Category Archives: First Amendment

The student body at Syracuse University is made up of over 1,000 student veterans and military connected students. The university greatly benefits and profits from the attendance of veterans, yet the administration doesnt do enough to make sure veterans are accepted by the SU community. Chancellor Kent Syverud needs to step up and protect the people who have protected this country.

Less than fifty years after opening its doors, SU quickly became a place for educating military members. The relationship between SU and veterans dates back to 1918, when SU established a Students Army Training Corps. Due to the armistice, this program was shut down after less than a year in existence, but SU created the Reserve Officer Training Corps in 1919.

By attending SU, student veterans bring leadership within the student body, life experiences, peer mentorship and money to the university. The student veteran community needs Syverud to address the university community today just as he did in his famous inauguration address in 2014, when he said SU must once again become the best place for veterans.

Although it is true that Syverud has led the way in the establishment and expansion of many programs, he has failed on one of the biggest fronts: inclusion.

Diversity and inclusion are essential to college campuses around the country. SU has FYS 101, a course for incoming and transfer students which focuses on discussions about discrimination and bias as well as diversity and inclusion. But this courses syllabus omits student veterans despite the value most veterans place on diversity and inclusion.

Because of the lack of needed support from SU, being a veteran at SU can be challenging.

Liam Hines, a student at SU, wrote an article where he says, Any such rhetoric which defends or celebrates the U.S. military is consequently a voicing of support for U.S. imperialism, neocolonialism and mass murder. Rather than participating in the recreation of U.S. ideological hegemony, SU students must condemn this rhetoric wherever it appears.

While Hines speech may be protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution, it can be deeply offensive to veterans and to the members of the military some of whom share the SU campus with Hines who paid the ultimate price for freedom.

On Sept. 11, 2021, an SU professor tweeted, We have to be more honest about what 9/11 was and what it wasnt. It was an attack on the heteropatriarchal capitalistic system that America relies upon to wrangle other countries into passivity It was an attack on the system many white Americans fight to protect.

While this professor has the right to their own beliefs and their First Amendment right of freedom of speech, the university should have shown its support for its veterans by condemning their speech.

Since the university failed to address the professors comments properly, Ill take the time to address what the leadership on campus failed to correct.

Veterans of the U.S. military come from around the world, and veterans represent a range of ethnicities. While veterans respect your freedom to express protected speech, the SU community must be more sensitive to veterans. Everyone serves for different reasons, and for the professor to classify us as only white Americans is deeply offensive.

It seems that all individuals are protected at SU except student veterans. I am calling on the chancellor to make an instant change and commit to making SU a more inclusive place for veterans. It is imperative that SU develops trainings and seminars to explain the value that student veterans bring to campus. This unwelcoming environment towards veterans needs to stop, and SU must stop calling itself the best place for veterans until then.

Matt Winchell 19

Published on October 10, 2021 at 8:29 pm

Here is the original post:
It seems that all individuals are protected at SU, except student veterans - The Daily Orange

AUSTIN (Nexstar) During the beginning of the pandemic in 2020, many churches across Texas converted their services to outdoor, online or socially-distanced services.

But, some local officials ordered them to completely shut their doors. Thats why Republican lawmakers filed a bill during regular session that would ban this from happening ever again.

It already passed in the legislature, but now needs approval from voters as a constitutional amendment, Prop 3, in this Novembers election.

Religious leaders faced a tough decision on how to serve their congregation during the onset of the pandemic, but some didnt have a choice.

We saw multiple local ordinances and other governmental entities shutting down churches, one of the bills co-authors, Rep. Matt Krause, (R Fort Worth) explained.

Another one of the bills co-authors, Rep. James White, (R Hillister), said this needed to be amended immediately.

The Constitution of Texas in the United States was very clear. The government should not shut down churches, Rep. White said.

Thats why the legislature passed the bill that became Prop 3, barring any governmental entity from shutting down churches, even in disasters or emergencies.

The bill passed with bipartisan support, but some tried to fight the new law, saying the churches were ordered to close to protect public health, and did not impede on religious freedoms.

If a fire marshal orders a number of people to leave a church building because it is currently overflowed, that is not an infringement of anyones right to exercise their religion. Likewise with public health concerns, Brian Register testified against the bill in the spring.

But, the bills authors say a complete shutdown is too far.

The constitution and case laws allow for reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on certain First Amendment rights. So I understand that argument. But this was much different. This was completely shutting down and foreclosing the opportunity to worship. And thats where government greatly overreached, Rep. Krause said.

In order for it to officially become law, voters have to give it their approval. The election for Prop 3, and seven other proposed constitutional amendments, is set for Nov. 2, 2021.

Read the original here:
Texans to vote on amendment that would bar government from shutting down churches - KGBT-TV

VERO BEACH Every two weeks, individualscan voice their praises, concerns or complaints with the School Board uninterrupted forthree minutes.

The practiceenables speakersto share opinions on specific business-meeting items or bring up issues unrelated to the meetingagenda. Traditionally, it'sconducted after the meeting has begun and before board-member discussion. There have been no limits on how many people can speak or for how long.

But that soon could change, and proposed new rulesare generating both opposition and supportamong parents and community members.

More: Nearly 140 students, 27 staff COVID-19 positive Sept. 27-Oct. 4; numbers continue decline

School grades: School grades are out, but they look different for a pandemic, remote-learning school year

Masks in schools: Indian River schools will have a new mask policy beginning next week; here's how it will work

The purpose of changeswould be to focus on the meeting's agenda and steer conversation clear from politicalagendas and platforms, said member Peggy Jones, who proposed the changes. The idea, she said, came up at a recent Florida School Board Association meeting as a way to mitigate School Board meetings, which in recent months have at times becomes volatile.

Those in favor say the move wouldrefocus board members' attention on the meetingagenda. Those against itsay it would stripthem of their First Amendment rights.

In this instance, however,free-speech issues likely don't apply,according to the First Amendment Foundation.

Currently, speakers can sign up to address the board before itsbusiness meeting, which begins at 6 p.m., and are called to speak after the meeting has begun. Anyone can speak during that time about any school-related topic.

The proposed changes now under a 30-day public-reviewperiod and to be brought back in November would changewhen people speak and what they may speak about.They include:

Like Jones, board member Mara Schiff saidthe proposed change could ensure board members are able to discuss agenda items in a timely manner.

There's no intention to silence anyone, Schiff said, but when meetings get co-opted by topics not on the agenda, items often aren't discusseduntil 8 or 9 p.m., which, in many cases, comes hours after the first meeting earlier that morning.

Getting to important issues well into the eveninghas resulted in board members and the superintendent misspeaking simply because they're tired "and that's what we're trying to avoid," she said.

Furthermore, there are people, groups and organizations who feel uncomfortable attending meetings because the tone of citizen input can feel volatile and threatening, Schiff said. Part of the proposals intentis to create awelcoming atmosphere where people feel safe and comfortable when speaking directly to the School Board, she said.

Still, for Thomas Kenny,a county resident with no children in the district, moving any form of public commentoutside of the business meeting is a threat to citizens' rights.

But the change wouldn't violate anyone's rightsbecause itdoesn'tlimit or restrict a speaker's content or viewpoints, said Virginia Hamrick, staff attorney at the First Amendment Foundation.Moreover,the superintendent or presiding officer, such as a chairperson, has an interest in moving the meeting forward, so if the decision is made to keep the meeting orderly, the policy wouldn't violate speakers' rights, she said.

Nevertheless, Kenny said,"they're asking the public to go along with something that is unofficial (because) anything outsideof the official business meeting just becomes abatting around of ideas."

Former School Board member and parent Tiffany Justicecalled the proposalan attempt to suppress parents' concerns. Parents have become bookends, and making these changes would send a "horrible message to parents," she said.

Moreover, alternative outlets for communicating such as email are aren't valuable because many go unanswered, Justice said.

But that hasn't been the case forparent Wendy McDaniel. The change would be good and could encourage her and others to communicate more often via email instead of attending the meetingbecause doing so makes sense, she said.If an issueisn'ton the agenda, she said, the community "shouldn'texpect a face-to-face meeting" to talk about it.

Sommer Brugal isTCPalm's education reporter for Indian River, St Lucie and Martin counties. You can keep up with Sommer on Twitter @smbrugal and give hera call at 772-221-4231.

Original post:
So you want to address the Indian River School County Board? New rules may be coming - TCPalm

(The Center Square) On Thursday, U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, joined all Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in demanding the Department of Justice not interfere with the rights of parents to come before school boards and speak with educators about their concerns.

The letter follows U.S. DOJ Attorney General Merrick Garlands October 4 memo that stated DOJ would announce a series of measures designed to address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel, after a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff at public schools in recent months.

In the letter, Grassley joined the other senators in criticizing a letter the National School Boards Association sent President Joe Biden a letter on Sept. 29 asking federal law enforcement and other assistance to deal with the growing number of threats and acts of intimidation occurring across the nation. The association called for immediate assistance to protect our students, school board members and educators who are susceptible to acts of violence affecting interstate commerce because of threats to their districts, families, and personal safety and a joint expedited review of actions to take under laws, including the PATRIOT Act.

The school board meetings at issue in the National School Boards Association letter largely appear to involve parents being frustrated by COVID-19 mask mandates for children as well as the possibility of school curricula newly incorporating the controversial academic discipline generally known as critical race theory, the senators said. Parents who get upset about these topics, and others, are engaging in speech that is clearly protected under the First Amendment.

They asked Garland to explain how any of this rises to the definition of criminal harassment and to make very clear to the American public that the Department of Justice will not interfere with the rights of parents to come before school boards and speak with educators about their concerns.

In the memo, Garland said the DOJ would use its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate and that since coordination with local enforcement is critical for the measures, he is directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation, working with each U.S. attorney to meet with federal, state, local, tribal and territorial leaders in each federal judicial district by November 3. The meetings will be discussion of strategies for addressing threats and open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response. The DOJs efforts are expected to include the creation of a task force to determine how federal enforcement tools can be used to prosecute these crimes, and ways to assist law enforcement where threats of violence may not constitute federal crimes, according to a DOJ news release.

The DOJ will also develop specialized training and guidance for local school boards and school administrators, the release said to help school board members and other potential victims understand the type of behavior that constitutes threats, how to report threatening conduct to the appropriate law enforcement agencies, and how to capture and preserve evidence of threatening conduct to aid in the investigation and prosecution of these crimes, the release said.

NTOC will direct credible threats to FBI field offices, for coordination with the U.S. Attorneys Office and law enforcement partners as appropriate, the release said.Reporting threats of violence through NTOC will help the federal government identify increased threats in specific jurisdictions as well as coordinated widespread efforts to intimidate educators and education workers.

U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham, R-S.C, John Cornyn, R-Texas, Mike Lee, R-Utah, Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Ben Sasse, R-Neb., Josh Hawley, R-Mo., Tom Cotton, R-Ark., John Kennedy, R-La., Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., also signed the letter.

View original post here:
Grassley, GOP Senators to AG: Don't Interfere with Parents' Right to Address School Boards - The Iowa Torch

I can't recover my losses after I was punished by the state of Arizona for refusing to lie under oath. Why? The doctrine of qualified immunity.

Greg Ohlson| Opinion contributor

Qualified immunity: How it protects police from civil lawsuits

The doctrine of qualified immunity has been used to protect police from civil lawsuits and trials. Here's why it was put in place.

Just the FAQs, USA TODAY

When a witness testifies in court, they take an oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Laws also prevent a witness from being persuaded to give inaccurate testimonyor commit perjury. Arizona, for example, makes it a felony to attempt to influence the testimony of a witness.

As I found out, however,ifyou work for the government, your superiors can't be held financially responsible forordering you to change your testimonyand retaliating against you when you refuse.

I worked as a forensic scientist for nearly 40yearsin a variety of agencies and medical laboratories, including theArizona Department of Public Safety, Scientific Analysis Bureau, which I ended up suing.

I regularly testified in court about the results of defendants' blood-alcohol samples.

A USA TODAY Opinion series: Faces, victims, issues and debates surrounding qualified immunity

At the Arizona Department of Public Safety, samples from multiple defendants were analyzed in batches. Thedepartmentpreferredto give criminal defense attorneys only their defendant'ssample.I told my supervisorsthat themost fair and objective methodwas to provide defense counsel with the entire batch of samples, so they could better review and determine theresults.I considered that abest practiceand within my professional discretion.

In 2016,I testified in two DUI cases that the disclosure being provided to defense attorneys was incomplete. I was asked whether there was any scientific reason not to disclose the information. I said no. I was asked whether the undisclosed data could demonstrate that there was a problem in the blood run. I said yes, based on my professional opinion.

Then all hell broke loose.

I was informed by my superiors that I was required to change my testimony in court.

I said I would not change my testimony.I was then suspended locked out of my computer and had my key card taken away. After months of beingisolated from my work and my team, it was determined that I had been insubordinateand I was fined. I feltI was being forced to retire.

ForArizona DPS, the concern was never to make sure the state didnt convict innocent people.

My son was killed by a park ranger.But I may never see justice.

I brought suit in federal court for the violation of my First Amendment right to free speech. Everyone I talked to, including many lawyers, said, They cant do that. The government cant order you to change your testimony, then punish you if you still tell the truth.

Unbelievably, they were wrong.

The U.S.District Court for the District of Arizona agreedthere wasa violation of my free speech rightsbut granted the defendantsqualified immunity, which means they won't have to pay monetary damages.

The court ruled that the law was not "clearly established"on whether government employees had a First Amendment right to be free from discipline for in-court testimony offered as part of their job.

Qualified immunity: 8 myths about why police need it to protect the public

I appealed the court's decision. In August, a panel of three judges onthe 9th Circuit Court of Appealsheld that Icouldn't recover my financial lossesbecause the court had not previously carved out an exception to qualified immunity that protects government employees from discipline by their employer for telling the truth in court. In short,my First Amendment rights weren't "clearly established" by the district court.

How isthat possible?

According to qualified immunity,even if the government'sconduct was illegal,because there is no case saying government supervisors cantpunish an employee for truthful testimony in court, my supervisorsweren't on notice that this kind ofconductcould create civilliability for them.

It doesn't make sense.

Im a scientist, not a lawyer, but I cant understand why any supervisor would need a court to tell them that you cant punish someone for truthful testimony.I fear for government employees. That they can be punished for telling the truth, and end up having to leave their job because ofit,doesnt feel like justice.

Qualified immunity robbed me of my shot at justice. It must be abolished.

Greg Ohlson retired from the Arizona Department of Public Safety in 2017.

This columnis part of a series by the USA TODAY Opinion team examining the issue of qualified immunity. The project is made possible in part by a grant fromStand Together. Stand Together does not provide editorial input.

Link:
I refused to lie under oath for the state of Arizona, and the courts aren't on my side - USA TODAY

The start of the 2021-2022 term of the Supreme Court this week has focused attention on a number of major cases the justices will decide during the next nine months. They include hot-button issues like gun safety and control, the death penalty, immigration, religious rights and freedom of expression under the First Amendment and a panoply of other appeals among the two dozen or so currently on its docket, with another few dozen to be added during the term.

But the marquee matter undoubtedly to be decided in the upcoming months is the high-profile abortion case. No, not the six-week, private party-enforcement law in Texas that was put on hold Wednesday but one from Mississippi, a forerunner of the Lone Star law.

Reproductive rights advocates gasped last spring when the court agreed to hear the case, and they warily view the hearing scheduled in early December of Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, which will adjudicate the validity of a Mississippi law that caps most abortions at 15 weeks, unless for a health emergency or severe fetal abnormality, accompanied by other restrictions, and absent any exceptions for rape or incest. They fear a ruling on the statute might mark a rollback of the reproductive rights established by the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, including the unlimited permissibility of abortions during the first trimester, restricted access to abortion in the next trimester prior to viability of a fetus, and exceptions for the life or health of the other in upon fetal viability in the third and final one. Even worse, they fear the timing could dismantle Roe altogether, turning the matter over to the states, more than half of which are poised by present or prospective legislation to limit or, like Texas, essentially eliminate abortion rights.

Article continues after advertisement

But their adversaries are gleeful, seeing the same potential consequences and hoping they

occur, a development they have been waiting for decades to achieve. Although the high court has addressed a number of cases imposing various abortion restrictions since Roe, the doctrine has shakily survived for the most part. The new case from Mississippi will be its first head-on challenge, and it is of particular interest in Minnesota, home state of Roes occasionally praised and oft-maligned author Justice Harry Blackmun.

Incidentally, the Mississippi case is not the only or first abortion case to be heard

by the jurists in the nations capital this fall. On Monday the court will hear an attempt by the attorney general of Kentucky, a Republican, to try to revive an abortion restriction law invalidated by a court in that state a couple of years ago, a ruling that the governor there, a Democrat, declined to appeal. In Cameron v. EMW Womens Health Center, the justices will decide if the case can be revived long after the deadline for appeal has passed, a ruling that could, if it goes the way of the challenger, open up a potential floodgate of dormant litigation.

Both of these cases will confront the doctrine of precedent, a concept that augurs in favor of upholding past judicial decisions. But that tenet grounded in maximizing certainty and stability, known in legal circles as stare decisis, is hardly talismanic. In fact, the high court has departed from its own precedent on more than 230 occasions, an average of about once per year, over its 232-year existence. It has done so in a wide variety of contexts, with reversals ranging from high-profile First Amendment litigation to criminal law to employment and labor disputes to more mundane legal procedures and protocols, among other matters.

Marshall H. Tanick

The Supreme Courts route to reversal of Roe has been laid out relatively recently by several rulings overturning precedent or signaling its inclination to do so The most notable occurred in a ruling two years ago in Janus v. AFSCME, a labor union case in which the court reversed nearly 40 years of precedent in allowing labor union members to refuse to pay union dues on grounds of the right of freedom of expression under the First Amendment. In the majority ruling in the case, decided by a narrow 5-4 margin, the court laid out six factors to be considered in overturning past precedent, a standard articulated in other cases as well.

The prospect for overturning Roe may turn on a number of these considerations when the justices take up the Mississippi case. The half-dozen factors delineated for reversal in the Janus case, may be fatal to Roes vitality. Heres how it could happen. The first prong of the route to reversal is whether the decision was one of constitutional law, where the court in the Janus case deemed adherence precedent is weakest. Roe meets this standard because the decision written by Justice Blackman was strictly based on constitutional reasoning under the implicit right of privacy under the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Article continues after advertisement

Whether the Roe case was wrongly decided is another explicit factor in determining whether to follow or depart from it. Although none of the current justices was there at the time of Roe, a 7-2 decision, a number of them have passed upon post-Roe issues and a few have expressed their view that Roe was not only an aberration, but an abomination. The Mississippi attorney generals office has signaled that this prong will be a major target in the states argument, calling the Roe decision in its legal briefing egregiously wrong. This theme also has emerged in some other lower federal courts addressing Roe-related issues over the years, suggesting that the wrongly decided factor might be a fertile field for plowing Roe under the surface.

The quality of the reasoning of the Roe case is another consideration that might cut against its survival. Even some of who support the outcome of that case, a right of choice for women under an implicit but not explicit constitutional right of privacy under the Ninth Amendment have questioned whether the decision was properly premised on that provision. The late Justice Ginsburg, a strong Roe advocate, stated that the ruling should have been based upon denial of equal protection, a view shared by Harvard Law Prof. Lawrence Tribe, a well-known constitutional scholar and highly successful Supreme Court advocate.

The workability of the Roe doctrine is another factor that comes into play. The trimester-viability concept embedded in the Roe decision, regulating abortions relative to the duration of the pregnancy, has raised questions of its feasibility.

The status of different legal rulings and new developments over the years, another factor cited in the Janus case, also could militate against maintenance of the Roe rationale. A number of differing legal rulings have been issued by the court throughout the years, including the Supreme Court, itself, which impose restrictions on reproductive rights including limited pre-abortion waiting periods and parental notification and consent requirements, among other limitations. Those inroads on the margins of the Roe doctrine provide a route for its reversal.

The final factor, whether there has been reliance on the Roe doctrine, is a tricky one. That consideration is most applicable in business and commercial matters, not matters of personal choice. But defenders of Roe may be hard pressed to convince a tribunal that women have relied upon Roe in becoming pregnant, and supporters of the Mississippi measure may pounce on that factor in arguing that women (or make partners) do not engage in reliance on Roe in carrying out their daily lives.

These half-dozen factors and, perhaps others, may be central to the Supreme Courts consideration in deciding whether to retain or restrict the Roe ruling. In the meantime, both advocates for Roe and its antagonists, are gearing for what may be an abortion Armageddon soon at the high court.

Marshall H. Tanick is a constitutional law attorney and historian with the Minneapolis law firm of Meyer Njus Tanick.

If youre interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below or consider writinga letteror a longer-formCommunity Voicescommentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)

Continue reading here:
Will Roe survive new Supreme Court case, or is this the term it falls? - MinnPost

Oct. 6, 2021 5:39 pm ET

Regarding Ted Ralls op-ed Free Speech Has Consequences, but Should Firing Be One? (Oct. 1): Mr. Rall acknowledges the fundamental difference between public and private employersthe former are subject to First Amendment constraints, the latter are notbut he seems to decry this state of affairs. What he overlooks is that the right of private actors to free speech includes the right to refuse to deal or do business with, or to boycott or cancel, those whose speech is viewed as objectionable.

Should an employer generally be free to fire those who engage in speech of which the employer disapproves? Absolutely. We already have limited that freedom by law in various ways: An employee cannot be fired for speaking out in favor of unionization or in opposing his or her employers discriminatory practices. But suggesting a sweeping First Amendment right for private employees does not enhance the freedom Mr. Rall claims to cherish; it would destroy it.

More:
The First Amendment Right to Cancel - The Wall Street Journal

Lesley Spatta| Guest columnist

The death rate of the smallpox pandemic in 1903 was 30%. The court in Jacobson vs. Massachusetts ruled in favor of the state of Massachusetts and allowed the local smallpox vaccine mandate to remain. The individuals choosing to forgo the vaccine would be assessed a $5 fine. The equivalent of $5 today is approximately $150. The cost today of not being vaccinated is your job and the entrance to higher education. The cumulative cost of either one of these is far more than $150.

The federal government has never mandated a vaccine nor has this government made Emergency Use Vaccines compulsory. Many journalists are using the Cambridge, Massachusetts, smallpox mandate to claim legal precedence of federal government vaccine mandates. There is no legal precedence for federal vaccine mandates, nor is there a precedence for job termination due to non vaccination.

There was an article on the front page of the Herald-Times recently that outlined the journey of an Ivy Tech nursing student applying for the religious exemption for the COVID-19 vaccine ("'I would give up everything,'" Sept. 15, 2021). Most of the article read like government propaganda for a federal vaccine mandate instead of an article in support of the students First Amendments right. I thought journalists were protected by the First Amendment. Are we in perilous times?

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects the free exercise of religion even in times of pandemics. Rep. Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat, from New York sponsored the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The act prohibits any agency, department, or official of the United States or any state (from the government) from substantially burdening a persons exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

The city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, assessed a $5 fine on the unvaccinated. The $5 fine would be considered the least restrictive means of furthering the governments compelling interest. A compelling interest by the government is one that is essential or necessary rather than a matter of choice or preference.

The Jacobson vs. Massachusetts decision was not a federal mandate. Again, the decision gave power to the state of Massachusetts. The fine assessed to Henning Jacobson was only $5. The burden on the unvaccinated was not substantial.

COVID-19 has killed many, but must it kill the First Amendment? Many lives have been lost to protect this freedom. If COVID-19 kills the First Amendment, our country will die with it.

Lesley Spatta is a U.S. history teacher andresident of Spencer, Indiana.

Here is the original post:
Column: Should COVID-19 Kill the First Amendment? - The Herald-Times

On Saturday, abortion rights advocates met at the intersection of Seventh Street and Range Line Road in Joplin to exercise several of their First Amendment rights: the right to free speech, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to petition the government.

A group of anti-abortion advocates soon joined them on another corner of the busy intersection, exercising those same rights.

But according to social media and police reports, the rallies turned violent when the two sides clashed, and an individual who was supporting the anti-abortion side was arrested and cited by Joplin police for alleged misdemeanor assault of at least one abortion rights protester.

This violence hopefully was an anomaly. Protests and rallies have always taken place at Seventh and Range Line, one of the most visible intersections in the city, for a variety of causes racial justice, immigration and abortion are just a few examples and rarely, if ever, have they become physically violent.

Violence should be condemned, regardless of what side of the issue you support. It does nothing to advance ones cause and redirects peoples attention away from the issue to the behavior.

Its presence also chills the First Amendment rights that people were exercising in the first place. The threat of violence aims to deter people from protesting, to intimidate them enough that they back off, take down their signs, stop chanting and maybe even cancel future protests.

That behavior isnt protected under the First Amendment.

In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees the freedom to express ones views, to peacefully assemble with others who share those views, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. But these rights are not boundless attempts to intimidate and coerce through threats of violence, stalking and armed paramilitary activity are not constitutionally protected, notes the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at the Georgetown University Law Center.

That means, according to the institute, that the First Amendment protects the right to free speech and to associate with others who share similar views, but it doesnt protect violent or unlawful conduct, even if the person engaging in it intends to express an idea.

All viewpoints and perspectives should be allowed to be expressed, and violence should not be tolerated.

The rest is here:
Our view: Violence chills First Amendment rights to free speech, assembly and petition - Joplin Globe

As part of a new set of policies designed to cut down on anti-vaccine content and health misinformation, YouTube is starting to ban any videos that claim commonly used vaccines approved by health authorities are ineffective or dangerous.

The video sharing platform, and others, including Facebook and Twitter, had already banned misinformation related to the COVID-19 vaccines. This takes the crackdown one step further, with YouTube taking down anti-vaccine posts as well as the accounts of people who spread false information about other vaccines.

Critics and people who have propagated vaccine misinformation on the social media platform immediately decried the move as a violation of their First Amendment protection of free speecha fundamental misunderstanding of free speech protections, says Claudia Haupt, associate professor of law and political science at Northeastern.

The First Amendment, which protects free speech in the U.S., applies to government censorship of protected speech, but not to private companies such as YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter.

But just because the First Amendment doesnt apply here, doesnt mean that there arent tricky questions for platforms deciding which posts stay and which are taken down, Haupt says.

Claudia Haupt, associate professor of law and political science. Photo by Matthew Modoono/Northeastern University

Does this move make sense, as a way to curb vaccine misinformation?

If I understand it correctly, Facebook and Twitter had already banned vaccine misinformation, and YouTube was the last large platform to do so. Its not surprisingif you think about the way that content gets shared across those platforms, it doesnt really help just to target one of them. If youre concerned about misinformation, you would want to look at the entire ecosystem of all social media platforms.

Do people who share anti-vaccine rhetoric on social media platforms have a First Amendment right to do so?

We have to start from the premise that no one has a First Amendment right to post on those platforms. Theres no First Amendment right to be on the platform, and the companies arent required to engage in content-neutral moderation decisions; they can exclude certain viewpoints.

But just because the First Amendment doesnt apply here, doesnt mean that there arent tricky questions: Even if youre a private platform who can moderate independent of the First Amendment, you have to make a decision about what are your guiding principles for including or excluding certain messages. So, for example, you could say, Im going with the medical consensus around vaccines, and Im going to exclude all of the messages about vaccines that directly contradict all of the medical communitys understanding of how vaccines work.

You can see that in the link people have made about the childhood measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and autismits an idea thats been refuted, its just inaccurate as a matter of science. So, you could exclude all the statements that pertain to that, and set the bar according to what the medical community says. You could still, though, decide to permit people to share stories about bad things that have happened to them, because theyre not making a medical claim or giving advice, theyre just telling a story about what happened in their lives. Theres no direct link between what they say and telling people to do that.

But again, all this is independent of the First Amendment because these are private companies.

In that case, how do companies decide whats in and whats out?

In this context with vaccines, on the one hand you have expertise in a medical community that we recognize as the authority on that question, and on the other, we know that there can be huge amounts of harm that can be conflicted by bad information or bad advice.

You could imagine closer cases where its harder to decide what the standard is, but with medical information, we have a scientific standard to go by.

But there are also instances where we have contested science. In the beginning of the pandemic, we had the problem that giving advice was really hard because the medical community was figuring things out as the virus spread. There, it would be really difficultand really problematicfor private companies to decide that some things are good advice and some things are bad advice.

The platform has to pick whose expertise, whose assessment to follow. And this comes up in malpractice all the time: If you go to the doctor and get bad advice, the standard that its judged by is the community of medical professionals. I think it makes sense to also use that as a baseline for speech if its framed as giving advice.

So often, as we can see here, these decisions boil down into a black-and-white conversation: Either I have free speech or Im being censored. Is there a better conversation we could be having?

With these platforms, I have a right to say something is the reflexive cultural posture we have because were so used to talking about rights and the First Amendment. But legally, that doesnt even apply in this space.

Generally, one way I think we should think about it is to weigh speech as one variable, harm as another, and expertise as a third. So, its not just my right to speak against your right to speak, its more about what does the speech do? Whats the level of harm it may cause? Is there something in the content that can be measured in terms of expertise?

For media inquiries, please contact Marirose Sartoretto at m.sartoretto@northeastern.edu or 617-373-5718.

Read more from the original source:
Is YouTube Violating the First Amendment by Removing Anti-Vaccine Videos? - News@Northeastern