Category Archives: First Amendment

Bayonne High Schools Turning Point USA club is now old enough to have students who participated as freshmen away at college.

Yet in its fifth year, the club affiliated with a prominent and controversial national conservative youth organizations is sparking debate in the Bayonne school community about the national group one teacher called it a flea-ridden dog and whether a chapter belongs in the high school.

Students who identify themselves as minorities told the Board of Education at its October meeting they feel less safe at school knowing that they have peers who affiliate themselves with Turning Point USA, whose past controversies involve spreading disinformation and hateful rhetoric against Blacks, Jews, Muslims and the LGBT+ community.

Two teachers called for a rebranding of the club at the September board meeting, arguing that while a debate or young Republicans club would be appropriate, a club affiliated with the flea ridden dog Turning Point USA risks hurting the high school community because of the national organizations reputation.

Club members, meanwhile, say the chapter welcomes students of all beliefs and backgrounds and is simply a place to converse and debate about political topics. Its the First Amendment that is keeping district officials as little more than spectators to the discussion.

Administrators monitor what goes on in the club, like all clubs, but at this time do not see grounds to change it because the students are exercising their freedom of speech and have not broken school rules, Board of Education President Maria Valado said in an interview.

Censoring or curtailing speech is very complicated, so our attorneys have advised us that the U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that students do not shed their constitutional rights and right to freedom of speech when they come into the school building, Valado said.

Bill Montgomery and a then-teenage Charlie Kirk founded the national Turning Point USA organization in 2012. It now claims to be the most organized, active and powerful network of conservative student activists and names its core values as freedom, free markets and limited government.

It has also had its fair share of controversy. National and chapter leaders have been documented using racist and other bigoted language. Some have been found to have ties to white nationalist groups and the organization itself has crossed paths with groups such as the anti-Muslim group ACT for America. A watchlist of professors and a paid pro-Trump disinformation campaign have been alleged.

Bayonne alum Petra Ghaly founded the high schools chapter during the 2017-18 school year. Club meetings are a space where students discuss or debate political topics freely and without judgment, said current President Mark Basta and Vice President Jessica Longobardi.

Recent meetings have included discussions about COVID-19, inflation and capitalism versus socialism, Longobardi said. She called it a non-partisan club where most participants are more likely to lean conservative.

Ghaly, who graduated in the spring, said she jumped through hoops to start the club and keep it running, first being told that she couldnt start the club because of its political nature, and then in its second year having to reapply for it to continue operating.

A teacher called Longobardi a domestic terrorist and Ghaly a white supremacist because of their involvement in the club; and Ghaly claims she was subjected to online harassment that included death threats from other students when she was elected student representative of the Board of Education.

She, Basta and Longobardi have attended Turning Point USA conferences, and Basta said hes shut down conversations about the club disaffiliating from the national organization.

If we really pick on an organization as being racist just because someone said something that implied racism, wed be filtering out every political organization, Basta said.

Members of other clubs, meanwhile, said that Turning Points presence at the school makes them feel unsafe.

I believe that this is one of those times that students are allowed to be upset and should speak out, senior Zaria Keith, president of the Young Black Excellence club, told the Board of Education. This is immensely uncomfortable and is causing students of color to feel as though their fellow classmates could feel a sense of superiority over them just because of their skin.

Its the values of Turning Point USA as an organization that makes students like Mell Scott feel unsafe, the senior who also spoke before the board said. Scott, the president of the LGBTQ+ and allies club and a member of the Young Black Excellence club, who also identifies as transgender and queer, said the values and morals in this organization are a direct attack against people like me.

Basta and Valado said the students from Turning Point and the other clubs met after the board meeting to discuss the issues and they invited each other to meetings to get a better understanding of what theyre like. Scott said he and Keith went to the clubs next meeting before learning it had been cancelled.

Valado said students can continue expressing their views to the board, which will intervene if there are incidents that occur at Bayonne High School.

In an interview, Scott said he recognizes that the clubs existence is a freedom of speech issue and doesnt expect for the club to get disbanded. Students, however, deserve some reassurance from members of Turning Point USA that the club does not pose a threat to clubs that serve as safe spaces for marginalized students, Scott said.

I kind of dont understand the demographic that theyre looking for, Scott said. I want them to at least address to everyone say Hey we know what type of things Turning Point is known for, and I would like for them to just kind of address or highlight that just to at least keep other kids who are Black or gay or trans at ease knowing that at least thats a place that theyre not going to be targeted.

See the original post:
Bayonne High conservative club has critics on one side, First Amendment defenders on the other - nj.com

In American jurisprudence, public school teachers do not forfeit all of their First Amendment rights to free expression when they accept employment. In 1979, an African-American school teacher in a newly integrated school was fired after complaining privately to a superior about discrimination. The Supreme Court decided that public employees do not forfeit First Amendment protection just because they communicate privately to a superior. In this photo, a grammar school teacher teaches in an integrated class in 1969. (AP Photo, used with permission from the Associated Press)

In American jurisprudence, public school teachers, as public employees, do not forfeit all of their First Amendment rights to free expression when they accept employment. Both in pursuing and in imparting knowledge to others, public school teachers share some of the academic freedoms exercised by their college and university counterparts, albeit with limitations sometimes justified by the immaturity of their students. The courts have ruled on several cases involving teachers expressive rights.

In Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that an Illinois high school science teacher, Marvin Pickering, had a First Amendment right to send a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. Pickering had been dismissed for sending a letter that criticized the school board for its allocations of funds for academics and athletics. In his majority opinion for the Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall agreed that Pickerings First Amendment rights had been violated. He wrote that the interest of the school administration in limiting teachers opportunities to contribute to public debate is not significantly greater than its interest in limiting a similar contribution by any member of the general public.

A year after Pickering the Court reiterated that teachers possess First Amendment rights in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). Although Tinker involved student speech, the Court wrote, It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

In Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the First Amendment claim of a public school teacher in Mississippi who had been discharged after complaining to her principal about racial discrimination.The Court explained that a public school teacher does not lose her free speech rights simply because she chose to speak on an issue of public concern to her employer directly rather than to the public at large.

Other courts, when evaluating teachers First Amendment claims, have looked to another case involving student speech as a precedent. In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), the Supreme Court ruled that public school officials can regulate school-sponsored student speech as long as there is a legitimate educational purpose for their action.

Several lower courts have also applied Hazelwood to public school teachers for not appropriately monitoring their students classroom expression. In Lacks v. Ferguson Reorganized School District R-2 (8th Cir. 1998), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that a public school in Missouri could discharge an English teacher for failing to censor her students written works. Applying Hazelwood, the Eighth Circuit wrote, A flat prohibition on profanity in the classroom is reasonably related to the legitimate pedagogical concern of promoting generally accepted social standards.

In Miles v. Denver Public Schools (10th Cir. 1991), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals applied Hazelwood to conclude that a public school teacher could be disciplined for talking about declining discipline and passing along a rumor about students having sex on a tennis court. Because of the special characteristics of a classroom environment, in applying Hazelwood instead of Pickering we distinguish between teachers classroom expression and teachers expression in other situations that would not reasonably be perceived as school-sponsored, the appeals court explained.

Although the principle of academic freedom usually holds in university settings, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Bishop v. Aronov (11th Cir. 1991), also used the Hazelwood standard when evaluating the First Amendment claim of a university professor arising out of in-class instruction.

Teachers asserting a First Amendment violation must now clear an additional hurdle, as a result of the Supreme Courts decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006). In Garcetti the Court ruled that public employees do not retain First Amendment protection for speech as part of their official job duties.

The question remains whether Garcetti should apply in the academic setting, where academic freedom introduces another level of constitutional concern. The majority acknowledged this distinction in stating there is some argument that expression related to academic scholarship or classroom instruction implicates additional constitutional interests that are not fully accounted for by this Courts customary employee-speech jurisprudence. Commentator Karen Daly notes that Academic freedom is an ill-defined concept, especially when imported from the university campus to secondary and elementary schools. Only time will tell which standard the Pickering or the Hazelwood standard will apply to the majority of public school teachers First Amendment claims and whether Garcetti will have an indelible effect.

Several lower courts have applied the Garcetti ruling broadly to limit teacher classroom speech. For example, the SeventhU.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Brown v. Chicago Bd. of Educ. (7th Cir. 2016) that a public school teacher did not have a First Amendment claim when his principal disciplined him for using the N-word in a well-intentional lecture instructing students about not using racial slurs.Because of Garcetti, Browns First Amendment claim fails right out of the gate, the appeals court wrote.

Many teachers have fared poorly in First Amendment lawsuits after being disciplined for social media posts.Many courts show deference to school officials in disciplining teachers for speech deemed inappropriate or likely to cause problems at school.

The area of teacher free-speech rights is still evolving. Lower courts use a variety of standards from cases such as Pickering, Hazelwood, and Garcetti. Supreme Court review would provide much-needed guidance.

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.

Here is the original post:
Rights of Teachers | The First Amendment Encyclopedia

Most courts presented with right of access claims consider both the common law and the First Amendment. The common law right of access "extends to all judicial documents and records" while the First Amendment "secures a right of access 'only to particular judicial records and documents." In their discussion of the common law right of access, those courts describe what constitutes a judicial record to which the common law right of access applies. "[N]ot all documents filed with courts are judicial records. whether something is a judicial record depends on the role it plays in the adjudicatory process."

The audio recordings of court proceedings are not "judicial records" to which the common law right of access attaches. The audio recordings of court proceedings are not documents or other materials that played any role in the adjudicative process. The audio recordings are not motions or briefs filed by the parties nor are they court opinions or orders. The audio recordings are not exhibits or other information relied upon by the parties to advance their claims and defenses.

Some courts have applied the "experience and logic" test from [the Supreme Court access-to-criminal-hearings precedents] to requests for access to judicial or court records. The Court is unaware of any tradition of public access to the court stenographer's or court reporter's notes regardless of the type of court proceeding. And, audio recording devices had not yet been invented when this country adopted the First Amendment.

For the second prong, public access to an audio recording of a court proceeding does not play a significant positive role in the actual functioning of the court proceeding. Public access to the proceeding itself plays a significant positive role. Access to audio recordings of the proceeding would be largely redundant.

Nor can Plaintiffs prevail using the Second Circuit's approach[, which considers whether the documents are derived from or are a necessary corollary of the capacity to attend the proceedings, applying the principle that "[o]nly those documents necessary to understand the merits of a civil . . . proceeding are covered by the First Amendment's presumptive right of access"]. Even if the state court set forth the merits determination from the bench and did not reduce the resolution of the issues to paper, Plaintiffs have a transcript of the proceeding.

The audio recordings are not records to which the First Amendment provides a right of access. Plaintiffs' concerns about transcript errors are addressed by the credentials and other professional requirements of court reporters who prepare the transcripts from recordings. To the extent that Plaintiffs maintain an error occurred in the preparation of their transcripts, they can have another transcript prepared by a different court reporter.

Finally, a number of courts have considered media requests for access to and copies of recordings played at a criminal proceedings. Overwhelmingly, the courts have rejected the requests and have frequently found that the First Amendment right of access does not extend to requests for copies of recordings played at the proceedings. The reasoning used in these opinions consistently reflect the conclusion that the moving parties have not been denied access. Attendance as access effectively undermines the risks and dangers associated with secret proceedings.

In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) the Court considered the scope and circumstances of "a common law right of access to judicial records[.]" The respondent, the media, sought copies of the Nixon tapes that were admitted into evidence at the trial of President Nixon's former advisors. Approximately 22 hours of recorded conversations were played at the trial and the reels of tape were admitted into evidence. "The District Court furnished the jurors, reporters, and members of the public in attendance with earphones and with transcripts prepared by the Special Prosecutor." Several media companies later filed a motion with the district judge seeking permission to copy, broadcast and sell the recordings played at the trial. The court denied immediate release of the tapes. The Court explained that the Presidential Recording Act created an administrative procedure for processing and releasing presidential materials of historic interest, which would include the recordings. For this portion of the opinion, the Court emphasized that it addressed only the application of the common law right to access judicial records. Turning to the First Amendment, the Court found that the situation did not implicate any constitutional right to access. The press was not prevented from publishing the testimony and those in attendance were allowed to listen to the tapes and report what they heard. Reporters were also provided transcripts of the tapes. Neither the media nor the public ever had physical access to the recordings.

In United States v. Beckham, 789 F.2d 401 (6th Cir. 1986) the media sought permission to make copies of audio recordings that were admitted as evidence and played in the criminal trial, as well as transcripts of the recordings. The district court denied the request and the media appealed. The Sixth Circuit found that the district court's denial did not violate the media's constitutional right of access. The court distinguished the opportunity to hear the audio recordings at trial from access to the recordings themselves. See Putnam Pit, Inc. v. City of Cookeville, Tennessee, 221 F.3d 834, 841 (6th Cir. 2000) (involving a tabloid and internet journalist who had access to hard copies of parking tickets and wanted the same information in electronic form and finding that "Davidian has no First Amendment right to government information in a particular form, as long as the information sought was made available as required by the First Amendment."). The court concluded, because the public and the media had the opportunity to attend the trial and could report what they observed, including what they heard when the tapes were played, "if a right to copy the tapes and transcripts in this case exists, it must come from a source other than the constitution."

At least four other circuit courts have declined to find the First Amendment right of access attaches to audio and video recordings played at a criminal trial. In re Providence Journal Co., Inc., 293 F.3d 1, (1st Cir. 2002) (involving a political corruption criminal case where excerpts of video and audio recordings were played at the trial, denying a newspaper's request for copies of the recordings, applying Nixon, and explaining that the "district court has not restricted media access to, or the publication of, any information in the public domain. Indeed, the district court has gone to great lengths to facilitate access to the trial proceedings . . . By affording interested members of the media ample opportunity to see and hear the tapes as they are played for the jury, the court has fulfilled its pertinent First Amendment obligations."); Fisher v. King, 232 F.3d 391, 396-97 (4th Cir. 2000) ("The precise question presented by Fisher's as-applied challenge, however, is whether the First Amendment provides him, as a member of the general public, a right to physical access to an audio tape that was played in open court in a criminal trial, admitted into evidence, and for which he possesses a complete verbatim transcript. Under the Supreme Court's decision in Nixon . . . , the answer to this question is no."); United States v. McDougal, 103 F.3d 651, 659 (8th Cir. 1996) (relying on Nixon, denying media organizations' physical access to and copies of a video recording of President Clinton used at the trial in the underlying criminal case and holding that "the First Amendment right of access to public information does not extend to the videotape of President Clinton's deposition testimony" where an edited version of the video was played at the trial which was open to the public, the transcript was admitted into evidence and made part of the record, and copies of the transcript were released to the public); Belo Broad. Corp. v. Clark, 654 F.2d 423, 426 (5th Cir. 1981) (involving audio recordings of discussions between criminal defendants and FBI operatives that were admitted into evidence at trial, applying Nixon, and holding the no First Amendment right of access to the tapes existed for the media).

The Court finds the reasoning in these opinions persuasive. Certainly, a difference arises between recordings presented as evidence at a trial and recordings of the proceedings themselves. For Plaintiffs' First Amendment right of access claim, however, that difference lacks significance. Plaintiffs were present for and participated in the proceedings. And, Plaintiffs were able to obtain a transcript of the proceedings. Those two facts satisfy the First Amendment's right of access. As the Sixth Circuit reasoned in Putman Pit, the right guarantees access to information, it does not guarantee the information be provided in a particular form. In the Court's view, the parties had access to the information contained in the recordings. The parties continue to have access to the information though the employment of a certified court reporter who could prepare a new transcript.

The Court concludes that Defendants did not deny Plaintiffs' First Amendment right of access [which sometimes provides protection beyond the common-law right]. While the Michigan Rules of Court might consider the audio recordings to be court records, the First Amendment does not consider those same recordings to be judicial records to which the public or press must have some access. And, even if the recordings are so protected, Plaintiffs were not denied access because they were present during the proceedings, have a transcript of the proceedings, and likely could pay for the preparation of another transcript of the proceedings.

The Court reaches no conclusion about whether the Local Administrative Order is a good idea. That concern is not before the Court. The privacy concerns that attend some family court and probate court proceedings likely would not apply herethe request for access was made by the parties themselves.

Frankly, the Court has difficulty finding a justification for denying the parties a copy of the audio recording. Although the First Amendment might not require the courts to permit access to audio recordings of proceedings, the amendment does not prohibit courts from making copies available. Even our United States Supreme Court, which has historically resisted cameras in the courtroom, makes audio recordings of its proceedings available through its website. The Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court both have YouTube channels and both archive audio recordings of proceedings, which are available on through their websites. In the wake of COVID-19 and the attendant health concerns, many local courts followed suit and established their own YouTube channels, including both Antrim and Bay counties (the links can be found at the Michigan Virtual Courtroom Director on the Michigan Supreme Court's webpage).

More here:
No First Amendment Right of Access to Court Recordings When Transcripts Are Available - Reason

John Sweeney| Special to the USA TODAY Network

One day in 1798, a tipsy LutherBaldwin looked up from his drink and muttered a sentence that must have come close to toppling the United States of America.

His words seemed so dangerous that a civilian informant promptly reported him to outraged authorities. In turn, the federal government arrested, tried, and imprisoned the scoundrel.

Baldwins crime? He made a crude joke about the presidents backside.

You couldnt do that in 1798.

The First Amendment was just more than six years old at that point. It would take more than a century before anyone took it seriously. So, President John Adams and his Federalist Party friends in Congress ignored it. France was making menacing noises against us. That made it a crisis. The political establishment quickly made it illegal to insult, criticize, demean or embarrass in any way Adams, his cabinet, Congress, the Supreme Court, or any branch of the federal government.

As Adams saw it, the Alien and Sedition Acts were a quartet of laws designed to keep Americas experiment in freedom secure. They protected freedom by restricting it. They prevented enemies or irresponsible people from spreading lies, rumors, or what we today call misinformation. In other words, you couldnt disagree with those in power.

Adams taught his fellow politicians well. Ever since they have protected their power or covered up scandals by ignoring the First Amendment, going around it or vilifying dissenters. Declare something an existential threat, then bully and shame doubters. If you can, legally squelch the brazen articles who persist in questioning the purity of your motives. If you cant, badger the newspapers and movie studios into creating blacklists or pressure internet platforms to ban dissenters outright. Its so much easier than arguing with them.

The Adams administration routinely arrested, tried, and jailed newspaper editors who opposed its policies. They even jailed a member of Congress for writing a critical letter to the editor about Adams.

But more than partisan disagreements were at stake. The Federalists found their opponents rude, uneducated and insulting. They were the mob.

Baldwin operated a garbage barge. His case wasnt the first prosecuted under the Sedition law. It was the silliest. He was, as a local newspaper said, a little merry when he and his tavern companions heard cannon firing on that 1798 afternoon. The booming was in honor of Adams who was passing through Baldwins hometown, Newark, New Jersey.When informed why the cannons roared, Baldwin quipped he hoped the next one went up the presidents arse.

That sealed his fate.

World War I brought another Sedition Act. This time it was illegal to utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language against the U.S. government.

The jailing of Eugene Debs is the most famous case. Near the end of the war, the socialist leader criticized Wilsons policies and the draft. His words prompted the feds to arrest and sentence Debs to five years in prison.

Debs was not alone. The feds and state governments rounded up, convicted, and jailed or deported countless anti-war protesters, union organizers and socialists. Their crimes: writing pamphlets, giving speeches, or marching on picket lines. Montana even jailed a labor organizer who refused to kiss the American flag.

It seems that Wilson, like Adams, thought he was above criticism. Both fooled the public by whipping up pro-administration sentiment. Of course, it didnt sound like pro-administration rhetoric. It came across as righteous pro-American sloganeering. But it conveniently silenced critics.

We would do this sort of thing again during the McCarthy era, the civil rights movement, and after the 9/11 attacks. It is easier to shut down the marches and censor the speeches than to beat the critics arguments. It is even easier to pressure social media platforms to cut them off.

It would be one thing if these antics only hit intended targets, right or wrong. But, as things happen, common sense disappears as easily as First Amendment protections.

John Adams had his Luther Baldwin. Woodrow Wilson had Robert Goldstein.

Goldstein was a would-be movie producer who wanted to cash in on the patriotism craze. He decided to produce what he called Wave the Flag movies that celebrated good old Americanism. His crowning effort, The Spirit of 76, depicted Washington enduring Valley Forge, Patrick Henry declaiming Liberty or Death, and brave Minutemen battling treacherous Redcoats.

Unfortunately for Goldstein, the Redcoats were British. In World War I, the British were on our side. The feds arrested Goldstein. They tried and convicted him for demeaning an ally, the British, thereby aiding an enemy, the Germans.

For such treachery, Goldstein served three years in prison.

The court case was U.S. v. The Spirit of 76.

That seems fitting somehow.

John Sweeney is a writer living in Wilmington, Delaware.

Excerpt from:
Common sense disappears and so can the First Amendment if we're not careful | Opinion - The News Journal

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.

Link:
Group hosts discussion on the First Amendment and disinformation Tennessee Lookout - Tennessee Lookout

In the designated uptown historic district of Hillsboro, there is at least one small business with a "Let's Go Brandon" T-shirt in its storefront window display. I thought about buying it for the Sasquatch who stands guard (there's a hidden surveillance camera behind his eyes) in my own storefront window display.

Frankly, as an erstwhile fan of NASCAR racing, I have no issues with Brandon Brown and his great victory at Talladega, Ala. last month. Nor do I have any problem with any local business selling T-shirts in his honor or for any other reason. (Think First Amendment rights.)

Of course, some liberal media outlets the usual suspects have criticized the "Let's Go Brandon" message as a "vulgar taunt" against Joe Biden. Maybe it is.

But are we as a nation really ready to erase the phrase "Let's Go Brandon" from our lexicon? Let's hope not.

For a brief refresher, the phrase's secondary meaning was certainly hurled at President Donald Trump throughout his four years in office.

There was the aging, broken-down actor, Robert De Zero, saying "F--- Trump" multiple times on a national stage at the Tony Awards in 2018. There was the female joke teller whose name and work I'm happily ignorant, who carried an ersatz severed bloody head of the former president. There are other examples, to be sure.

For four years, the vulgarity against President Trump went mostly ignored by the liberal mainstream media.

Locally, one retired public school teacher complained to this newspaper about a private citizen displaying an anti-Biden banner on his private property. Law enforcement was contacted. I reached out to the county sheriff and the county prosecutor on behalf of the complainer. Again, think about our First Amendment rights.

By the way, to date, not one person has complained to me about the F--- Trump verbiage.

But that's often how it is with liberals. They like the First Amendment when it applies to Hollywood, pop music and what they deem as acceptable "art" and "literature."

Whether we care to admit it or not, politics is and always has been a blood sport. Those with thin skin need not apply. Trump and his supporters received criticism both fair and unfair. The same goes for Biden.

As former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wrote in a recent column for the Washington Examiner: "What we need is not necessarily political or ideological unity. What we need is to be unified in our respect for each other's freedoms, to show respect for our fellow Americans, and to trust in our fellow countrymen to govern themselves as they see fit."

I agree. Of course, since this message is from Mike Pompeo, it is immediately dismissed as partisan rhetoric. It shouldn't be.

* * *

With rising prices from food to fuel and everything in between, perhaps Biden should pay heed to Pompeo's advice. In a recent address before the Fourth Estate, Biden chastised the press for doing a lousy job of reporting on the nation's supply chain debacle. That may backfire on the media's darling figure politic.

Biden's criticism of the Third Rail of the Democrat Party (close behind the DNC and Hollywood elites) is ill-advised at a time when his polling numbers are falling faster than the Cincinnati Reds' 2022 team salary.

Look, Joe, Americans understand the supply chain, and we always have. We have understood it during the nation's founding. We have understood it during floods, famine, fights, freezes and fires. We...frankly, get it.

We don't need a liberal press to carry your water or to explain it to us. We are smart enough to remember that a gallon of gas sold for $1.70 in Hillsboro in October 2020 one month before now-remorseful voters elected you. It is now $3.35 a gallon and rising. With higher energy prices, come higher prices for everything else.

Biden inherited a good system. There is an old saying: If it ain't broke, don't fix it and in Biden's case, don't break it.

With Biden's executive orders and foolhardy decisions, he has created a myriad of problems that did not exist upon his arrival to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. From the Afghanistan disaster, to the border crisis, to ever-increasing inflation to our nation's lack of respect across the globe, this is all on Biden's watch.

Biden doesn't need to make loose cracks against his pals in the press, or dismiss the high price of gas or give us any inflated or pretentious speeches full of flatulence and signifying nothing.

Take a look at what's happening across the real America. Your policies are making it more and more difficult for Democrats to get elected on the local and state levels. Many of these may have been competent candidates, too. But you are creating a toxic environment for your old-school Truman, Kennedy and (dare I say it?) Clinton Democrats.

Democrat operative James Carville explained it well enough last week. You'd be wise to listen to him instead of taking selfies on Rehoboth Beach with the good doctor.

And we've got three more years of this?

* * *

On a lighter note, Fox News' Dana Perino introduced her new family friend this week. His name is Percy Vizsla, and he was born in Highland County (at Highland Vizslas) on Sept. 22.

In an address to Fox viewers this week, Perino said: "Whos ready for some good news? Well, I have some to share. Ladies and gentlemen, meet Percy Vizsla. He was born in Hillsboro, Ohio on Sept. 22, 2021. Its an honor to introduce you to him first. He will be, as Jasper was, your dog, too. Percys the newest member of the Fox family, and were just starting to get to know each other. Hes remarkably good and smart. And quite the heart mender, too."

For more, visit https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dana-perino-america-meet-percy-vizsla.

Rory Ryan is publisher and owner of The Highland County Press, Highland County's only locally owned and operated newspaper.

See the article here:
First Amendment applied to Trump's critics, and it still applies - The Highland County Press

A bill aimed at curtailing violent protesters is poised for a return engagement at 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.

The bills author, Republican Sen. Randy Robertson of Cataula, said the measure will protect the right to peaceably 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 riot as 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 brutality rocked Atlanta last 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 the trial 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 - Georgia Recorder

BAYCOUNTY Bay County Sheriffs deputies arrested an independent photo journalist on Tuesdayin violation of his First Amendment, constitutional rights, the journalist's attorney says.

Jason Gutterman, a self-described photo journalist and First Amendment auditor,was arrested outside the UPS Customer Center at 3205 Minnesota Ave., across the street from Mosley High School. A Bay Countycourt threw the case out on Friday, however, said Kevin Alvarez, a Tallahassee-based attorney who represented Gutterman after the incident.

It was not even close to being constitutional, Alvarez said.

Bay County: Free food in a box? Bay County gets on board with growing worldwide projectfor the needy

More: Give Grandma a break: Where to get Thanksgiving meal carryouts in the Panama City area

The entire incident was captured on video by Gutterman and his 17-year-old son, who was also arrested, but never booked at the jail or charged with a crime. The video was posted to Guttermans YouTube channel, Amagansett Press, on Saturday. As of 4p.m. on Saturday, the video had garnered more than 93,000 views.

The channel has more than 304,000 subscribers and has multiple videos with hundreds of thousands of views, all in different states, where Gutterman challenges authorities to see if First Amendment rights there will be upheld.

Were gonna pay a little visit on these folks here and find out if they honor and respect our right to take video and photographs in public and from publicly accessible areas of public places, Gutterman said at the start of his video.

In the video, Gutterman is standing on a public sidewalk, recording video of the UPS building. Under the First Amendment, in general any member of the public can record video or shoot photographs of property or people as long as they do so on public property.

At one point in the video, a deputy approaches Gutterman andaskswhat hes doing noting thathed received a complaint about a man atthe building with a video camera. Gutterman declines to tell the deputy what he's doing, at which point he then calls his superior officer for backup.

The superior officer, who identifies himself in the video as Sgt. Ralph Grainger, then questions Gutterman as to why he is at the site filming. Grainger then tells Gutterman that he is in violation of a Florida statute that prevents anyone from being within 500 feet of a school without a legitimate purpose in this case being Mosley High School across the street.

Howeverthe statute cited, Florida statute 810.0975, was declared unconstitutionally vague in 2008 by the U.S. District Court of Florida. In that case, Gray v. Kohl, the court permanently enjoined the state of Florida and its officers from enforcing the statute.

The court agreed with me about the statute, Alvarez said. It took me about two seconds to look it up … it wasnt exactly rocket science.

Later in the video, after Gutterman repeatedly disputes the statute, Grainger arrests him and also orders that Guttermans son be handcuffed.

Alvarez said Gutterman spent two days in jail before the court released him and dismissed the charges on Friday.

A Saturday statement from the Bay County Sheriff's Office admits that Gutterman was arrested on basis of the statute. However, it notes that the statute was amended in 2013 and that the problems identified were corrected by the Florida Legislature and that it remains a chargeable offense.

"Despite historical questions about Florida State 810.0975, BCSO deputies decided to err on the side of caution and remove Gutterman from the School Safety Zone," the statement reads. "They believed it was more important to protect the students from potential harm than it was to protect their reputations from any potential damage they would face on social media.

As such, the Bay County Sheriffs Office could choose to pursue this charge against Gutterman, but has decided not to do so," the statement adds.

In a Saturday email to The News Herald, Alvarez disagreed with the sheriff's office, writing that the Legislature in 2013 never changed the problematic issues with the statute, just added a punishment enhancement.

But to Alvarez, it doesn'tmatter if the statute was constitutional because his client was still complying with the law.

The thing is, even if the statute wasnt unconstitutional, he had a legitimate purpose for being there … he was there for journalistic activities, Alvarez said.

The sheriff's office statement notes that deputies would receive additional training because of the incident.

"The Bay County Sheriffs Office remains committed to constitutional policingand protecting the rights of the people we serve," the statement reads."Our deputies have received specialized training to ensure they protect constitutional rights andin light of this incident, we will be adding to our training curriculum."

See the article here:
WATCH VIDEO: Journalist arrested in Bay County in violation of 1st Amendment, lawyer says - The News Herald

You may recall our previous post about the unpermitted concern that was held in honor of a felon who was fatally shot after a police pursuit that ended in Santa Ana. In that post we alluded to a response by Santa Ana Mayor Vince Sarmiento, to a resident, regarding that event. We now have a copy of that response and it is unbelievable.

Sarmiento wrote:

Remember that Mayor Sarmiento is a bankruptcy lawyer. He is so successful at this that his law firm does not even have a website but you can confirm what he does here.

Sarmiento is of course dead wrong in his response about the unpermitted event. That event was a concert and the only reason that Santa Ana City Council Member Johnathan Ryan Hernandez and his homies did not pull a permit for that event was that they could not afford to pay the City back for the money that was spent on that event. I am told by city insiders that the City spent perhaps as much as $100K on police services and public works on that unpermitted event.

The First Amendment by the way has limits. You cannot go in a crowded movie theater, for example, and yell that there is a fire when there is no fire.

By Sarmientos logic no one should ever have to pull a permit again for any event using his specious First Amendment argument.

Shutting down a portion of a busy street like Bristol is a big deal. That was an inconvenience for the residents and the businesses in that area. And it tied up police resources too!

Here is the response we got from an attorney today about Sarmientos poor grasp of the law:

The government may place reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of free speech expression so long as they are content neutral, narrowly tailored and provide alternate means to express the views. Remember, even the ACLU acknowledges that the first amendment does not give you a right to block traffic or entrances to buildings. This is unbelievable!

Sarmiento is a scofflaw and so is Hernandez. It is beyond disturbing that we have elected officials who dont support our local ordinances.

By the way we have turned in official requests to City Hall for specific data regarding the money spent on the unpermitted concert for a felon. Once we get that info we will post it here.

Like Loading...

Related

Read the original post:
Mayor Sarmiento says you don't need to pull city permits for public events because of the First Amendment - newsantaana.com

-Senator Hoylman: Its time to end the egregious bias against certain genres of music, like rap, and protect the First Amendment rights of all artists.

NEW YORKToday, Senator Brad Hoylman (D/WFP-Manhattan) and Senator Jamaal Bailey (D-The Bronx) introduced Rap Music on Trial legislation (S.7527) to enhance the free speech protections of New Yorkers by banning the use of art created by a defendant as evidence against them in a courtroom. The legislation will protect all artists and content creators, including rappers from having their lyrics wielded against them by prosecutors.

In September 2019 in a New York District Court, the lyrics of rap music artist Daniel Hernandez (better known as Tekashi69 or 6ix9ine) were introduced in court and used to compel Hernandez into becoming a government witness to avoid harsher sentencing. As recently as this January, a Maryland Appeals Court decided to allow prosecutors to submit rap music recorded by Lawrence Montague as evidence against him in a trial, despite a dissenting judge stating that the rap lyrics had little to no probative value.

The legislation from Senator Hoylman and Bailey (attached) would guarantee freedom of creative expression in New York by prohibiting prosecutors from using creative expression as criminal evidence against a person without clear and convincing proof that there is a literal, factual nexus between the creative expression and the facts of the case.

Senator Hoylman said: Art is creative expression, not a blueprint of criminal plans. Yet weve seen prosecutors in New York and across the country try to use rap music lyrics as evidence in criminal cases, a practice upheld this year by a Maryland court. Its time to end the egregious bias against certain genres of music, like rap, and protect the First Amendment rights of all artists. Im proud to introduce this legislation so that New York leads the way in treating artists fairly, no matter their background.

Senator Bailey said: The right to free speech is enshrined in our federal and state constitutions because it is through this right that we can preserve all of our other fundamental rights. The admission of art as criminal evidence only serves to erode this fundamental right, and the use of rap and hip-hop lyrics in particular is emblematic of the systemic racism that permeates our criminal justice system. In many cases, even the mere association with certain genres, like hip-hop and rap, leads to heightened scrutiny in the courtroom and is used to presume guilt, immorality, and propensity for criminal activity. This bill will finally put an end to this grossly discriminatory practice by ensuring that there is a valid nexus between the speech sought to be admitted into evidence and the crime alleged.

Recent scholarship has highlighted a disturbing trend poised to threaten the haven New York has always provided its artists. In courtrooms across the country, artists musical works are being admitted against them as evidence in criminal proceedings. Just as concerning, the mere appreciation of others music--whether through reposting lyrics, performing, or simply listening--is also being used as evidence. Unchecked, these practices chill free expression, transform the figurative into fact, and warp criminal courts into instruments for suppressing provocative speech. Moreover, these practices ignore the foundational principle that a criminal case should be tried on the facts and not on a persons propensity to commit the crime.

Rap has come under scrutiny for decades, being blamed by the media for criminal activity, and admitted as evidence of criminal behavior by the artist. Social scientists have linked anti-rap attitudes and racially discriminatory behavior. But rap is just like any other creative expression. The New Jersey Supreme Court wrote that one cannot presume that simply because an author has chosen to write about certain topics, he or she has acted in accordance with those views (State v. Skinner, 218 N.J. 496, 517, 521 (2014)). The court noted that no one believes that Bob Marley actually shot the sheriff, or that theres a man buried in Edgar Allan Poes floorboards.

###

Continue reading here:
Senators Brad Hoylman & Jamaal Bailey Introduce "Rap Music on Trial" Legislation to Prevent Song Lyrics From Being Used As Evidence In...