Category Archives: First Amendment

Hours into a marathon oral argument on Jan. 10, Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia observed that if there is one thing this hearing has shown it's that this is not an easy case. For nearly five hours Judge Mehta heard arguments about whether former President Donald Trump, Rep. Mo Brooks, Rudy Giuliani and others could be held civilly liable for their role in the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. The main lawsuits, brought by Reps. Bennie Thompson and Eric Swalwell, allege violations of 42 U.S.C. 1985(1), a Reconstruction-era statute that created civil liability for conspiracies to prevent public officials from holding any office or discharging any duties.

Addressing issues common to the three lawsuits, Judge Mehta wrestled with formidable defenses raised by Trump and his co-defendants: chiefly that Trump and Books are immune from civil liability for actions taken as part of their official duties, and that the defendants statements leading up to the siege of the Capitol could not satisfy the elements of conspiracy, especially to the extent that the statements were protected speech under the First Amendment.

Immunity

Trump lawyer Jesse Binnall argued for an expansive, highly formalistic vision of presidential immunity, relying on the Supreme Courts ruling in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that presidents are entitled to absolute immunity from civil liability for actions while in office that fall within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility. The crux of Binnalls argument was that the court must entirely ignore the content of Trumps speech on Jan. 6his remarks at the Ellipse and on Twitter over the course of the dayand look only at the presidents conduct to analyze whether he was acting in his official capacity. Because Trump was addressing the American people, Binnall argued, he was acting within his official duties as president and must enjoy immunity, especially since the subject of his speech, electoral integrity, is a matter of immense public concern.

Judge Mehta was skeptical of this all-encompassing vision of the presidents official duties, which potentially would make the president immune from civil liability anytime he opens his mouth. Judge Mehta pushed Binnall on whether there is anything that a president could do or say while in officefor example, as part of a campaignthat would not be immune from liability under his expansive theory of presidential immunity. Binnall said that he could not name an example of anything the president could say that would not fall within his official duties under this theory, but that perhaps signing a lease on a campaign office would not fall within his responsibilities as president.

But if Binnall failed to give Judge Mehta a reasonable standard for the scope of presidential immunity, the plaintiffs struggled to offer one that would withhold immunity in this case while nevertheless being consistent with precedent. The plaintiffs argued that Trump should not enjoy immunity because fomenting an insurrection against Congress was clearly unconstitutional and thus outside his official duties. But as Judge Mehta noted, Fitzgerald held that presidential immunity did not depend on the legality of the presidents action. The plaintiffs were left to argue that Trumps conduct surrounding Jan. 6 was so outrageous that it was clearly beyond the scope of his presidential responsibilities. But where exactly to draw that line remained unclear.

The question of the scope of official duties was also at the center of Brooks claim that he should be immune from liability under the Westfall Act, which requires the government to act as the defendant when federal employees are sued for tort liability for official actions. The Department of Justice joined the plaintiffs in arguing that Brookswho spoke before Trump on Jan. 6 and declared that Todays the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking asswas campaigning and therefore acting outside the scope of his official duties; as a result, Brooks should not be immune from civil liability. But Brooks, who argued on his own behalf, emphasized that his motivation in speaking at the Jan. 6 rally was not simply to support Republican candidates in future elections, but also to convince his fellow congresspeople to vote against the certification of the electoral college votes.

First Amendment

The other major hurdle for the plaintiffs is the First Amendment, which generally protects the sort of political speech that Trump, Brooks and the other rally speakers engaged in (and to that extent cannot serve as the predicate for the plaintiffs conspiracy charges). The plaintiffs emphasized that the defendants could be held liable under even the highly speech-protective standard of Brandenburg v. Ohio, which permits liability for advocacy of the use of force or of law except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

In a heated exchange, Binnall, Trumps lawyer, repeatedly pointed to several inflammatory statements that the Democratic plaintiffs had themselves previously made, arguing that if Trumps language was found to be incitement to violence here, but similar language used by others elsewhere was not, the court would be failing to apply the First Amendment equally to Democrats and Republicans. Judge Mehta sharply rebuked Binnall for engaging in whataboutism and for suggesting that he was judging Trump and his co-defendants speech more harshly because of their party.

Like the discussion of presidential immunity, the First Amendment portion of the argument was inconclusive. On the one hand, Trumps words did not explicitly call for violence and were on their face far less inflammatory than what the Supreme Court upheld in Brandenburg and in many cases since. On the other hand, the broader context of Trumps speech, from his months-long campaign to discredit the election to his failure to act after the attack on the Capitol began, suggests, as Mehta noted, that Trumps speech went beyond ordinary political rhetoric, even if it was not the sort of speech that typically qualifies as conspiracy to commit violence.

Ultimately, and despite hours of questioning, Judge Mehta did not tip his hand as to how he will rule on the many complex legal issues that the lawsuits raise. But given the high political and legal stakes, its unlikely that Judge Mehtas decision will be the last word. The parties will almost certainly appeal any outcome to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and this case may well end up before the Supreme Court, especially on the central issue of presidential immunity.

See more here:
After Oral Argument, the Future of Thompson v. Trump Remains Unclear - Lawfare

Marilou Rickert did not set Washington politics on fire when she ran for the Legislature in 2003.

Rickert, an attorney and Green Party candidate who tried to unseat long-term incumbent Tim Sheldon in the West Sides 35th district, lost by a huge margin, with Sheldon gathering about 80% of the vote.

Rickert nevertheless holds an important legacy in Washington politics as a free-speech figure. It was Rickert who was charged with violating state law for telling a falsehood about Sheldon in her campaign she incorrectly characterized a vote he took on a flyer and it was her case that the state Supreme Court used to throw out that law.

A political candidate making knowingly false and reckless statements, the court ruled, is constitutionally protected speech.

The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment, the courts 5-4 majority opinion read.

Now the governor is looking to take on the tsunami of election lies that is animating a large part of the conversation on the political right and taking a run directly at the boundaries established in Rickert v. Washington.

Gov. Jay Inslee is supporting legislation that would make it a crime to tell lies about election results. The legislation is still being drafted, but his notion is to make it a gross misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and $5,000 in fines, for candidates to tell lies about elections with the knowledge that such lies can incite violence.

It should not be legal in the state of Washington for elected officials or candidates for office to willfully lie about these election results, Inslee said

In laying out his reasoning, Inslee is right about a whole lot. He is 100% correct that too many elected officials have been lying about elections just pulling blatantly idiotic nonsense out of thin air. Hes correct that these lies have fueled dangerous, destructive violence, and hes accurate in identifying the rotting head of that stinky fish as the former president, who seems unable to speak without lying.

Hes right that the election lies are a threat to our democracy, and that the lying is not limited to national elections. If you think the Trump won lies are a steaming pile of horse flop, try Culp won. This is an actual thing, too dumb to be believed, and yet it is being advanced by some Republicans right now, including Joe Kent, a Trumpworld favorite trying to unseat Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler. Kent calls Loren Culp the real governor of Washington.

All of these lies, and the large numbers of people who swallow them, are a huge problem for our country. But this proposal is no answer. For constitutional, legal, practical and political reasons, its a bad idea.

Free speech is such a fundamental right that there is a significant degree of protection for some false speech as in the Rickerts case as well as important barriers to the state acting as the arbiter for what speech is accurate or acceptable.

Its not as if lying is completely protected. Perjury, fraud and libel are instances in which false speech is not protected by the First Amendment. But the Supreme Court has often elevated freedom over accuracy or honesty, especially in political speech. It has struck down laws attempting to prohibit people from lying about their military service (the so-called Stolen Valor Act) and protected the press from libel claims when it publishes incorrect information about public figures, unless such publication is done with actual malice (the landmark Times v. Sullivan case).

Thats to name just two cases. The constitution and a long history of case law establishes the freedom to say certain false things as an important indicator of true freedom. It is no kind of freedom at all, in other words, to say only that which is governmentally vetted.

At a time of rampant, destructive dishonesty in politics, its not hard to see the appeal of Inslees proposal. Journalists and online platforms have been challenged with an ever-greater need to act as editors and gatekeepers against the dissemination of lies; this is not, as people often claim, a violation of the First Amendment. Journalists and online platforms, as opposed to the government, have a responsibility to edit, vet, fact-check, challenge and be discerning about who they amplify.

That is the marketplace of ideas, and it is theoretically the way that bad speech is combatted. Ideally, the existence of ample, robust volumes of accurate, factual information will overwhelm false ones. Im not sure this is true anymore, if it ever was. The edifice of media organizations and online platforms that sustain lies has grown so large that people can simply climb inside it and never learn an accurate fact.

Still, that doesnt mean its time to begin empowering government to prosecute political speech. There are legal obstacles, including the difficulty of proving a statement is a lie rather than simply incorrect, as well as the challenge of establishing, beyond reasonable doubt, an intention to incite violence.

And there is an absolute certainty of a spectacular backfire. Think of the Culp won crowd. Imagine their delight at being prosecuted for telling this lie one based on the premise that the government is conspiring to hide the truth from people. Imagine their delight at being handed this badge of honor, and how good it will be for their ability to raise money from the millionaires who support the election lies.

Inslees right about the sickness, wrong about the cure. The Rickert case differs from Inslees proposal in key respects. As the governor noted, Rickert dealt with falsehoods told by one candidate against another; his proposal would go after lies about the electoral system generally, and those intended to incite violence.

Its hard to imagine, though, that the state Supreme Court would not come to the same conclusion with this proposal as it did in Rickert: government censorship is not a constitutionally permitted remedy.

Link:
Shawn Vestal: Inslee's right about the disease, but wrong about the cure - The Spokesman Review

A bill proposed in the New Hampshire House this week seeks to expand the statesfreedom from discrimination in education law restricting how public school teachers can discuss racism and discrimination in the classroom, and apply it to professors at the college and university level.

The bill, HB 1313, is titled relative to rights to freedom from discrimination in higher education, and would addpublic higher education institutions like the University System and Community College System of New Hampshire to the listof public employers that are currently restricted under law from teaching that any one group of people is inherently superior, racist, sexist or oppressive,whether consciously or unconsciously.

The bills primary sponsor, Rep. RickLadd (RHaverhill), said in a House Education Committee hearing Tuesday that professors should keeptheir personal beliefs out of the college classroom.

The false national narrative that professes that all states suffer from centuries of white privilege, white supremacy and systematic racism does not reflect New Hampshire,said Ladd. Any instruction promoting that racism is alive and well in New Hampshire does not reflect post-secondary education in our state, nor does it accurately portray our residents, particularly those who have been here for generations. Nor does it address the fact that we have invested efforts to attract more individuals and families to New Hampshire, increasing diversity by nearly 75% in the decade.

The current state law, RSA 193:40Freedom from Discrimination in Education and the Workplace, was proposed in January 2021 as one of severalbills nationwide banning restricting theteaching of divisive concepts, an echo of a Trump-era federalexecutive order.The billwas modified and ultimately passed through a rider bill to the state budget, signed by Gov. Chris Sununu in June. The law bans public employers including K-12 public school teachers in New Hampshire classrooms from teaching that any group is inherently superior or inferior, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously,should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment or should not treat members of other identified groups equally.Empowered by the new law, the state Department of Educationcreated a webpagein November that links to a form where parents can report any teacher for an alleged violation. Teachers found to have been in violation may be stripped of their teaching credentials.

Critics of the current law say it restricts K-12 public school teachers ability to discuss with students the historical impacts of racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination, including against LGBTQ people and people with disabilities.

Although the textof the bill uses broadlanguage about banning teaching that any groupissuperior or inferior,Rep.Ladd expressed specific concern at the hearing about white people being called racist in discussions about systemic racism or implicit bias.

I dont believe I should be tagged, or you should be tagged, or anyone in this room should be tagged with the idea that you areracist because of our past, Ladd said.Our past is our past. We can learn from it.

Ladd also expressed concern that educators might discuss critical race theory, an academic framework of analysis that examinesthe impact of racism on U.S. society.

As a parent and grandparent, I ask that schools and post-secondary institutions teach our young people to think, but not tell them what to think, Ladd said.Advocating CRT is discriminatory and does not reflect New Hampshires way of life, and certainly doesn't align with Dr. [Martin Luther] Kings vision. In fact, it does the opposite, pitting people against each other.

ACLUNew Hampshire Executive Director Devon Chaffee spoke against Ladds bill at Tuesdays hearing, saying it violates freedom of speech under theFirst Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Supreme Court precedents that have long protected academic freedom for colleges and universities.

Silencing a particular viewpoint here were talking about concepts related to racism and sexism violates the First Amendment, period. Chaffee said. Moreover, as it stands, the banned concepts act, is so unclear and vague, that it fails to provide the necessary guidance to educators about what they can and cannot include in their courses. HB1313 would only compound this defect by applying the concept to colleges and universities, where academic freedom is particularly protected under the First Amendment.

The current RSA 193:40 is already the subject of two pending federal lawsuits, claiming the law violates freedom of speech under the First Amendment and also that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment for being too vague. The lawsuits, brought by local teachers unions and other activist organizations,say the lack of clarity in the law has a chilling effect on teachers, who are avoiding discussing racism and discriminationentirely, for fear of being reported.

The banned concepts language that is being proposed has already created a chill that effectively prevents teachers from doing what society needs them to do, which is teach our students, said Brian Hawkins, director of government relations for the National Education Association New Hampshire, the states largest teachers union. The law has resulted in the curbing of essential teaching practices, such as competency-based learning andcritical thinking, so why would we want to expand this law into higher education?

Both TomCronin, director of government relations for the University System of New Hampshire and Shannon Reid,director of government affairs for the Community College System of New Hampshire,spoke against the bill at a hearing Friday.

The general intent to include public post-secondary education under 193:40 would seem to raise contradictions with widely-accepted tenets of academic freedom of college and university faculty, Reid said.We are very interested in not curbing the free flow of ideas that should characterize post-secondary education.

The bill has been assigned to the House Education Committee. If it passes in committee, it will move to the House floorfor a vote.

Continue reading here:
Bill would expand K-12 'divisive concepts' law to public higher education - Concord Monitor

A New Hanover County Board of Education member said a resolution to censure her wont deter her from her mission to hold those on the board, and in the school district, accountable.

The board passed a resolution to censure member Judy Justice in a 5-2 vote Friday afternoonafter Justice was accused of revealing confidential personnel information to someone who was not permitted to have it. Justice said after the meeting she felt the move was personal, and she plans to continue pushing for more transparency from the district going forward.

Im fighting the battles trying to help the district, and when they fight me, theyre in essence fighting against doing good things for the district, Justice said.

Justice and board Vice Chairwoman Stephanie Walker were the only two members to vote against the censure. A censure does not result in any action it's simply a tool to let Justice know the board does not support or agree with her actions.

Related coverage: New Hanover school board member under scrutiny says censure is 'deflecting from the real issues'

Equity audit: Why is New Hanover Schools looking at canceling contract with Sophic Solutions?

Masks in schools: Some Cape Fear school districts return to masks as COVID-19 cases surge

Kraybill said after the meeting she was made aware of allegations Justice had violated the code of ethics by disclosing personnel information in the fall. The board previously passed a vote of no confidencein June after then-Chairwoman Stefanie Adams accused Justice of lying during a board meeting.

DuringFriday'smeeting, the board went into a closed session to discuss personnel matters that could not be disclosed to the public. After, Justice was given a chance to address the board and thepublic andbrought forth a list of 10 ways other board members had violated the boards code of ethics that had gone unaddressed.

This witch hunt is personal and everyone on this(board)knows it, Justice said during her statement. It is time we did our job for the people and serve the people, not some peoples individual agendas.

Justice also alleged Superintendent Charles Foust had accused her of harassing him. Attorney Colin Shive interrupted Justice, saying he would advise her to move on from that subject to avoid revealing further personnel information. Kraybillsaid the subject was not germane to the topic at hand.

Justice went on to say it was her first amendment right to bring up the accusation and said she had no intention of bringing up confidential personnel information.

As Justice continued her statement about the alleged harassment, Foust interrupted her, saying he had 275 emails to prove she had harassed him.

I will provide emails if thats what you want, Foust said. You cannot and you will not do that.

Call to audience: Is New Hanover school board trying to censor public comments? Chairwoman proposes change.

Cape Fear Academy lawsuit: Here's what you need to know

School sexual abuse case: Sexual assault lawsuit against New Hanover schools end is near: 'It's been a long road'

Justice said the emails she sent him had to do with her asking him to do his job. She said after the meetingFoust has not communicated with her in months, though its district policy that the superintendent communicates regularly with members of the board. She alleged he does not respond to her emails or phonecalls, andsaid thats concerning as shewas elected to represent the public before the school district.

Kraybill quickly called the meeting to recess, and she and Foust went to a separate room to speak with Shive. When they returned, Shive called Justice back and spoke with her for several minutes behind closed doors. Walker also went with Justice to speak with Shive.

When Justice returned, she said she felt the censure vote was taking away from important issues going on in the district, like the continued strain on staff and students from the COVID-19 pandemic and decades of sexual abuse allegations against former teachers and administrators.

Several community members attended the meeting as well, holding signs reading I support Judy and attempting to speak with board members while they recessed.

How is this whats best for the kids? one audience member asked theboard, butdid not receive a response.

Kraybill said after the meeting the vote was not personal, and she hopes the board can be unified moving forward to get to those important topics impacting the district.

The community has been very critical of this board, and boards before us about not being transparent, not handling issues in a timely manner," Kraybill said. When I found out that this had occurred, I just said we need to jump on it and get it resolved.

We've got that behind us, and we should be ready to go,shesaid.

Reporter Sydney Hoover can be reached at 910-343-2339 or shoover@gannett.com.

More:
'This witch hunt is personal': School board votes to censure member in tense New Hanover meeting - StarNewsOnline.com

John Halligan shows the Web page devoted to his son, Ryan, at his home in Underhill, Vermont, Feb. 7, 2007. Ryan Patrick Halligan, bullied by classmates for months online, killed himself in 2003. States from Oregon to Rhode Island are considering crackdowns to curb or outlaw the behavior in which kids taunt or insult peers on social Web sites like MySpace or via instant messages. However, cyberbullying presents First Amendment issues because the statutes often criminalize speech and some of the language in certain laws and regulations arguably is overly broad or vague.(AP Photo/Toby Talbot, used with permission from the Associated Press)

Cyberbullying, sometimes called cyber-harassment, is bullying or harassing committed by electronic means. Cyberbullying has become a major issue in schools, as well as society at large, particularly after several high-profile incidents where kids who were bullied online committed suicide. The White House called a summit on the phenomenon in 2011.

More than 30 states have cyberbullying laws and other states have laws that require public school districts to amend their anti-bullying policies to include cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying presents First Amendment issues because the statutes often criminalize speech and some of the language in certain laws and regulations arguably is overly broad or vague. For example, the New York Court of Appeals invalidated Albany Countys cyberbullying law as overbroad in People v. Marquan M. The defendant, a high school student, posted sexually explicit pictures of classmates on the Internet.

Prosecutors charged him with violating Albany Countys law, which read:

"any act of communicating or causing a communication to be sent by mechanical or electronic means, including posting statements on the internet or through a computer or email network, disseminating embarrassing or sexually explicit photographs; disseminating private, personal, false or sexual information, or sending hate mail, with no legitimate private, personal, or public purpose, with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, abuse, taunt, intimidate, torment, humiliate, or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on another person."

The New York Court of Appeals reasoned that the law was too broad, because it embraces a wide array of applications that prohibit types of protected speech far beyond the cyberbullying of children.

The North Carolina Supreme Court invalidated its state cyberbullying law in State v. Bishop (2016). This case also involved a high school student who posted negative comments about a classmate under a sexually explicit photo. The state law prohibited the use of a computer to post or encourage others to post on the internet private, personal or sexual information pertaining to minors with the intent to intimidate or torment a minor.

The state high court explained that the law failed to require that the subject of an online post suffer injury from the online tormenting and, thus, the law sweeps far beyond the states legitimate interest in protecting the psychological health of minors. The state court also noted the failure of the state legislature to define the key terms intimidate or torment. Thus, the law could be applied to merely annoying speech protected by the First Amendment.

A related issue involves school officials attempting to punish students for their cyberbullying speech that takes place entirely off-campus. Many state laws targeting cyberbullying apply whether or not the speech takes place on-campus or off-campus.

However, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in a couple of decisions that school officials lack the authority to discipline students purely for off-campus, online speech. In one of those decisions, Layshock v. Hermitage School District (3rd Cir. 2011), the Third Circuit wrote that it would be a dangerous and unseemly precedent to allow the state, in the guise of school authorities, to reach into a childs home and control his/her actions there to the same extent that it can control that child when he/she participates in school sponsored activities.

However, most other circuits apply the familiar substantial disruption standard from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). Most courts have applied the Tinkers reasonable forecast of substantial disruption standard even to off-campus, online speech so long as there is a reasonable connection or nexus to school activities.

There is another part of the Tinker test that is often forgotten. In Tinker, the Court intimated that school officials could punish students if their speech invaded the rights of other students. Cyberbullying expert James C. Hanks explains in his book School Bullying: How Long Is the Arm of the Law that this part of the Tinker case could provide the legal justification for cyberbullying laws.

David L. Hudson, Jr. is a law professor at Belmont who publishes widely on First Amendment topics. He is the author of a 12-lecture audio course on the First Amendment entitled Freedom of Speech: Understanding the First Amendment (Now You Know Media, 2018). He also is the author of many First Amendment books, including The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (Thomson Reuters, 2012) and Freedom of Speech: Documents Decoded (ABC-CLIO, 2017). This article was originally published in 2009.

View post:
Cyberbullying | The First Amendment Encyclopedia

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

More:
Craig Carter: Another lecture on the First Amendment - Ontario Argus Observer

Opinion

You have 4 free articles left this month.

To the editor:

I read with interest letters to The Item by Dylan Cashman and Mary Gatlin published on Dec. 31 regarding their decisions to drop their subscriptions because they objected to another persons letter to The Item concerning vaccinations.

They did not agree with the letter (Richard G. Eramian, Dec. 30), and thought it should not have been published.

What these two individuals dont seem to understand is that a good and responsible newspaper, like The Item, has an unwritten duty to publish controversial letters in accordance with the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Its called Freedom of Speech a freedom espoused by Cashman and Gatlin in their letters to The Item.

Their decisions to cancel their subscriptions reminds me of little children threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue if they dont get their way. Too bad! Grow up its in your interest!

Edward M. LandryLynn

Originally posted here:
Letter: Unpopular letters and the First Amendment - Itemlive - Daily Item

Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington announced Thursday that he will advance a bill that makes lying or spreading lies about free and fair elections by elected officials a gross misdemeanor, if those lies have the likelihood to stoke violence. The law would also apply to candidates for elected office.

Its yelling fire in a crowded theater, Inslee said to reporters on Thursday.

January 6 is a reminder not only of the insurrection that happened one year ago, but that there is an ongoing coup attempt by candidates and elected officials to overturn our democracy. They are willing to do this by provoking violence, and today I proposed we do something about that in Washington, Inslee said in a published statement on his governmental website on Thursday.

Soon, legislation will be introduced in the state House and Senate that would make it a gross misdemeanor for candidates and elected officials to knowingly lie about elections.The proposed law is narrowly tailored to capture only those false statements that are made for the purpose of undermining the election process or results and is further limited to lies that are likely to incite or cause lawlessness, Inslee said.

This legislation attempts to follow the relevant U.S. and state supreme court opinions on this issue. Were talking about candidates and elected officers knowingly throwing bombs at democracy itself when doing so is likely to result in violence, Inslee said. We can outlaw actions that provoke political violence and in doing so also protect our democracy. There is more that can be done by states and Congress to protect our democracy. I am open to any proposal that will protect the will of the voters and the institutions they use to decide who governs them.

Inslee cited the court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). In that case, it was found that speech that supports law-breaking or violence in general is protected by the First Amendment unless it directly encourages people to take an unlawful action immediately. More about that case at this link.

Inslee is a governor who rules with a heavy hand. In May of 2021, he ordered workplaces in Washington State to not only check employee vaccination documents, but to force employee badges to show their vaccination status, in violation of their health privacy. More about that illegal action at this link.

Washington state has been a hotspot for lawless behavior by Antifa, Black Lives Matter, anarchists, and other leftist groups during the months leading up to the 2020 election. Those activities gained national attention as leftists took over a section of downtown Seattle, vandalized and set fire to buildings, and clashed with police for weeks on end.

But rather than focus on actual lawlessness, Inslees new bill is aimed at conservatives who have legitimate concerns about the security of the election process.

Like Loading...

Continue reading here:
First Amendment challenge: Gov. Inslee to advance law that makes lying about elections a gross misdemeanor - Must Read Alaska

In the months leading up to Donald Trumps 2016 election victory, Fox News host Sean Hannity used his massive media platform to openly help his friend defeat Hillary Clintonan approach he justified by insisting that he is not a journalist and does not have to abide by journalistic ethics. Im not hiding the fact that I want Donald Trump to be the next president of the United States, Hannity said in August of 2016, adding: I never claimed to be a journalist. Earlier that year, the Fox News star acknowledged that, if he were to interview Clinton, he would go after her a hundred times harder than any Republican because he is an overtly partisan actor. Im not a journalist, Im a talk show host, he concluded.

However, on Tuesday, Hannitys attorney Jay Sekulow insisted that the House select committee investigating the Capitol riotwhich has released text messages Hannity sent to former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadowstreat his client like a journalist and offer him the same protections that members of the press are afforded by the First Amendment. We are evaluating the letter from the committee. We remain very concerned about the constitutional implications especially as it relates to the First Amendment, wrote Sekulow. We will respond as appropriate. Separately, to Axios, Sekulow mentioned concerns regarding freedom of the press.

The text messages in question, which were obtained as part of 9,000 pages of documents that Meadows handed over after being subpoenaed, show how Hannity acted as a key outside adviser for the former president during his final days in office. One week before the Capitol riot erupted, Hannity questioned Trumps strategy to overturn the election and warned that it could result in mass White House resignations. We cant lose the entire WH counsels [sic] office. I do NOT see January 6 happening the way [Trump] is being told, Hannity wrote in an exchange with Meadows. On the night of January 5, Hannity again texted Meadows, writing that he was very worried about the next 48 hours while expressing concern regarding Trumps attempt to pressure Mike Pence into intervening in the elections certification process. On the afternoon of January 6, as violence erupted around the Capitol building, Hannity pleaded with Meadows to try to put a stop to the attack. Can he make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol, he wrote. "Ask people to peacefully leave the Capitol.Finally, on January 10, Hannity reacted to the Houses attempt to impeach Trump by telling Meadows and Rep. Jim Jordan that Trump cant mention the election again. Ever. I did not have a good call with him today. And worse, Im not sure what is left to do or say, and I dont like not knowing if its truly understood. Ideas?

The bipartisan committees chair and vice-chair have requested Hannitys cooperation with the investigation. We have no doubt that you love our country and respect our Constitution, wrote committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson and vice-chair Rep. Liz Cheney. Now is the time to step forward and serve the interests of your country.On the Tuesday night edition of Hannity, the host lashed out at the cowardly swamp creatures and the media mob, though he ultimately dodged the issue by not directly responding to the committees request. He also failed to address the role that his personal messages and advice to Trump have played in the January 6 investigation. Instead, he allowed his attorney to speak for him, with Sekulow releasing his First Amendment statement shortly after the conclusion of Hannitys show.

When asked for comment about the committees request and Hannitys lawyers reference to the First Amendment, a Fox News spokesperson referred Vanity Fair to Sekulow's statement. The question of whether Hannity is a journalist, and subject to any professional and ethical obligations that go along with it, has come up before. While Hannity has both denied being a journalist and described himself as suchIm an advocacy journalist, or an opinion journalist, he said in 2017The Washington Post struggled the following year to get a direct answer from his employer following the revelation that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen also represented the Fox News host. At the time, a network spokesperson would allow that Hannity is an opinion talk show host.

More Great Stories From Vanity Fair

The Story Behind the Only Known Photo of Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein The 140,000 COVID Orphans Left in the Shadows It Sure Sounds Like Trump Was Screening Don Jr.s Calls on January 6 Of Course the Ridiculous Bible Photo Op Was Ivankas Idea CNN and Chris Cuomo on the Brink of All-Out War The Prosecution Is Fumbling Its Case Against Ghislaine Maxwell Hunter Biden Paints His Truth From the Archive: Inside the Ultra-Exclusive Bohemian Club Not a subscriber? Join Vanity Fair to receive full access to VF.com and the complete online archive now.

See the rest here:
Sean Hannity Wants the January 6 Committee to Believe Hes a Journalist - Vanity Fair

Learn to live with COVID-19

Winter is the cold season! People get colds and the flu!

Now, rather than being proactive in myriad ways, colleges and universities around the country have decided to be reactive to delay their upcoming terms or go fully online.

The COVID-19 vaccine isn't stopping the virus, and we are going to have to live with it. COVID-19 and its variants have become like the flu. Just like the flu, likely you'll get an annual COVID shot for the mutations if you choose.

How long will our state and federal governments keep imposing vaccine and mask mandates that interfere with our personal lives and freedom?

Let people wear masks or not; let people take the shot or not.

Compared to the number of infections or deaths from cancer, heart disease and car accidents, the death rate from COVID-19 is very low.

Its time to stop the nonsense.

We can learn to live with this virus and its mutations.

Take the shackles off the citizens, especially our young adults, so they can have an enjoyable college experience while becoming educated as well as we can all worldwide have a Happy New Year!

Isn't it time?

Steve Mozena, Eugene

Nancy Lukasik maintains that Nick C.E. Squires should read the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, (Letters, Jan. 4). She states the First Amendment promises freedom ofreligion, not freedom fromit.

Here is the textthat pertains to religion: Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

Lukasik and Squires: Letters to the editor for Tuesday, Jan 4: Proof in the (vaccine) pudding

The first clause sounds a lot like freedom fromreligion (established by the federal government). The second clause sounds a lot like freedom ofreligion (including no religion). You need to read both parts.

The First Amendment explicitly prohibits the federal government from getting into the religion business in any way, pro or con. At least thats how I read shall make no law.

There are millions of Americans who believe in a host of religions and millions of others who dont. It would seem, unless we intentionally allow the federal government to color outside the lines of the First Amendment as written, Nancy and Nick should be able to sleep OK at night.

The religious, hypocritical, right wing of the Republican Party demands that unborn children have the right to life. Pro-choice people demand the womans right to choose. Neither notes what kind of life the child is entitled to live.

Our Constitution guarantees the pursuit of happiness.What if that happiness does not include being forced to birth unwanted children?

Twenty-five percent of our children in this the wealthiest nation on Earth suffer from hunger and/or homelessness.

The Republican Party pro-life/anti-abortionposition insists an unborn child must be born whether wanted by the birth parents or not.

Once that child is born, these religious, principled Republicans dont care or feel responsible for the type of life that child will have, or adult he or she will become. Will this child they insist on being born live in abject poverty, neglect, be abused, abandoned, receive a decent education, have food and shelter? Will this child be forced to be a criminal, destitute, have severe physical or emotional needs?

So, what right to a decent life does that child have?

Robert Rubinstein, Eugene

Whitney Randallsletterin The Register-Guard on Jan. 3 describes an upcoming ballot measure (Measure 6) that would establish the Oregon Peoples Rebate, a yearly cash payment of $750 to every Oregonian.

For progressives, this is a worthy cause for all the reasons Randall lists, especially for the large swath of Oregonians with low and middle incomes who have been economically left behind as the wealthy grew ever richer.

But there is a gigantic problem with Measure 6. It raises taxes on corporations in exactly the same way the overwhelmingly rejected Measure 97 would have in 2016:by taxing the gross receipts of corporations with more than $25 million in sales at such a high level that many types of businesses would see all of their net profit taxed away. Thats right. Alltheir profit.

Grocery stores, auto dealers and construction companies are only a few types of businesses that could no longer make a profit under this measure. The negative effects on the Oregon economy would be unthinkable.

Douglas Berg, Eugene

In this new year, we face some gigantic challenges.

Reminds me of the situation in the late 1940s when we faced the armies of the Axis powers. Everyone wanted to contribute to the war effort.Kids collected scrap metal and adults planted "victory gardens."

But what can ordinary people do about the challenges that come with the climate change? For one thing, we can install cisternsand water storage tanks to catch rain water that comes off roofs during rainy seasons. There could be some interesting competitions.

Dick Sweeney, Eugene

Ive been a registered nurse at PeaceHealth for 20 years. The last two have been extraordinarily challenging, particularly because Im also a mother with school-aged children.

Initially PeaceHealth supported staff with 80 hours of COVID-19 paid time off. When things improved last summer, it took whatever was unused away from us.

Today, I am forced to go into work and leave my teenager home, who is sick with COVID-19 (yes, shes vaccinated). I dont have the sick time to cover my pay and since I have no symptoms, I am expected to work. Hopefully, Im not exposing my coworkers and patients.

In reality, I probably am.

This health care worker is beyond exhausted. I feel I am being forced to abandon my sick and scared child and that I am being forced to put others at risk as I am likely a carrier of COVID-19.

In the meantime, PeaceHealth is paying traveling RNs quadruple what I make.

This experience has been demoralizing, to say the least. I believe health care workers and families deserve better than this.

Misty Villalobos, Eugene

Letters should be 200 words or fewer and sent with the writers name, address, and daytime phone number via e-mail to rgletters@registerguard.com. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and maybe published in any medium. We regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.

See original here:
Letters to the editor for Sunday, Jan 9: Learn to live with COVID-19 - The Register-Guard