22 July 1996) was an English author, journalist, civil rights activist and political campaigner, who was o...

By: The Film Archives

Continue reading here:

Sex and the First Amendment: Jessica Mitford on How Society Deals with Sexual Matters (1991) - Video

First Amendment
Lynn Klyde-Silverstein, a journalism professor at the University of Northern Colorado, explains the importance of Freedom of the Press.

By: Lynn Klyde

Continued here:

First Amendment - Video

The "First Amendment Zone" nearby Bundy Ranch
This is the first thing you see when coming off the main highway.

By: Chris Callesen

See more here:

The "First Amendment Zone" nearby Bundy Ranch - Video