Category Archives: First Amendment

WOODLAND PARK, Colo. The City of Woodland Park paid $65,000 to settle claims after a former Woodland Park Police Chief violated First Amendment rights.

Delbert Sgaggio was paid $65,000 after he was personally blocked on Facebook by former Woodland Park Police Chief Miles De Young. Sgaggio criticized a raid by Woodland Park police officers in a video that was later deleted by Police Chief De Young.

Sgaggio then criticized the removal of his comment, which was deleted once again. After his comments were removed, Sggagio was blocked from commenting on the Facebook pages of both the Police Department and the City itself.

This case sends a message to every public official in the country: respect the free speech rights of your constituents online or pay the price, said Andy McNulty of Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP. Woodland Park and its officials are acting like their counterparts in Russia, China, and North Korea that censor their citizens online. Luckily, in this country, we have the First Amendment and brave citizens like Delbert Sgaggio to protect us from oppressive government officials like Chief De Young otherwise, clearly, he would act just like Vladimir Putin without any repercussions.

The City of Woodland Park says this was the largest settlement ever reached in a case stemming from a Facebook blocking by a public official.

View original post here:
Woodland Park pays $65,000 for violating First Amendment Rights - FOX21News.com

Finished movies are guarded by the First Amendment, but the act of filming them on government property isnt inherently protected activity, according to a Tuesday decision from the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the District of Columbia.

Gordy Price shot his 2018 film Crawford Road on National Park Service land without first obtaining a permit and paying a fee. After its first screening, the NPS cited him with a misdemeanor, which carried a potential sentence of up to six months in prison and a fine. The citation was dropped, but Davis Wright Tremaine First Amendment specialist Robert Corn-Revere took an interest in the matter, and Price in December 2019 sued the U.S. Attorney General(then William Barr) along with officials from the Department of the Interior and National Park Service, challenging the constitutionality of the rule.Thus, Prices indie movie about a reportedly haunted section of the Colonial National Historical Park in Virginia became the center of a legal battle over the extent to which filmmaking on government property is protected activity.

In a huge win for filmmakers, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in January 2021 sided with Price and found the scheme to be unconstitutional. She issued an injunction barring the permit and fee requirements for commercial filming and the prosecution and the imposition of criminal liability thereunder.

The statute at issue (read ithere) only required a permit for commercial filmmaking it generally exempted news gathering and non-commercial projects and Kollar-Kotelly found that amounted to a content-based restriction on Prices First Amendment rights.

Mr. Prices filmmaking at these parks constitutes a form of expressive speech protected by the First Amendment, she wrote in the opinion, adding the creation of a film must also fall within the ambit of the First Amendments protection of freedom of expression. To find otherwise, would artificially disconnect an integral piece of the expressive process of filmmaking.

The government appealed, and on Tuesday the D.C. Circuit released its 2-1 decision reversing the ruling.

We hold that regulation of filmmaking on government-controlled property is subject only to a reasonableness standard, even when the filmmaking is conducted in a public forum. Because the permit-and-fee requirements are reasonable, we reverse the order of the district court, writes Senior Circuit Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg.

Ginsburg finds that special protection only applies to communicative activities in a public forum, such as assembly, the exchange of ideas to and among citizens, the discussion of public issues, the dissemination of information and opinion, and debate. Further, he finds not every piece of government property is a public forum, and not every activity protected by the First Amendment is communicative.

[W]e are convinced that it would be a category error to apply the speech-protective rules of a public forum to regulation of an activity that involves merely a noncommunicative step in the production of speech, writes Ginsburg.

Though protected as speech under the First Amendment, filmmaking, like typing a manuscript, is not itself a communicative activity; it is merely a step in the creation of speech that will be communicated at some other time, usually in some other location, writes Ginsburg. There is no historical right of access to government property in order to create speech.

In short, Ginsburg writes, [T]he key takeaway from the preceding analysis is that, with respect to noncommunicative first amendment activity such as filmmaking, the highly-protective rules of a traditional public forum are inapplicable. The upshot is that filmmaking on all NPS land is subject to the same reasonableness standard that applies to restrictions on first amendment activity in a nonpublic forum.

Ginsburg notes that reasonableness is a low bar and, under the standard, the purposes of the NPS permit and fee scheme (raising revenue and protecting the parks) are reasonable.

Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote a brief concurring opinion emphasizing the limited reach of the decision. We conclude that the regulation of most non-communicative speech on government property is subject to reasonableness review, she writes. We need not and do not explain the full contours of what does and does not constitute communicative speech.'

In a scathing dissent, Senior Circuit Judge David S. Tatel criticizes the decision to focus on the reasonableness standard. My colleagues reimagine the public forum to protect the stumping politician but not the silent photographer, to shield the shouting protester but not the note-taking reporter, Tatel writes. These distinctions find no basis in First Amendment jurisprudence. It makes no more sense to exclude certain types of speech from public forums than it does to police which squirrels may enter a conservation easement.

He argues this decision deviates from precedent that struck down similar restrictions as overbroad and antithetical to core First Amendment principles. [T]he court today upholds these restrictions on grounds untethered from our courts precedent and that of our sister circuits, Tatel writes. Because the permit and fee requirements penalize far more speech than necessary to advance the governments asserted interests, they run afoul of the First Amendment.

Tatel cites a 2010 decision in Boardley v. United States Department of Interior. Like the NPS regulations in that case, the Permit Regime burdens substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the governments significant interests in protecting NPS resources and preventing interference with park visitors, writes Tatel. He argues that because the regulations define commercial filming as any film, electronic, magnetic, digital, or other recording of a moving image by a person, business, or other entity for a market audience with the intent of generating income this kind of restriction isnt narrowly tailored enough to withstand scrutiny. (Ginsburg argued Boardley is irrelevant because it concerned the distribution of written materials, which is communicative activity.)

[T]he Permit Regime applies to an extraordinarily broad group of people, ranging from large-scale filming operations, to small documentary film crews, to individuals who take short videos on their phones and later monetize this content on social media platforms, Tatel writes. Even a park visitor who takes a five-minute video on her phone, planning to post it on YouTube and generate advertising revenue, must obtain a permit and pay a fee. Although large commercial filming projects may well involve equipment operators, filming subjects, and sustained operations that burden park resources and disturb visitors the government provides no reason to think that individuals and small groups interfere meaningfully with [these] interests.'

The court reversed Kollar-Kotellys decision, vacated the declaratory judgment and the permanent injunction, and instructed the trial court to deny Prices motion for judgment on the pleadings and to grant the defendants motion.

In a brief statement to The Hollywood Reporter on Tuesday, Price and Crawford Road co-producer James Person said, We are disappointed with the decision and currently are considering our options.

If Price decides to continue his fight, the next step would be petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court. Given some of the issues Tatel raises in his dissent, including his opinion that this decision puts the D.C. Circuit in conflict with other appellate courts, it seems modern technology has created yet another free speech issue thats ripe for consideration by the high court.

Or, as Tatel puts it: Before standing outside Yosemite National Parks visitor center using a cell phone to record commentary on our national parks that will air on an advertisement-supported YouTube channel, an individual must obtain a permit and pay a fee. Before filming a protest on the National Mall, tourists must obtain a permit and pay a fee if they have any inkling that they might later make money from this footage on social media. And when the filming is spontaneous, these individuals will be criminally liable and face up to six months in prison even though they could not possibly have obtained a permit ahead of time. By stripping public forum protection from filming, my colleagues for the very first time disaggregate speech creation and dissemination, thus degrading First Amendment protection for filming, photography, and other activities essential to free expression in todays world.

View original post here:
Indie Filmmakers First Amendment Win in National Parks Battle Reversed - Hollywood Reporter

From Staff Reports| Las Cruces Sun-News

ALBUQUERQUE - The New Mexico Foundation for Open Government has chosen six New Mexicans as the recipients of its 2022 William S. Dixon First Amendment Freedom Awards. The awards are annually presented to those New Mexicans who believe in government transparency at the state or local level and who have made significant contributions to casting sunshine (transparency) in government operations in the state.

Dixon Award winners will be honored with a Dixon Award event set for Oct. 6, 2022 at the Albuquerque Marriott Hotel on Louisiana Boulevard in Albuquerque.

For many years, FOG has honored those New Mexicans who believe that open government is good government, Kathi Bearden, FOG president, said. This years group acted on their beliefs instead of giving lip service to transparency and accountability. Their actions changed policies, procedures and allow everyone to participate in government.

The 2022 Dixon Recipients Are:

Byrons nomination focused on his dogged citizen advocacy for the Hobbs City Commission to adopt video streaming and archiving of commission meetings activism that began in 2015 and continues today. The city has repeatedly and proudly cited it as a means of government transparency and citizen engagement and in a March 2022, column entitled City of Hobbs resilient in the face of COVID shutdowns, Hobbs Mayor Cobb noted the streaming service would be reaching its sixth year. Not only the programs inception, but its longevity, is thanks in large part to Marshals work to protect and strengthen open government. This is an interesting turnaround for the city as when Marshal first suggested the policy, it was met with resistance by the then-city manager and members of the city commission. His contribution to transparency and accountability extends to efforts regarding the citys paid-time-off policy and employee cash payouts associated with the citys new PTO policy. His persistent efforts have inspired many other Hobbs residents to inform and involve themselves in local government.

Albuquerque Attorney Thomas Grover has an extensive record as a litigator for individuals who have been unable to secure public records. His vast knowledge pertaining to the IPRA & OMA assists his clients in understanding their rights. "(IPRA) is my favorite four-letter word, said Grover, who has successfully sued the cities, counties and others for noncompliance with the IPRA. His actions have resulted in changes in procedures by records custodians and public bodies, including the Albuquerque Police Department which now provides disciplinary records of investigation of officers. In 2019, Grover was the attorney when his client was awarded $40,000 in his lawsuit against the City of Espanola for withholding records and another client awarded $180,000 in a suit against APD. Grover also represented a retired Santa Fe Police lieutenant in her lawsuit against that agency. A district judge ordered the city to pay that plaintiff for failing to comply with a public records request.

This recipient specifically used the law, the attorney general and advice from NMFOG to hold APS accountable. She has worked to enforce the public's right to review records, even when the records were held in part by a private organization acting on the public entitys behalf. Through Ms. Hager's efforts, she was able to change how the state's largest school district handled employee promotions and raises changing a system that was onerous and detrimental to individual employees. Before her questions about public records, the AFT union acted as a de facto human relations department for APS when looking at promotions and raises for non-teachers. Now, APS is handling its own process. Her career path has taken her from banking to work as a hospital Child Life Specialist at Daytons Childrens Hospital, as well as an intern at the Family Support Center at Andrews Air Force Base. She has worked at Carlos Rey Elementary and Desert Ridge Middle School and is now the school counselor at North Star Elementary School. This recipient is a member of the APS Counseling Leadership Committee and was named the 2018-19 APS Elementary School Counselor of the Year and the 2022-23 NM School Counselor of the Year.

Marian Matthews is a State Representative for House District 27. A staunchadvocate for better government and transparency, she has become a tireless advocate to push back against CYFDs cloak of secrecy and works to ensure this department becomes more transparent. In 2021, Rep. Matthews was critical in calling out CYFD for their failure to be forthcoming and transparent with the public, resulting in a scathing multi-page memo from the LFC identifying multiple systematic concerns about transparency and accessibility. Since her time assuming office in 2021, she has been honest, approachable, and direct in her dedication and commitment to shine light on this agency and hold this public entity accountable. She is a model legislator for leading with ethics. She continues to be a champion as she works to create an independent and autonomous office of the ombudsman, as well as amend public disclosure laws, and ensure that the confidentiality clause in the childrens code protects the children and families impacted by the department, and not the department itself. She began her career as a journalist and newspaper reporter in Springfield, MO, and then in Alamogordo, NM.

As the executive director of the New Mexico Commission for the Blind, Greg Trapp has worked vigorously to ensure equal access, accountability and transparency in the Commission and for other state agencies and boards.

Mr. Trapp was on the front lines at the beginning of the COVID lockdown, petitioning the Attorney General to ensure public access, including those with disabilities, to meetings, materials and records. He worked with the AG to develop that agencys Open Government Division Advisory on how public bodies could comply with IPRA and OMA during the pandemic. He worked to draft language for procedures for his organization and other state agencies to make the process less cumbersome. His efforts were evident long before Covid. Mr. Trapp is considered a stickler for detail including adhering to all aspects of the OMA before, during and following meetings. He was worked to nudge other boards and agencies, including those on which he serves, to follow the law. His efforts include directing staff to build an electronic bulletin board that allows the public to receive emailed updates of legal notices, agendas and other meeting materials.

Vincent Rodriguez is the leader of the pack when it comes to watchdog journalism in the KOAT TV 7 newsroom. Hes currently the digital media manager and previously was an assignment editor. He takes time daily to make sure the staff understands the power of an open records request and what is available just by asking. He created a system to track when IPRAs are sent and the responses if any, they receive. In December 2021, when a child was shot and killed in Rio Rancho, the city refused to turn over documents. For months into 2022, the station told our viewers what we asked for and what was denied. When the city used the childrens code to deny documents, He helped to explain how the city was using the childrens code to justify not turning over documents. Eventually, the AG sided with KOAT and the station let the public know the city was reversing course based on our persistence. He instills in the newsroom knowledge about the law and makes sure other employees know its not just for the media its for citizens. If a New Mexican has a problem and theyre not getting answers, he walks them through how to get what they are afforded through sunshine laws. He is the person in the newsroom that questions everything and teaches others to question everything.

Others are reading:

Read more:
Six to receive 2022 William S. Dixon First Amendment Freedom Award - Las Cruces Sun-News

The U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)'s placement of Tornado Cash as an entity on the Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) sanction list raises important questions that are being discussed around the world. OFAC explained its sanction by saying Tornado Cash (Tornado) is a virtual currency mixer that operates on the Ethereum blockchain and indiscriminately facilitates anonymous transactions by obfuscating their origin, destination, and counterparties, with no attempt to determine their origin, and, therefore,is a threat to U.S. national security.

The issues EFF is most concerned about arise from speech protections for software code and how they relate to government attempts to stop illegal activity using this code. This post outlines why we are concerned about the publication of this code in light of what OFAC has done, and what we are planning to do about it.

On August 8, acting under Executive Order 13694, OFAC added something it called TORNADO CASH (a.k.a. TORNADO CASH CLASSIC; a.k.a. TORNADO CASH NOVA) to the SDN list, along with a long list of digital currency wallet addresses. Once an entity is on the sanctions list, U.S. persons and businesses must stop dealing with them, including through transfers of money or property.

According to the Treasury Department, the Tornado Cash mixer has been used to launder Ethereum coins, including coins worth millionsof U.S. dollarsfrom the Lazarus Group, a Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) state-sponsored hacking group, as well as the proceeds of several ransomware outfits. We have no reason to doubt this claim, and it is legitimately serious. Like many other kinds of computer programs (as well as many other tools), the Tornado Cash smart contract on the Ethereum blockchain can be, and indeed is, used for legal activities, but it is also used for illegal ones. According to Chainanalysis study of mixers generally, known illicit [wallet] addresses accounted for 23 percent of funds sent to mixers this year, up from 12 percent in 2021.

Confusingly, however, the name Tornado Cash could refer to several different things, creating ambiguity in what exactly is sanctioned. Tornado Cash Classic and Nova refer to variants of the software that exist in both source code form on GitHub and running on the blockchain. Tornado Nova is a beta version, with functionality apparently limited to 1 ETH/transaction.

Meanwhile, the OFAC press release quoted above refers to Tornado Cash as both an anonymity-enhancing technology and a sanctioned entity. Tornado Cash is also the name of: the underlying open source project that developed and published the code on GitHub; the name of this autonomous mixer software that resides as a smart contract (application) running on the Ethereum network; the URL of the tornado.cash website (listed by name on the SDN); and could be considered a name of an entity consisting of some set of people involved with the mixer. OFAC did not identify or list any people involved with the mixer as sanctioned by name. While the OFAC listing is ambiguous, Coin Center has drilled down on what it believes is and is not a sanctionable entity in the Tornado Cash situation, distinguishing between an entity and the software itself.

EFF has reached out to OFAC to seek more clarity on their interpretation of the sanctions listing, especially the scope of what OFAC means by Tornado Cash, and we hope to hear back soon.

EFFs most central concern about OFACs actions arose because, after the SDN listing of Tornado Cash, GitHub took down the canonical repository of the Tornado Cash source code, along with the accounts of the primary developers, including all their code contributions. While GitHub has its own right to decide what goes on its platform, the disappearance of this source code from GitHub after the government action raised the specter of government action chilling the publication of this code.

In keeping with our longstanding defense of the right to publish code, we are representing Professor Matthew Green, who teaches computer science at the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute, including applied cryptography and anonymous cryptocurrencies. Part of his work involves studying and improving privacy-enhancing technologies, and teaching his students about mixers like Tornado Cash. The disappearance of Tornado Cashs repository from GitHub created a gap in the available information on mixer technology, so Professor Green made a fork of the code, and posted the replica so it would be available for study. The First Amendment protects both GitHubs right to host that code, and Professor Greens right to publish (here republish) it on GitHub so he and others can use it for teaching, for further study, and for development of the technology.

For decades, U.S. courts have recognized that code is speech. This has been a core part of EFFs advocacy for the computer science and technical community, since we established the precedent over 25 years ago in Bernstein v. U.S. Dept of State. As the Tornado Cash situation develops, we want to be certain that those critical constitutional safeguards arent skirted or diluted. Below, we explain what those protections mean for regulation of software code.

Judge Patel, in the Bernstein case, explained why the First Amendment protects code, recognizing that there was:

no meaningful difference between computer language, particularly high-level languages , and German or French Like music and mathematical equations, computer language is just that, language, and it communicates information either to a computer or to those who can read it. ... source code is speech.

The Sixth Circuit agreed, observing in Junger v. Daley, that code, like a written musical score, is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas. Indeed, computer code has been published in physical books and included in a famous Haiku. More directly, Jonathan Mann recently expressed code as music, by singing portions of the Tornado Case codebase.

Thus, the creation and sharing of a computer program is protected by the First Amendment, just as is the creation and performance of a musical work, a film, or a scientific experiment. Moreover, as Junger and Bernstein acknowledged, code retains its constitutional protection even if it is executable, and thus both expressive and functional.

Establishing that code is speech protected by the Bill of Rights is not the end of the story. The First Amendment does not stop the government from regulating code in all cases. Instead, the government must show that any regulation or law that singles out speech or expressive activity passes constitutional muster.

The first and key question is whether the regulation is based on the softwares communicative content.

In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the Supreme Court has said that defining regulated speech by particular subject matter is an obvious content-based regulation. More subtle content-based distinctions involve defining regulated speech by its function or purpose (emphasis added).

A regulation that prohibits writing or publishing code with a particular function or purpose, like encrypting communications or anonymizing individuals online, is necessarily content-based. At a minimum, its forbidding the sharing of information based on its topic.

Content-based laws face strict scrutiny, under which, as Reed explains, they are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.

Thus, government regulation based on the content of code must be narrowly tailored, which means that laws must be written so narrowly that they are using the least restrictive means to achieve their purposes. This means that the government cannot place restrictions on more speech than is necessary to advance its compelling interest. Under Junger, functional consequences of code are not considered a bar to protection, but go to whether a regulation burdening the speech is appropriately tailored.

The government frequently argues that regulations like this arent focused on content, but function. Thats incorrect, but even if the government were right, the regulation still doesnt pass muster unless the government can show the regulation doesnt burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests. And the government must demonstrate that the recited harms are real, not merely conjectural, and that the regulation will in fact alleviate these harms in a direct and material way. (Turner Broad. Sys. v. F.C.C.).

Under either analysis, GitHub has a First Amendment right to continue to host independent copies of the Tornado Cash source code repository. Professor Greens fork and publication through GitHub is protected, and neither the hosting nor the publication of these independent repositories violates the OFAC sanctions.

The government may have legitimate concerns about the scourge of ransomware and harms presented by the undemocratic regime in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, but the harm from fund transfers does not come from the creation, publication, and study of the Tornado Cash source code for privacy-protective technologies.

Nor will prevention of that publication alleviate the harms from any unlawful transfers over Tornado Cash. Indeed, given how the Ethereum network functions, whether or not Prof. Green publishes a copy of the code, the compiled operational code will continue to exist on the Ethereum network. It is not necessary to further the government's interest in sanction enforcement to prohibit the publication of this source code.

Moreover, improvements and other contributions to this fork, or any other, are also protected speech, and their publication cannot be constitutionally prohibited by the government under either standard of scrutiny.

Based on thirty years of experience, we know that it takes a village to create and improve open source software. To ensure that developers can continue to create the software that we all rely upon, the denizens of that village must not be held responsible for any later unlawful use of the software merely because they contributed code. Research and development of software technology must be able to continue. Indeed, that very research and development may be the very way to craft a system that helps with this situation offering us alloptions to both protect privacy in digital transactions and allow for the enforcement of sanctions.

OFAC should do its part by publicly issuing some basic clarifying information and reducing the ambiguity in its order. Regardless of how one feels about cryptocurrency, mixers, or the blockchain, its critical that we ensure the ongoing protection of the development and publication of computer software, especially open source computer software. And while we deplore the misuse of this mixer technology to facilitate ransomware and money laundering, we must also ensure that steps taken to address it continue to honor the Constitution and protect the engines of innovation.

Thats why EFFs role here is to continue to ensure that the First Amendment is properly interpreted to protect the publication, iteration and collective work of millions of coders around the world.

Read the original:
Code, Speech, and the Tornado Cash Mixer - EFF

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (Aug. 29, 2022) The Poynter Institute will present legendary reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein with the Poynter Medal for Lifetime Achievement in Journalism at its annual fundraising gala the Bowtie Ball which will return to an in-person celebration of journalism on Nov. 12, 2022, at the Tampa Marriott Water Street in Tampa, Florida.

Fifty years ago, the duos dogged reporting changed the course of American history and fortified journalisms role in a free society. The story of Watergate was not only the highest expression of journalisms calling as a first draft of history, but this body of work has stood for generations as a historical record that in America no one not even the president is above the law, and that journalists are essential to a working democracy.

Reporters Bob Woodward, right, and Carl Bernstein, whose investigation of the Watergate case won them a Pulitzer Prize, sit in the newsroom of The Washington Post in May 1973. (Associated Press file photo)

As the nation continues to mark the 50th anniversary of the Watergate break-in, Woodward and Bernsteins recounting of the pressures they faced and the journalistic fundamentals they practiced to get the story has been a timely reminder of values that transcend todays tensions in the media marketplace. Even as society debates the strengths and ills of social media, or witnesses journalists under attack, here is whats undeniable: Woodward and Bernstein found records, knocked on doors, managed multiple sources, told the stories straight without fear or favor and in the process changed a nation and inspired thousands of people to become journalists.

The work of Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward on that seismic story are the values and craft we preach and teach at the Poynter Institute, said Poynter President Neil Brown. The journalism around Watergate stands as a reminder that in a democracy, citizens have a right to know the actions of their leaders and that it takes independent reporting by journalists to shine that light. As we consider democracy and the stories of today, this basic right and the critical work of journalists are worth celebrating.

So with great respect for their journalistic contributions during Watergate and remarkably for half a century afterwards through today Poynter honors the esteemed reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, with its most prestigious award of excellence, the 2022 Poynter Medal for Lifetime Achievement in Journalism.

Each year, Poynter presents this award to an accomplished journalist whose career has made a significant impact on democracy and its institutions. Woodward and Bernstein will join an esteemed roster of Poynter Medal recipients including:

Poynter will present Woodward and Bernstein with the award at the Bowtie Ball on Nov. 12, 2022, at the Tampa Marriott Water Street. Guests will be entertained by live music and lively programming, delighted by cameo appearances, and immersed in a celebration of local news, the power of fact-based expression and The Washington Post reporters relentless investigation that changed the course of American democracy. The pairs contributions will be elevated throughout the evening; Bernstein will attend the event in person and reflect upon his investigative reporting during an interview on stage with Brown.

Journalist Carl Bernstein sits at the head table during the White House Correspondents Dinner in Washington, Saturday, April 29, 2017. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

The Poynter Institute was founded more than 45 years ago by Nelson Poynter, the then-owner and editor of the St. Petersburg (Florida) Times. Poynter created a school to train professional journalists and elevate the craft. Upon his death, in an exceptional act of vision and philanthropy that ensured the independence of his beloved local paper, Poynter bequeathed ownership of the now-Tampa Bay Times to the school. His gift was intended to protect and preserve the news organizations singular dedication to the community it serves and to advance the practice of journalism more broadly.

Today, Poynter empowers news organizations and journalists through transformative teaching that elevates crucial journalism skills including reporting, multimedia storytelling, leadership and ethical decision-making to better inform their communities and strengthen democracy. The institute still owns the local news organization, the Tampa Bay Times, while having grown into a nonprofit global leader in journalism education. Poynter trains tens of thousands of journalists, educators and students around the world in person and online each year. Clients include CBS, NBC, Univision, ESPN, NPR, Hearst and TEGNA newsrooms, and numerous local TV stations, community newspapers and digital news sites. Poynter operates three fact-checking enterprises: the Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact, the International Fact-Checking Network, and social-first digital media literacy initiative MediaWise. In addition, Poynter is the home of the Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership at Poynter, a resource for journalists and citizens to navigate todays complex media landscape. Learn more about the impact of Poynters work here.

Proceeds from the fundraising event support the work of the nonprofit Poynter Institute and its dedication to defend democracy, seek the truth and elevate journalism for those who create and consume it.

Tickets for the Bowtie Ball honoring Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are available now. To sponsor the event, please contact Deborah Read, chief development officer, at sponsorships@poynter.org for details.

About The Poynter Institute

The Poynter Institute is a global nonprofit working to address societys most pressing issues by teaching journalists and journalism, covering the media and the complexities facing the industry, convening and community building, improving the capacity and sustainability of news organizations and fostering trust and reliability of information. The Institute is a gold standard in journalistic excellence and dedicated to the preservation and advancement of press freedom in democracies worldwide. Through Poynter, journalists, newsrooms, businesses, big tech corporations and citizens convene to find solutions that promote trust and transparency in news and stoke meaningful public discourse. The worlds top journalists and emerging media leaders rely on the Institute to learn new skills, adopt best practices, better serve audiences, scale operations and improve the quality of the information ecosystem.

The Craig Newmark Center for Ethics and Leadership, the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN), MediaWise and PolitiFact are all enterprises of the Poynter organization.

Support for Poynter upholds the integrity of the free press and the U.S. First Amendment and builds public confidence in journalism and media around the world an essential for healthy democracies. Learn more at poynter.org.

Media Contact:

Tina DyakonDirector of MarketingThe Poynter Institutetdyakon@poynter.org727-553-4343

Read more here:
Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to be honored with the Poynter Medal for Lifetime Achievement - Poynter

Will Lehman, a Mack Trucks workers and candidate for president of the United Auto Workers, received the following letter from a railroad worker. Lehman is running on a platform of abolishing the UAW apparatus and to build workers power through rank-and-file committees. The exchange has been edited to protect the workers identity.

Railroaders have been without a new contract for nearly three years. They are incensed as the recent report issued by the Biden-appointed Presidential Emergency Board, which proposes a settlement favorable to the railroads on virtually all points. There is overwhelming sentiment among railroaders for strike action, but also frustration and anger with the rail unions for urging Biden to appoint the PEB. The unions are now in damage control mode since the report has been released. This is contributing to a growing interest among railroaders in building up rank-and-file committees in order to oppose both the railroads as well as the union bureaucracy.

The WSWS has endorsed Lehmans campaign. For more information on Will Lehmans campaign, visit WillforUAWPresident.org.

* * *

Hi Will,

Im a locomotive engineer on a Class I railroad in the US. I keep hearing about creating rank-and-file groups independent of our unions. Im interested in doing this in my area but I dont really know much about how to make it happen.

I guess I dont know how or where to begin. I could organize a group to start a local rank-and-file group but beyond that Im not sure where to go with it. What authority would we have, and what would be any of the legalities involved? I would be very interested in some literature to study up on or any direction you could give. Thanks.

Will: The purpose of a rank-and-file committee is to organize workers themselves as an independent power, to prepare them to fight against not only the company, but also the pro-corporate union apparatus, and to fight against the bureaucratic strangling of the workers struggle. In the case of the railroads, I understand the desire for strike action is overwhelming. The problem, however, lies in the fact that the rail unionsthe BLET, SMART-TD, etc.are redirecting everything towards the provisions of the RLA, aggressively enforcing anti-strike injunctions, promoting illusions in the government as a neutral arbiter. This has all been exposed by the PEB ruling, and now railroaders are fed up.

My understanding is that you will be able to legally strike as soon as September 15. But you should first of all not assume that just because you and your coworkers are unanimously in favor a strike that the unions will call one. They are creatures of the corporations and of the state. They will do everything they can to prevent a strike from breaking out, because that is what the railroads shareholders and the Biden administration want them to do. And if a strike takes place then, or perhaps even before, Congress will likely try to intervene.

Railroaders have powerful enemies, but railroaders are more powerful. As you know, a railroad strike would shut down the entire country. It would also receive enormous support from all of us in the working class, who would take it as the signal to press for our own demands, where we are also dealing with runaway inflation and insane overwork. The problem, however, is that railroaders do not have an organization which they control and which genuinely represents them. Hence the need for forming and building rank-and-file committees.

Now to your question, how does one build a committee? A committee will naturally have to strive to expand to include participation across all the Class I railroads and be seen by at least a decisive section of the railroaders as their organization, their leadership. But you shouldnt feel that you have to wait for that level of support to found it. If you have spoken to even one or two of your coworkers and they are in agreement with the need to start a committee, then you have the foundation of a committee.

The power of the committee comes, in the first place, from the fact that it is the only group that has a viable strategy for workers and is the only group that expresses the deeply felt opposition of workers and gives it an articulate form. You can then move onto a founding statement, which my campaign can help you with writing and publishing anonymously so you can then distribute it as widely as possible, explaining what the committee is, why it has been founded, and what it fights for. What is its strategy, and what are its demands? On the basis of this founding program, you can begin the work of expanding the influence and the membership of the committee.

To see what committees look like in practice, I would urge you to review the Volvo Trucks strike in Dublin, Virginia last year. The rank-and-file committee there played a decisive role in mobilizing opposition to multiple sellout contracts brought by the United Auto Workers and forcing the union to call a strike. It also, by the way, had a huge impact on me. I first founded the rank-and-file committee at my plant in Mack Trucks in support of the strike.

One last thing You asked about the legal status of committees. First let me assure you that the rank-and-file committee is completely legal, protected under the First Amendment protection of free speech. But the union bureaucracy does not recognize freedom of speech. Therefore you should take measures, particularly in the early stages of the committee, to protect the identity of its members as a safeguard against retaliation.

The union will do everything they can to try to intimidate workers from joining the committee, including lying about the unions legal status. They will also claim, falsely, that membership in a committee is incompatible with membership in the union, since the committee constitutes an alternative bargaining agent, but as you are the dues paying members this is false. The purpose of the committee is to put the rank-and-file in charge. Union officials never tire, in order to cover their own tracks, of claiming that the membership is the union. But their response to rank-and-file committees shows that in reality, they see themselves, the bureaucracy, as the union, not the members. Their response to the rank-and-file committee will show exactly why rank-and-file committees are needed in the first place!

Thank you for reaching out,

Will

[Editors note: Workers can find more information about rank-and-file committees by visiting WSWS.org/workers. We are also including a selection of major statements of rank-and-file committees published in the WSWS in the read more section below.]

Sign up for more information about how to join or build a rank-and-file committee in your workplace

Read more:
Exchange with a railroad worker and Will Lehman, socialist candidate for UAW president: How to build rank-and-file committees - WSWS

(AP Photo/Rick Bowmer, File)The Salt Lake Temple stands at Temple Square in Salt Lake City, Oct. 5, 2019.

By Stuart C. Reid | Special to The Tribune

| Aug. 26, 2022, 12:00 p.m.

Having presided over and pastored six congregations two as a bishop for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and four as an active duty Army chaplain it is clear to me that the sinner/perpetrator, child abuse victims and society generally are better off when the confessional is protected by the government as the free exercise of religions God-given right.

In Utah there is much talk about religious freedom, particularly when it is considered operational to win this or that battle in the culture conflicts, but when the sanctity of the confessional is under attack, legislators and others go silent, or worse, many rush to get in line to rob religion of its long-standing freedoms.

Short-sighted knee jerk reactions by legislators, running roughshod over religion and its God-given rights is fundamentally un-American. One of the distinguishing characteristics of the great American experiment is the First Amendment, designed to protect against the establishment of religion and the violation of its free exercise. Those legislators rushing to rob religion of its sacred rights reveal what they truly think about religious freedom.

It is a grave mistake for the Utah Legislature or any legislative body for that matter to rob religion of its free exercise in the name of protecting victims of child abuse or any other crimes against the state. This fundamental right is precisely why the free exercise clause of the First Amendment exist at all. Very little could be more important under the First Amendment than protecting the right of confessional confidentiality.

As legislators rush to rob religion of its God-given rights, which should be protected under the First Amendment, believing they are heroically rescuing victims, especially child abuse victims, they are in fact ignorantly doing just the opposite.

If the Utah Legislature requires clergy to violate the sanctity of the confessional by reporting information about child abuse crimes obtained in the confessional, all its doing is guaranteeing in the future that sinners/perpetrators will not confess their sins/crimes, cutting off any opportunity for the clergy to influence the sinner/perpetrator to self-report their crimes to government authorities as part of their repentance process required by some religions.

How does it help child abuse victims or the general welfare of society when the clergy are forced to violate the confidentiality of the confessional? Such a situation places clergy in the predicament of either refusing to report, accepting the pain of incarceration and/or fines. Or, out of fairness, leaving the clergy no choice but to preemptively warn repenting sinners their confession of abuse crimes require clergy reporting. What an absolute tragedy for all involved, especially victims of child abuse.

There is very little that could be worse for religion than forcing clergy to violate the sanctity of the confessional confidentiality. For at least one major religion the confessional is a sacrosanct saving sacrament to be protected even under the pain of clergy death. For others, the confessional is critical for full repentance necessary for exaltation. For many religions these are of the highest stakes not to be considered cavalierly.

Victims, especially child abuse victims, are better off if sinners/perpetrators are able to confess their sins/crimes to clergy under confessional confidentiality. There is a greater chance under clergy influence that the sinner/perpetrator will not only self-report crimes, but child abuse victims will receive the necessary interventions sooner to rescue them from further harm and help them to more quickly recover from being violated.

Utah legislators should carefully consider before rushing to judgment whether they are actually helping or hurting child abuse victims by forcing clergy to report crimes they were made aware of during the confessional. From my many years of experience as a clergyman, receiving hundreds of confessions, I am more than convinced that religions God-given right to the protected confessional is better for all concerned, especially child abuse victims.

File photoSen. Stuart Reid, R-Ogden.

Stuart C. Reid, Ogden, is a former Army chaplain, LDS bishop and Utah state senator.

Originally posted here:
If religious leaders are forced to report what they hear in private, abusers won't admit their crimes. - Salt Lake Tribune

Community Roundtable| Special to The Register-Mail

Columnist Scott Reeder writes that Christian nationalism is entering the mainstream of political discourse. What do you think of Christian nationalism?

Christian Nationalism is not really about Christianity, its about the centuries-long dominance of a social order where the superiority of whiteness, patriarchy and heterosexuality was taken for granted. A particular, narrow reading of Christianity has served, in part, to justify that social order. In the second half of the 20th century, thanks to economic expansion, civil rights, feminism and other changes, the fusion of these elements began to come apart, become visible, and open to question.

For millions who took that social order for granted, that has been a scary prospect.The result has been the culture wars, as the demand for change and the fierceness of resistance have both become stronger. Weaponized by politics, advertising and social media, voices have become ever more extreme, and fringe ideas like compulsory Christianity (including, of course, whiteness, patriarchy and heterosexuality) gain a wider hearing.But make no mistake, making Christianity the state religion would not put the genie of social change back in the bottle.Instead, it would destroy America. A state religion is profoundly antithetical to the values of the United States, explicitly forbidden in the First Amendment to the Constitution.And its creation would destroy democracy and lead inexorably to authoritarian rule. David Amor

More:Scott Reeder's column on Christian nationalism

Before we start, please define for me what a Christian is. Is it a Roman Catholic whose church teaches abortion is a sin or is it a Congregational church which supports abortion on demand? Is it a Southern Baptist who does not allow women pastors or Episcopalian which has ordained the first transgender woman as a priest at the National Cathedral?

Bandying about words like Christian nationalism conveniently omits a clear definition of what it is. For critics, all Trump supporters and conservative Christians are derisively branded with that term. Many of those who support the idea see it has simply an adherence to long-held Judeo-Christian teachings in public life. Without a precise definition, there is little point in debating the issue.

I believe Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Many secular beliefs regarding reproductive rights and gender identity have become a religion for their proponents. I object equally to the imposition of their religious beliefs on the public. Harry Bulkeley

It is easy to answer what I think of Christian Nationalism: I completely disagree with its existence because of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. There is a separation of church and state. This amendment is meant to stop the government from interfering with churches and to keep religion out of the government. Religion should not be politicized although it is becoming more so by the day. The influence of religion on todays politics cannot be denied.

One of the major problems with Christian nationalism is that it leaves out any religion that is not a Christian religion. The Christian nationalists want the United States to be an exclusively Christian nation. This is inherently wrong. These people are using the Bible to distort morality to fit their standards. In my opinion, this is a terrifying group of extremists that can be compared to white supremacists. Jeannette Chernin

More:Jody Breuer: Employers want consistency; employees want time away from work

I have read Scott Reeder for years and respect his ideas and experience. So, my first reaction was that surely the Pilgrims and Puritans left England with the intent of establishing Christian commonwealths in the wilderness. Then I realized that he was referring mainly to the years 1774-1789.

There he was on solid ground. Though sessions for drafting the Constitution opened with prayers and references were made to the Almighty, the delegates took care not to give preference to any of the sects that composed American Christianity, a sentiment that was mightily reinforced in the First Amendment.

As to Christian nationalism, I dont know anyone who professes that belief. However, it is easy to understand why some Christians believe that their values are under attack, and why secularists feel the same way.

One reason our society is divided is because terms such as Christian nationalism inflame more than they explain. William Urban

During a town hall in October 2020, Donald Trump said it was entirely possible Democrats, his enemies, were Satan-worshipping pedophiles. In April 2021, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene proposed forming a new political caucus based on Anglo-Saxon and Christian ideals. The blowback was immediate, and the idea was shelved. Fast forward to August 2022. During an interview, she decried the United States was founded on Christian principles, and she proudly identified as a Christian nationalist.The political movement of Christian nationalism, which was predicated on racism and antisemitism, has been around since the 1950s. Our country's founders were explicit in their writings that the United States is not nor should be founded on any particular religion. The religious right rejoiced when Roe vs. Wade was overturned, but recent primaries and elections are showing pro-choice voters are responding to it as overreach and an attack on basic human freedoms. The type of faith Greene and others are trying to promote is steeped in hate and bigotry which is contrary to basic Christian tenets. John Hunigan

More:Roundtable: Is current inflation President Biden's fault

Full disclosure: My wife and most of my family are Christian. I am, by choice, Jewish. The majority of our countrys founders and the general population is and have been members of Christian Churches, but the Bill of Rights is very specific about the keeping the government out of religion: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...

Scott Reeder, in his article misses the last part of that statement: ... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; His article is critical of U.S. Rep. Mary Miller because she called the Supreme Courts decision A huge win for religious liberty .... Representative Miller was completely correct! After years of court rulings against expressions of religion in the public square, but supporting the RELIGION of atheism, Coach Kennedy can pray after his games, on the field; not requiring others to join him. Charlie Gruner

This country was founded on Christian values, which to me, makes some of the founding fathers' views suspect. Why? Because religion many times is a sword in the hand of a zealot. This belief in Christian nationalism isnt new. It has sifted through this nation since this countrys inception.You can call it Christian nationalism, but I would refer to it as confirmation bias and propaganda.The southern states used the Bible to falsely conceptualize the Curse of Ham to approve of Blacks being slaves.The Confederacy used other biblical passages as well to substantiate slavery.

Whenever you put Its Gods will in front of a propagandized movement the religious sycophants will follow.And in this country, many times Christianity has been used to expediently forward a political and social belief.Andrew Jackson was notorious for exterminating, isolating and reducing the Native American population to ensure that under the protection of the government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized and Christian community.In God We Trust. The best example of this latest religious zeal was congresswoman Lauren Boeberts speech that "The church is supposed to direct the government. The government is not supposed to direct the church. That is not how our founding fathers intended it."Call it what you will. It reeks of manifest destiny. Stephen Podwojski

The Community Roundtable runs each Sunday and is made up of local writers. Community writers answer one question each week in 150 words or fewer.

Originally posted here:
Roundtable weighs in on Christian nationalism in the United States - Galesburg Register-Mail

RALEIGH The Richmond Observers dynamic duo brought home a bakers dozen accolades from the N.C. Press Associations 2022 Editorial and Photojournalism Contest.

Managing Editor William R. Toler and Sports Editor Kyle Pillar received a combined 13 certificates at the NCPAs annual awards banquet held Thursday evening at the Hilton Raleigh North Hills.

Their awards included three first-place, four second-place and six third-place wins in eight categories.

Toler and Pillar swept the Sports News Reporting category, with Toler taking first and third place his first-ever awards for sports coverage and Pillar winning second place.

The winning entries were:

Toler and Pillar also placed second and third, respectively, in headline writing.

Pillars other awards included a first-place win for Sports Coverage, as well as second and third in both Sports Enterprise Reporting and Sports Feature Writing.

In the Sports Coverage win, judges commented: Great prep sports coverage. Kyle Pillar is the sportswriter you want covering your schools games.

Toler earned first place in City/County Government Reporting for a series of stories on the controversy surrounding the rezoning and air quality permit for a proposed biochar plant outside of Hamlet.

Other awards included third place in Best Video and Breaking News Coverage. The latter was for a story about a man who was fired within hours after he was caught using a racial slur on a home doorbell camera while trying to schedule family portraits.

I am extremely proud of our team here at the RO, said Co-publisher Charlie Melvin. We really do have the dream team.

The RO competed against 15 other internet-only publications in the NCPAs online division, a mixture of community and special interest news organizations, and tied with Carolina Public Press for the second-most awards in the division. NC Health News had the most with 16.

All entries had to be from October of 2020 through February of 2022, and were judged by members of the Iowa Newspaper Association. There were more than 4,000 entries submitted to the contest by more than 125 publications and news organizations.

The ceremony was hosted, once again, by UNC-TVs Shannon Vickery and awards were handed out by NCPA Past President Sandra Hurley, regional publisher for a group of newspapers in the Mount Airy area.

State Sen. Bill Rabon, R-Brunswick, was honored with the William C. Lassiter First Amendment Award, which is presented to a non-journalist who has worked to keep government open and accessible to citizens and the press, and who actively defends the principles of the First Amendment and the publics right to know.

The RO, founded in 2017 by Kenny Melvin and Lance Jenkins, has won 32 awards since joining the NCPA in 2019.

Nights like this make all the late nights, road trips and time away from home worth it, Pillar, who is also a teacher at the Ninth Grade Academy, said in a Facebook post late Thursday night, thanking his wife and publishers Kenny and Charlie Melvin. Most of all, thank you Richmond County for allowing me to be your sports editor. Its truly a privilege to cover our student-athletes, families and community.

Pillar has won 16 awards in the past three years and Tolers work has been recognized with 31 accolades by both the NCPA and Associated Press since moving to Richmond County in 2014.

Click here to read about the 2021 awards.Click here to read about the 2020 awards.

Read the original:
Richmond Observer honored with 13 awards in N.C. Press Association contest - The Richmond Observer

A federal judge invoked Stranger Things, Immanuel Kant, and Friedrich Nietzsche in dismantling the states defense of Gov. Ron DeSantis Stop Woke Act, declaring the effort to constrain workplace sensitivity training violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment.

In a 44-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker in Tallahassee ruled that the law formally, the Individual Freedom Act, or IFA amounts to an attempt by the state of Florida to impose its preferred positions about the existence of systemic racism and sexism on the workplace and public schools.

DeSantis signed the measure in April.

Floridas legislators may well find plaintiffs speech repugnant. But under our constitutional scheme, the remedy for repugnant speech is more speech, not enforced silence. Indeed, it is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, Walker wrote.

If Florida truly believes we live in a post-racial society, then let it make its case. But it cannot win the argument by muzzling its opponents. Because, without justification, the IFA attacks ideas, not conduct, plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed on the merits of this lawsuit.

The judge also ruled, in an opinion handed down on Thursday, that the law is impermissably vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because its definitions of whats objectionable are too vague, even unintelligible.

Walker ruled in a complaint filed by Honeyfund.com Inc., a technology company in Clearwater with 16 employees, and Team Primo, a Black-owned Ben & Jerrys franchisee in Clearwater Beach and Tampa, that wanted to conduct sensitivity training, and by a consultant who conducts the training.

The named defendants were DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and members of the Florida Commission on Human Relations who would enforce the law, although the injunction doesnt apply to the governor because he doesnt directly enforce the law.

The decision doesnt discuss the laws application to schools, since the plaintiffs didnt raise that matter.

Walker noted that this was not the first DeSantis initiative blocked on First Amendment grounds, citing as one example the governors bid to punish technology and social media companies.

Nikki Fried, Floridas agriculture commissioner and candidate for Democratic nomination for governor, praised the ruling in a tweet.

Freedom from uncomfortable truths is not freedom its ignorance. Limiting speech of businesses and educators is not freedom its censorship. Attacking diversity is not freedom its oppression. I welcome Judge Walkers ruling in defense of freedom of speech in our state.

Thats where the science fiction show comes in.

In the popular television series Stranger Things, the upside down describes a parallel dimension containing a distorted version of our world. Recently, Florida has seemed like a First Amendment upside down. Normally, the First Amendment bars the state from burdening speech, while private actors may burden speech freely. But in Florida, the First Amendment apparently bars private actors from burdening speech, while the state may burden speech freely, Walker wrote.

Now, like the heroine in Stranger Things, this court is once again asked to pull Florida back from the upside down.

The law, referred to in the ruling by its initials, IFA, bars employers from conducting workplace trainings that allegedly promulgate eight disfavored concepts. For example, that:

Walker concluded that, in addition to its constitutional flaws, the measure violates the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, patterned under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both ban employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.

In the end, defendants suggest that there is nothing to see here. They say the IFA does nothing more than ban race discrimination in employment. But to compare the diversity trainings plaintiffs wish to hold to true hostile work environments rings hollow. Worse still, it trivializes the freedom protected by Title VII and the FCRA to suggest that the two are the same, he wrote.

Walker rejected the states argument that the law restricts conduct, not speech that is, forcing employees to attend training sessions. He reasoned that the law forbids only mandatory attendance at trainings endorsing the viewpoints that the law deems unacceptable employers could require workers to read a book complaining about woke culture, for example, but not endorsing critical race theory.

Worse still, a nonprofit corporation devoted to promoting the idea that white privilege exists could not hold a required meeting at which it endorses the concept of white privilege. But a nonprofit holding the opposite view could freely hold meetings criticizing the concept of white privilege, Walker wrote.

The bottom line is that the only way to determine whether the IFA bars a mandatory activity is to look to the viewpoint expressed at that activity to look at speech. Plainly, the IFA regulates speech, he continued.

He elaborated in a footnote:

The plaintiff companies intend the trainings to send a message about their values. And people would understand as much. Plaintiff companies incur significant costs to hold these trainings, not just the cost of paying someone to conduct them but also the cost in lost productivity from every employee halting work and attending. Given the high financial cost of holding a mandatory training, it is very likely that outsiders would interpret holding such trainings as sending a message about the companys priorities.

Walker rejected the states argument that Title VII, the federal law banning workplace discrimination with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, might pose an unconstitutional restriction on speech.

That prohibition on conduct includes a bar on requiring people to work in a discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment. In turn, to be sure, it can be mostly speech that creates this environment, but only when such speech is both objectively and subjectively offensive and when it is sufficiently severe or pervasive, Walker wrote.

He cited the example of a white worker dressing in a gorilla suit to mock Black employees the day before Juneteenth. (It happened.)

The IFA is the inverse. It targets speech endorsing any of eight concepts and only incidentally burdens conduct. Even the slightest endorsement of any of the eight concepts at any required employment activity violates the statute; the IFA requires no evidence that the statement be even subjectively offensive. Nor does the IFA require that the statement create a severely or pervasively hostile work environment. Thus, the IFA, by design, provides no shelter for core protected speech.

The state claimed the authority to prevent employers from foisting speech that the state finds repugnant on a captive audience of employees.

Walker respinded: Not so. The First Amendment does not give the state license to censor speech because it finds it repugnant, no matter how captive the audience.

And even assuming the IFA serves a compelling government interest like prohibiting discrimination it is not narrowly tailored. In large part, this is because the FCRA already prohibited much of what defendants claim the IFA aims to prohibit. For example, a diversity and inclusion training could be so offensive, and so hostile to white employees, that it could create a hostile work environment. That is already illegal as both parties acknowledge.

Many people would object to the concept that members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin, Walker noted.

Of course, the IFA bans much more: such as suggesting that white privilege exists or that people should consider another persons race or sex when interacting with them . In other words, even assuming some concepts are proscribable which they are not the IFA still prohibits the endorsement of many widely-accepted ideas, he wrote.

In sum, the IFA sweeps up an enormous amount of protected speech to ban a sliver of offensive conduct that exists somewhere between the trainings plaintiffs wish to hold and what the FCRA already bars. It is, to borrow a phrase from defense counsel, self-evident. The IFA is not narrowly tailored. And so, the IFA violates the First Amendment.

The state argued it would be OK under the law to discuss critical race theory as an objective concept without endorsing it. (This is where Kant and Nietzsche come in, via a footnote.) But, as a practical matter, an employers discussion of these concepts no matter how objective it may be will invariably lend credence to them, Walker responded.

The IFA is designed to exorcise these viewpoints out of the marketplace of ideas Gov. DeSantis went so far as to call it the STOP WOKE Act at a press conference with children waving anti-critical race theory signs. It thus comes as no surprise that permissible discussion of these concepts turns on objectivity an inherently vague term that fails to give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, Walker wrote.

Accordingly, as this objectivity standard commands the entire statute, the IFA is impermissibly vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Here is the original post:
DeSantis loses another First Amendment fight, this one over 'Stop Woke Act' - Florida Phoenix