Category Archives: First Amendment

Last November, former President Donald Trump won Walton County, Florida, by a margin of more than 3-1.

Yet that doesnt mean officials in the Panhandle community are amused by the antics of some Trump supporters.

County officials have slapped Marv and Paige Peavy with a code violation for hanging massive pro-Trump banners from their palatial home.

An administrative magistrate upheld the decision last week and ordered the Peavys to pay $1,269 in fines, according to the Northwest Florida Daily News.

But now other Trumpsters are rallying to their defense, and the case seems headed for a courtroom.

The controversy began in January, the Daily News reported.

The Peavys live in a four-story, 6,770-square foot home that fronts County Road 30A. Back in January they hung a Trump 2020 banner from their top-floor balcony.

A code officer made an issue of it, saying it violated the county sign ordinance.

The Peavys took it down after President Joe Biden was inaugurated. But in March, Marv Peavy replaced it with one that declared Trump Won, which, according to the Daily News, Trump supporters saw as a symbol of hope.

Code officials returned in June and told Peavy to remove that one.

The Peavys not only defied that directive, they eventually added one that proclaimed, Lets go Brandon.

The case went before the magistrate last month. He sided with the county, saying it violated regulations for scenic roads, and ordered a fine of $50 a day for each day the banners hung in violation of the local law.

The Peavys were not persuaded.

Fifty dollars a day aint a damn thing to me, Peavy said in October. Im not going to take it down.

As the fines accrued, the case now appears headed for circuit court, as the Peavys announced an appeal.

The Peavys lawyer said the ordinance was unconstitutional, and that his clients are now making a First Amendment case.

The support here, really from all over the country, has been just unreal, Paige Peavy told the Daily News. Its freedom of speech, thats what were fighting for.

Check outTampafp.com for Politics, Tampa Local News, Sports, and National Headlines. Support journalism byclicking here to our GoFundMeor sign up for ourfree newsletter by clicking here.Android Users,Click Here To Download The Free Press AppAnd Never Miss A Story. Its Free And Coming To Apple Users Soon.

Read more here:
Florida Couple Assert First Amendment Right To Trumpet That Trump Won And Let's Go Brandon - The Free Press

Jason Kessler, the organizer of the Unite the Right rally, is interviewed by reporters while police escort him into the Vienna metro station before they gather for a second Unite the Right Rally on the anniversary of last year's deadly Charlottesville demonstration on August 12, 2018 in Washington, D.C.

Calla Kessler | The Washington Post | Getty Images

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. Nine people injured during the2017 "Unite the Right" rally in downtown Charlottesvilleare entitled to financial compensation, a jury declared Tuesday in reaching a partial verdict. But it could not agree on the most serious claims that the defendants about two dozen white supremacists, neo-Nazis and key organizers engaged in a conspiracy to commit violence under federal law.

The jury of 11 deliberated for over three days following four weeks of testimony in thecivil trial in a federal courtin Charlottesville. The plaintiffs, all from Charlottesville, described broken bones, bloodshed and emotional trauma resulting from the mayhem. The defendants, some self-described racists and white nationalists, argued they were exercising their First Amendment rights in organizing and participating in the rally.

The case, known as Sines v. Kessler, was the first major lawsuit in years to be tried under the so-calledKu Klux Klan Act, a rarely used federal law codified after the Civil War. It was installed to diminish the power of white supremacists and protect African Americans, prohibiting discrimination for voting and other rights.

In making its decision, the jury had to find that the defendants, which include Jason Kessler, the lead organizer of the rally,andRichard Spencer, a white nationalist who coined the term "alt-right,"entered into a conspiracy to commit violence. But the jury was deadlocked in the first two counts: a federal conspiracy to interfere with civil rightsand action for neglect to prevent.

The jury also agreed to a range of punitive damages on the other counts, including assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress,awarding more than $25 million for the plaintiffs.

White nationalist Richard Spencer, who popularized the term "alt-right" speaks at the Curtis M. Phillips Center for the Performing Arts on October 19, 2017 in Gainesville, Florida.

Joe Raedle | Getty Images

Among the evidence were text messages, social media posts and conversations on Discord, an online chat platform, in which organizers discussed and meticulously planned the two-day event, which turned deadly whenJames Alex Fields Jr., an Ohio man who revered Hitler, rammed his car into a crowd,killing Heather Heyer, a civil rights activist. Dozens were also injured in the car attack, including four of the plaintiffs.

Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, had asked jurors to consider awarding millions of dollars in punitive damages: from $7 million to $10 million for those physically harmed and $3 million to $5 million for emotional pain.

This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

Read the original here:
Jury in Charlottesville 'Unite the Right' trial reaches partial verdict - CNBC

An FBI raid on Project Veritas leader James OKeefes home in early November 2021 has sparked an unusual demonstration of support from the very establishment media that OKeefe has spent his career targeting and trashing.

The raid was conducted on the suspicion that OKeefe and former Project Veritas staffers were implicated in the theft of President Joe Bidens daughter Ashleys diary before the 2020 election. The Department of Justice said the cellphones sought in the raid would reveal evidence of aiding and abetting the transport of stolen property worth $5,000 or more across state lines, and of failure to report the theft to law enforcement in violation of federal law.

Project Veritas says that the phones contain attorney-client privileged information and newsgathering materials protected by the First Amendment.

OKeefe is the self-described progressive radical and founder and CEO of Project Veritas. His organization has a long history of conducting undercover sting operations, frequently targeting progressive nonprofits, politicians and the news media with the stated aim of disclosing bias, hypocrisy and illegal activity.

Many journalists repudiate Project Veritas and its methods, contending that the organization is ideologically driven and routinely violates established norms of media ethics.

As a professor of media ethics and law, Ive been grappling with how to think about Project Veritas and its escapades for years. Like many media lawyers, I wish it would just go away.

Nevertheless, media organizations and their supporters, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, of which I served as executive director from 1985 to 1999, rallied to protest the searches and seizures as a possible violation of the First Amendment right of a news organization to gather information. They demanded answers about why Project Veritas was targeted in the investigation. And they made clear that they were concerned about more than just Project Veritas, whose methods they have often decried.

Project Veritas bills itself a nonprofit journalism enterprise, and its website touts its many efforts to achieve a more ethical and transparent society.

But its work doesnt look much like traditional journalism. One of its more notorious undertakings involved making secret recordings at various offices of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in 2009, purporting to show ACORN staffers advising OKeefe and his associate how to evade taxes and engage in human trafficking.

Although a subsequent investigation by the California Attorney General concluded that the videos had been severely edited, their release prompted Congress to freeze federal funding to ACORN. ACORN was eventually exonerated by the Government Accountability Office, but Project Veritas continues to brag about its takedown of the organization as one of its successes.

Project Veritas also revels in exposs of what it calls political bias in the mainstream media, including CNN, ABC, National Public Radio and The Washington Post. Recently, it sued The New York Times in state court in Westchester County, New York, claiming that the newspaper defamed it by calling its videos alleging voter fraud in Minneapolis misinformation. It has now used that case as the means to obtain a court order to compel the Times to curtail its reporting about the investigation, which Project Veritas claims came from government leaks an extraordinary request for prior restraint unprecedented since the Supreme Courts Pentagon Papers case in 1971, and hardly consistent with support of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment provides some protection for newsgathering, although it does not permit the news media to violate laws that apply to everyone. Because the government does not issue licenses to journalists, anyone who gathers and disseminates information to the public can claim to be the press. Thats why the FBI raid concerns members of the news media. They fear they could be next.

For their part, the attorneys representing Project Veritas say that two anonymous individuals, who claimed they had legally acquired the diary after Ashley Biden abandoned it at a house in Florida, offered to sell it to Project Veritas for possible publication. After the lawyers for both parties negotiated an arms length agreement, Project Veritas took delivery of the diary.

Project Veritas claims that it couldnt authenticate the diary to its satisfaction and after trying unsuccessfully to return it to Bidens lawyer, sent it back to local law enforcement officials.

If this version of events is true, U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in a 2001 press-related case, Bartnicki v. Vopper, should apply. There, the high court ruled that a media organization can disclose important information illegally obtained by a third party, as long as the organization itself was not involved.

A strangers illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote.

If Project Veritas was not involved in the theft of the diary, it could also be covered by the Privacy Protection Act of 1980, which bars both federal and state law enforcement from seizing journalists work product and documentary materials except in very limited circumstances.

In fact, the Justice Department has been prohibited from even subpoenaing journalists by Attorney General guidelines that date back to 1974 although investigations into leaks of classified information led to notable exceptions to this rule during the Obama and Trump administrations.

Earlier this year, Biden said it was simply, simply wrong to compel journalists to reveal their sources, and Attorney General Merrick Garland promised in July to beef up the guidelines and make them law to ensure that future administrations would also be bound by them, though he has yet to do so.

Project Veritas says it is covered by the Privacy Protection Act, which protects those engaged in public communication, as well as the guidelines.

But in defending the FBI raid on OKeefes home, the government contends that it has followed all applicable regulations and policies regarding what it calls potential members of the news media suggesting that they think Project Veritas isnt one.

Until the underlying affidavits supporting the warrants are unsealed, we wont know whether the U.S. Attorney thinks that Project Veritas committed a crime, or that it isnt a news organization. Either possibility has serious ramifications for all media.

If Project Veritas is found guilty of a crime, any journalist who transports leaked or stolen information across state lines could be charged with violation of the law. Its unclear what that means today when so many documents are transmitted electronically.

Or, if the government narrowly defines the press based on its political outlook or ethics, then no news organization is safe from attacks by future administrations.

Either way, the mainstream media are holding their collective noses and supporting Project Veritas in its fight. Its a matter of principle, but also of self-preservation.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read more:
Project Veritas and the mainstream media: Strange allies in fight for press freedom | Commentary - Minnesota Reformer

ByAndrew Hamm on Nov 19, 2021 at 4:10 pm

This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, whether Puerto Rican news agencies have a First Amendment right to audio of proceedings in a case of domestic violence that sparked protests and whether a New Jersey levy violates the commerce clause.

Asociacin de Periodistas de Puerto Rico v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico follows the murder of Andrea Cristina Ruiz Costas by her ex-boyfriend, which led to protests in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Shortly before her death, Ruiz Costas had sought a restraining order and criminal charges against the ex-boyfriend, but the court did not grant her any relief after three separate hearings. After news organizations sought the audio recordings of those proceedings, Puerto Rican courts denied any access on the ground that, because judges have discretion over access to courtrooms hearing domestic violence matters to protect confidentiality, the recordings of the proceedings should remain sealed. In its petition, the Asociacin de Periodistas de Puerto Rico argues that the courts erred in not considering the First Amendment before denying access to the proceedings and that their interpretation violates the First Amendment.

New Jersey imposes a levy on any partnership that derives income from New Jersey, at the flat rate of $150 per partner up to $250,000, regardless of whether the partner is in New Jersey. Ferrellgas Partners, LP is a master limited partnership, which has allowed Ferrellgas to raise capital by selling partnership units that are similar to stock and are traded on the New York Stock Exchange. In its petition, Ferrellgas maintains that from 2009 to 2011, about one percent of its sales were in New Jersey, yet, because it has tens of thousands of partners, New Jersey assessed levies of $250,000 each year, even eclipsing Ferrellgass New Jersey income. Ferrellgas argues that the levy violates the commerce clause because it exceeds the proportion of commerce that takes place in New Jersey. New Jersey courts upheld the levy, however, under an exception on the basis that the levy is a regulatory fee that is locally focused. The case is Ferrellgas Partners, LP v. Director, Division of Taxation of New Jersey.

These and otherpetitions of the weekare below:

Devine v. Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Limited21-622Issue: Whether the voluntary dismissal of a plaintiffs suit underFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)permanently strips the district court of jurisdiction to consider a motion to modify a previously issued protective order.

Lee v. Garlick21-637Issues: (1) Whether, in granting habeas corpus relief to a state court prisoner, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit created a circuit split and denied the state court judgment the deference mandated by28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1)when it relied on a test that was not clearly established by the Supreme Courts precedents to determine that an autopsy report was testimonial under the confrontation clause; (2) whether the 2nd Circuit violatedYarborough v. Alvaradoby applying an overly specific unreasonable application analysis; and (3) whether the 2nd Circuit violated the harmless error standard inBrecht v. Abrahamsonin ruling that the admission of the autopsy report was not harmless despite (a) uncertainty as to whether the report was admissible to form the basis of an in-court expert opinion, and (b) overwhelming evidence of guilt including surveillance video of James Garlick stabbing the victim to death.

Ferrellgas Partners, LP v. Director, Division of Taxation of New Jersey21-641Issue: Whether a levy that raises revenue for a states general fund, and that is not restricted to the in-state activities of the levy-payor, may be characterized as a locally focused regulatory fee, and thus be imposed without regard to whether it is internally consistent.

Duncan v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company21-652Issue: Whether a person suffers Article III injury-in-fact when an insurer breaches its contractual obligation to pay for the persons medical care.

Butler v. Porter21-655Issue: Whether remedies underBivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcoticsare categorically unavailable to federal prisoners in any context other than for violations of a federal prisoners Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care.

Asociacin de Periodistas de Puerto Rico v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico21-659Issues: (1) Whether courts may summarily close judicial proceedings and deny access to the official recordings of those proceedings without determining whether the First Amendment public access right attaches to them; and (2) whether Article 5.005 of Puerto Ricos Judiciary Act of 2003, as construed by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court to require automatic closure of all domestic violence proceedings and the official recordings of those proceedings, violates the First Amendment public access right underGlobe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court.

Read the rest here:
The First Amendment and the commerce clause - SCOTUSblog

A new Oregon law that bans so-called love letters, personal notes from prospective homebuyers to home sellers, has drawn a lawsuit seeking to invalidate it on First Amendment grounds before it takes effect in 2022.

The lawsuit filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Portland by the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation says the Oregon Legislature had no justification for making the state the first in the nation to prohibit buyers from sending letters to sellers to try to sweeten their offers on houses for sale.

Those letters, often written to appeal to a buyer to accept a potentially less-competitive offer, were outlawed by lawmakers seeking to ensure that sellers cant make decisions based on race, national origin, marital or family status, sex, sexual orientation or other protected class.

Gov. Kate Brown signed House Bill 2550, sponsored by state Rep. Mark Meek, D-Clackamas, in June. It had unanimously passed the House of Representatives and passed the state senate on a mostly party-line vote.

The complaint, filed on behalf of Total Real Estate Group, a Bend firm of 20 agents, says lawmakers provided no proof that such discrimination was taking place and that state and federal laws already prohibit housing discrimination. The lawsuit was first reported by USA Today.

Its a particularly egregious violation of the First Amendment, said Daniel Ortner, a Pacific Legal Foundation attorney. These letters are extremely valuable and they do a lot of good. Theres nothing more than speculation that someone somewhere would do something to discriminate based on them.

Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and Oregon Real Estate Commissioner Steve Strode, both named in the suit, did not respond to requests for comment.

The ban is due to go into effect Jan. 1.

Rob Davis

rdavis@oregonian.com

503.294.7657; @robwdavis

Read more:
Lawsuit seeks to overturn Oregons first-in-nation ban on home buying love letters - oregonlive.com

Sen. Kyrsten SinemaKyrsten SinemaDemocrats plow ahead as Manchin yo-yos Biden's pick for Arizona's US Attorney confirmed by Senate Three female senators call NYT coverage of Sinema's clothes 'sexist' MORE (D-Ariz.)in a rare interview appeared to address the frustrations that grew among Democratstoward her during negotiations for theparty's social spending package, whichthe HousepassedFriday.

Speaking to ABC15 Arizona's politics reporterMark Phillips, Sinema maintained a triumphant tone and expressed pride in the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill she helped to put together. The Arizona senator also said she was now focused on managing the implementation of the bill.

Phillips noted thatSinema suffered some damage to her reputation over the course of the infrastructure bill's passage. Manycongressional Democrats, especially progressive lawmakers, expressed frustrationover Sinema's lack of communication regarding her approach to the massive pieces of legislation.

"You know, when I first was elected to head to Washington, D.C., and represent Arizona about nine years ago, I promised to be a workhorse, not a show horse. That's exactly what I've done over these last nine years," Sinema said, saying she worked to build trust with others in Congress.

Phillips also pointed out that there was particulardiscontentamong young Arizona progressives with Sinema's actions in Congress and asked how she would respond to them.

"Well, first, I want to say that I appreciate the First Amendment," Sinema said. "So I appreciate when folks are willing to tell me they agree with me or disagree with me. If they want to protest, if they want to offer things, all of that as welcome."

"So I guess my message to folks would be keep telling me what you think. I appreciate it. And I'm going to keep doing the work and delivering results for Arizonans," she said.

Sinema told Phillips that she doesn't pay "any attention" to national media and does not "bend to political pressure from any party or any group."

The House passed the Build Back Better Act on Friday, and Phillips asked Sinema whether she felt Democrats had moved too quickly in passing it.

"I'm not really concerned about what theHouse is doing because luckily my job now is to serve Arizonain the United States Senate," she said.

Senators are expected to pick up the bill after returning from the Thanksgiving recess.

Read more from the original source:
Sinema: 'Keep telling me what you think. I appreciate it' | TheHill - The Hill

Law professor Alan Dershowitz told Fox News host Sean Hannity he hopes Kyle Rittenhouse sues CNN following his acquittal on Friday. Dershowitz said he would assist by sharing his "research about CNN with Rittenhouse and his lawyers."

"Critics and people who support the conviction just heard a different case," Dershowitz said. "They heard a case of a white supremacist crossing state lines with an AR-15 who had no business being in the place that he went to. Who went for no good reason, who was not chased and had no fear for his life."

"That's what CNN told their viewers," Dershowitz said. "I hope that Rittenhouse sues CNN. I want to make an offer. I will share my research about CNN with Rittenhouse and his lawyers. As you know, I am suing CNN because they totally distorted and edited a tape of my defense of President Trump. They have a policy, a history of distorting facts in order to present a narrative."

"I think that you have to distinguish between opinions and facts," he said. "You can't sue somebody for calling Rittenhouse a vigilante. That's an opinion. But you can sue them for saying he crossed state lines with an illegal weapon or that he was a white supremacist. And I do think, although I am a strong supporter of the first amendment, that CNN and others have to be held accountable for abusing the First Amendment and lying about individuals, and creating an expectation of a conviction in a case where there was no realistic possibility of a conviction for anybody who actually saw the trial live on television."

Read the original:
Dershowitz: "I Hope Rittenhouse Sues CNN," "Have To Be Held Accountable For Abusing First Amendment And Lying" - RealClearPolitics

Public employees in Washington state, and the rest of the nation, are no longer required to pay dues to a union just to keep their jobs. That wasnt always the case, but thanks to a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that stood up for workers rights, compulsory unionism in public employment is a thing of the past.

In an era in which people are losing their livelihoods because of government mandates, its encouraging to remember the court stood up for workers in this way.

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. AFSCME that non-union government workers do not have to pay union fees as a condition of employment. It was a major victory for First Amendment rights that many public workers have since exercised, benefitting more than 5 million public school teachers, first responders and other government workers across the country.

The Freedom Foundation, a leader in gaining this legal victory for workers, reports that the week of Nov.10 represented a milestone. The Foundationassisted its 100,000th public employee in opting out of forced union membership. Of those, a large portion 27,120 lives in in Washington state. (Read Freedom Foundations press release about hitting thatmark here, and see an interactive map and Washington states stat here.)

Washington Policy Center has an ongoing public information campaign leading public workers to optoutoday.com, an essential Freedom Foundation tool created to assist workers who want to keep more of their paychecks and who dont want to pay for various union political agendas.

This milestone is a big one for Washington workers. As the Supreme Court staff summarized the Janus decision: The First Amendment is violated when money is taken from nonconsenting employees for a public-sector union; employees must choose to support the union before anything is taken from them. Accordingly, neither an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay.

Follow this link:
Thousands of Washington employees no longer forced to pay unions to keep their jobs - Washington Policy

During the civil unrest in America last year following the murder of George Floyd, the city of Madison, Wisconsin was rocked by seemingly endless weeks of community protests occurring on a daily basis.

In the wake of protests that led to an unprecedented scale of violence and property destruction in the Madison community, the Madison Police Department (MPD) agreed to participate in a Sentinel Event Review (SER) one of the latest tools in the justice arsenal to look at questionable incidents through a qualitative and quantitative lens.

Sentinel Event Reviews bring together participants and stakeholders in incidents involving allegations of misconduct, excessive use of force by police, wrongful convictions or other cases involving the justice system. An SER was conducted last year on the deaths of two men in the custody of Tucson police.

Engaged with the Quattrone Center for the Fair Administration of Justice at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School to facilitate the SER after being the recipient of a collaboration grant, the MPD provided researchers with more than 1,600 pages of documents related to the protests, as well as more than 625 hours of CCTV video, more than 30 hours of radio recordings, and offered the researchers the ability to interview all MPD officers.

A final SER report released by the Quattrone Center Wednesday identified 133 factors that contributed to the violence, and made 69 concrete recommendations for change, the full report outlines.

Last summer, the MPD, like many police departments across the country, faced the challenge of how to support First Amendment rights to protest while ensuring the safety of communities during the mass demonstrations that erupted across America in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, said John Hollway, Associate Dean, Lecturer in Law, and Executive Director of the Quattrone Center, who specializes in conducting SERs in criminal justice.

The escalation of violence that occurred formed the impetus for MPD to request a Sentinel Event Review.

As a prelude to the protests, the researchers uncovered that prior to Floyds death, and even though it played no role in his killing, Madison police had a troubled relationship with the citys Black community. The existing distrust of the police was a catalyst to much of the unrest in further incidents.

Another contributing factor to the violence identified was a lack of communication and understanding of the sheer amount of people attending the Madison protests. While the MPD officers were stationed in downtown Madison to monitor the protests, the number of people noted to be attending from Facebook figures was only a fraction of the amount who actually showed up, the report outlines.

Some 3,000 people on Facebook indicated that they would attend a protest and another 5,500 said they were interested in attending, but the total number of MPD officers at the protest was just 42.

This resulted in the police department flying blind not being able to accurately predict crowd size, intended routes, or anticipated activities.

Another factor was the COVID-19 global pandemic: people who may not have been able to protest previously due to work or other commitments were now available and at home due to the closed workplaces or unemployment. Because of this, crowd sizes grew exponentially.

Lastly, an additional contributing factor to violence cited in the report is the lack of tactics and procedures available to the MPD, which resulted in reactive behavior like deploying CS gas or other methods of group disbursement like OC spray rather than proactive crowd control behaviors.

The Quattrone SER process was extremely valuable in bringing members of the departmenttogether with members of the community to talk about difficult and challenging topics, said MPD Chief Shon Barnes.

These conversations were instrumental in helping MPD identify areas for improvement.

Of those areas of improvement outlined, many fall into the categories of communication, training and equipment.

In terms of communication, the SER report says that MPD must communicate more effectively with civilians before, during, and after protest events. Stakeholders suggested that MPD look to newer community organizations designed to promote MPD transparency and accountability, such as the Civilian Oversight Board, to assist with this work, while also engaging with the community directly to prioritize public safety.

An increased need for training was apparent following the review, noting that crowd control training and incident command training was insufficient for the level of protesting and violence seen in the weeks and months of unrest.

Because of this, the Stakeholder Group recommended that every officer at and over the rank of Sergeant should receive Incident Command training to lead officers in communication skills, logistic skills, and negotiation skills, according to the full report.

When looking at the equipment used by police during the unrest in Madison, many were appalled to see copious amounts of CS gas or other methods of group disbursement like OC spray. This, the review said, is not a safe way to de-escalate a situation.

For the future, the review suggests minimizing the use of chemical munitions and react more effectively to the individuals who are causing the damage, while reducing the outrage of protesters who understand the rationale for MPDs use of force.

Other noteworthy recommendations include:

The report concludes, saying, The recommendations generated in that atmosphere represent small changes that the Stakeholder Group feels can have great impact on the community, increasing the mutual understanding between the diverse views held throughout Madison and a Police Department committed to facilitating the expression of those views in ways that ensure the safety of all.

Additional Reading: TUCSON: Report of the Tucson Sentinel Event Review Board (SERB) on the Deaths in Custody of Mr. Damien Alvarado and Mr. Carlos Adrian Ingram-Lopez, Sept. 18, 2020

The full report can be accessed here.

Read the rest here:
'First Amendment Right vs. Safety': One City's Analysis of Police Response to George Floyd Protests - Crime Report

By Dr. John E. Warren, Publisher, The San Diego Voice & Viewpoint

From time to time, it becomes necessary to remind some of us of what the freedom of speech provision of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution actually says while addressing the issue of hate speech and the idea of religious freedom.

The First Amendment to the Constitution actually says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, abridging the freedom of speech. Or of the press, or the right of the people, peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion. This means that there shall be no state religion in this country. Hence, all the religions of the world are found in the United States of America. It also means that you are freed to have no religion. It does not mean you have a right to prohibit the faith or practices of another persons religion. The phrase or prohibiting the free exercise thereof means Muslim, Hindu, or any other religion has a right to be practiced in this country without inference from those of a different faith.

Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech. This means Congress can not make laws limiting or stopping ones freedom of speech. It does not mean that this freedom is without limits. It has long been held that the freedom of speech clause does not carry with it the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre where such a shout could cause death or harm. We may have the right to say what we want to or about another person, but that right carries with it consequences, including libel, defamation, and damages for pain and suffering based on the harm caused either physically or emotionally. Hate speech falls within this category because such speech can cause pain, suffering, and, in some cases, even death.

So while Congress can make no laws abridging or limiting ones speech, it has been established that the freedom of speech is not without limits, which includes harm to others. Clearly, there are limits on the freedom of the press.

This means that freedom of speech does not include the right to use offensive language clearly aimed at ones ethnicity or gender and is, therefore, deemed hate speech.

So it was hate speech when members of the public speaking, before the County Board of Supervisors, called the African American Public Health Officer a name associated with a racial stereotype. It was not an act of hate speech when a member of the Countys Human Relations Commission abstained from a vote that he disagreed with on the basis of his religious belief as a Pastor. When pressed for a reason for his abstention, he said that it was based upon scripture, which, he quoted, called the conduct in question an abomination. This was not hate speech but an exercise of his right to a religious belief covered by the First Amendment.

All of us have a duty to understand these First Amendment freedoms and how to apply them without harm and offense, which was the intent from the very beginning language by our Founders. Hopefully, this will help some of us at a very important time with our fragile democracy.

More here:
The First Amendment, Hate Speech, and Religion - San Diego Voice and Viewpoint