Category Archives: First Amendment

Interview by Alexis Mason, Outreach and Operations Manager at the Student Press Law Center.

Student journalists should be at the center of every conversation about student press freedom. Thats why SPLC is bringing you a series of Q&As from active student journalists to talk about their accomplishments, the challenges they face, and to give their perspective on press freedom.

Check out past Q&As here.

Want to be the subject of our next Q&A? Sign up here.

Nakylah Carter is the Arts and Entertainment Editor of The A&T Register. She is studying Journalism and Mass Communications at North Carolina A&T State University and expects to graduate in 2022.

AM: Why is student journalism important?

NC: Student journalism is important because it is a vital part of our community. We keep students informed, and give them a platform to tell their stories. As a student journalist, we have a great opportunity to tell the stories that no one else is talking about, as well as create connections between students.

AM: An important part of being a student journalist is telling the stories of your community and telling your stories. What stories are you telling, or want to tell?

NC: My primary focus is to report on marginalized groups in a way that is not so negative, but more uplifting. Like reporting on the food deserts in East Greensboro. I am on that side of Greensboro, where A&T is located, and there are no healthy food options. There are almost no grocery stores in this area and the food pantry is only open on Thursdays. Another thing I want to prioritize this upcoming year is Greensboros homeless population. I want to report on ways to help them and bring awareness to their situation. Also, this year, we have reported on the recurring problem of overpopulation and the housing crisis. There are students whose dorm rooms have flooded, or their heating and air dont work. There are also students who dont have anywhere to stay; we have seniors living in hotels. These are serious problems that we want to talk about.

AM: Have you experienced censorship or other challenges that are related to the First Amendment or media law?

NC: Personally, I have not. I think the newspaper really promotes freedom when it comes to writing about stuff. Our adviser encourages us to do our job, hold administrators accountable and be professional. Our professors promote real world journalism and encourage us to be authentic journalists. For instance, we have a crisis on our campus right now. For the past two weeks, we have had no Wi Fi and our servers have been down. It seems we were hacked by a third party over spring break, and the university has met with the FBI and the police. Thats all the university is disclosing right now, and the local news stations have not covered the story. So there are a lot of questions right now, and it is our job to get answers. Tomorrow [Mar. 23rd] we are meeting with Todd Simmons, Vice Chancellor of University Relations tomorrow for a one-on-one interview.

AM: What is something that youve learned as a student journalist that could be helpful to other students?

NC: Always go the extra mile. Journalism is one of those industries and fields where you cannot just go to school, do the assignments, graduate and get a job. You have to really grind and do the work. I also learned that you have to advocate for yourself, and go after what you want. And write stories that you are passionate about, because that is where you will shine.

AM: Every generation leaves their mark on journalism. What do you think will be your generations impact/contribution?

NC: My generation thrives on social media. Most young people arent turning on the tv and watching an hour of news. Instead, they are getting their news from social media. So this generation is meeting our audience where they are and using social media to deliver news.

Please check out more from Nakylah and The A&T Register staff here.

Related

Here is the original post:
Q&A with Nakylah Carter of The A&T Register - Student Press Law Center

The headline for this story was updated for clarity at 5:45 p.m. Friday, March 25.

A proposal that would make it easier for parents to object to school library books they find offensive is advancing through the legislature.

The measure, Senate Bill 226, cleared the House Friday with a 97-to-61 vote that fell along party lines. It is the latest in a flurry of GOP proposals this session tailored to parents who feel at odds with decisions being made on public k-12 campuses across the state.

Republicans framed the measure as a way to ensure parents objections are considered. Democrats accused their colleagues of trying to appease far-right voters who want to silence critical voices on racism and other social justice issues.

Parents can already object to books they find offensive, but today those objections are reviewed by school committees that include librarians. The bill would hand the decision over to the school principal or a designee. That school official would have 10 days to let the parent know whether the material was deemed harmful and if access was restricted.

The parent could appeal the decision to the local school board, which would then have 30 days to act. The proposal also enshrines the parents right to publicly comment at the boards regularly scheduled meeting.

If parents do not want young children reading some very degrading-type material, then this is a parent engagement process and due process for those parents to be able to challenge these materials, said Waycross Republican Rep. James Burchett, who sponsored the bill in the House.

The bill already cleared the Senate last year but will need to go back to that chamber for a final vote. But its likely to become law, with Gov. Brian Kemp saying earlier this year he wanted to ban obscene items from schools.

The proposal is opposed by the Georgia Library Media Association, the Georgia First Amendment Foundation and others. House Democrats were unified in their opposition Friday.

State Rep. Josh McLaurin, a Sandy Springs Democrat, accused Georgia Republicans of being unwilling to stop the crazy on the right.

Theres something thats dangerous, thats beneath the surface of this bill, that youre facilitating, youre giving a little bit of rope to, giving a little bit of air to, and youre going to tell yourselves today that its harmless, McLaurin said.

But what happens two years from now, four years from now, when that little seed grows, and the disease festers? What happens is you get whats happening outside of a Senate subcommittee for H.B. 1013.

House Speaker David Ralstons bipartisan mental health reform bill was overwhelmingly supported by the House and is backed by a broad range of groups. But conservative activists have loudly opposed the measure in the Senate, with some asserting unfounded claims such as the bill would protect pedophiles.

But Republicans pushed back on the criticism and bashed Democrats for not supporting a bill they argue would allow parents to have more meaningful input on what books their children can access at school.

The legislation, once again, just lays out a process when a parent wants materials reconsidered as to whether they are age appropriate, said Rep. Jan Jones, a Milton Republican and the second more powerful member of the House.

Itll be different decisions in the city of Atlanta than it might be in West Georgia, and it should be. And if you dont like it, theres the local public library and theres your own books at home.

Last month, Forsyth County removed eight books from its school library, including All Boys Arent Blue which is a young adult book about growing up Black and gay in New Jersey and Virginia.

Already this session, lawmakers have taken up similar education bills targeting parental input, including a so-called Parents Bill of Rights dealing with classroom materials, another measure barring parents from being removed from school board meetings and bans on divisive concepts being taught in the classroom.

Go here to read the rest:
Controversial plan to ease school library book ban process clears the House - Georgia Recorder

NORFOLK, VA., Mar. 22, 2022 Today, seven months after filing a lawsuit against Eastern Virginia Medical School with help from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, medical student Edward Si has signed a settlement agreement with the university.

Now that weve reached a settlement, said Si, I hope that future students, faculty, and university administrators will learn the importance of the First Amendment and freedom of expression in discussing and sharing bold, new ideas and being able to constructively critique society to be better.

In December 2020, Si tried to establish a chapter of Students for a National Health Program (the student branch of the national organization Physicians for a National Health Program) at EVMS. Recognized clubs receive a variety of benefits, including funding eligibility, and use of campus facilities.

But when Si first applied, the EVMS Student Government Association told him they denied SNaHPs application for recognition because they did not want to approve clubs based on opinions.

To defend his First Amendment rights, Si reached out to FIRE, which sent two letters last year calling on the university to end its viewpoint discrimination and recognize the club. When the school failed to take action, FIRE and Si filed a lawsuit against EVMS university officials. The next day, Si received notice that his club had been approved.

COURTESY PHOTOS FOR MEDIA USE

Public universities are bound by the First Amendment, and it is unconstitutional to deny a student organization recognition granted to others on account of its viewpoint. As part of the settlement, EVMS has revised their student group recognition policies to prevent future viewpoint discrimination. Si sued EVMS in part because their former policies were vague and overly broad, granting SGA members unfettered discretion to deny some student clubs school resources available to others, thereby denying students like Si their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law.

Were pleased that EVMS has worked with FIRE to expeditiously revise the policies that violated Edward Sis First Amendment rights, said FIRE attorney Jeff Zeman. Because of Edwards dedication, we believe EVMS students can now express themselves more freely and join with others of like-mind on campus without fear of viewpoint discrimination.

Since EVMS officially granted SNaHP recognition the club has held presentations to introduce other med students to single-payer healthcare, including a talk from the president of PNHP. Si himself traveled with a PNHP delegation to Washington D.C. to advocate for an end to the privatization of Medicare, and he intends to use what he learned from that trip to further his chapters mission next semester.

FIRE took me seriously and eagerly fought to defend my First Amendment rights, said Si. So I say to FIRE: Keep up the good work!

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of students and faculty members at Americas colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience the essential qualities of liberty.

CONTACT:

Katie Kortepeter, Media Relations Associate, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

Read the rest here:
VICTORY: Med student prohibited from starting a club promoting universal healthcare reaches settlement with Eastern Virginia Medical School -...

Legislation proposed by U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine seeks to address the sloppy data practices that inhibited Virginia and other states ability to track COVID-19 in the early stages of the pandemic.Richmond Times-Dispatch

Ginni Thomas, a conservative activist married to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas who was part of Virginias delegation to the Republican National Convention in 2016, repeatedly urged Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows to overturn the 2020 election, according to newly revealed text messages.Washington Post

Attorney General Jason Miyares announced a new PAC that will target liberal prosecutors he sees as soft on crime.NBC4

Some local Democratic committees are starting to come out in favor of holding new Virginia House of Delegates elections this year. But top party leaders are staying quiet.WRIC

A student settled a First Amendment lawsuit he brought against Eastern Virginia Medical School for being denied the ability to set up a campus organization supporting single-payer healthcare.Virginian-Pilot

Workers at a Virginia Hersheys plant voted against forming a union.Reuters

Danville officials say theyre running out of housing options for Section 8 tenants.Register & Bee

Alexandria school officials are requesting funding to continue having police officers in school buildings, a topic that turned controversial in the city over the last year.Washington Post

An Alexandria motorcyclist claims he was assaulted by people participating in the trucker convoy protest.WTOP

Nikole Hannah-Jones, the New York Times journalist behind the 1619 Project, spoke in Lynchburg.Cardinal News

Busch Gardens is opening a new roller coaster, Pantheon, that reaches speeds of up to 73 miles per hour.Daily Press

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

Follow this link:
Kaine legislation seeks to improve outdated health data systems and more Va. headlines - Virginia Mercury

Most of the states largest cities have passed ordinances prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In places such as Johnson County, where the laws have become nearly ubiquitous, the regulations add a local layer to court-extended federal and state LGBTQ protections. But more than half of the states population lives in places that arent covered by local ordinances, and the conflict between prohibiting discrimination and guaranteeing religious freedom is likely to continue. Can communities be made safe places for all Kansans?

Jae Moyer felt surprisingly good after attending a Shawnee City Council meeting in August 2019. The council had passed a nondiscrimination ordinance protecting people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Moyer stopped at a gas station after the meeting and was shocked by an increased sense of safety.

I was like, these people cant discriminate against me anymore because we have this ordinance, Moyer says. It was just this really cool feeling. I think community members in general do feel safer because of that.

Moyer, 23 in February, lives in Overland Park, and ran unsuccessfully for a seat on the Johnson County Community College Board of Trustees last fall. They are a part-time student at the college while working full time.

Moyer identifies as gay and gender nonconforming and uses gender-neutral they/them pronouns. They are also the vice chair of the Kansas City metro chapter of Equality Kansas, a group that seeks to stop discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity through education, public policy advocacy and political action. Moyer specified that they were speaking to The Journal not on behalf of Equality Kansas but as a member of the LGBTQ community and an engaged citizen with an interest in public service.

Despite feeling safer because of the ordinance, Moyer thinks such prohibitions wont fully solve the problem of discrimination against LGBTQ people. Moyer visited Oak Park Mall last year in Overland Park and people were giving me dirty looks because I had a rainbow on my mask. Somebody called me a slur as I walked past them.

And not every LGBTQ Kansan lives in environments with similar local protections.

Many LGBTQ people feel very alone and unsafe in places like Kansas. It leads to mental health problems and an increased rate of suicide.

But the nondiscrimination ordinances (NDOs) that allow Moyer to feel protected go too far in infringing on the rights of others, says Chuck Weber, executive director of the Topeka-based Kansas Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the Catholic Bishops of Kansas, and a former Republican Kansas state representative.

Weber says the legal protections local ordinances provide are unnecessary because existing state and federal laws already prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. He also believes that such local laws violate the First Amendments religious liberty protections, even though ordinances like one passed in Wichita last fall include exceptions for religious groups.

If religious organizations are completely exempt and I dont think they are then theres no problem whatsoever with religious organizations and the NDOs, he says. But the individual citizen, primarily business owners, dont have an exemption. Were deeply concerned about people using the NDO to force private business owners to violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

Yet highlighting such values conflicts feels increasingly difficult for those who see guarantees for LGBTQ rights conflicting with expressions of their faith. Weber says that oftentimes, people who oppose the municipal ordinances on religious grounds dont want to touch the issue by publicly opposing the laws because they end up being branded a bigot, including me.

Perhaps underscoring those dynamics is the difficulty The Journal had in getting some religious organizations in Johnson County to talk on the record about whether anything has changed for them since the passage of nondiscrimination ordinances by several municipalities in the states most populous county. Pastors with seven Christian churches of various denominations in Overland Park and Olathe either declined to comment or didnt respond to requests for comment.

Only Susan Langhauser, senior pastor of Advent Lutheran Church in Olathe, a supporter of such ordinances, responded to the magazines requests for comment last fall.

Weber says many people of faith very likely will try to avoid controversy and conflict over the ordinances and may already be quietly adhering to them, basically forced to violate their deeply held religious beliefs to avoid publicity and public ridicule.

The Catholic Church addresses the issue by teaching authentic love and care, not hate and bigotry, Weber says.

First and foremost, the Catholic Church follows the Gospel and teachings of Jesus Christ, Weber says. The church calls upon all people to treat everyone with dignity and respect. While this does not always happen, and we can all do better, this is the call and invitation from the Catholic Church. The position of the Catholic Church is that we are adamantly opposed to any unjust discrimination.

An increasing number of places in the state have been choosing to formalize protections for LGBTQ Kansans in their communities.

Earlier this year, Wichita became the 20th city in Kansas to implement a nondiscrimination ordinance that protects individuals in private employment, housing and public accommodation as a result of sexual orientation or gender identity. (Disclosure: The Kansas Leadership Center, publisher of The Journal, was paid $17,800 by the city of Wichita to facilitate conversations among stakeholders in the debate and produce a report about the ordinance. The reporter who developed this story did not participate in that effort.)

Wichita occupies a notable spot in the political history of the gay rights movement and its clashes with religious conservatives, events that were detailed in author C.J. Janovys book on LGBTQ activism in Kansas, No Place Like Home. In September 1977 on a 3-2 vote, the City Commission passed one of the nations first gay rights ordinances. The backlash was immediate and fierce.

A local anti-pornography group, Concerned Citizens for Community Standards led by the Rev. Ron Adrian, the pastor of Glenville Baptist Church collected 31,000 signatures to force a referendum on the ordinance. The group reportedly spent about $50,000 on its campaign. That sum included a $10,000 donation from a national anti-gay group headed up by pop singer Anita Bryant, who made an appearance in Wichita to argue for repeal.

In May 1978, Wichitans went to the polls and voted by a 5-to-1 margin to jettison the ordinance. Looking back, the outlines of contemporary clashes are evident, although the adversaries are now better funded and organized, media savvy and politically adroit.

The passage of ordinances in places such as Overland Park and Olathe, the most recent Johnson County cities to have enacted such laws back in 2019, represents significant gains for LGBTQ rights advocates after decades of discrimination, from harassment in public to being fired, and legal setbacks and reversals at the state and local levels. Such ordinances have increasingly been backed by the corporate business community, who see them as tools to help communities attract younger workers and diversify their workforces.

The ordinances typically include financial penalties for violations. Overland Parks imposes a fine up to $1,000 per incident if discrimination is found. Olathes imposes a fine of up to $500 per incident.

They also dont cover every situation. Ordinances in Olathe and Overland Park contain several exemptions, as do most if not all in other cities. Overland Parks exempts religious and nonprofit fraternal or social organizations, federal agencies and Indian tribes. Olathes exempts religious and political organizations, educational institutions, federal and state agencies, law enforcement agencies and employers with fewer than 10 employees.

Overland Park City Attorney Tammy Owens says the exemptions generally are based on rights protected by other laws in the city code. The Olathe exemptions are based on other municipal codes and federal or state laws or legal precedent, City Attorney Ron Shaver says. Local protections hinge on legislation being passed by local governing bodies. But federal protections are based on court rulings. The U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on the issue on June 15, 2020, when it ruled 6-3 in Bostock v. Clayton County (Georgia), which was consolidated with two other related cases, that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides employment protection based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

In delivering the courts opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that Congress in Title VII adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employees sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.

A subsequent decision by the Kansas Human Rights Commission extended protections reflected in that federal case to the state level. But the legal structure that provides protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is relatively recent at all three levels. Even the majority of the local laws that have been put on the books were passed in 2019 or later, and they are rarely formally invoked. Researching the topic last fall, reporter Celia Hack of The Wichita Beacon, a nonprofit news site, found that only two complaints had been filed under LGBTQ-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinances across 15 Kansas cities since 2015.

And although nine of the states 10 largest cities have nondiscrimination ordinances in place that cover sexual orientation and gender identity, protections are confined to locales in just six of the states 105 counties. More than half of the states population, although presently covered by federal and state guidelines, doesnt have similar local protections.

A history of progress and setbacks cities such as Hutchinson and Salina have passed protections for LGBTQ residents only to have them repealed by voters helps contribute to a sense among some supporters that protections are too often fragile in nature. Opponents, many of them conservative and politically active, claim that efforts to clamp down on discrimination clash with their interpretations of Christianity and are an assault of their freedoms.

Although nondiscrimination ordinances make many in the LGBTQ community feel more welcome and supported, unease can linger. Taryn Jones is chair of the Kansas City metro chapter of Equality Kansas. Jones lives in Overland Park and identifies as a cisgender lesbian woman.

I think when you dont have to worry about getting kicked out of your house or losing your job, theres a lot less stress there and more comfort to live, Jones says.

But Jones expresses concern about the possibility of repeal. Passing the ordinances was easier in some Johnson County cities than in others, and the process is always two steps forward, one step back.

Margeaux Seymour, co-chair of Johnson County Pride, feels more welcome and supported and says others also are because of the ordinances. Seymour attended some council meetings where the ordinances passed and felt an overwhelming sense of relief.

But fear remains.

The fear comes from not knowing how the discrimination may manifest or how severe it will be, Seymour says. Will it be defamation of character remarks, letters mailed to homes, harassment, bullying, dismissal of existence or any physical acts? Any of these can happen at any time. This is why these ordinances are so vital to ensuring the well-being, both physical and mental, of those who identify as LGBTQIA+.

Inoru Morris is executive director of the Midwest Rainbow Research Institute, based in Kansas City, Missouri. Morris, who identifies as nonbinary and gay, says nondiscrimination ordinances are monumental because they make LGBTQ community members feel more represented from a policy standpoint and give victims a way to seek justice, though they dont protect them from feeling fear of possible discrimination and are always going to be first-step scenarios.

We need to see a lot more comprehensive policies put into place by governments and governing institutions into creating an inclusive and equitable environment for all peoples, including LGBTQ.

Carolyn Finken-Dove has a somewhat different perspective on the issue as the mother of a daughter who identifies as queer, which used to be a derogatory term but has been reclaimed. Finken-Dove is a board member of PFLAG Kansas City, a politically active organization that supports the civil rights of LGBTQ people. She says a universal remedy through state or federal legislation would be better than individual city ordinances.

Brittany Jones is the director of policy and engagement for the Topeka-based Kansas Family Voice. (courtesy photo)

But for opponents, the passage of NDOs sends a signal that some believers, particularly conservative Christians, are less welcome in the public sphere. Brittany Jones is the director of policy and engagement for the Topeka-based Kansas Family Voice, a Christian organization that fosters biblical values and is active politically. She is a Christian and a lawyer licensed in Kansas. She does not litigate, but in her role with the organization she specializes from an academic perspective in religious freedom and the First Amendment.

Jones says that despite their religious exemptions, the ordinances present some very important religious freedom concerns for organizations and individuals.

Our understanding of the Constitution is that the government is not supposed to impose on peoples religious beliefs; its supposed to allow them to live out those beliefs, Jones says. And these ordinances do just that, and from that perspective theyre huge religious freedom problems.

She says various pastors but mostly everyday people of faith are concerned that the ordinances in the long run target people of faith across the country and are intended to make them comply despite their Judeo-Christian belief about marriage and sexuality. An ordinance is almost a gag order for many of these civic-minded organizations.

She cites as an example womens shelters, whether run by a religious or secular organization, which need to separate men and women to protect women who have been abused by men. She says the ordinances require shelters to allow biological men into their facilities, which has occurred in Alaska, and subjects them to penalties for violations.

Jones says religious organizations should have a constitutional right to provide their services, and governments should encourage them because they base their work on their belief in a higher power and on serving the community based on faith.

These ordinances essentially tell those organizations that theyre not wanted, she says. And in fact, our community needs those organizations more than ever.

Assertions that people who oppose nondiscrimination ordinances on religious grounds are hateful and bigoted are familiar to Jones. She gets called that all the time.

She sometimes invites people with opposing views to get together over coffee and discuss their differing views. A few have accepted her invitations and theyve had civil conversations, but typically I get a disgusted look. More often, shes had these conversations in passing.

She says its very upsetting and just very bad that conversations about important issues often descend to name-calling.

What Ive learned is that normally when people who hold opposing views can get to know me, and likewise when I get to know them, we find out that were all human and we all have value in the eyes of God, she says, and that we have differing opinions but we can still love each other. But when it comes to policy matters, Im never going to surrender and give the government a sword to go after people of faith, and thats what a nondiscrimination ordinance is.

But religious opposition is not universal, either. Nearly three dozen Wichita area faith leaders last fall signed a letter to the editor to The Wichita Eagle in support of Wichitas ordinance.

Langhauser, senior pastor of Advent Lutheran Church in Olathe, says the ordinances reflect cultural changes and growing support for communities who feel no recognition and who consequently suffer from it. Most members of her congregation were happy to learn of Olathes ordinance, though some congregants who opposed it on scriptural grounds raised the issue with her.

She bases her responses largely on nonbinding teaching documents her denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, uses on various topics, including one on human sexuality. The denomination uses the documents as a foundation to prompt congregants to think about and discuss the issues.

The denomination has ordained gays and lesbians for years but until 2009 required them to pledge celibacy, Langhauser says. That year, the requirement was lifted for gays and lesbians who were in lifelong, monogamous, committed relationships. It later extended that stance to include people in nonbinary and gender identity categories.

Many members of the denomination opposed the change and felt they had to leave the church because they didnt want anybody to think they believed other than what they believed, she says, which is always saddening to a senior pastor, to look out at your people and say, I dont know why you think everybody has to agree with everything when this just helps us talk about it.

The current polarized political environment leads people to entrench their political views and look for fallacies in opponents arguments, Langhauser says.

She responds by focusing on pastoral care. Conversations and conflicts arise about different scriptural interpretations regarding sexuality, but its always going to come back to the value of one human person being created by God.

She says most congregations she is familiar with struggle to allow congregants to ask questions because it shows a lack of faith. But asking questions was part of Gods DNA with Israel. If a Jewish congregant, for example, converses with a rabbi on an issue but stumbles in their argument, the rabbi will switch sides and try to help you to come to what it is youre really grappling with.

She thinks the church in general has lost its community leadership by discouraging members to ask questions and has forgotten why the rules are there in the first place so we can form community, live together, help each other and worship together.

Christians are called to educate themselves, pray, discern and make decisions about what Scripture is saying, Langhauser says, as what we feel God is informing us, how we feel that Scripture and reason have to go hand in hand, and everybody sees those things in different shades.

So, its kind of audacious to say that theres any group of people who are wise enough and faithful enough to make those decisions for just everybody.

Indeed, Taryn Jones sees little validity to religious exemptions because theres plenty in the Bible that we no longer follow. Using these things to discriminate is just wrong.

As a Christian and a practicing Methodist, Seymour advocates for religion and faith that arent about discrimination but rather unconditional love and caring for humankind. As someone who struggled with identity and self-acceptance as a teenager, Seymour forged strong connections between faith and advocacy for the LGBTQ community.

For Jae Moyer, a nondiscrimination ordinance can provide a sense of safety, somewhat in the nature of Missie Bs, which bills itself as KCs premier gay bar. Last year, the Kansas City, Missouri, managers office and the LGBTQ+ Commission teamed up to paint the crosswalk at 39th and Summit streets, outside of Missie Bs, in the colors of the progress pride flag. (Photo by Jeff Tuttle)

Debates over nondiscrimination ordinances, even in the places where they pass, can be divisive and bitter. And members of the LGBTQ community can find the experience of participating in them hurtful and disillusioning.

Taryn Jones has witnessed conflict during public comment periods at council meetings. It was emotionally draining and kind of traumatic to be sitting in this room with a bunch of people who are saying all these horrible things about you. In continuing to work with council members who were opponents, You have to move past that if you want to get other things done.

Morris says some people always will oppose such proposals and she has attended Overland Park City Council meetings where theres always some individual that causes a scene and uses hateful rhetoric, arguing they should be allowed to discriminate because their religious text says its a sin and violates their religious conscience.

Unfortunately, as neutral as individuals like to pretend that statement is, its not neutral because theres a history of mistranslation with biblical Scripture throughout the United States that hasnt really come into the forefront of conversation, Morris says.

Yet Moyer has seen people on opposing sides of the issue try to find common ground, albeit with mixed results. Angela Stiens, who narrowly won a Shawnee City Council seat last fall, invited Moyer to go to her church, a stereotypical Catholic, cut and dried, fire and brimstone kind of church. They met several other times to discuss the issue, and Stiens was very gracious with me, Moyer says. They discussed why Stiens saw the ordinance as infringing on her religious liberties.

Thats how she saw it, Moyer says. I had tried in depth to explain to her how taxing and harmful that was to the LGBTQ community.

Stiens did not return a call seeking comment about her discussions with Moyer.

Sometimes the debates can be more about the details of the language in the ordinance than they are about overarching ideological debates.

Overland Park City Council Member Jim Kite voted no when his communitys ordinance was adopted. But he and Taryn Jones had met and listened to each others concerns, and I think thats important, she says.

Discrimination is always wrong, Taryn Jones says. While I feel like its important to listen to each side and kind of come to an understanding of where theyre coming from, I dont feel like finding common ground really includes losing part of our rights for the sake of compromise.

Kite has been an Overland Park council member for eight years and won reelection this past fall. He doesnt plan to run again.

He says he voted against the citys ordinance because of ambiguities around one detail it established a duty for all individuals and entities doing business within the city to not discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity, among other previously established categories.

Establishing a duty underscored the need to establish a state statute, Kite says, because an appeal would have to go to state court. Kite also says municipal ordinances mainly concern things such as painting your house or speeding tickets and questioned whether taking such action at the municipal level was the right approach.

But he says he supports the principle of prohibiting discrimination against someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

In places where nondiscrimination ordinances are in effect, it doesnt appear that the issue is on the verge of being reopened anytime soon. Instead, disagreements are likely to surface again on other, related topics.

I see it popping up again when we start to talk again about issues on gender identity and affirmation policy, but I think that is a fight for school districts and state legislation, Morris says.

Morris defines affirmation policy as transgender therapies with psychologists, families and children who say they are transgender to lay the groundwork for hormone therapy and gender affirmation surgery when they turn 18.

The values conflict between protecting LGBTQ Kansans from discrimination locally and ensuring that Kansans of faith get to live out the tenets of their faith in private and public life isnt likely to go away anytime soon.

But how communities choose to adjudicate those discussions, and whether they even choose to have them at all, remains an open question that cities and counties across the state might continue to address for years to come.

A version of this article appears in the Winter 2022 issue of The Journal, a publication of the Kansas Leadership Center. To learn more about KLC, visit http://kansasleadershipcenter.org. Order your copy of the magazine at the KLC Store or subscribe to the print edition.

The Journal is committed to accuracy in its reporting and welcomes information about errors or omissions that warrant correction or clarification. Learn more here.

Sign up for email updates about The Journals content.

See the original post:
What is the impact of nondiscrimination ordinances in Kansas? - The Journal at the Kansas Leadership Center

Court proceedings involving two Iowa teenagers accused of killing their high school Spanish teacher will remain open to the public, with a judge ruling that closing an upcoming hearing would undermine confidence in the legal process and infringe on the First Amendment rights of the press.

Last November, the body of Fairfield school teacher Nohema Graber was found in the citys Chautauqua Park. Within days, prosecutors charged Jeremy Everett Goodale, 16, with the forcible felonies of conspiracy and first-degree murder, and Willard Noble Chaiden Miller, 16, with first-degree murder in connection with Grabers death.

Although the two defendants were 16 years old at the time of Grabers death, the serious nature of the crime resulted in both being charged as adults in District Court, rather than as juveniles in Juvenile Court.

Under Iowa law, forcible felonies allegedly committed by a child 16 or older are excluded from the jurisdiction of Juvenile Court. The court can, however, transfer jurisdiction to Juvenile Court after a showing of good cause.

In December, Goodales and Millers lawyers filed motions with the court seeking to move the cases from the District Court criminal docket to Juvenile Court. Separate hearings on the motions to transfer the two cases to Juvenile Court are scheduled for Thursday.

Goodales public defender and Millers attorney each filed motions with the court seeking to exclude the press and public from Thursdays hearings on the transfer issue. Both cited potential testimony that pertains to unspecified confidential information that, if publicly disclosed, might hinder the defendants ability to secure an impartial jury should the cases proceed to trial in April as expected.

Jefferson County Attorney Chauncey T. Moulding and the Iowa Freedom of Information Council resisted efforts to close the proceedings.

Jefferson County District Judge Shawn Showers ruled this week that to close a criminal proceeding, the defendants must first show a substantial probability that irreparable damage to their rights would result from an open hearing, and that closure would be effective in preventing prejudicial publicity that would deny them their right to a fair trial.

Defendants counsel are justifiably concerned with the publicity this case has already garnered, Showers stated in his ruling. The court is concerned with trial by media as much as the defendants. However, the defendants have the burden of showing that their fair-trial rights will be irreparably damaged if the transfer of jurisdiction hearing is not closed to the public. The court finds that defendants have not made that showing at this point in the pretrial proceedings.

Showers said closing the hearings to the public would undermine confidence in the legal process and impinge on the presss First Amendment rights.

Court records indicate Goodale turns 17 on March 29, and Miller turns 17 on Aug. 9.

Read more:
Hearing in Fairfield teacher-murder case will be open to press and public - Iowa Capital Dispatch

Sunny Hostin, co-host on "The View," has announced that she doesn't agree with rapper Kanye West being excluded from the Grammys over his public conduct amid his ongoing divorce with reality star Kim Kardashian.

Last week, a spokesperson for the Recording Academy said that the group decided to remove West from the show's performance lineup over what was described as his "concerning online behavior" amid legal proceedings with Kardashian.

Instagram also suspended West for a 24-hour period over the last week for the same reason.

The rapper has also made headlines for featuring a likeness of Kardashian's current flame, comedian Pete Davidson, in a music video in which the Davidson likeness was assaulted and buried alive. He also hit out at Grammy's host Trevor Noah with a racial slur after Noah criticized the rapper's recent behavior.

During Monday's broadcast, Hostin said that West who is up for at least five Grammy awards this season was being "stigmatized" due to his mental health, and that the Grammys should not have removed him from the lineup lest they stifle his creative speech.

Performance is an art, and it's speech in many instances," she said. "Where do we draw the line? I believe in consequence culture, I dont believe in cancel culture. And I feel that he is, because of the stigma of mental health, I think he is being stigmatized ... And bottom line is, people that are mentally ill hes been diagnosed with bipolar disorder are much less likely to commit violence than have violence enacted upon them. I dont know yet that he is this violent person that should be shunned from society, and his art taken away from him.

Hostin added, "We have something called the First Amendment in this country. We have freedom of speech. We have freedom of expression, and we're cancelling Kanye West for something he may do."

Co-host Ana Navarro, however, disagreed with Hostin and argued that West is "not entitled to put people's lives in danger" just because he is a celebrity or because he has been diagnosed with a mental illness.

She also pointed out that she fully supported Instagram's suspension and said that she believed West was guilty of "inciting violence" and using "horrible racial slurs" on the social networking site.

"Do we all need to put up with this?" she added.

Link:
'The View' co-host Sunny Hostin blasts Grammys' Kanye West ban: 'We have something called the First Amendment in this country' - TheBlaze

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a First Amendment free speech and religious freedom case with potential major implications for all public employers.

In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Court will determine whether a public school district unconstitutionally violated a former high school football coachs First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights when it suspended his employment after he defied the districts repeated directives to stop praying at mid-field following his teams games.

The case involves multiple significant First Amendment questions for public employers, including the scope of what constitutes government speech and whether public employers may rely on the Establishment Clause to prohibit otherwise private and protected religious expression. The Courts decision to hear the case, particularly with its conservative super-majority, portends the Court broadly curtailing public employers ability to restrict religious expression in the workplace.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

A. Factual background

As we discussed in our previous commentary, Kennedy, a practicing Christian, began his career as a football coach in 2008 at Bremerton High School, a public school in Washington state. He initially instituted a practice of praying alone at mid-field that evolved to include simple prayers with student athletes and finally, to longer motivational speeches at midfield after the games with religious content.

In September 2015, the school district ordered Kennedy to stop praying so that the district did not violate the Establishment Clause, and it offered him several accommodations to enable him to pray privately. Kennedy declined these accommodations, insisting that his religious activities must take place at mid-field after the game in full public view. He took to multiple social media sites to announce publicly his non-compliance. Thereafter, the district placed Kennedy on administrative leave, and he was not recommended for re-hire during the annual renewal process.

Kennedy did not apply for a 2016 coaching position. In August 2016, Kennedy sued the school district in federal district court, alleging the district violated his rights under the First Amendment and Title VII, and sought injunctive relief in the form of reinstatement.

B. SCOTUS declines to hear Kennedys bid for injunctive relief

The case has a long procedural history. Most notably, in 2019, the Supreme Court previously declined to hear Kennedys appeal of the Ninth Circuits refusal to grant him injunctive relief in the form of reinstatement during the pendency of his lawsuit. Justice Alito, however, wrote a statement regarding that denial, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, in which he criticized the Ninth Circuit, saying its understanding of the free speech rights of public-school teachers was both troubling and something that may justify review by the Court in the future.

C. The Ninth Circuit sides with school district, affirms dismissal of case

On the merits, in March 2020, the district court granted the school districts motion for summary judgment, holding that the risk of constitutional liability associated with Kennedys religious conduct was the sole reason the district ultimately suspended him. The lower court further held that the school districts actions were justified due to the risk of an Establishment Clause violation if the school district allowed Kennedy to continue with his religious conduct.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in March 2021. As to Kennedys free speech claim, the Ninth Circuit held that Kennedys prayers occurred within the scope of his official duties as a public employee and, therefore, under Supreme Court precedent, the First Amendment did not protect his speech. The Ninth Circuit specifically noted the following facts in support of its ruling:

Taken together, the Ninth Circuit ruled Kennedys religious conduct occurred in the course of his public duties. The Ninth Circuit further held that the school district had a compelling state interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation, therefore justifying regulation of Kennedys speech even if private and protected.

With respect to Kennedys free exercise claim, the Ninth Circuit held that the school district had the same compelling state interest in avoiding a violation of the Establishment Clause, therefore satisfying the onerous strict scrutiny standard to justify the school districts admitted impingement on Kennedys free exercise rights. Specifically, in large part because Kennedy refused any accommodations from the school district that would allow it to avoid violating the Establishment Clause, the court ruled the districts directives to stop praying at mid-field were narrowly tailored to the compelling state interest of avoiding a violation of the Establishment Clause.

What this means for you

All public employers should pay close attention to how the Court rules in Kennedy. The case involves multiple significant First Amendment questions with potential larger implications for all public employers.

The first question involves the scope of what constitutes government speech, i.e., whether Kennedys religious speech came as a public employee, with no First Amendment protection, or as a private citizen, with ordinary First Amendment protections. In general, determining whether a public employees speech is protected under the First Amendment requires a fact-intensive balancing test, with particular focus on whether the speech occurred within the scope of the public employees official duties. The Courts decision to accept this case suggests that at least four, and likely more, members of the Courts conservative super-majority want to ensure that public employers understand and respect their employees rights to religious expression in the workplace. The Court may take this opportunity to broaden how and why quasi-public speech in the workplace like Kennedys prayers are protected under the First Amendment. At minimum, public employers should expect the Court to clarify when a public employees speech is private and, therefore, subject to ordinary First Amendment protection.

The second question confronting the Court is whether, assuming Kennedys speech is private and protected, the Establishment Clause nonetheless compels public schools to prohibit such religious expression. This inquiry will require the Court to weigh the relationship between the Establishment Clause, the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause. The Court has trended towards affirming greater (i.e., ordinary) First Amendment free speech protection in recent terms. The Court also seems unlikely to relegate an individuals free exercise rights to the governments interest in avoiding an Establishment Clause violation except in extremely narrow circumstances. At minimum, public employers should expect the Court to clarify the circumstances when the Establishment Clause compels public employers to act against their employees faith that may otherwise constitute religious discrimination.

It is unclear whether the Court will answer these questions narrowly or provide broader guidance. Justice Alitos earlier statement, joined by three conservative justices, suggests the Courts new conservative supermajority is poised to curtail public employers ability to restrict religious expression in the workplace more broadly than just on the facts of Kennedys case.

Contact us

If you have questions about the potential implications of this case on your public workplace, please contact John Borkowski, Aleks Rushing, Sam Mitchell or your Husch Blackwell attorney.

Go here to see the original:
Legal Alert | SCOTUS to Assess the Scope of Public Employers' First Amendment Obligations - Husch Blackwell

Five granite pillars stand in a brick plaza inAnnapolis, Maryland, as a memorial to five employees of theCapital Gazette newspaper who were killed in 2018.It honors Gerald Fischman, Rob Hiaasen, John McNamara, Rebecca Smith, and Wendi Winters, who have been memorialized as protectors of free speech and guardians of the first amendment.

On the afternoon of June 28, 2018, a man appeared at the Capital Gazette offices wielding a pump-action shotgun. After shooting out the glass door, the gunman opened fire on the newspapers employees, killing five people and injuring two more. The shooter was identified as Jarrod Ramos, who had unsuccessfully attempted to sue the Capital Gazettefor defamation. In September 2021, Ramos was sentenced to life in prison.

On the third anniversary of the tragedy, theGuardians of the First Amendment Memorial was dedicated in a ceremony in Newman Park on Compromise Street in downtown Annapolis. According to WYPR, Phil Davis, a survivor of the shooting, spoke at the ceremony, saying I want Wendy, Rob, Gerald, Rebecca, and John to be remembered with words like guardians. It will give their names weight, the weight they deserve.

The memorial consists of five pillars that represent the five journalists who were killed in the shooting, with the text of the first amendment engraved into a semicircular wall. The first amendment engraving is flanked by plaques that include the names of several state, county, and city officials, a description of the memorial, and a bronze reproduction of the front page of the Capital Gazette from the day after the attack.

Winters was posthumously awarded the Carnegie Medal for her heroism in rushing the shooter in order to distract the gunman and save the lives of several colleagues.

Read the original post:
Guardians of the First Amendment Memorial Annapolis, Maryland - Atlas Obscura

RichardLabunski| Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Sarah Palin has lost the first round in her libel suit against TheNew York Timesafter a jury concluded that the former vice-presidential candidate failed to prove that the newspaper acted with actual malice when it published an editorial linking her political action committee to the 2011 shooting of 19 people, including former Rep. Gabrielle Giffordsin Tucson.

But when Palin appeals, her case has the potential to do more than reverse the jurys verdict. It could fundamentally change the First Amendment by giving conservative judges what they have wanted for decades: the chance to overturn the Supreme Courts landmark decision inNew York Times v. Sullivan(1964) and its "actual malice" standard. That would make it significantly easier for public officials and public figures to sue those who make inaccurate statements about them.

There was an unusual development in thePalincase. While the jury was deliberating, Judge Jed Rakoff announced that if the jury found for Palin, he would overturn that ruling. Several jurors learned of the judges decision before the verdict was rendered. The court of appeals and the Supreme Court will likely consider whether that improperly influenced the jury.

More: Sarah Palin loses lawsuit against New York Times over libel allegations

More: Two justices say Supreme Court should reconsider landmark Sullivan case

Nevertheless, that will not be the key issue in Palins appeal. Of much greater significance is an almost 40-year-old Supreme Court case involving a publications negative product review.

InBose Corp. v. Consumers Union(1984), the Court held that to protect the First Amendment, appellate courts have an obligation to closely scrutinize a trial courts judgment when it rules against defendants in libel cases. Like Palin, Bose Corp. was a public figure. The trial judge ruled that the company was able to prove actual malice when its new speaker system was criticized in the magazine. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court.

Central to theBosecase and Palins appeal is the Courts interpretation of Section 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. TheBosedecision requires appellate courts to conduct ade novoreview in cases involving the First Amendment to make sure that "the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.

An appellate court must, in effect, retry the case by conducting an independent evaluation of the evidence to see if it justifies an exception to the usually robust protection the First Amendment provides for almost all forms of speech.

This goes against the way courts usually function. Appellate judges do not see witnesses in person to evaluate their credibility. They dont have access to all the evidence the jury considered. They read briefs from the attorneys and hear oral arguments. Federal Rule 52(a) tries to prevent appellate judges from second-guessing the trial courts evaluation of the facts by prohibiting the reversal of the lower courts ruling unless it is clearly erroneous, a difficult standard to meet.

More: Sarah Palin v. New York Times rightly questions media defamation protections

The Supreme Court inBoseheld that the First Amendment is too important to be subject to the clearly erroneous standard, and it noted that Rule 52(a) does not forbid a review of the entire trial record. But it did not answer a question of great importance: Can appellate courts conduct their own review when the media organization wins at trial, as in the Palin case? Some legal scholars have argued that it is unfair to the plaintiff if such a comprehensive review takes place only if the defendant loses.

Boseis mainly about protecting the First Amendment. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that thede novorequirement reflects a deeply held conviction that judges and particularly Members of this Court must exercise such review in order to preserve the precious liberties established and ordained by the Constitution. But he didnotsay that appellate courts can conduct an independent review only when the plaintiff wins at the trial level.

The First Amendment is clearly established in the Constitution, but the right to be compensated for harm to reputation caused by false and defamatory statements predates the Constitution. It has long been considered a necessary exception to First Amendment rights.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have strongly argued thatSullivanshould be reversed, and other conservative members of the court may agree. Justice Thomas wrote, New York Times (v. Sullivan)and the Courts decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law. Instead of simply applying the First Amendment as it was understood by the people who ratified it, the Court fashioned its own federal rule(s) by balancing the competing values at stake in defamation suits.

Here are two steps the Supreme Court may take in thePalincase:

First, the court can conclude that the actual malice standard which requires a plaintiff to show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it was false or not is so difficult to prove that it lets purveyors of false and defamatory speech go unpunished and those harmed to be uncompensated. The court could devise a standard that is closer to the negligence requirement that most states impose on private persons bringing libel suits, which is much easier to prove than actual malice.

And second, after creating a new standard for public officials and public figures, the court may conduct ade novoreview using the ambiguity ofBoseas precedent and conclude that Palin met the new standard and grant her damages, thus avoiding a return to Judge Rakoffs courtroom for another trial.

It may take several years for the appellate decisions to be issued in thePalincase, but it seems thatSullivanand the First Amendment are in danger.

Richard Labunski, Ph.D., J.D., is a retired journalism professor and author of James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights. He is professor emeritus at the School ofJournalism and Media at the University of Kentucky. Email:richlab@aol.com

Our subscribers make this reporting possible. Please consider supporting local journalism by subscribing to the Journal Sentinel at jsonline.com/deal.

More here:
Sarah Palin lost the first round against The New York Times. Her lawsuit is still a threat to the First Amendment. - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel