Category Archives: First Amendment

A person walks up the ice covered step of the Kentucky State Capitol on Friday, Jan. 29, 2021, in Frankfort, Kentucky. Photo by Michael Clubb | Staff.

The University of Kentucky College of Communication and Information hosted the annual State of the First Amendment Address on Wednesday, Nov. 17, featuring an address reinforcing journalists rights to report without restrictions from the government.

The address focused on the Kentucky Kernels win in May 2021 against the University of Kentucky in the Kentucky Supreme Court. After UK failed to comply with an open records request from the Kernel regarding a sexual assault accusation against a professor, a legal battle ensued.

After a four-year legal battle, the Kernel won the case. The court said that the university failed to comply with its obligation under the Kentucky Open Records Act (ORA).

Elizabeth Woodward and Tom Miller, the attorneys who defended the Kernel, gave the address.

They spoke on the case itself and the rights of journalists, touching on the difference between a journalists rights under the First Amendment and their rights to open records. Woodward explained that cases such as the one between the Kernel and the University of Kentucky can result in changes of the ORA. For instance, in summer 2021, the number of days public agencies have to handle requests increased from three to five days, and the law changed to grant only Kentucky residents the ability to request open records.

The Supreme Court held that the university had treated the investigative file as if it were one giant record unable to be separated, Woodward said on the case.

The attorneys also said that access to information from public agents is in the public interest, making open records cases important to the future of journalism.

The most rewarding type of work we do is working with journalists, who are the defenders of democracy, Miller said.

He went on to explain other cases that he had worked on involving other journalism institutions like the Louisville Courier-Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader.

The event also recognized two of the most recent recipients of the James Madison award, an honor given to individuals who championed the publics right to access information at the national level.

The recipients, Benny Ivory and Stan MacDonald, spoke on their experiences as journalists and their time defending the First Amendment.

The First Amendment was under attack during the good old days, and it is today, MacDonald said. The First Amendment is sacred, and it should be protected with everything we have, because without it democracy dies.

The Kernel was the recipient of the James Madison award last year in recognition of its fight for rights under the First Amendment and the ORA.

Students, faculty and staff were given a chance to ask the attorneys questions about journalists rights and the case at the end of the celebration, including what steps citizens can take to prevent further weakening of the ORA. Miller said that the most important thing people can do is vote.

Remind [elected officials] how much you care about government transparency, he said.

Go here to see the original:
UK College of Communication and Information hosts 2021 State of the First Amendment Address - Kykernel.com

MONROVIA The Plenary of the Liberian Senate has ratified The First Amendment to the Extended and Restated Agency Agreement between the Republic of Liberia And the International Ship and Corporate Registry (LISCR, LLC).

The Senates decision comes a day after a public hearing was held by the Maritime and Judiciary Committees. Senators, including Darius Dillon of Montserrado County, Morris Saytumah Bomi County, Jonathan Kaipay Grand Bassa County, and Jonathan Boycharles Sogbie of River-Gee County amongst others voted for the ratification of the deal.

The Senates ratification was triggered by a report from the Committee on Maritime submitted to Plenary on Thursday, November 18, 2021, recommending members of the Upper Houses endorsement to have the instrument ratified.

The objective of the ratification seeks to increase the share of revenue of the Liberia Maritime Authority from 25 percent to 30 percent, which according to the Commissioner-General of the Liberia Maritime Authority, will inter alia, facilitate the return of Liberia to the Council of the Internal Maritime Organization.

The Committee in its report indicated that the Liberian Registry has contributed immensely to the economy as a source of employment and has served as significant factor to the National Budget.

Additionally, the Committee noted in its report that amendment will provide for structural adjustment in program operations to allow for an increase in net revenue transmitted annually to the consolidated fund account of the government of Liberia.

President George Weah on October 28, 2021, requested the Liberian Senate to consider ratifying the First Amendment to the Extended and Restated Agency Agreement between the Republic of Liberia and the Liberia International Ship and Corporate Registry.

Based on the Presidents request, the Senate Committee on Maritime on Wednesday October 17, 2021, conducted a public hearing and the Commissioner of Liberia Maritime Authority, Commissioner Leen Eugene Nagbe presented the case of his institution to members of the Senate on Maritime and informed them that Liberia has the second highest registry in the World, but its regrettable that the Country is not on the Maritime Council.

Meanwhile, Commissioner Nagbe said that in 2019, Liberia lost her chances on the Council, but assured the Committee that the proposed ratification will regain the countrys status on the Council.

He noted that presently, Liberia is receiving 25% fees from the shipping industry. However, the Liberia Maritime Authority has negotiated 30%, from its partner, which will create more opportunities for many Liberians to be represented on many ships that are flying the Liberian flag.

See more here:
Liberia: Senate Ratifies The First Amendment to the Extended and Restated Agency Agreement between the Republic of Liberia And LISCR - Front Page...

A bill aimed at curtailing violent protesters is poisedfor a return engagementat the Gold Dome early next year when lawmakers convene for their 2022 legislative session.

In a committee hearing Tuesday, Democrats and civil rights groups said the measure could chill free speech.

Thebills author, Republican Sen. Randy Robertson of Cataula, said the measure will protect the right to peaceful protest and punish only those who break the law by engaging in violence, destroying property or blocking roads.

When this legislation was first brought forward last year, and as the author of this legislation, I take full responsibility for that, there was some miscommunication as to what the intent of the legislation was, Robertson said. And what the intent of this legislation is is fairly simple. It is to protect peaceful and lawful assembly. What it is to push back against is unlawful assembly, violent assembly and situations where citizens who may want to come out and exercise their rights are not intimidated or pushed back or infiltrated by individuals who are there to disrupt their right to peacefully assemble.

Under the proposed law, protesters who break the law would face increased penalties. Participating in a protest with seven or more people and committing violence against a person or property or blocking a highway during a protest could both land Georgians with a felony charge and a fine of between $1,000 and $5,000 or up to five years imprisonment. Defiling a publicly owned monument, cemetery or structure comes with even steeper punishments a fine of up to $15,000 or up to 15 years behind bars.

It would also require cities and counties to establish a process for granting permits for all protests on public property, regardless of size, and governments that fail to provide reasonable law enforcement protections for protests that become violent could be made to pay damages for injuries or property damage.

Robertson gave the example of last summers violent racial justice protests and the Jan. 6 U.S.Capitol riotas the type of events the bill is intended to target. The Georgia Capitol has added increased security measures including a perimeter fence after protests over police brutalityrocked Atlantalast year.

The bill also offers a legal shield for those who cause injury or death while fleeing such a protest if they do so under the reasonable belief that fleeing was necessary to prevent or terminate an attack upon the accuseds property or person.

Sen. Elena Parent, an Atlanta Democrat, questioned whether that last part would allow motorists to simply run protesters over.

It seems like its like a license or escape hatch for individuals who would kind of run people over with their cars, she said. It just seems to really kind of almost, if not encourage, give license to that type of behavior.

Robertson said his intent was to provide that defense only in desperate situations.

I would attribute it to almost the castle doctrine, where an individual is securely in their vehicle and theres a threat by someone, to impede their free movement to the point where that individual felt unduly threatened and prevented from leaving, someone may be trapped in their vehicle in these situations.

Robertson gave the example of Los Angeles truck driver Reginald Denny, who was pulled from his truck and severely beaten by four men in the riots that followed the acquittals in the Rodney King trial in 1992.

Vasu Abhiraman, deputy political director and senior policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the law already protects people who cause injury in self-defense and outlined several other problems the ACLU has with the legislation.

Among them, Abhiraman said the bill would provide local officials an incentive to crack down on peaceful protests rather than risk them getting out of hand and risk liability.

The incentives go further than, for example, avoiding gross negligence, he said. They go towards avoiding any lawsuit established for that cause of action, and as municipalities have certain budgets for defending themselves against a suit like this, as they establish their standard operating procedure, were very concerned that that standard operating procedure will be anti-First Amendment, anti-peaceful assembly.

As the Senators discussed the measure, deliberations were underway in thetrial of Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot three men, killing two of them, during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse argued he fired in self defense.

If this bill becomes law, more people could be inspired to take justice into their own hands, potentially escalating dangerous situations, Abhiraman said.

Unfortunately, theres a case going on now involving somebody who thought they were volunteering to protect businesses, and it ended really, really poorly, and we can all see that, he said. Do we want to invite more actions like that into our communities in Georgia, the cradle of the Civil Rights Movement?

Robertsons bill did not receive a vote and will not advance during the current special session, but the Legislature is likely to revive it when they return in January.

Go here to see the original:
Lawmaker to revive protester bill critics say could infringe on 1st Amendment rights - Now Habersham

Dear Editor,

I am responding to Rolland Myers letter to theeditor dated November 3rd. Mr. Myers contends that it is unlawful todisplay a flag that contains words that he finds offensive. He stateshis only interest is for our community not to be bombarded with vulgarlanguage, but privately you can curse like a sailor.

Unfortunately,in our society some curse words are used too often. Even if the areabbreviated the meaning is still understood. If you use Rolland Myersinterpretation of what he thinks is some court mandate as a guide tofree speech. I contend that Mr. Myers letter to the editor was equallyoffensive as the flag he complaints about. I counted twelveabbreviations to the word that offends him. Isnt the abbreviationsequally understood by the community and isnt the newspaper a publicforum? So, by Rolland Myers own standard he has broken the law bywriting a letter containing curse words, or is it okay to useabbreviated curse words?

Would the flag be tolerated if the curseword wasnt entirely spelled out? Is Mr. Myers and the newspaper bothguilty of contributing to the decline of our community through theprinting of such vulgar language.

If you think the sing should betaken down then you must also find equal fault with Rollands use ofthee the same words and the newspaper for printing Rollands letter. Ipersonally dont believe the words on the flag are the issue, especiallysince the same words (even though they are abbreviated) flow so easilyand profusely from Rollands finger tips.

So, what is the realissue about the flag? Maybe its the color, maybe the flag is just areason to write a letter and try to degrade someone with a differentpolitical point of view. Tucked away in all of Rolland Myers curse wordabbreviations is this phrase: this petty display of Trumptemperament.

The agenda of radical liberals is always the same,degrade everyone who doesnt agree with them and to use any method toaccomplish that goal.

Rolland (stop embarrassing yourself) if yourfree speech right can contain abbreviations of vulgar language - yourneighbors have the same right to their free speech. You seem to believeyour right is protected, but your neighbors isnt (typical liberal).

Keith Myers

Oakwood, Ohio

419-594-2485

Read more here:
A rebuttal to the argument on the First Amendment - The Paulding County Progress

Michael Flynn, Donald Trumps first national security adviser, was widely condemned after calling for the establishment of one religion in the US.

Religious freedom is enshrined in the first amendment to the US constitution, which says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Regardless, at a rally staged in San Antonio on Saturday by the Christian nonprofit news media network American Faith, Flynn said: If we are going to have one nation under God, which we must, we have to have one religion. One nation under God and one religion under God.

In response, the Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar, one of the first Muslim women elected to Congress, said: These people hate the US constitution.

Mark Hertling, a retired general and media commentator, called Flynn, himself a retired general, an embarrassment to the US army.

His words are disgusting, Hertling said.

On Sunday, the veteran reporter Carl Bernstein told CNN that Flynn, as one of the knaves and fools and dangerous authoritarian figures with whom Trump surrounded himself in and out of office, was saying out loud things that have never been said by an aide or close associates to the president of the United States.

Bernstein added: It should be no surprise to know that Michael Flynn is saying the kind of things that he is saying, but whats most significant here is that much of the Republican party something like 35% in in exit polls said they favour Trump because Christianity is being taken away from them.

So Michael Flynn is not that far away from huge numbers of people in this country.

Flynn is no stranger to controversy. Fired from a senior intelligence role by Barack Obama, he became a close aide to Trump before resigning as national security adviser after less than a month in the role, for lying to the FBI about contacts with Russians.

Flynn pleaded guilty to one criminal charge under Robert Muellers investigation of Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow, a plea he sought to withdraw before receiving a pardon from Trump.

He has since emerged as an influential figure on the far right, linked to the QAnon conspiracy theory and appearing to advocate armed insurrection.

In San Antonio, Flynn called the indictment of another Trump ally, Steve Bannon, over the investigation of the Capitol attack, an abuse of freedom of speech another first amendment freedom.

The Capitol was attacked on 6 January by Trump supporters seeking to overturn his election defeat. Flynn is himself the subject of a subpoena from the investigating House committee. On Friday, he told Fox News he had nothing to hide.

In Texas, Flynn called the House investigation a crucifixion of our first amendment freedom to speak, freedom to peacefully assemble.

His remarks about religion attracted support from a prominent contender in a vicious party fight for a Republican Senate nomination in Ohio.

Josh Mandel, a former Ohio state treasurer, tweeted: We stand with General Flynn.

Mandels own religion has been the subject of debate and controversy. In September, the Forward published an op-ed which asked if he was obscuring his Jewishness in order to appeal to far-right Christian voters.

In response, Mandel described himself as a Proud American. Proud Jew. Proud Marine. Proud Zionist. Everything Democrats hate.

Mandels religion was the subject of a controversial attack ad from another Republican hopeful, Mark Pukita, who denied charges of antisemitism.

Amid criticism of his support for Flynn, Mandel said freedom of religion [is not equal to] freedom FROM religion. He also said: America was not founded as a secular nation.

Original post:
Trump ally Michael Flynn condemned over call for one religion in US - The Guardian

Last month, Glenn Youngkin, Virginia's Republican governor-elect, targeted Toni Morrison's "Beloved" in a campaign ad that featured a parent upset that the 1987 novel was taught to her son when he was a high school senior.

It is not the only book of Morrison's, a Black woman, to be challenged in some communities and as the debate over education again heats up, books have become a flashpoint around the U.S.

A wide variety of books have been challenged or banned for a wide variety of reasons, according to the American Library Association, which keeps a running list of the most challenged books in libraries and schools.

Most of the books on the 2020 list the most recent available are challenged, banned or restricted due to alleged "LGBTQIA+ content," "anti-police messages," themes of race, "divisive language" and "sexually explicit language," according to the ALA.

Deborah Stone, director of ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom, told CBS News there appears to be an organized effort to challenge books that deal with two broad topics: racism or Black American history and the LGBTQ community.

Stone said campaigns to ban books may be spreading more easily due to social media, and ALA has seen different people from different communities use the same language when arguing against books a clue that they got the idea from someone else, possibly online.

She said campaigns to ban books are usually a coordinated effort by activists targeting school boards.

Books with themes about race are often banned under the "false claim" of critical race theory, Stone said. "We're talking about works of literature, we're talking about individuals talking about their experiences in society not critical race theory," she said. "But there's a real effort to limit and restrict access to these materials."

Critical race theory acknowledges racial disparities that have persisted in U.S. history and offers an academic framework to understand how racism is reinforced in U.S. law and institutions.

There is no evidence it is taught in K-12 schools, but its tenets have inspired dozens of states to pass laws that ban critical race theory, which often makes it easier for parents to successfully campaign against certain books.

Under Texas' new law banning critical race theory in the classroom, teachers cannot discuss the idea that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex."

Jerry Craft's "New Kid," a book about an African American boy going to a new school that is majority White, "is not in any way racist or critical race theory," and has won literary awards, Stone said. But parents in Katy, Texas successfully stopped an October appearance by Craft, and had "New Kid" temporarily removed from the school "by simply saying it represented critical race theory," she said.

"It is inappropriate instructional material," Bonnie Anderson, a former candidate for the Katy Independent School Board, told CBS affiliate KKTV in October about the book. "They are pointed at White children displaying microaggressions to children of color. The books don't come out and say, 'We want White children to feel like oppressors,' but that is absolutely what they will do."

Another parent, Omerly Sanchez, told KKTV her elementary school-aged son loved the book. "He said it was funny," Sanchez said.

Like other laws that ban critical race theory, a new law in Tennessee bans teaching any concepts that would make someone feel "discomfort, guilt, anguish, or distress solely because of the individual's race or sex," and prohibits lessons that suggest anyone, based on their race or sex, is "inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously."

Sharon Roberson, the president and CEO of the YWCA of Nashville and Middle Tennessee, denounced the law. In a letter to the Tennessee Department of Education, Roberson said it will have harmful effects on children's education and society as a whole.

"The intention is really to put us in this war against each other. For people to say that if you discuss these issues this is going to cause harm to children, whereas teachers are trained to teach and if you really want your students to have the advantage of a global society that we're in, they're going to have to know their history," Roberson said.

Stone said it's not just books with themes of race that are often challenged. "Coming of age" books that depict puberty, sexuality or sex acts are commonly considered "obscene" even though these themes are just one part of the book, and the concern often misrepresents the piece of literature as a whole.

"'Beloved' is one of the best examples of that that's in the headlines right now it isn't pornographic or obscene, it just deals with sex," she said.

The book, which is set in the Reconstruction era and vividly portrays the horrors of slavery and its legacy, contains passages that are violent and sexually explicit.

Republican lawmakers across Texas are working to enforce a ban on what they consider "divisive concepts."

Republican State Representative Matt Krause put together a list of 850 books he believes should be banned, including "Rainbow, a first book of Pride," aimed at young readers, and "Underneath It All: A History of Women's Underwear," aimed at young adults. Krause, a candidate for Texas attorney general, sent a letter to Texas school districts asking them to report how many books from the list they currently make available to students.

Krause also asked districts to identify any other books that may include: human sexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, AIDS, sexually explicit images or material that "might make students feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex," according to CBS Dallas. CBS News has reached out to a representative for Krause for comment and is awaiting response.

Another Republican state lawmaker in Texas, Jeff Cason called on the state's attorney general to investigate school districts that have sexually explicit books in their library. One of the books he deemed inappropriate is "Gender Queer," by Maia Kobabe,which its publisher describes as a "useful and touching guide on gender identity."

Earlier this month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott echoed Krause and Cason's concerns and asked the Texas Association of School Boards to remove books from school libraries that could be what he called "pornographic" or "obscene."

Stone said books "that reflect the lives of LGBTQIA persons and families," are often targeted as "obscene" or "pornographic" which they are often not. "You might not be the audience, your child might not be the audience, but more often than not, there is an audience for the books and often they are desperately needed," she said.

Parents of students in North Hunterdon High School in New Jersey also challenged books with LGBTQ themes such as "Gender Queer" and another coming-of-age novel, "Lawn Boy," according to My Central Jersey.

At a Hamilton County School Board meeting in Tennessee, parents turned out in large crowds over challenges to books on the reading lists for grades 8 through 12, including Angie Thomas' "The Hate U Give," CBS affiliate WDEF-TV reports.

In Virginia Beach, Virginia, school officials asked the superintendent to ban four books "Lawn Boy," "Gender Queer," "A Lesson Before Dying" by Ernest Gaines and "The Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison for "pornographic content," according to The Virginian-Pilot, which obtained copies of their email to the superintendent.

Stone said censorship that forbids the reading of a certain book is a violation of library users' First Amendment rights. She also said every parent has a right to raise concerns about a book. "It's part of the First Amendment as well, the right to petition," she said.

ALA encourages libraries and school boards to hear concerns about books, but to also have a "reconsideration policy" in place that asks petitioners if they've actually read the book in its entirety and what the basis of their complaint is, Stone said.

Just because someone says a book is obscene or inappropriate, doesn't mean it actually is, Stone said. "It just means it doesn't meet their values or needs."

Trending News

Caitlin O'Kane is a digital content producer covering trending stories for CBS News and its good news brand, The Uplift.

Read more from the original source:
"Beloved" isn't the only book parents have challenged. From critical race theory to obscenity, here's how and why books get targeted. - CBS...

SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 UNIVERSAL

REGISTRATION DOCUMENT,

FILED WITH THE AMF ON NOVEMBER 19TH, 2021

Universal Registration document and annual financial report 2020 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on March 12, 2021 under No. D. 21-0114.

First amendment to Universal Registration document and annual financial report 2020 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on April 30, 2021 under No. D. 21-0114-A01.

Second Amendment to Universal Registration document and annual financial report 2020 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on May 6, 2021 under No. D. 21-0114-A02.

Third Amendment to Universal Registration document and annual financial report 2020 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on July 30, 2021 under No. D. 21-0114-A03.

Fourth Amendment to Universal Registration document and annual financial report 2020 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on September 7, 2021 under No. D. 21-0114-A04. Fifth Amendment to Universal Registration document and annual financial report 2020 filed with the AMF (Autorit des Marchs Financiers) on October 29, 2021 under No. D. 21-0114-A05.

This is a translation into English of the (universal) registration document of the Company issued in

French and it is available on the website of the Issuer

Socit anonyme (Public Limited Company) with capital of 2,499,597,122 euros

Head office: 16 boulevard des Italiens, 75 009 PARIS

R.C.S.: PARIS 662 042 449

BNP PARIBAS - SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT

OVERVIEW

1. APPROVAL BY THE AMF OF THE 2020 UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT, 5TH AMENDMENT AND 6TH AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION

DOCUMENT, IN ENGLISH VERSION .......................................................................................

3

2.

GENERAL INFORMATION ...................................................................................................

4

3.

STATUTORY AUDITORS .....................................................................................................

5

4.

PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT ............

6

5.

TABLES OF CONCORDANCE .............................................................................................

7

This amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document has been filed with the AMF on 19 November 2021 as competent authority under Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 without prior approval pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129;

The Universal Registration Document may be used for the purposes of an offer to the public of securities or admission of securities to trading on a regulated market if completed by a securities note and, if applicable, a summary and any amendments to the Universal Registration Document. The whole is approved by the AMF in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

This Universal Registration Document may form part of a prospectus of the Issuer consisting of separate documents within the meaning of the Prospectus Regulation.

2

BNP PARIBAS - SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT

1. APPROVAL BY THE AMF OF THE 2020 UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT, 5TH AMENDMENT AND 6TH AMENDMENT TO THE 2020

UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT, IN ENGLISH VERSION

1.1 Approval of the 5th amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document:

The 5th Amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document was approved on 19 November 2021 by the AMF as competent authority under Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

The AMF approves this document after verifying that the information contained in it is complete, consistent and comprehensible. The 5th Amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document has the following approval number: n R. 21-066.

Such approval should not be considered as a favourable opinion on the issuer covered by the Universal Registration Document.

The 2020 Universal Registration Document may be used for the purpose of offering to the public of securities or for the admission of financial securities to trading on a regulated market if it is supplemented by a securities note and, where appropriate, a summary and its amendment(s). In this case, the securities note, the summary and all the amendments made to the universal registration document since its approval are approved separately in accordance with Article 10 (3), 2nd subparagraph of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

The 2020 Universal Registration Document is valid until 19 November 2022 and, during that period and at the latest at the same time as the securities note and under the conditions of Articles 10 and 23 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129, must be completed by an amendment to the Universal Registration Document in the event of significant new developments or material errors or inaccuracies.

1.2 Approval of the 6th amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration

Document:

The 6th Amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document was approved on 19 November 2021 by the AMF as competent authority under Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

The AMF approves this document after verifying that the information contained in it is complete, consistent and comprehensible. The 6th Amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document has the following approval number: n R. 21-066.

Such approval should not be considered as a favourable opinion on the issuer covered by the Universal Registration Document.

The 2020 Universal Registration Document may be used for the purpose of offering to the public of securities or for the admission of financial securities to trading on a regulated market if it is supplemented by a securities note and, where appropriate, a summary and its amendment(s). In this case, the securities note, the summary and all the amendments made to the universal registration document since its approval are approved separately in accordance with Article 10 (3), 2nd subparagraph of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129.

The 2020 Universal Registration Document is valid until 19 November 2022 and, during that period and at the latest at the same time as the securities note and under the conditions of Articles 10 and 23 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129, must be completed by an amendment to the Universal Registration Document in the event of significant new developments or material errors or inaccuracies.

3

BNP PARIBAS - SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT

2. GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1 Documents on display

This document is available on the BNP Paribas website, http://www.invest.bnpparibas.com, and the Autorit des Marchs Financiers (AMF) website, http://www.amffrance.org.

Any person wishing to receive additional information about the BNP Paribas Group can request documents, without commitment, as follows:

BNP Paribas - Finance & Strategy

Investor Relations and Financial Information 3, rue d'Antin - CAA01B1

75002 Paris

BNP Paribas' regulatory information can be viewed at: https://invest.bnpparibas/en/search/reports/documents/regulated- information.

2.2 Significant change

Save as disclosed in this Amendment to the 2020 Universal registration document, there have been no significant changes in the Group's financial situation since 30 September 2021, no material adverse change in the prospects of the Issuer and no significant changes in the Group's financial situation or financial performance since the end of the last financial period for which financial statements were published, and in particular since the signature of the Statutory Auditors' report on the audited consolidated financial statements on 30 July 2021.

To the best of the Group's knowledge, there have not been any recent events which are to a material extent relevant to the evaluation of BNPP's solvency since 30 September 2021.

4

BNP PARIBAS - SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE 2020 UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION DOCUMENT

3. STATUTORY AUDITORS

Deloitte & Associs

PricewaterhouseCoopers Audit

Mazars

6, place de la Pyramide

63, rue de Villiers

61, rue Henri Regnault

92908 Paris-La Dfense Cedex

92208 Neuilly-sur-Seine Cedex

92400 Courbevoie

5

This is an excerpt of the original content. To continue reading it, access the original document here.

Disclaimer

BNP Paribas SA published this content on 19 November 2021 and is solely responsible for the information contained therein. Distributed by Public, unedited and unaltered, on 19 November 2021 19:13:09 UTC.

Originally posted here:
BNP Paribas : 6th amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document - marketscreener.com

November 15, 2021

A Nashville-based civic engagement group will host a panel discussion on Thursday to probe the line between First Amendment rights and tensions arising from disinformation, called "Protected Speech and Fear in America."

As part of its "Conversationalist Series," Millions of Conversations will share information from global conflict mediation expert Andrew Ladley and Deborah Fisher, director of the John Seigenthaler Chair of Excellence in First Amendment Studies at Middle Tennessee State University. Fisher is also executive director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government. Samar Ali, president of Millions of Conversations, will moderate the event.

"From main street to the halls of Washington D.C. our country is grappling with an unprecedented flow of information on social media and online that includes disinformation and language designed to incite fear and suspicion of our neighbors," Ali said. "How we reconcile our First Amendment rights with these powerful communication tools is one of the greatest challenges of our generation."

Registration is required for the virtual event, which is scheduled for noon.

Millions of Conversations is a nonprofit organization that seeks to unite Americans around common values for a shared future through productive dialogue. The organization seeks to change existing narratives that marginalize and politicize "the other." Starting with the predominating narrative about Muslim-Americans, its focus is on eliminating stigma in all its forms. By transcending divides, Millions of Conversations disrupts cycles of hate, combats misinformation, and challenges harmful stereotypes. The organization engages energetic voices at the grassroots level to reach people across America.

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit network of state government news sites supported by grants and a coalition of donors.

Originally posted here:
Group Hosts Discussion On The First Amendment And Disinformation - Patch.com

First Amendment Resources | Statements & Core Documents | Publications & Guidelines

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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. First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.

One of the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment gives everyone residing in the United States the right to hear all sides of every issue and to make their own judgments about those issues without government interference or limitations. The First Amendment allows individuals to speak, publish, read and view what they wish, worship (or not worship) as they wish, associate with whomever they choose, and gather together to ask the government to make changes in the law or to correct the wrongs in society.

The right to speak and the right to publish under the First Amendment has been interpreted widely to protect individuals and society from government attempts to suppress ideas and information, and to forbid government censorship of books, magazines, and newspapers as well as art, film, music and materials on the internet. The Supreme Court and other courts have held conclusively that there is a First Amendment right to receive information; the right to receive information is a corollary to the right to speak. Justice William Brennan elaborated on this point in 1965:

The protection of the Bill of Rights goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from Congressional abridgment those equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make the express guarantees fully meaningful.I think the right to receive publications is such a fundamental right.The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965).

When the Supreme Court considered whether a local school board violated the Constitution by removing books from a school library, it held that the right to receive ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipients meaningful exercise of his own rights of speech, press, and political freedom.

Public schools and public libraries, as public institutions, have been the setting for legal battles about student access to books, removal or retention of offensive material, regulation of patron behavior, and limitations on public access to the internet. Restrictions and censorship of materials in public institutions are most commonly prompted by public complaints. Government officials, in the form of the library board or school administration, are ever mindful of the importance their neighbors may place on religious values, moral sensibilities, and protecting children from offensive materials. So, directly or indirectly, ordinary citizens are the driving force behind the challenges to the internet, information and ideas.

The First Amendment protects public institutions from having to compromise the ideals of free speech by establishing a framework that defines critical rights and responsibilities. It protects the freedom of speech, thought, and inquiry, and advocates respect for the right of others to do the same. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wisely guides the American people to resort to "more speech not enforced silence" in seeking to resolve our differences in values, sensibilities, and offenses.

The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is also applied to the states, only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses. Mark Zuckerberg can restrict speech on Facebook because it is a private business and he is not the government.

Criticism of the government, political dissatisfaction, and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always safeguarded. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized several categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment. Among these are obscenity, child pornography, and libel and slander. Deciding what is and is not protected speech is almost always reserved for a court of law.

Clauses of the First AmendmentThe National Constitution Center. The National Constitution Center is the first and only institution in America established by Congress to disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a non-partisan basis in order to increase the awareness and understanding of the Constitution among the American people.

First Amendment - Religion and ExpressionFindLaw. FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business, providers consumers and lawyers with a range of case law, statutes, legal news, online career center, blogs and a variety of community-oriented tools."

Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons individuals, groups, or government officials find objectionable or dangerous. It is no more complicated than someone saying, Dont let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it! Censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove information they judge inappropriate or dangerous from public access, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone.

Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. Article 3, Library Bill of Rights

Challenged Resources: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (2019)A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others.ALA declares as a matter of firm principle that it is the responsibility of every library to have a clearly defined written policy for collection development that includes a procedure for review of challenged resources.

Labeling Systems: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (2015)The American Library Association affirms the rights of individuals to form their own opinions about resources they choose to read, view, listen to, or otherwise access. Libraries do not advocate the ideas found in their collections or in resources accessible through the library. The presence of books and other resources in a library does not indicate endorsement of their contents by the library. Likewise, providing access to digital information does not indicate endorsement or approval of that information by the library. Labeling systems present distinct challenges to these intellectual freedom principles.

Rating Systems: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (2019)Libraries, no matter their size, contain an enormous wealth of viewpoints and are responsible for making those viewpoints available to all. However, libraries do not advocate or endorse the content found in their collections or in resources made accessible through the library. Rating systems appearing in library public access catalogs or resource discovery tools present distinct challenges to these intellectual freedom principles. Q&A on Labeling and Rating Systems

Expurgation of Library Materials: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (2014)Expurgating library materials is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights. Expurgation as defined by this interpretation includes any deletion, excision, alteration, editing, or obliteration of any part(s) of books or other library resources by the library, its agent, or its parent institution (if any).

Restricted Access to Library Materials: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (2014)Libraries are a traditional forum for the open exchange of information. Attempts to restrict access to library materials violate the basic tenets of the Library Bill of Rights.

Complete list of Library Bill of Rights Interpretations

Library Bill of Rights (1939)Adopted by ALA Council, the Articles of the Library Bill of Rights are unambiguous statements of basic principles that should govern the service of all libraries. (printable pamphlets)

Freedom to Read Statement (1953)A collaborative statement by literary, publishing, and censorship organizations declaring the importance of our constitutionally protected right to access information and affirming the need for our professions to oppose censorship.

Libraries: An American Value (1999)Adopted by ALA Council, this brief statement pronounces the distinguished place libraries hold in our society and their core tenets of access to materials and diversity of ideas.

Guidelines for Library Policies (2019)Guidelines for librarians, governing authorities, and other library staff and library users on how constitutional principles apply to libraries in the United States.

Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q&A (2007)

Social Media Guidelines for Public and Academic Libraries (2018)

These guidelines provide a policy and implementation framework for public and academic libraries engaging in the use of social media.

Intellectual Freedom Manual (2021)Edited by Martin Garnarand Trina Magi with ALAs Office for Intellectual FreedomThe 10th edition manual is an indispensable resource for day-to-day guidance on maintaining free and equal access to information for all people

Journal of Intellectual Freedom and Privacy (2016 - present)Edited by Shannon Oltmann with ALA's Office for Intellectual FreedomPublished quarterly, JIFP offers articles related to intellectual freedom and privacy, both in libraries and in the wider world.

True Stories of Censorship Battles in America's Libraries (2012)By Valerie Nye and Kathy BarcoThis book is a collection of accounts from librarians who have dealt with censorship in some form. Divided into seven parts, the book covers intralibrary censorship, child-oriented protectionism, the importance of building strong policies, experiences working with sensitive materials, public debates and controversies, criminal patrons, and library displays.

Beyond Banned Books: Defending Intellectual Freedom throughout Your Library (2019)By Kristin Pekollwith ALAs Office for Intellectual FreedomA level-headed guide that uses specific case studies to offer practical guidance on safeguarding intellectual freedom related to library displays, programming, and other librarian-created content.

Lessons in Censorship: How Schools and Courts Subvert Students' First Amendment Rights (2015)By Catherine J. RossLessons in Censorship highlights the troubling and growing tendency of schools to clamp down on off-campus speech such as texting and sexting and reveals how well-intentioned measures to counter verbal bullying and hate speech may impinge on free speech. Throughout, Ross proposes ways to protect free expression without disrupting education.

The staff of the Office for Intellectual Freedom is available to answer questions or provide assistance to librarians, trustees, educators, and the public about the First Amendment and censorship. Areas of assistance include policy development, minors rights, and professional ethics. Inquiries can be directed via email to oif@ala.org or via phone at (312) 280-4226.

Read more from the original source:
First Amendment and Censorship | Advocacy, Legislation ...

The courts have ruled that profanity can be regulated by government under certain circumstances consistent with the First Amendment. Here, a sign on GRTC Transit System Bus 84 in Richmond, Virginia reminds passengers that uttering profanities or obscenities on buses is prohibited conduct. (Photo by Taber Andrew Bain, Creative Commons by 2.0)

Under modern First Amendment jurisprudence profanity cannot categorically be banned but can be regulated in many situations.

Historically, profane words were considered blasphemous and punishable. In 1942, Justice Francis W. Murphy assumed this position in his famous passage from the fighting words decision of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire: There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or fighting words.

Nearly 30 years later the Supreme Court ruled that an individual could not be convicted under a local disturbing the peace law when he wore a jacket bearing the words Fuck the Draft into a California courthouse. In Cohen v. California (1971), Justice John Marshall Harlan II reasoned that while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one mans vulgarity is anothers lyric. Harlan warned that governments might soon seize upon the censorship of particular words as a convenient guise for banning the expression of unpopular views. Cohen stands for the principle that profane words, in themselves, cannot be banned under the First Amendment.

Profanity can be regulated, however, under certain circumstances consistent with the First Amendment. Profane rants that cross the line into direct face-to-face personal insults or fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment. Similarly, Watts v. United States (1969) established that profanity spoken as part of a true threat does not receive constitutional protection. Likewise, under Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986), public school officials can punish students for profane speech. The government can also regulate profanity that qualifies as indecent speech in the broadcast medium, as the Supreme Court explained in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation (1978).

Some states still have laws on the books that criminalize the speaking of profanity. For example, Michigan until December 2015 had a statute that read: Any person who shall use any indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar or insulting language in the presence or hearing of any woman or child shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. A state appeals court determined the law unconstitutionally vague in the case of a cussing canoeist in People v. Boomer (Mich. App. 2002). The law was repealed in 2015.

North Carolina has a law on its book that prohibits cursing on public highways. The statute provides: If any person shall, on any public road or highway and in the hearing of two or more persons, in a loud and boisterous manner, use indecent or profane language, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

In 2016, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a South Carolina law that prohibited profanity near a church or school. In the case, Johnson v. Quattlebaum, the appeals court determined that the law was not too broad or vague, because it only prohibited unprotected fighting words and only applied to speech that was within hearing distance.

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 entitledFreedom of Speech: Understanding the First Amendment(Now You Know Media, 2018). He also is the author of many First Amendment books, includingThe First Amendment: Freedom of Speech(Thomson Reuters, 2012) andFreedom of Speech: Documents Decoded(ABC-CLIO, 2017).This article was originally published in 2009 and last updated in August 2019.

Read the original post:
Profanity | The First Amendment Encyclopedia