Category Archives: First Amendment

Last Monday, Donald J. Trumps lawyers asked a federal court to dismiss three civil lawsuits against the former president brought by California Democrat Rep.Eric Swalwell, a group of otherHouse DemocratsandCapitol police officers.

Each suit seeks monetary damages for Trumps role in fomenting the armed invasion of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, including the barrage of falsehoods that Trump churned out about a stolen election. The complaints also point to Trumps call to fight like hell at the Save America rally that day.

If the plaintiffs win these lawsuits, Trump is at risk of being ordered to pay millions of dollars to the individual victims of the Jan. 6 rampage. Large punitive damage awards can achieve at least partial justice, as they did last November when the organizers of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., wereordered to pay$26 million to their victims.

During a five-hour oral argument, U.S. District Court JudgeAmit Mehta askedwhether there was anything the president could say that would render him or her accountable in a civil suit. Trumps attorneys could not think of a single hypothetical exception.

Mehta should rule against Trump on each of the core legal claims.

The absolute immunity argument advances Trumps long-held position that presidents are above the law. His attorneys made similar (and equally unsupported) claims in both of his post-impeachment Senate trials. In the second trial following what we now understand to be an attempted coup, Trumps lawyers asserted without any legal precedent that presidents have what they termed enhanced free speech rights.

In 2020, Alan DershowitzAlan Morton DershowitzThere's no such thing as 'absolute immunity' for former presidents BBC faces blowback after Dershowitz appears as Maxwell trial analyst The dangerous trend behind Officer Kim Potter's conviction MORE of Harvard Law School, representing Trump at the first Senate trial, stunned most constitutional law expertswhen he said, If a president does something which he believes will get him elected in the public interest that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.

Trumps lawyers got it wrong then, and their arguments last Monday were wrong too.Heres why.

First, having little to work with, Trumps lawyers resorted to yet another incantation of executive privilege. But executive privilege exists so that presidents can freely exchange ideas and policy considerations with close advisors. It does not apply to what a president says in public. All evidentiary privileges evaporate after the statements are shared outside the confidential relationship.

The second argument may turn on whether Trumps exhortations to the crowd including fight like hell were within the scope of the presidents official duties and entitled to immunity or something else altogether. That something else might be characterized as campaign speech (as Trumps attorneys argued) or speech that the First Amendment doesnt protect, like incitement or expression that furthers a crime (e.g. conspiracy, sedition, or insurrection). Presidents who are on duty 24/7 may speak as individuals rather than as chief executive officers. The line is far from clear.

Third, the proposition that the First Amendment contemplates a president claiming enhanced free speech rights is preposterous on its face. The speech clause limits the governments ability to censor or punish expression it does not generally distinguish based on status. Even if such a distinction were contemplated, the former presidents baseless claim is topsy-turvy. The speech clause exists in large part to protect dissidents, the disempowered and those who speak truth to power. The powerful need no special protection.

Even when Trumps legal position is barely tenable, his goal, as we see again and again, is to block information from emerging through documents and depositions, and to stall any day of reckoning for as long as possible.

The fatal flaws in Trumps legal arguments in these three civil cases should convince Mehta to render a decision that would allow the lawsuits to proceed. We can hope that he rules quickly.

Catherine J. Ross is Lyle T. Alverson professor of Law at George Washington University Law School and the author of the recently released A Right to Lie? Presidents, Other Liars, and the First Amendment. Twitter: @catherinejross_

Here is the original post:
There's no such thing as 'absolute immunity' for former presidents | TheHill - The Hill

Posted: Jan 18, 2022 / 07:35 PM CST / Updated: Jan 18, 2022 / 07:35 PM CST

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit against members of the Pulaski County Board of Election Commissioners for what they say was a violation against an election officials first amendment rights.

According to court filings, Kristi Stahr in her capacity as Chairwoman of the Pulaski County Board of Election Commissioners, and Commissioners David Scott and Susan Inman are specifically cited in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims that Barry Haas free-speech rights were disregarded when he was denied an appointed position for the September 2021 special Little Rock tax election due to his political and ideological views.

The lawsuit alleges that he was denied the appointment after a meeting where Chairwoman Stahr claimed he was refusing in-person and on social media to follow Arkansas photo I.S. requirement as an elected official.

I previously challenged Arkansass voter-identification laws requiring photo I.D. in court, because I believed the laws were unconstitutional and bad policy, Haas said.

The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Read more:
ACLU of Arkansas sues over man being denied appointment on election board - KLRT - FOX16.com

Updated Information

Find a statement from the Vigo County Health Department at the bottom of this story.

VIGO COUNTY, Ind. (WTHI) - We now know some of the next steps forward in the lawsuit against the Vigo County Health Department.

We first told you about this lawsuit in late October of last year.

Vigo County resident Doug Springer filed a federal lawsuit against the health department, claiming it violated his rights by banning him from its Facebook page.

Springer says in January of 2021, he commented on a health department post involving COVID-19 cases in the county. It's an action he claims got him banned.

A pre-trial conference is set for Monday, January 24, via telephone. By Monday, those involved need to file a proposed case management plan. It will include deadlines for witnesses and evidence.

Springer said he reacted to a Facebook post from the department, writing that positive COVID-19 test results aren't the same as cases of sick patients.

Court documents say, Springer, to the best of his recollection, posted the following:

"They are NOT cases; they are positive test results and the majority of them will never get sick from the virus. The very fact that the number of positives without accompanying illness is so high shows that the virus is much less dangerous than it is being portrayed."

When the health department banned him from the page, the lawsuit claims that it hid his previous comments from public view. It also continues to ban him from making new comments.

The lawsuit claims the actions from the Vigo County Health Department violate Springer's rights under the First Amendment. It goes on to say the department's actions represent improper viewpoint-based discrimination.

He's asking to be unbanned from the health department's Facebook page and for all of his comments to be restored.

In court documents, the Vigo County Health Department says the following:

"The Health Department admits the decision to prevent the plaintiff, Mr. Springer, from commenting on the Facebook Page of the Health Department is based on the belief that Mr. Springer was using the Health Departments Facebook platform to engage in disinformation and unprotected speech regarding the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nothing prevents Mr. Springer from posting on his own Facebook page his feelings and issues surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic...The plaintiffs statement indicating that this disease was much less dangerous than it was being portrayed is a message the Health Department is not willing to tolerate on its Facebook Page for anyone"

See the full document below.

Original post:
Pre-trial conference set for a federal First Amendment lawsuit against the Vigo County Health Department - WTHITV.com

Former President Donald Trump held his first political rally of the new year in Arizona on Friday, continuing to insist that he had won the 2020 election without evidence.

At the large rally in Florence, Ariz., Trump again claimed that he had actually won the state in 2020, despite having lost to Joe Biden 49.4 percent to 49.1 percent. Trump won the state handily in 2016 against Hillary Clinton by over 4 percentage points.

I love Arizona. We had a tremendous victory in Arizona that was taken away and I just want to wish everybody a happy New Year. Were going to have, I think, a great year, Trump said shortly after taking the stage to loud cheers.

Last year we had a rigged election and the proof is all over the place, he continued. We have a lot of proof and they know its proof. They always talk about the Big Lie theyre the Big Lie.

The Big Lie is a lot of bull****, thats what it is, he said to more cheers.

The ex-presidents claims came one day after officials from Arizonas second-largest county concluded that none of the 151 cases they reviewed merited criminal charges.

While PCAOs investigation documented instances of these voters knowingly submitting more than one ballot, there is little to no evidence that they acted with the awareness that their actions would or could result in multiple votes being counted, said Pima County Attorney Laura Conover in a statement on Friday. What our investigation revealed was the genuine confusion about the electoral process, particularly relating to mail-in and provisional ballots, and the genuine fear, for a variety of reasons, that their initial vote would not count.

According to an investigation by the Associated Press,fewer than 200 cases of potential fraud in Arizona had been identifieduntil last week, when election officials in Maricopa County the states largest said they had discovered 38 potential voting fraud cases during an exhaustive review of 2.1 million ballots. Those cases were sent to the state attorney generals office for review.

Trump also mentioned the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill rioters, whom he said were being persecuted for expressing their First Amendment rights when they disrupted congress certification of the electoral votes that would officially make Biden president.

On top of it all, people are being persecuted for using freedom of speech to talk about the corrupt election but more and more information is coming out and its coming out far worse than anyone ever thought it could be.

He said, it would be a lot easier for me to go out and enjoy my life and say you know what? we did great. You know I ran twice and I won twice and we did better the second time, he claimed.

Earlier in the week, Trump abruptly ended an interview with National Public Radio after the outlet pressed him on his repeated claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him by voter fraud.

At the desert rally, he threw his support behind GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, who pushed Trumps stolen election narrative and has threatened to throw the states top election official in prison.

Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar, a vehement Trump supporter and 2020 election results denier, also took the stage. Gosar was was censured by House Dems and stripped of his committee assignments in November after he tweeted a video depicting himself as an anime character assassinating progressive New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and attacking President Biden.

See more here:
Trump repeats claims that 2020 election was stolen at first rally of new year - New York Post

After more than a year, a former Army National Guard officer and current Army reservist has had an official reprimand that he received from his chain of command for attending a protest during the summer of 2020 overturned.

Capt. Alan Kennedy, an Army reservist who was serving with the Colorado Army National Guard when he attended a Black Lives Matter rally in 2020, called the decision a victory for the First Amendment.

Kennedy had initially received a general officer memorandum of reprimand, or GOMAR, from the head of the Colorado Army National Guard for his actions. That action was reversed following a decision from the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board.

The issue began more than 18 months ago, on May 30, 2020, when Kennedy who was not on duty at the time as a Colorado Army National Guard officer participated in a protest in Denver. During the protest, Denver police began tear-gassing the crowd. Kennedy later recounted his experiences in an editorial column for the Denver Post. Service members are normally not allowed to use their uniform or rank to inform public statements.

The op-ed launched an investigation by Col. Charles Beatty, chief of staff of the Colorado Army National Guard, into whether Kennedy had violated Department of Defense Instruction 1325.06, which prohibits service members, even when off duty, from participating in demonstrations in foreign countries, that are in violation of local laws, or where violence is the likely result.

The initial investigation, conducted by a lieutenant colonel in the Colorado Army National Guard according to documents obtained by Task & Purpose, found that Kennedy had not committed any misconduct. Given that Kennedy was not serving as a National Guard officer either when attending the protest or when publishing the editorial, there was no violation of military regulations.

Shortly after those findings, Beatty overruled the initial investigation and issued Kennedy a temporary local reprimand, arguing that Kennedy should have known that violence was likely to occur at any protest.

The protests that Kennedy attended later became the subject of a civil court case, Abay v. City of Denver, in which a judge found fault with the Denver Police Departments use of tear-gas and projectiles when responding to the demonstrations.

The next month, in July 2020, Kennedy published a second editorial recounting his experience. That launched a second investigation by the Colorado Army National Guard.

By publishing the article and identifying yourself as a service member you violated regulations and provisions of the Colorado Code of Military Justice, and your actions brought disrepute and dishonor upon the COARNG. It is also apparent from the plain language of the article that it was your intent to do so, and thereby to intimidate the command into refraining from lawful use of its authority to investigate, read the reprimand issued by Brig. Gen. Douglas Paul on Sept. 11, 2020.

The GOMOR issued would have essentially ended Kennedys military career, preventing any potential for promotion or further advancement through the ranks.

Kennedy then filed a lawsuit, alleging that the military reprimand represented a violation of his constitutional rights.

That lawsuit also alleged that Kennedys superior officers held that Black Lives Matter protests are inherently violent, asserting that all Black Lives Matter protests begin peacefully and devolve into violent clashes with the police. The lawsuit also triggered a third investigation into Kennedy, which still upheld his GOMAR.

It was clear that I was not representing the views of the military when I wrote those articles, said Kennedy. The Colorado National Guard just didnt like what I wrote.

Kennedy has since transferred to the Army Reserve, currently serving in Virginia.

Soldiers expressing their views in public is not a new issue for the military, but Kennedys case comes at a moment when service members have increased visibility in their personal lives, and the gap between soldiers and civilians is increasingly blurred by social media.

Earlier this summer, Marine Corps. Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller saw his career rapidly go up in flames after taking to social media to decry the pullout from Afghanistan. Seven states are now suing the federal government to protest COVID-19 vaccine mandates for their National Guard personnel.

But its also become a way for service members to call out their leaders. In 2020, a sergeant first class at Fort Hood took to TikTok to discuss toxic leadership conditions in his unit after having been rebuffed by his chain of command. In 2019, Task & Purpose wrote about a Wisconsin Air National Guard master sergeant who spent years trying to call attention to claims of sexual harassment in his unit. For members of the National Guard and Reserves, who only spend a few days a month in uniform, that dichotomy between service time and civilian life is only heightened.

Its just common sense to me that you dont lose your constitutional rights just because you take an oath to defend them, said Kennedy.

Kennedys lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, remains outstanding. It raises a question that while specific to one social movement in this case is increasingly relevant to service members.

Can the government prohibit off-duty, out-of-uniform service members stationed in the United States from peacefully participating in Black Lives Matter and other peaceful protests, if the service members conduct is not in breach of law and order? reads the complaint.

In July 2021, the National Guard Bureau issued a memorandum stating that the regulations under which Kennedy had initially been punished would only to National Guard service members in a title 10 duty status under federal command and control.

Want to write for Task & Purpose? Click here. Or check out the latest stories on our homepage.

More here:
An Army captain fought his chain of command for a year over his free speech rights and won - Task & Purpose

A plan to require masks in committee hearings drew the first fight between Democrats and Republicans in the state House Friday.

House Resolution 1003 would allow the Democratic leader of the House to create regulations to protect vulnerable members of the House during a public health emergency.

Speaker Alec Garnett, D-Denver, said all the resolution would do is to cover committee space of the House, to ensure people can socially distance and wear masks.

"It keeps us up to date where we were last year, no more than that," he said.

The need for the resolution stems from Joint Rule 44, which concerns declaration of public health emergency and which guided the General Assembly until its use was ended last year.

But House Republicans, most of whom don't wear masks anywhere in the Capitol, fought back. That included invoking information that has been thoroughly debunked.

Rep. Stephanie Luck, R-Penrose, has been one of the most ardent advocates for debunked medical information, both in 2021 and 2022. She's the sponsor of a 2022 bill to allow off-label use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, which both the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warn shouldn't be used to either treat or prevent COVID and which they say could be dangerous.

Luck ran a similar bill in 2021 that died in its first committee hearing. The 2022 version is unlikely to fare any better.

The mask topic has divided communities against each other, she told the House.

"My community objects to the idea of being told what medical treatments to pursue. This isn't a question about keeping other people safe," and people who decide not to wear a mask aren't choosing to put others at risk, she said. "They're looking at a different set of facts and arguments" and deciding based on those facts.

Luck then cited debunked information about how masks negatively impact the body's oxygen intake. That's been debunked by the FDA.

Luck claimed her constituents won't be comfortable testifying at the Capitol if they have to wear masks and would have to testify remotely, which she called a "diminished" form of testimony. She then suggested it would be discrimination if the House passed the rule.

Rep. Kyle Mullica, a Thornton Democrat and a registered nurse, has been on the front lines of the pandemic. That includes a month he spent working in the Cook County Jail last year to help with what was then the nation's worst COVID outbreak. He sees COVID patients every day, including last week when his emergency room had no beds and he had to take patients coming in by ambulance to the waiting room.

"The science is clear. Masks help stop the spread of this virus," Mullica said.

He also noted that in the years before COVID, when someone went into surgery, every single medical professional wore a mask.

"We can't say we're changing things ... we've been using masks to help combat the spread of disease for years," he said, calling the assertions that masks are dangerous "absurd and false."

Minority Leader Hugh McKean, R-Loveland, said the discussion is about how to operate the House.

He commended Garnett for the discussions they've had on how to get back to normal.

"Nothing in this [rule] has anything to do with a member's ability to represent their constituents," or prohibit a member from coming to the House to do their work.

"We desperately want to get to a baseline of normal, where people can redress their government," McKean added, saying he didn't want to do it by rule but appeared to acknowledge that's where it was headed.

"This has become political," said Assistant Minority Leader Tim Geitner, R-Falcon.

He submitted three amendments. The first said the speaker's authority "shall not include the authority to require face coverings, vaccines or vaccine passports." The second omitted masks.

Geitner quoted Gov. jared Polis several times. The first was when Polis told Colorado Public Radioin December that the state shouldn't tell people what to wear, and in the same interview, when the governor said the emergency is over.

Garnett, in urging a "no" vote, said there was no need for the amendments.

Geitner tried again, with an amendment that limited the authority to just the 2022 session given that the resolution was open-ended. Garnett, however, said the rule is limited to the current health emergency. He also pledged to continue discussions with McKean on the issue.

The amendments failed along party lines. The resolution passed along the same party lines.

The votes also signaled the first effort to put lawmakers on the record in the 2022 session, this time on mask mandates. Garnett asked for, but never got, voice votes on the amendments or the resolution itself, since Republicans asked for recorded votes for everything.

There were some unexpected votes along the way. Rep. Dylan Roberts, D-Eagle, voted in favor of Geitner's first amendment. Rep. Dave Williams, R-Colorado Springs, voted against Geitner's second amendment. Rep. Julie McCluskie, D-Dillon, voted against the resolution.

Chalk that up to first vote errors, though. McCluskie said she meant to vote in favor of the resolution.

Continue reading here:
House rules fight over masks brings out debunked information from Republicans - coloradopolitics.com

Herms is suing the NFT creator Mason Rothschild, who has seen viral success marketing a line of digital assets he calls MetaBirkins.

The French luxury house dropped its famously discreet posture in order to come out guns-blazing against Rothschild in a 47-page complaint submitted to New Yorks Southern District Court Friday, calling the creator a digital speculator who is seeking to get rich quick.

The complaint, which was first reported on The Fashion Law, raises questions about how trademark protections for real-world items will be enforced in the digital realm as commercial activity heats up in the metaverse. Brands including Balenciaga and Nike are experimenting with virtual fashion. Non-fungible tokens, or NFTs (unique digital assets authenticated using blockchain technology), depicting fashion items have sold for millions in recent months.

Rothschilds digital dupes of the Birkin, which depict fur-covered bags shaped like the iconic totes, first sold online in December for $42,000. The bags retail for over $10,000 in the physical world and are particularly coveted on the resale market due to their limited production.

A few weeks later, NFT exchange OpenSea removed the MetaBirkins from its online exchange in response to a cease-and-desist letter from Herms, but Rothschild continued to market them on his website, linking visitors to other exchanges where they remain available to buy and sell.

Rothschild claims that as an artist his activities are protected by the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech, calling the MetaBirkins a playful abstraction of an existing fashion-culture landmark. Herms has pushed back against that interpretation.

Rothschild simply rips off Herms famous Birkin trademark by adding the generic prefix meta, Herms counsel alleged in the complaint. There can be no doubt that this success arises from his confusing and dilutive use of Herms famous trademarks, the company added.

The company argues that without the courts action, MetaBirkins could ultimately preempt Herms ability to offer products and services in virtual marketplaces that are uniquely associated with Herms and meet Herms quality standards. Herms wants the court to require Rothschild to cease his activities, surrender the MetaBirkins.com domain name to Herms, and pay damages including his profits from selling the digital assets.

Although a digital image connected to an NFT may reflect some artistic creativity, just as a T-shirt or a greeting card may reflect some artistic creativity, the title of artist does not confer a license to use an equivalent to the famous Birkin trademark in a manner calculated to mislead consumers and undermine the ability of that mark to identify Herms as the unique source of goods sold under the Birkin mark, the company said.

Rothschild did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Learn more:

How to Market an NFT

Brands will have to navigate how to reach a new kind of audience in order to make their digital assets stand out.

Follow this link:
Herms Sues NFT Creator Over MetaBirkin Sales - The Business of Fashion

(Bryan Schott | The Salt Lake Tribune) Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes chats with Rep. Chris Stewart at the Utah Eagle Forum convention on Jan. 8, 2022.

By Mark Hurst | The Public Forum

| Jan. 16, 2022, 1:00 p.m.

While I am ever grateful for the First Amendment and its guarantee of a free press, at the same time I always feel bad for the Utah journalists who must report on and print the details of Utahs infamous Eagle Forum conference. The recent report in the Tribune of the Jan. 8 meeting of Utahs craziest of the crazy sent a chill up my spine.

At least the writer was at liberty to freely use the term fringe in describing Gayle Ruzika and her band of deluded sheep, including our Utah attorney general, Blandings poster boy for Warhols 15 minutes of fame Rep. Phil Lyman, most of our other elected officials, and a whopping 83.33% of our 6-member congressional delegation.

Fortunately, the article did not provide us with all the details, but it was enough to read that our Uber Republican friends continued to harp on the evils of vaccination, the (disproven) effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and the painting of Dr. Anthony Fauci as the leader of a religious cult. What a cruel irony that participants would have the audacity to label anyone else a cult.

This disreputable band of brothers and sisters would be laughable if they were not so very frightening.

Mark Hurst, St. George

Submit a letter to the editor

More:
Letter: The Eagle Forum participants would be laughable if they weren't so frightening - Salt Lake Tribune

The Dr. Martin Luther KingCommission of Mid-Michigan held it's annual essay contest for Greater Lansing junior and high school students, including theMark S. McDaniel Legacy Scholarship component for graduating seniors.

Scholarship winners (two) will receive$5,000 prizes; three otherfinalists will receive $2,500 prizes.Essay contest winners receive$500 forfirst place,$350 for second place and$150 forthird place.

This year's theme is the Martin Luther King Jr. quote,"In the long run, justice finally must spring from a new moral climate. Below arescholarship and essay contest winners.

Join in the day of celebration fromthe Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Commission of Mid-Michigan LIVE at 7 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 17 airing locally onWILX TV-10 and WLNS TV-6. To learn more about the event, visitmlkmidmichigan.com/day-of-celebration.

"In the long run, justice finally must spring from a new moral climate" means various things to many different people. Everyone is unique, one-of-a-kind, and individual. But it is through community that our society can thrive as a whole.

In 2020, I participated in the NAACP Youth Rally Protest. What led me to this was the disappointment and sadness of injustice in America. What happened to George Floyd was unacceptable and I feltthat marching would show that the malpractice of justice was not admissible. My family and I agreed to exercise our First Amendment right to fight injustice. I did hadsome fear for my safety and as well as for my family. Lansing was a victim of rioters while protesters were exercising their First Amendmentrights.

I felt like I was a young John Lewis trying to turn injustice into a peaceful moral climate. My Edmund Pettus Bridge was Michigan Avenue. I learned that protest and outcry could cause a massive influence on the trajectory of a new moral environment. At the rally, everyone agreed on one thing. Regardless of race, gender, or economic status, we all decided that what happened to George Floyd was not just. My experience at the rally is an example of the push needed to spring towards justice.

I believe absolute justice is obtainable, and the first steps start with everyone. With any goal, there has to be a definite drive to achieve. Dr. King once said. "Faith is the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase." Martin Luther King Jr. knew that faith in his efforts would produce fruits of success.

I find it quite ludicrous that we are still dealing with problems that have grown roots since 1619. A significant part of the problemis laziness in society. The lack of empowerment and honest assessment of situations that developed into a basketof secondary dilemmas. This includes gang violence, immaturity, politics, generational divides, economic status, and the lack of diversity and inclusion.

With Dr. King's philosophy, I am confident that I can achieve my goalsof educating others on financial literacy. My dream is to build an educational institution teaching kids about financial literacy and coding. This is how I will make my difference towards a new moral climate. As we come together and put our differences to rest, we shall overcome the problems of our day.

David Ferguson (East Lansing High School)

The crowd outside on this warm June day was bustling, but there was an absence of life. I could tell from the podium at the former Black Child and Family Institute that they were anxious. The tensions were high because the recent deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor and George Floyd had shaken everyone. They stared intently at me, waiting for me to begin. I knew they saw me standing there, but I hoped they wouldn't see me; a nervous Black 15-year-old at the Lansing Coalition Juneteenth Public Forum last year. I was tasked with delivering a three-minute speech to hundreds of people including newscasters and politicians about social injustice and police brutality. But Dr. King said "in the long run, justice finally must spring from a new moral climate," and this was my chance tobring forth such change.

I scanned the audience and began talking about the importance of voting. Throughout my entire life, I heard people complain about how a certain president was elected or why a bad policy was implemented. Ironically, they were the same people who never went to the polls to voice their opinion through the ballot. The ballot is our strongest weapon, and we need to use it because we we could be the loudest in the room. If we don't vote, our opinion won't matter. Wemust vote nationally and locally to elect ourmayors, judges and prosecutors in the hopes of unleashing a new moral climate that birthed the justice that found a police officer guilty of murdering Mr. Floyd and three men guilty of killing Mr. Arbery. Voting isn't the only way to make an impact.

We can serve our community and work with our political leaders to effect change. I talked about the need for young people to educate ourselves on our rights so we wouldn't be taken advantage of. We must work with our politicians to implement a policy that would make it a right for 16-to 18-year-olds to call their parents when pulled over by the police tohelp provide safety and comfort. Subsequently, I served on Rep. Sarah Anthony's Youth Advisory Council and she would later introduce my idea as a bill in the state Legislature.

Once I finished my speech, a massive weight had been lifted off my chest. I felt alleviated being able to speak what had been on my mind for the lastfew months, and to my surprise, I could tell the crowd felt the same way as well. A semblance of that life had returned. The nervous kid inspired by Dr. King's teachings, was met with an overwhelming applause. I couldn't contain my smile.

James McCurtis (Okemos High School)

"Standing in Solidarity"

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, In the long run, justice finally must springfrom a new moral climate. This statement was in response to the 1957 desegregationof Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. However, his words remain importantand relevant today, especially with the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor andmany others who have been victims of police violence. As a young Black man, myfamily and I have been affected by these tragedies. Understanding that I may beperceived as a threat because of my skin color means I cannot run in certainneighborhoods when it gets dark. It means I need to be extra cautious when I amdriving or have my music too loud. It means I need to understand that violence can findme when I least expect it. This is why we protest.

It is amazing to see the support from communities that came together to protestthese injustices. I was proud to attend a protest at the Michigan state Capitol indowntown Lansing. Unfortunately, I notice how quickly people forget about thesetragedies and move on. After a couple of weeks, once people felt that they did their part,they stopped protesting and stopped supporting our cause.

I am also a young Asian man. I have seen the attitudes towards Asians and thehate that we have received due to the coronavirus. We have been victims of racism,hate, and violence due to the pandemic. Again, there was a flood of support fromcommunities until people lost interest and moved on.

The current moral climate involvesa lot of performative activisms, and it is disingenuous to fight injustice only when it istrending. Our temporary moral compass needs to be fixed and become a constant partof our life. My biracial identity has given me a different view on issues knowing that it iscrucial that people support all injustices. It is not Black vs Asian vs white vs Latino. It isnot us vs them. We need to work together and stand in solidarity with each otherconsistently to correct injustices in the world. We need to always continue in our fight forequality, not just when it is convenient.

Jerry Jai Kozar-Lewis (East Lansing High School)

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a very influential person during his time on earth andeven now, he still isin this day and age, which to most people speaks volumes because he's beendeceased for 53 years now. The words he spoke are still being spoken by everyone regardless ofbeliefs because that's the type of influence he had.

A quote from him says that, In the long run,justice finally must spring from a new moral climate." Yet spiritual forces cannot emerge in asituation of mob violence." Martin was speaking about then PresidentEisenhower calling"wishy-washy for not being on one side or the other. Moreover, in Martin saying these words,he's saying that to get that justice or that end goal you have to change for the better, change yourway of thinking and think about what may ensue after. Turn that leaf that you've thought mightnever get flipped.

Justice for the future is essential because for a nation that has a pledgecalling for allegiance which also at the end states, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.But in an environment where it has no justice it always results in no peace until that justice isserved righteously. Though in this world people around can be seen transitioning into that newmoral climate that King brought when he addressed Eisenhower's action ways of trying to serveequality in the place in of where justice should be upheld equally the most; schools. Furthermorewith his statement you can't present violence to achieve your self image of justice and try tojustify your actions with the words of your god equally looking as someone that lacks internalmoral justification.

Kalib Jackson (Eastern High School)

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said In the long run, justice finally must spring from anew moral climate,"I believe this means that in order for justice to be achieved, you must firstconvince the majority of the public to adopt a new mindset. This could mean a new generationsmindset perhaps.

To understand Martin Luther King Jr.'s statement, you must first understand thedefinition of the word moral,which is defined as "concerning or relating to what is right andwrong in human behavior,"and the word "climate, which is defined as "the usual or mostwidespread mood or conditions in a place.When combining the two, to me, the phrase "moralclimate" means: The most widespread belief of what is right or wrong.

It almost irks me to know that this quote was written in 1957 in reference to the treatmenttowards people of color during the civil rights movement, yet it is still relevant today. Things likethe Black Lives Matter movement, the push for something to be done about climate change, theabortion rights movement, and the need for LGBTQ rights. There are likely more issues that Dr.King Jr.'s quote applies to, but these are just the few that come to mind.

I also believe the kind of people that are concerned with these issues prove his point aswell. A series of telephone interviews from 2015-2018 from people ages 18 and up gathered datathat 70% of people ages 18-34 are worried about global warming while only 56% of people ages55 and older are worried about it. We needed a generation that would provide a new "moralclimate" to see some activism regarding the issue of climate change. The same applies with theBlack Lives Matter movement, which more directly applies to the theme of justice; Two-thirdsof adults younger than 30 express at least some support, as does a narrower majority of thoseages 30 to 49 (58%). About half of adults ages 50 to 64 (49%) and 46% of those 65 and older saythey support the movement.

This research just goes to show that the very thing that Martin Luther King Jr. wasfighting for almost 70 years ago is still relevant today. We still need strong people to influencethe moral climate to allow justice and from the looks of it, the people that will influence themorals will be this new generation.

Eliana McDonald (Eastern High School)

"In the long run, justice finally must spring from a new moral climate. Martin Luther King Jr.

Blackchildrenaremisledandmisunderstoodbyoutsideforceseveryday.With generationalcurses and childhood trauma dating back to their first breath, they have little to noeducation on how to process strong feelings causing minor inconveniences to pile up on eachother. Meaning that when problems occur, they have no way to express their feelings other thananger. Trauma, mixed with firearms makes Black children seem violent as opposed tomisunderstood. Lack of resources results in the consistency of Black poverty ensuing in theabundance of gun violence in our society.

The education system is built to break upon the same people it claims to attend to. ForBlack people, there are very few chances to break out of the generational cycle of poverty. Inpredominantly urban areas, there are very few opportunities for success. People that make it outof the cycle are considered extremely lucky, which says something about this environment as awhole. There are issues greater than the ones I've stated, but they also have solutions larger thanI can comprehend. How do you change the mind of someone so fixated on hatred? How do youconvince someone to change their beliefs of hostility towards a group of people? The answer liesin the future.

Once the human mind decides on a set of beliefs, it's nearly impossible to change them,meaning the solution lies in the generation ahead of ourselves. A better environment for the nextgeneration would consist of counseling, emotional advocacy, and justice for the countless livesand futures lost to gun violence. My hope is that the new moral climate of justice for my people,lies in my generation and the ones to come.

Xavier McKissic, 7th grade (Everett High School)

"A Struggle for Justice"

For my 9th birthday present, my sister gifted me a book. I devoured it. The book was called "Separate Is Never Equal," a biography both authored and illustrated by Duncan Tonatiuh, detailingSylvia Mendez and her family's fight for desegregation in California schools. And oh, my word, thewriting! The art! It was so gripping and powerful helplessly enthralling in fractured beauty.

The booktells the story of Sylvia Mendez's parents demanding the authorities give an explanation after theirchildren of Mexican descent were denied the same education and opportunities as children of white backgrounds. They received none satisfactory, however, and soon brought their plight to court.Though the journey was difficult, the Mendez family emerged victorious: garnering support fromstudents and parents who had suffered similar injustices, receiving help from associations ofdifferent backgrounds all to eventually secure the rights for children of every ethnicity, language, andbackground to learn together in California schools.

I was reminded of "Separate Is Never Equal" when I was considering how to weave the themefor the contest into my writing. For Sylvia Mendez and so many others at the time, justice came in theform of living on equal footing with their white neighbors. However, if this was justice, why was itnot established early on? Why only now? Of course, as Martin Luther King Jr. stated, perhaps themoral climate was simply not right.

Like a desert flower sunk under scintillating snow, justice can'testablish itself when society's worldviews don't accept it. Nonetheless, there is hope. The snow willthaw, the desert flower blossom, and people living under injustice like Sylvia Mendez and millions ofothers at the time and at the present will eventually triumph in their battles for liberation, per Mr.King's famous words.

Sophia Liu,8th grade (Chippewa Middle School)

Throughout history, justice has always been difficult to obtain. In some cases people have losthope that one day there will be equality for everyone. Justice is a principle that every person, community,and culture deserves. Dr. Martin Luther King was a beacon of light showing us how to change the moralclimate by increasing awareness and protesting against injustice.

MLK was conveying a deeply resounding message when stating these words: In the long run, justice finally must spring from a new moral climate. He believed that later on in time, therewould be a generation that would emphasize the importance of justice and what it truly means.During the time Martin said these words, there was a lot of injustice specifically to those withanother skin color and diverse ethnicities. Despite the lack of equity, MLK always saw the lightat the end of the tunnel. He never gave up on his hope that one day people of color would gainjustice.

In our present time, the world still isn't perfect, and it may never be. We still see peoplefighting for all sorts of justice, but the question that persist is: What can I/we do to contribute tothe goodness of our society? We can start by always treating people nicely, gently, andrespectfully. Each person has a challenge, an obstacle to face, and a hindrance that limitspossibilities but we can all make attempts at understanding because we never know whatsomeone is going through. We can initiate and support a moral climate change by not lookingdown on a certain community of people and by speaking up for the weak and the vulnerable.Giving equal and equitable opportunities no matter of background, religion, ethnicity, andculture is what will help us heal and advance the call for justice and pursuit of happiness.

Every little simple gesture of kindness, acceptance, tolerance, and perseverance paves theway for a better future. One that we aspire for ourselves, our families, and our communities.Everyone has their own opinions and beliefs, but one thing we should all do is strive tocontribute to the equity and the freedom of living in a moral climate that celebrates ourdifferences and enriches our unity bringing to fruition the dream that Martin Luther King Jr.Though it takes time, the arch of justice get served and in that is my hope for a prosperousfuture.

Diana Carrosco-Guerrero, 11th grade (Sexton High School)

Like how when you played the violin

a little too aggressively,

and the string snapped back hitting you in the face,

the same violin hidden forever in the corner of your basement.

The mortal race forever lost,

seeking out something that is never meant to be found.

For why would justice be found

in a garbage dump?

The quote said must,"

Not might," or perhaps, or definitely not,

It must spring out of the ashes, and shadows,

in order for justice to be found.

Like when you're looking for something,

but it's right there hidden in plain sight.

We must allow the pogo stick to be fixed,

start training to swim and run,

computer to be reprogrammed,

violin strings repaired,

Emma Heinzelmann,8th grade (Chippewa Middle School)

Essay winners will be recognized LIVEat 7 p.m. on Monday, Jan. 17 airing locally onWILX TV-10 and WLNS TV-6,part of the day of celebration fromthe Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Commission of Mid-Michigan.

More:
Greater Lansing students find personal meaning in the words of Martin Luther King Jr. - Lansing State Journal

HAMPTON It's perfectly legal to erect a giant "F--- OFF" banner on the front of your house and currently there is nothing the town government can legally do about it.

"I think it's ridiculous," said Selectman James Waddell, who found out the town's hands were tied in regulating offensive language on signs after receiving complaints about one on Mill Road.

"When I was a kid and you (used that language) someone would smack you. It wouldn't be out there long. But times have changed."

The town's Planning Board is putting forth a zoning amendment to voters March 8 to strike what has been deemed non-enforceable language in the town's sign ordinance prohibiting profanity and explicit content.

However, they are seeking to add wording that limits the owners of residential properties especially the few who display offensive content from displaying banners to two occasions per year, and for no more than 14 consecutivedays per occasion.

A banner, according to the town's zoning ordinance, is defined as a sign of lightweight fabric or similar material that is mounted to a pole or a building. National flags, state or municipal flags, according to the ordinance, are not considered banners.

Planning Board Chairman Tracy Emerick said the impetus behind the amendment was a "F--- OFF" banner put up on a home on Mill Road in 2020 in protest of a new development in the neighborhood. The sign was placed under another banner that read, "Thank God for the First Amendment.

Previous story: Hampton mans F--- OFF yard sign riles neighbors

"There was a lot of heat taken at the town hall about this particular banner," Emerick said.

Selectmen received a number of complaints from neighbors upset children had to walk by it, as well as from motorists who traveleddown the road and saw it.

And they were upset the town leaders were not doing anything about it.

While the town's current sign ordinance prohibits words or pictures that are "obscene, pornographic or immoral character," Emerick said it's considered unenforceable.

"The truth of the matter is that it's a First Amendment right," he said. "The right to free speech is the right to free speech."

Emerick said Town PlannerJasonBachand requested the board remove the language regarding content from the sign ordinance on the advice of the town counsel.

He cited two U.S. Supreme court actions: Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015), which involved a municipality restricting content-based messaging in signage, and Iancu v. Brunetti (2019), which involved prohibiting the use of a trademark for FUCT clothing line"that was considered immoral and obscene.

Both were deemed unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment by the court.

Bachand told the Planning Board at a recent meeting the wording could leave the town open to lawsuits, including from a resident challenging why they are not enforcing it.

"We can't do anything on what people put on a banner," Emerick said. "All we can do is try and control the use of banners."

Initially, the first draft of the zoning amendment banned all banners in residential zones.

Emerick said the problem was what if someone wanted to put up a "Welcome Home" sign for a soldier returning from overseas or a "Congratulations" one for a birthday or graduation.

"That's where the two and for only 14 days come from," Emerick said. "We didn't want to restrict positive banners and most positive banners have an event and a timeframe."

Emerick said enforcement, if the amendment is approved, would be done by the town's building department.

The "F--- Off" banner on Mill Road that spurred the zoning amendment is no longer on display.

While selectmen sent a letter to the homeowner requestinghe take down the sign, Waddell said he doesn't believe that did the trick as it was up for months after the request was made.

"I'm not sure why the sign went down," he said. "I don't know if he felt his purpose was served or not."

The sign regarding the First Amendment remains proudly displayed on the home as well as a new small banner of a gnome giving what appears to be the middle finger.

Waddell said he supports the proposed zoning amendment because it gives the town an enforcement tool if future cases arise.

"It's a way to control signs because signs can get totally out of control," he said.

The zoning amendment only pertains to banners and not other signs defined in the ordinance like political signs.

Waddell said he was recently asked what the board could do about people holding up offensive political signs in downtown Hampton.Signs that have led to complaints include "Let's go Brandon" signs (an anti-President Joe Biden slogan) as well as a flag that directly states "(Expletive) Biden," with the swear word made out of guns.

Waddell said again, it's protected by free speech. According to the ACLU, "generally, all types of expression are constitutionally protected in traditional public forums such as streets, sidewalks and parks" and a permit is not required to picket or hold up signs.

Waddell said he's had people ask him if selectmen could restrict the hourspeople can hold signs downtown, "or type of signs they can hold."

"It's a slippery slope," Waddell said. "It's a shame that we even have to think about that."

Continue reading here:
Perfectly legal: 'F--- OFF' sign in Hampton irks neighbors, could lead to zoning change - Seacoastonline.com