Category Archives: First Amendment

On October 5, 2022, Matrix Service Company (Company) entered into the First Amendment and Waiver to Credit Agreement (the “Amendment”), which amended the Company's Credit Agreement, dated as of September 9, 2021 with Bank of Montreal, as Administrative Agent, Swing Line Lender and a Letter of Credit Issuer, and the lenders named therein (as amended by the Amendment, the “Credit Agreement”). The Amendment (i) waives an event of default resulting from the Company's failure to deliver the Administrative Agent and the lenders the audited financial statements of the Company and its subsidiaries for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022 by September 28, 2022 (Audited Financial Statements), provided the Company delivers the Audited Financial Statements by October 14, 2022, (ii) reduces the maximum amount of loans under the Credit Agreement to $90 million from $100 million and (iii) replaces the London interbank offered rate (the “LIBO Rate”) with the forward term rate based on the secured overnight financing rate (the “SOFR Rate”) as the interest rate benchmark.

Follow this link:
Matrix Service Enters into the First Amendment and Waiver to Credit Agreement - Marketscreener.com

The Sept. 23 memo from the University of Idahos general counsel concerning the discussion of abortion by employees was basically right according to Idaho law, although overly broad in its application prohibiting speaking about contraception. The process of notifying faculty and staff should have been handled differently by the administration.

In every way, the state laws concerning abortion are a mess, creating great confusion.

Under current laws, the state is exerting power to eliminate much of peoples right to free speech in the public arena. This freedom is not only protected under the First Amendment and the Idaho Constitution, but also a basic human right and the laws violates many peoples right to freedom of religion and speech.

In a Sept. 29 open letter on the states abortion ban, 19 religious leaders from across the state argues no government committed to human rights and democracy can privilege the teachings of one religion over another. Let us be clear: Religion does not agree on the moral considerations surrounding abortion and the value of one life over another. But we do agree on religious freedom.

Boise public advocate Mike Satz agrees. Satz, a former law professor and executive director of UI Boise, was director of the Idaho 97 Project, a nonprofit group that supports the democratic process.

This is indicative of tyranny, Satz said about the laws. The (religious leaders) letter is right, we are seeing a religious demonization of bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental human right which is being swept aside with all these laws.

Back to the argument about the memo and the laws disrupting free speech, Satz said the First Amendment is all over this issue, along with Idahos free speech statutes. However, he added, there are two parts to the be considered: The No Public Funds for Abortion law and the operation of law. These are creating a large amount of confusion in what can and cannot be said.

Adding more confusion, he said, is the fact law is all about risk and the degree of risk involved. The laws are so muddled, he said, no one can determine the degree of risk involved.

The memo says this is the state law, Satz said. That is dishonest legally. The First Amendment is also the law. The only group who can fully answer this is the judiciary. The memo is correct: Idaho public employers cannot talk about abortion and the employees must follow the law; the university must comply.

However, he added, also under law students still have the right to learn and professors are accountable for making sure students understand concepts (the Pico case, https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/103/board-of-education-island-trees-union-free-school-district-v-pico). The big problem here becomes the issue of neutrality as expressed in the memo.

A professor can have pro-life and pro-choice students in a class discussion and in just trying to maintain class decorum could be considered as not neutral by either side, he said. It creates a chilling effect, and this series of laws are just that. This is being shown now when the faculty are too afraid of giving their names in news stories.

This is not how we educate people. This is a muddled mess of new law plus older law, some of which is lifted from territorial law, which is where you get the dont talk about birth control mess.

The right to free speech is not absolute. The U.S. Supreme Court has created some limitations, especially speech which is hateful or endangers peoples lives. However, the same court codified free speech in the 1969 Brandenburg vs. Ohio case which it ultimately said the government cannot punish speech. Justice Hugo Black, in his concurrence, said all speech is immune from prosecution.

Except, perhaps, in Idaho where state law now specifically says people cannot discuss certain topics. What this appears to be is a power move by certain religious and/or political groups to remove basic human rights from the states residents.

While the unsigned UI memo may be correct according to state law, it begs the question about the impact on federal law in the state. It also brings to mind the quote from President George Washington: If freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

Continued here:
In abortion memo released to employees, the University of Idaho is right and wrong - Idaho Capital Sun

For the past several years, critics across the political spectrum have argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 gives social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube too much protection from legal liability for the content they host. Conservative critics argue, despite a lack of evidence, that Section 230 allows social media companies to censor like-minded thinkers and groups without recourse, and liberal critics say the platforms use Section 230 as an excuse not to remove things they should be taking down, such as misinformation and hate speech. Before the 2020 election, Joe Biden said he would abolish Section 230 if he became president; since taking office, he has made similar statements, including that the clause should be revoked immediately.

This week, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear two cases that are looking to chip away at Section 230 legal protections. At the core of one case is the claim that Googles YouTube service violated the federal Anti-Terrorism Act by recommending videos featuring the isis terrorist group, and that these videos helped lead to the death of Nohemi Gonzalez, a twenty-three-year-old US citizen who was killed in an isis attack in Paris in 2015. In the lawsuit, filed in 2016, Gonzalezs family claims that while Section 230 protects YouTube from liability for hosting such content, it doesnt protect the company from liability for promoting that content with its algorithms. The second case involves Twitter, which was also sued for violating the Anti-Terrorism Act; the family of Nawras Alassaf claimed isis-related content on Twitter contributed to his death in a terrorist attack in 2017.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has declined to hear similar casesincluding, in March, a decision by a lower court that found Facebook was not liable for helping a man traffic a woman for sex. While Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the decision not to hear that case, he also wrote that the court should consider the issue of the proper scope of immunity under Section 230. Assuming Congress does not step in to clarify Section 230s scope, we should do so in an appropriate case, Thomas wrote. It is hard to see why the protection that Section 230 grants publishers against being held strictly liable for third parties content should protect Facebook from liability for its own acts and omissions.

Thomas has made similar comments in a number of other decisions. In 2020, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case in which Enigma Software argued that MalwareBytes, an internet security company, should be liable for calling Enigmas products malware. Although he agreed with that decision, Thomas went on at length about what he described as a movement to use Section 230 to confer sweeping immunity on some of the largest companies in the world. He also suggested he agreed with an opinion from a lower-court judge, in a case in which Facebook was sued for terrorist content. The opinion said it strains the English language to say that in targeting and recommending these writings to usersFacebook is acting as the publisher of information provided by another information content provider.'

Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law professor at the US Naval Academy and the author of a book on Section 230, told the Washington Post that, with the Supreme Court considering these questions, the entire scope of Section 230 could be at stake. The Post also noted that it will be the first time the court has considered whether there is a distinction between content that is hosted and content recommended by algorithms. Eric Goldman, co-director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University, told the Post that such a division is actually a false dichotomy, and that the process of recommending content is one of the traditional editorial functions of a social media network. In that sense, he told the Post, the question presented goes to the very heart of Section 230.

While Section 230 gets most of the attention, it isnt the only protection the platforms have. A feature on hate speech in the New York Times described Section 230 as the main reason why such speech exists online, but later added a correction clarifying that the First Amendment also protects online speech. Even if the Supreme Court decides Section 230 doesnt protect the platforms when it comes to terrorist content, Facebook and Twitter could argue with some justification that the First Amendment does. To the extent that people want to force social media companies to leave certain speech up, or to boost certain content, or ensure any individuals continuing access to a platform, their problem isnt Section 230, Mary Anne Franks, a professor of law at the University of Miami, said during a discussion of Section 230 on CJRs Galley platform last year. Its the First Amendment.

This argument is at the heart of another case the Supreme Court was recently asked to hear, involving a Florida law designed to control how the platforms moderate content. The law was struck down by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in May as unconstitutional, since, the court ruled, moderation decisions are an exercise of the platforms First Amendment rights. A similar law passed in Texas, however, was upheld in a decision earlier this month, one that explicitly rejected the First Amendment defense. Now the Supreme Court has the opportunity to decide the extent to which Section 230 and the First Amendment cover the platforms moderation and content choices.

Heres more on Section 230:

Other notable stories:

TOP IMAGE: A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, September 21, 2022. (Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)

Read the rest here:
Section 230 heads to the Supreme Court - Columbia Journalism Review

GRAND RAPIDS, MI A Grand Rapids wedding venue that shared its anti-LGBT wedding stance on social media is the first business to be penalized for violating the citys Human Rights Ordinance.

Broadway Avenue, a new wedding venue at 1140 Broadway Ave., posted on its official Facebook page in July on the day of its opening, that the venue would like our business to remain true to our Christian faith and this includes marriage.

The City of Grand Rapids issued Broadway Avenue a civil infraction earlier this week, stating the business violated the citys Human Rights Ordinance, a local law adopted in 2019.

Among other restrictions, the ordinance generally forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression in access to goods and services.

The city received 12 complaints about the wedding venue, said Grand Rapids media relations manager Steve Guitar.

The city was acting on all of those complaints together, Guitar said.

Guitar also confirmed the action against Broadway Avenue is the first time the city has investigated a business for a Human Rights Ordinance violation.

One of the complainants, Chris Surfus, runs a LGBT foundation in Grand Rapids. Surfus said he wishes the city would shut down the wedding venue until it comes into compliance with the citys rules. The city has not shut the business down, but the venue does face up to a $500 fine for the civil infraction.

The business attorney previously told MLive/The Grand Rapids Press that Broadway Avenue will be fighting the infraction in court.

Were going to vigorously oppose this, Kallman said Wednesday, Oct. 5. Theyre totally unspecific here of what it is theyre claiming my client did, but the bottom line is were going to oppose any claim we committed any wrong here. Obviously, based on their First Amendment rights, that trumps any ordinance (claiming) discrimination here.

Surfus said hes ready to show up for any legal battles over the Human Rights Ordinance violation.

Go right ahead (and take it to court), Surfus said. If I get summoned to court to talk about the complaint, I have no problem walking circles around this attorney. The value of discrimination that this business has is not a value in our community and we have an ordinance that punishes those that violates public accommodations. They are fighting a very pointless, futile fight.

The potential financial amount of the fine for Broadway Avenue will be determined by a judge in court, up to $500. The business has until Oct. 17 to make its first appearance in court.

Read more:

Grand Rapids wedding venue owners who say they wont host LGBTQ marriage events get civil infraction

Grand Rapids investigating claims wedding venue wont host ceremonies for LGBTQ couples

Father-son duo opens Kurdish restaurant in East Grand Rapids

Original post:
Anti-LGBTQ wedding venue becomes first to be penalized under Grand Rapids 2019 law - MLive.com

For now, the judge is protecting The Eagle's confidential sources. But she left the door open for more legal battles as the case moves to trial.

This week, a court ruling marked a victory for the rights and protections of the free press. Hampden County Superior Court Justice Karen L. Goodwin ruled that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield cant obtain information from a Berkshire Eagle journalist that could reveal the identities of his anonymous sources.

Still, a question must be asked and answered: Was this defense against an attack on a reporter and a sacred pillar of investigative journalism necessary in the first place?

The anonymous sources in question were essential to Eagle editor Larry Parnass bombshell reporting on a Chicopee mans credible claims that he was repeatedly sexually assaulted by former Bishop Christopher Weldon and two other priests. That years-long series of articles also exposed an attempted cover-up by the diocese to downplay abuse victims claims and protect the reputation of a late bishop who led Western Massachusetts Catholic community for more than a quarter-century. An independent report sought by the diocese and headed by retired judge Peter Velis not only found the abuse allegations against Bishop Weldon to be unequivocally credible but corroborated the Chicopee mans narrative that the diocese sought to sweep it under the rug. The diocese later scrubbed Bishop Weldons name and likeness from church venues and exhumed his body from an honored burial place for church officials.

That Chicopee man, who has chosen to remain unnamed, filed a civil suit as John Doe against the diocese early last year. He seeks damages for both the abuse he endured in the 1960s and from the dioceses years of inaction after he reported the abuse in 2014. As part of its defense, the diocese in March subpoenaed Mr. Parnass to give testimony and to produce a wide range of his notes.

We dont begrudge the diocese for defending itself in court. Heres what we do take issue with, and we hope all defenders of the First Amendment agree: The diocese shouldnt go after a reporter in a blatant attempt to make him violate his promise to keep the identity of anonymous sources confidential. We believe the diocese should be especially respectful of a promise of confidentiality when the information they seek can reasonably be found elsewhere. Judge Goodwin ruled that if the diocese wants to continue to press Mr. Parnass for communications and testimony involving sources to whom he promised confidentiality, it will first have to demonstrate the extent of the efforts it has made to get the information from other sources which certainly has not been demonstrated thus far.

It should be noted that when the diocese first filed the subpoena demanding an array of information from The Eagle and Mr. Parnass, the judge labeled it a classic fishing expedition. Its bad enough that this amounted to a questionable legal strategy as the diocese continues to draw out the closure of this local chapter in the sprawling Catholic clergy abuse scandal. Whats worse is that this fishing expedition aimed its sharp hooks at a journalist for daring to do his job well and doggedly reporting on a powerful institution that has continued to retraumatize long-silenced victims of unimaginable abuse.

This is not just a shot across the bow for a community newspaper in the Berkshires; its an attack on a key mechanism of the free press. The use of confidential sources is necessary for reporting on topics that are complex, require sensitivity or implicate large, well-known organizations. Stories relating to the clergy abuse scandal tick all of those boxes, and maintaining promised anonymity to sources can make the difference in whether some important stories get told at all. Mr. Parnass reporting was essential in unearthing a coverup that might have continued indefinitely in the absence of that coverage. For these reasons, we are heartened that Judge Goodwin has brushed off the dioceses attempt to force one of our reporters to reveal information that could compromise confidential sources.

Still, the chill is felt. The Eagle and its counsel fought the subpoena in court. That meant investing scant resources to protect our reporters First Amendment rights and the promises they make to critical confidential sources in this or any story.

Thats a fight we believe is well worth mounting. But what about reporters or newspapers in more dire financial straits who cant afford the cost of counsel and the day in court? What about when these attacks on the free press are pursued by even more powerful institutions? Any attack on journalists ability to maintain confidentiality charts a chilling headwind against all members of the free press seeking to fulfill that duty enshrined in the First Amendment to hold the powerful accountable. So, too, does it chill the confidence and courage that whistleblowers and other sources need to share critical information with the public.

Massachusetts is one of few states without a so-called shield law for reporters, which protects them from being forced to reveal anonymous sources and related notes in situations like these. If ever there were a case exemplifying why the commonwealth should have a shield law to defend journalists doing their job and protect sources from retaliation, its this one and we hope the Berkshire delegation as well as the rest of the Legislature now sees the need as well.

Beyond the letter of the law, though, it is disappointing to see diocesan leadership who purport to model moral behavior for a regional faith community attack the First Amendment and the journalist who shined a light on long-festering wounds and silent suffering within the flock they oversee. Again, the diocese can and should defend itself in court. If atonement for the systemic abuses of the past is possible, though, it at least requires ceasing the broadside against the free press and the journalist who worked to expose criminal wrongdoing.

View post:
Our Opinion: Legally targeting a journalist who exposed clergy abuse is a chilling tactic that the Springfield Diocese should drop - Berkshire Eagle

The First Amendment, sometimes called Amendment 1, is the first amendment to the United States Constitution and is also one out of ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment makes it illegal to make a law that establishes a religion, stops the freedom of speech, stops people from practicing their religion, stops the press from printing what they want, and stops people from exercising their right to assemble peacefully or demonstrating against the government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are many key phrases in the First Amendment. Here are some explanations on what exactly they mean.

Freedom of religion: The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prevents the government from setting up or establishing an official religion of the country. American Citizens have the freedom to attend a church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or another house of worship of their choice. They can also choose to not be involved in any religion as well. Because of the First Amendment, we can practice our religion however we want to.

Freedom of speech: The First Amendment of the United States Constitution stops the government from making any laws that may stop us from saying what we feel or think. The American people have the right to share their opinions with other people or criticize the government.

Freedom of the press: Freedom of the press means we have the right to get information from many different sources of information. The government does not have the power to control what is broadcasted on radio or TV, what is printed in books or newspapers, or what is offered online. American citizens can request time on TV to respond to any views that they disagree with. They can also write letters to newspapers, which might be printed for other readers to see. Americans can also pass out leaflets that state their opinions. They may also their own online web pages that have their opinions.

Freedom of assembly: American citizens have the right to come together in private and public gatherings. Citizens can join groups for religious, social, recreational, or political reasons. By organizing in order to act on a common idea and accomplish a common goal, American citizens can more easily spread their ideas to others.

Right to petition: The right to petition the government means that American citizens can ask for adjustments or changes in the government. Citizens can do this by collecting signatures for petitions and sending them to elected representatives. They can also call, e-mail, or write to their elected representatives as well. Another way they can petition the government is by creating support groups that try to cause change by lobbying the government.

comments

See more here:
1ST AMENDMENT (First Amendment) Rights, Text - US Constitution | LAWS.com

Professors at public universities have no right to freedom of speech when they teach, lawyers for the State of Florida argued in a court filing last week. Over the past few days, many academics have expressed outrage, describing Floridas stance as a direct, troubling attack on academic freedom. Some have even called it fascist.

But theres genuine uncertainty over the extent to which the state can dictate what state-college instructors teach, two law professors told The Chronicle.

As college instructors themselves, they obviously had a stance. Yet they admitted that existing law and precedent isnt entirely clear. It remains more of an open question than those of us who are academics would like it to be, said Frederick Schauer, a First Amendment scholar at the University of Virginias School of Law.

The court filing was in defense of the states Individual Freedom Act, commonly known as the Stop WOKE Act, which bars instructors at public institutions from teaching certain ideas related to race, racism, and sex, and which at least two groups of students and professors have sued over.

The curriculum used in state universities and the in-class instruction offered by state employees count as the Florida governments own speech, the lawyers wrote. Therefore: The First Amendment simply has no application in this context.

Its a powerful argument if you can get it accepted, said Timothy Zick, a professor who teaches about the First Amendment at the William & Mary Law School. The First Amendment just drops out of the picture.

But will the argument be accepted?

Floridas filing discusses a 2006 Supreme Court decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos. In that case, the court decided 5 to 4 that state employees didnt have First Amendment rights while they were doing their jobs. (Schauer gave the hypothetical example of an anchor at a public TV station needing to read their script, as part of their job.) But Supreme Court justices at the time deliberately left unanswered the question of whether that principle extended to college classrooms.

We need not ... decide whether the analysis we conduct today would apply in the same manner to a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching, the since-retired Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the opinion of the court.

Since then, lower courts have often decided that Garcetti doesnt apply to college-level scholarship and teaching. The courts have recognized the virtues of relatively unconstrained academic inquiry, at least at the university level, Schauer said.

In addition, two midcentury Supreme Court cases, decided at a time when U.S. institutions were panicking about communism and trying to make professors sign anti-communist statements, linked the idea of academic freedom to professors First Amendment rights, Zick said.

But these cases stop short of establishing that something like Garcetti definitely wouldnt apply to college teaching, Schauer said. The courts didnt say whether there was anything special about professors that gave them protections that other state employees might not have, he said.

Plus, there are clearly some limits to the job. A professor assigned to teach constitutional law cant simply decide to talk about astrology instead and claim it was a free-speech issue, which Schauer offered as another example.

Schauer and Zick both sounded warnings about what public higher education might look like if Florida prevails. Both more liberal and more conservative states might flex their abilities to set curriculum mandates. A state could even require professors to say things they dont believe, Zick said.

All of this would make us far worse off, he said, in terms of what the universitys principal mission is, which is to develop knowledge and distribute it and to teach and to learn.

Continue reading here:
It's Not Clear Whether Public-College Professors Have First Amendment Rights When They're Teaching - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Attorney General Paxton has joined an Alabama-led multistate amicus brief in the Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, fighting to defend the First Amendment rights of a Jewish synagogue facing unconstitutional discrimination.

The case revolves around the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART), a publicly-funded transit system, that refused to allow Young Israel of Tampa to advertise its Chanukah on Ice program pursuant to a policy banning religious advertising. After the district court enjoined its policy, HART appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

As the courts have ruled on several occasions, public entities violate the First Amendment when they engage in viewpoint discrimination, regulating speech based upon disagreement with the point of view being expressed. That is precisely what HART did here.

HART further departed from the First Amendment by lumping in all religious advertising with more traditional categories of prohibited advertising, such as ads containing graphic violence or nudity. It flies in the face of the First Amendment, and the American tradition of respecting religious freedom, for HART to draw a moral equivalency drawn between a synagogue hosting a community event commemorating a religious holiday and pornographic or violent advertising

As the brief states: [T]he policy is at odds with the history and tradition of the First Amendment, sends the perverse message that religious discourse is like the other subjects HART bans (alcohol, pornography, discriminatory messages, and the like), conflicts with modern First Amendment jurisprudence forbidding viewpoint discrimination, and flunks even HARTs preferred test for content-neutral speech restrictions.

To read the full brief, click here.

See the rest here:
Paxton Works to Safeguard First Amendment Protections for Religious Group Facing Illegal Discrimination - Texas Attorney General (.gov)

from the what-could-it-possibly-be dept

Right after the 5th Circuits ruling on Texas HB 20 law on content moderation came out, I wrote up a long post going through the many, many oddities (and just flat out mistakes) of the ruling.

Since then, one thing that was bothering about this ruling was that it wasnt just wrong on the law, wrong on the relevant precedents, and wrong on the 1st Amendment but it literally went against the last few decades of how conservative Federalist Society judges have been expanding the 1st Amendment to cover more and more activity by organizations (which, contrary to popular opinion, I actually think has been mostly correct).

The Daily Beast asked me to write up an analysis of the 5th Circuit ruling, and one thing I focused on was just how blatantly basically the entire Republican ecosystem completely reversed on this issue over the last year and a half since Donald Trump got banned from Twitter. I mean, at a very direct level, Republicans insisted (falsely) that net neutrality was an attack on the free speech rights of internet providers, and that the very limited net neutrality rules that the FCC put in place were the government takeover of the internet. Yet they suddenly have no problem applying much more aggressive and 1st Amendment violative rules to edge providers that are nothing like internet service providers.

And while I kept hearing people say that the Dobbs ruling showed that the Supreme Court will now ignore precedent to get to the results it wants, theres something different about the 5th Circuits ruling in the NetChoice case:

The cynical will point to things like the Supreme Courts decision inDobbs(which overturnedRoe v. Wade) and note that weve entered an era of Calvinball jurisprudencein which precedents are no longer an impediment to whatever endgame Federalist Society judges want. (The beloved comic stripCalvin and Hobbesintroduced us to the concept of Calvinballa sport in which the participants make up the rules as they go, never using the same rules twice.)

But in some ways this decision is even more ridiculous. There are pockets of the conservative world that have spent 50 years honing arguments to overturnRoe. The opposite is true when it comes to upending the First Amendment.

Indeed, the same forces that worked to overturnRoespent nearly the same amount of time working to strengthen andexpandjudicial recognition of the First Amendment rights of companiesfrom allowing a bakerto choose notto decorate a cake, to allowing companies to cite the First Amendment as a reasonnot to provide contraceptionas part of a health plan, and deciding that the First Amendment didnot allow Congress to barcertain types of expenditures in support of political candidates.

No matter how you feel about Masterpiece Cakeshop, Hobby Lobby or Citizens United, all three were cases driven by conservative arguments that relied heavily on the fundamental position that the First Amendment barred restrictions on corporate expression, including the right to not be forced to endorse, enable, or support certain forms of expression.

I pointed out how Ken White had once noted that there just wasnt a deep bench of conservative judges looking to take away 1st Amendment rights. And that actually held for a while:

As First Amendment lawyerKen White notedback in the comparatively innocent days of November 2016, regarding Donald Trumps call to open up our libel laws, You can go shopping for judicial candidates whose writings or decisions suggest they will overturnRoe v. Wade, but it would be extremely difficult to find ones who would reliably overturn [key First Amendment precedents.]

But, as if to just put a spotlight on their lack of actual principles, a huge part of the Republican establishment flipped on this point on a dime, solely to punish tech companies that they feel have become too woke. Its almost as if they only support the 1st Amendment for those who ideologically agree with them.

I mean, Justice Clarence Thomas, who almost certainly will vote to uphold the 5th Circuit, will be doing a complete 180 on his concurrence in Masterpiece Cakeshop. In that one, he argued the Supreme Court should have gone even further to make it clear that forcing a baker to decorate a cake for a gay couple would violate the bakers free speech, and dismissed the key cases the 5th Circuit relied on in the NetChoice case (FAIR and Pruneyard) as being wholly inapplicable, while highlighting the importance of Miami Herald v. Tornillo (the case that the 5th Circuit says is wholly different) on the 1st Amendment protecting the right for private operators to exercise control over the messages they send.

With Dobbs, everyone knew where it was going, because conservatives spent 50 years working up to it. But the 5th Circuit ruling lays bare how there are no principles among an unfortunately large segment of todays Republicans in both statehouses and courts. Its not about principles. It is entirely focused on punishing people they dont like.

Theres a lot more in the Daily Beast piece, but I wanted to highlight that one element that hadnt received as much attention.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, 5th circuit, andy oldham, clarence thomas, compelled speech, content moderation, hb 20, social media, texas

More here:
Conservatives Loved Expanding The 1st Amendment To Corporations Until Last Year. Wonder Why? - Techdirt

Freedom Forum has funded the new First Amendment reporter to help USAT Network Tennessee develop sophisticated storytelling around critical freedoms.

Tennessee Voices: A conversation with Ken Paulson

MTSU Free Speech Center Director Ken Paulson spoke with Tennessean Opinion Editor David Plazas.

Nashville Tennessean

The Founding Fathers very clearly foresaw the danger of unchecked authority. Their writings go into great detail about the potential for government corruption, the lure of power, and the need for transparency.

This was a uniquely American concept and led to a uniquely American solution: The First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Five freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition were not to be abridged.

Yet while Americans have consistently shown overwhelming support for the ideas behind the First Amendment, their understanding of how its promises should be interpreted has varied greatly. And they continue to evolve.

Tennessee has long been at the forefront of debate and decision over how these fundamental freedoms should manifest in a pluralistic society. Were nearing the 100th anniversary of the landmark Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee and some of the same legal, theological and humanistic arguments that took place then are taking place today.

Hear more Tennessee Voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought provoking columns.

Sign up for Latino Tennessee Voices newsletter:Read compelling stories for and with the Latino community in Tennessee.

Debate over the banning of books, school curriculum, the place of faith, access to government records, and free speech at college campuses and on social media are just a few of the issues of our day.

Thats why weve decided at The Tennessean that it is the right time to devote a full-time reporter focused on covering First Amendment issues.

Funded by the non-partisan Freedom Forum through Journalism Funding Partners, our reporter will be one of the first in the nation to be so dedicated, allowing us to consistently focus more attention and develop sophisticated storytelling around these critical freedoms.

Whats noteworthy is our approach. Some news organizations might cover the First Amendment as related to a press issue with a journalist whose beat is the media, or a question over religious freedom with a legal or religion reporter.

By bringing the topic under a single journalist, well develop the deep sourcing, expertise and focus needed to explore these complex issues and keep them at the forefront of community discussion.

And while we will be mainly covering the issues of Tennessee, well extend our reach more broadly throughout the South and nationally as developments dictate.

The Freedom Forum has a long history in Tennessee, through John Seigenthaler and other past editors of The Tennessean, and through our parent company Gannett. The John Seigenthaler Center opened on the campus of Vanderbilt University more than 30 years ago. With such a rich legacy, it makes even more sense for the USA TODAY Network Tennessee to take this bold step.

It is no coincidence the Bill of Rights begins with the First Amendment. The rights of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to petition, to peaceably assemble and the freedom of the press are foundational to democracy.

These freedoms are exactly what distinguishes the United States from totalitarian regimes such as those found in Syria, North Korea, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Sign up for Black Tennessee Voices newsletter:Read compelling columns by Black writers from across Tennessee.

Government, as Abraham Lincoln put it nearly a century after the Constitution was signed, must be of the people, by the people, for the people.

Were committed to doing our part to make that happen.

Angele Latham is The Tennessean's new First Amendment reporter. She most recently worked at The Jackson Sun as the government and business reporter.

She was editor of the Independent Appeal in Selmer, Tennessee following graduation from Middle Tennessee State University with a degree in journalism and visual communication. She is a native of Hickman County.

Michael A. Anastasi is editor and vice president of the USA TODAY Network Tennessee, which includes The Tennessean, The Knoxville News Sentinel and The (Memphis) Commercial Appeal. Write to him at manastasi@tennessean.com.

See the original post here:
Why USA TODAY Network Tennessee hired a First Amendment beat reporter | From the editor - Tennessean