Category Archives: First Amendment

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wholeheartedly endorsed a constitutional amendment to limit campaign spending on Thursday, putting the Senate on course to vote on the matter as early as July.

Reid said that the Senate Judiciary Committee will take up the amendment on June 3, which allows Congress and the states to limit fundraising and spending on federal campaigns and gives lawmakers the ability to regulate outside groups. From there, the amendment will go to the Senate floor, where it has little chance of passing due to broad GOP opposition to meddling with campaign finance laws.

But Democrats believe the failed vote on the amendment, which needs the backing of 67 senators, will still pay dividends in the run-up to the midterm elections, painting Republicans as supporters of big money in politics and Democrats as on the side of ordinary voters.

(On POLITICO Magazine: Democrats have a Koch problem)

Let me pose a question to everyone, including my friend the Republican Leader [Mitch McConnell]. If this unprecedented spending is free speech, where does that leave our middle-class constituents? The poor? Reid said Thursday morning. It leaves them out in the cold. How could everyday working families afford to make their voices heard if money equals free speech?

Republicans quickly rebutted Reid, accusing him of moving to limit Americans First Amendment rights.

Todays proposal by the Senate Majority Leader represents an all-out assault on the right to free speech, a right which undergirds all others in our democracy. Its also a clear sign of just how desperate elected Washington Democrats have become in their quest to hold onto power, said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Washington Democrats have shown again and again how determined they are to shut down the voices of anyone who disagrees with them, whether its targeting groups through the IRS or looking over the shoulders of reporters at local newspapers and on news radio. But this latest proposal goes beyond everything theyve attempted previously.

(Also on POLITICO: American Bridge starts Koch project)

Even John McCain, a previous supporter of campaign finance reform, said in an interview that he will vote against the amendment, calling it as exercise in hypocrisy for Democrats.

Continue reading here:

Reid backs campaign spending limit

Facebook SUCKS!
Facebook shall not infringe upon the First Amendment Rights of American citizens while they enjoy all the perks and privileges of being a PUBLIC American com...

By: Sandra Booker

Read more:

Facebook SUCKS! - Video

Illegal Open Carry March On Washington D.C.- Independence Day 2013 - Adam Kokesh
2014 Radio Host and Political Activist Adam Kokesh Arrested By Police For His First Amendment R videos.. Please click here to subscribe to my channel.. Radio Host. Radio Host and Political...

By: Finance

Link:

Illegal Open Carry March On Washington D.C.- Independence Day 2013 - Adam Kokesh - Video

Senator Chuck Schumer is against the First Amendment then and now
Description.

By: impkaps

Read the original here:

Senator Chuck Schumer is against the First Amendment then and now - Video

By Matt Ward

Three new council members were elected and the first amendment to the city charter was passed by 25 votes Saturday in the City of Fredericksburg election held at Fredericksburg Middle School.

Of the citys 7,512 registered voters, only 16 percent (or 1,212 voters) actually cast their ballot in this years election.

I think that this election was more about the incumbents than it was about the amendment, charter amendment organizer Isabel Wertz said. I hope that the city will be more thoughtful in the future of how the revenue of the city is being spent.

Former mayor Linda Langerhans defeated current mayor Jeryl Hoover 687-494, while Jerry Luckenbach and Bobby Watson were elected to replace current council members Tim Dooley and Kathy Sanford.

Luckenbach led the council candidates with 683 votes, with Watson in second with 657 votes and incumbent Dooley in third with 513 votes. Sanford chose not to run for re-election.

Its going to be incumbent on the three new council members to get updated as soon as possible because theyre going to be dealing with these issues in the next several months, City Manager Kent Myers said Monday. There are a lot of things going on and so Im going to have to spend a lot of time with the three new council members bringing them up to date.

Agendas for the next two council meetings slated for May 19 and June 2 will likely be lighter than usual as the new council gets acclimated. The first council retreat with the newly elected officials is tentatively set for June 13.

I think the councils positions on certain issues will change with three new council members. The message Ive sent to staff is that Youll have to be adaptable to that change and understanding of that, Myers said. Whenever you have a majority of the council that turns over, there could be a new direction on some of these issues, whether its lighting standards or property tax collection. We want to try and get a feel for that as soon as possible so we dont go down the path even further if the majority of the council doesnt agree with that direction.

For more on this story, read this weeks print and online editions of the Fredericksburg Standard-Radio Post. If you are a print subscriber, your full online subscription is free. All you need to do is call 830-997-2155 to get a password. If you are not a subscriber, call 997-2155 or click on the Subscribe button on the left side of the home page and sign up today!

See original here:

City Charter amendment passes 581-556

May 8, 2014

Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling (Mark J. Terrill/Courtesy The Associated Press)

By Gene Policinski, senior vice president, First Amendment Center

What's left to say about the ugly, racist views of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling and the vocal reactions to his comments?

Well, from a First Amendment free expression perspective, several things some of which may well resonate even longer than Sterling's repugnant remarks and the lifetime ban imposed on him by Adam Silver, commissioner of the National Basketball Association.

Sterling's views came to light via a "leaked" audiotape given to a relatively new kind of news media, TMZ.com, which is positioned somewhere between a host of serious news media outlets and a long line of popular and widely read Hollywood gossip columns and magazines.

Not long ago, a digital media outlet like TMZ.com and online phenoms such as Twitter and Facebook would not have been able to create the kind of national discussion and rhetorical firestorm that followed the first TMZ.com reports of Sterling's private-remarks-made-public.

But no longer.

A Pew Research Center's journalism report on the State of the News Media 2014 found that "digital players have exploded onto the news scene, bringing technological knowhow and new money and luring top talent. BuzzFeed, once scoffed at for content viewed as 'click bait,' now has a news staff of 170."

The Sterling incident was yet another example of what the First Amendment's protection of speech is all about. The amendment restrains government from controlling or punishing most kinds of speech. But nothing in the 45 words shielded the billionaire from public revulsion over his views, suspended endorsement deals, instant campaigns to boycott Clipper tickets and a $2.5 million fine.

Here is the original post:

Donald Sterling and Free Speech

N.H Court Says COPSLIE License Plate Is Free Speech
Read more below: The highest court in New Hampshire ruled that a vanity plate owned by David Montenegro that reads "COPSLIE" is protected free speech under the first amendment. The unanimous...

By: JmanPrepper WontBeSilenced

Read the rest here:

N.H Court Says COPSLIE License Plate Is Free Speech - Video

Sheriff Protects First Amendment Becomes Internet Star
Deputy Sheriff Stan Lenic, the cop who stood up for the First Amendment by refusing to impede the free speech rights of activists at Albany International Air...

By: Randall Leonard

Read the original:

Sheriff Protects First Amendment & Becomes Internet Star - Video

The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security in Times of War Symposium
Commemorating the 100th Birthday of alumnus and former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell participants spoke at a symposium titled "The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security...

By: Reuben Halper

Original post:

The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security in Times of War Symposium - Video

The Providence (R.I.) Journal, May 8, 2014

Reasonable people can disagree vehemently on the meaning of the First Amendment, as demonstrated by the 5-to-4 margin of Monday's Supreme Court ruling on prayer. The court ruled that the First Amendment permits even a Christian prayer at the start of a government board meeting, as long as there is no attempt to proselytize or pressure citizens to go along.

That seems a reasonable interpretation of what the First Amendment actually says. The amendment does not permit the federal government to prohibit the free exercise of religion by Americans, nor does it permit the government to establish a religion.

Does a voluntary prayer before a meeting -- something with a long tradition in America -- establish a state religion and force others to practice that religion? Only by the most extreme interpretation. In the real world, people are perfectly free to ignore the prayer, leave the room or petition their elected representatives to alter or drop the prayer. They may safely join any religious group they wish, or decline to believe altogether.

The First Amendment, in short, is a bulwark of liberty, protecting the right of people to express religious ideas even in public settings. But this guarantee of freedom does not preclude citizens from showing respect for diverse beliefs. Those who seek God's blessings at the start of government meetings may do so in a non-sectarian manner, striving not to exclude or offend any believers. Or they may eschew any prayer at all. Those approaches would be our strong preference to a sectarian prayer, which can hurt people's feelings and sow divisions.

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan cited George Washington's famous 1790 letter to Newport's Touro Synagogue, in which he embraced America's support for religious liberty. Quoting the Bible's Old Testament, Washington wrote: "every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid." He added: "For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."

It seems clear, though, that neither Washington nor the other Founders regarded public prayers as giving sanction to bigotry and assistance to persecution. Indeed, in his role as president, Washington issued a proclamation calling for a national day of prayer and fasting in service to "that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be." He stated: "it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor." He did not believe that eradicating any public mention of God was the American way.

While America is markedly more diverse and secular than it was in Washington's day, we should strive to emulate his support for religious liberty, and to give no sanction to bigotry. Surely, as free people of good will, we can do that without eradicating the freedom to express religious ideas and without banishing prayer from public life.

See the rest here:

Their opinion: Disagreeing on the First Amendment