Category Archives: First Amendment

This interview is from SDPB's daily public-affairs show,In the Moment, hosted by Lori Walsh.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is about much more than the guarantee to stand in a public space and speak your mind.

Deborah Caldwell Stone, director of the American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom, reminds people the First Amendment protects something essential to who we are as human beings.

"It really needs to go further than that to respect the dignity of every individual to have the right to read and think and speak as they like as part of their humanity," Caldwell Stone says. "I try to expand that conversation to remember that what we're talking about is the ability of every person to express themselves and define themselves in works of literature and what is published in the world."

This is national Banned Books Week. The American Library Association publishes a list of frequently challenged books each year, tracking the trends of moral panics and attacks on libraries and library offerings.

This year, the LGBTQ themed George by Alex Gino, Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and Youby Ibram X. Kendi and Jason Reynolds, and The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indianby Sherman Alexie all made the Top 10 Most Challenged Books List.

Some books on the 2020 list have appeared before (hello, old friend, To Kill a Mockingbird). Others are newcomers and reflect trends in nationwide censorship efforts.

"A large number of challenges are coming in to these books that deal with Black American history, with the history of racism, or addressing racism in society, often under this claim that they represent Critical Race Theory, which is not accurate," Caldwell Stone says.

The South Dakota Library Association holds its annual conference on Sept. 29. The conference features speakers and sessions that discuss access for library patrons to information and technology. The organization also connects South Dakota librarians with resources for protecting intellectual freedom in their communities.

More here:
Libraries: Strongholds of the First Amendment | SDPB - SDPB Radio

In honor of Universal Access to Information Day, the Royal Purple asked three political student organizations on the UW-W campus What does the First Amendment mean to you? Its an amendment, which gives them their right to freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from making any laws that restrict the press and individual citizens from speaking freely about important issues in our society.

The College of Democrats was the first organization we asked to answer the question.

The first amendment is all about the freedoms of the people. I am someone who believes we should all have freedom of speech, religion, assembly, petition, and expression but I think these things often get twisted in our society and we accept hurtful things happening in the name of personal freedoms, chair of the College of Democrats Brianna Deacon said. For example, I believe in free speech but not to the point of hate speech; I believe in the freedom to practice whatever religion one pleases but not to the point of forcing ones religion on others, etc.

The College of Republicans was the second student organization we asked to answer the question of what the First Amendment meant to them.

As a conservative college student, the first amendment is especially important to me because it ensures that I have a platform to share my beliefs with my peers and allows me to hold weekly gatherings of students on campus to continue the exchange of ideas and discourse outside the classroom, College of Republicans chair John Beauchamp said.

Beauchamp continued to mention that any student on campus is welcomed to join meetings Tuesdays at 6 p.m. in Timothy J. Hyland Hall in room 2312 to have civil discussions on current topics and events.

The Whitewater Student Government (WSG) was the last organization we asked to answer the question.

To me personally, the First Amendment means that I am able to use my right of freedom of speech to stand up for what I believe in and be an advocate for others, while also empowering myself and those around me, Whitewater Student Government Vice President Allyson Weisbrod said.

Similar to the freedom of the press and the First Amendment is the access to that information. Individuals have the right to not only speak, but also to seek, receive and communicate information. The media uses this access of information to inform the public on issues of interest and relies on the ability to seek and receive information. The International Day for Universal Access to Information (IDUAI) which is on Tuesday, Sept. 28th celebrates this First Amendment right.

If you want to learn more about IDUAI, visit https://en.unesco.org/commemorations/accesstoinformationday or https://www.un.org/en/observances/information-access-day.

To learn more about College Democrats and College Republicans visit https://www.uww.edu/rock/campus-life/student-orgs.

To learn more about Whitewater Student Government visit https://www.uww.edu/wsg.

See original here:
What does the first amendment mean to you? - Royal Purple News

Jared SindtONLINE REPORTER

Jeremy Lipschultz, Ph.D., will host a First Amendment and global free expression seminar on Thursday, Sept. 30. The event will have multiple speakers who will discuss the use of the First Amendment and global expression and answer your questions.

There are attempts to take away our fundamental First Amendment rights, Lipschultz said. Everyone needs to know about it.

Two years ago, the panel was hosted during Constitution Week and promoted by the Maverick social media team, but COVID-19 prevented the panel from taking place last year.

This year, however, the panel is back during a time when First Amendment rights are the talk of social media.

With controversies such as Trumps removal from Twitter while Taliban spokesman members still have their accounts, the panel will answer questions on topics such as these from their professional standpoint.

Many college students have been seen to not know their First Amendment rights. A study done by The Tommy G. Thompson Center on Public Leadership in partnership with the University of Wisconsin Survey Center surveyed 530 undergraduate students on their views of the First Amendment.

According to the study report, the results are troubling. As this report describes, many UW students do not understand what constitutes protected speech or activity under the First Amendment. Moreover, some of their responses reveal substantial opposition to established free speech principles and religious liberties.

The study also showed that students believed that the government should act on social media accounts.

Statistics included 40% believing the government should restrict the speech of climate change deniers, over 50% believing the government should restrict speech of racially insensitive people and 63% believing the government should punish hate speech.

The panels goal will be to educate those who seek it on what constitutes their First Amendment rights and how those rights apply to all people.

The panel will have many able speakers, including Adam Goldman of the New York Times and many professors who study the First Amendment from different universities.

The panel will respond to questions, interact with each other and respond to audience comments, Lipschultz said.

If you want to attend the panel this Thursday and learn more about your rights as an American and how theyre being taken away, use the link below to register.

https://unomaha.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_OIQJjrPBQi6Tkg9yI2icDw

comments

Link:
UNO hosts online First Amendment webinar - Gateway - The Gateway

Country

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

Read more here:
Liz Cheney to speak at Loeb School First Amendment event - The Union Leader

A sheriff violated a teen's First Amendment rights when his department threatened her with jail if she didn't remove an Instagram post about becoming infected with COVID-19, a federal judge has ruled.

Last year, Amyiah Cohoon went on a spring break trip to Florida with schoolmates from Westfield Area High School in Westfield, Wisconsin. The trip coincided with the early spread of COVID-19, the trip was canceled partway through, and she returned home.

When she got home, she began developing symptoms of COVID-19 and sought medical assistance. She posted a picture of herself in April 2020 and described her situation on Instagram, telling people she had been infected.

It wasn't entirely clear whether Cohoon actually had COVID at the time. She tested negative, but she might have missed the detection windowand in those early days, COVID tests weren't nearly as reliable as they are now. Her family says that doctors told her that she probably did have COVID, even if they couldn't prove it at the time.

The day after she posted a picture of herself in a hospital bed with an oxygen mask, a Marquette County deputy showed up at the family's home, sent there by Sheriff Joseph Konrath to order Cohoon to take down the post or face arrest for disorderly conduct.

Cohoon complied, but the family also filed a lawsuit against the sheriff's department with representation from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. Coverage of the lawsuit made the story go viral. It turned out Konrath was apparently acting in response to pressure from Cohoon's school, which was trying to reassure parents that everything was fine and that the county had no infections.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Brett H. Ludwig, of the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin, granted a summary judgment concluding what was obvious to many observers (but not, it seems, to the sheriff and school): Cohoon's post was protected First Amendment speech, and the sheriff did not have the legal right to order her to remove it.

"Defendants may have preferred to keep Marquette County residents ignorant to the possibility of COVID-19 in their community for a while longer, so they could avoid having to field calls from concerned citizens," Ludwig wrote. "but that preference did not give them authority to hunt down and eradicate inconvenient Instagram posts."

Ludwig firmly reminded the sheriff that even if Cohoon had been wrong about her infectioneven if she had been deliberately lyinghe still shouldn't have ordered her to take it down: "The Marquette County Sheriff had no more ability to silence Amyiah's posts than it would to silence the many talking heads on cable news, who routinely pronounce one-sided hot takes on the issues of the day, purposefully ignoring any inconvenient facts that might disrupt their preferred narratives. Indeed, even if Amyiah's posts had been untruthful, no court has ever suggested that noncommercial false speech is exempt from First Amendment scrutiny."

It's an interesting time capsule. While many of us now are frustrated at government responses that exaggerate the risks of infection among the vaccinated while at the same time dragging their feet on access to vaccination boosters and home testing, let's not forget about the early days, when the authorities had their heads in the sand and tried to act like everything was going to be just fine.

Read more:
Judge Explains First Amendment Basics to Wisconsin Sheriff Who Threatened Teen with Jail for Instagramming Her COVID Infection - Reason

The autumn leaves are expected to be extra vibrant this year in Pennsylvania, though they are changing colors a week later than is normal.

Thats fitting. Very few things are normal this year.

According to Merriam-Webster, autumn is the season between summer and winter comprising in the northern hemisphere usually the months of September, October, and November.

Autumn is also defined as a period of maturity or incipient decline.

Fall has always been my favorite time of the year. The chilly air and vibrant colors fill me with calm.

This time of year I become especially reflective about my life and my future, but I also reflect about our country and its future.

Political discourse and basic civility grow worse by the day. Just follow the news if you can bear it.

Our massive federal government is demonstrating massive incompetence on a host of issues the Afghanistan pull-out, the Southern border, gigantic proposed spending bills yet a growing number of voters seems to think a bigger, socialistic government is a dandy idea.

Americas systemic optimism is hitting new lows, as a majority of us believe the country is heading in the wrong direction.

Is it really autumn for America? Have we reached a period of maturity and incipient decline? I hope and pray it isnt so.

Ive long believed you should never bet against the resilience, ingenuity and productivity of the American people. But in this reflective time of year, I admit that I have a growing sense of unease about our countrys future.

Its best if you try to focus instead on the many enjoyable events that autumn brings: hayrides, hot apple cider and the entertaining haunted house venues that are back in business after covid shut them down last year.

Its best to marvel at the creativity and hilarity of the characters and costumes people come up with for their annual Halloween party the one social event, or at least it used to be, at which adults can really let themselves have fun.

As far as characters and costumes go, I increasingly identify with the oddest character in the 1960s sitcom, The Munsters.

The Munsters are a family of silly monsters: Grandpa, an eccentric vampire; his daughter, Lily, also a vampire; her husband Herman, a Frankenstein monster; their son Eddie, a werewolf.

The Munster whos the oddball in the family is their niece, Marilynn, who is considered plain and unattractive by Munster standards because she is a normal, attractive woman by traditional standards.

With so many supposedly normal characters in Washington attempting to pass the largest government spending bill in U.S. history, you can feel like an oddball yourself for suggesting that some of the measures in the bill are way too radical and way too costly.

In fact, fewer American oddballs people worried about the country their children will inherit are willing to share their thoughts in public.

According to a 2020 Cato Institute survey, 62 percent of us say we hold political views were afraid to share with good reason.

The survey finds that 50 percent of strong liberals support firing Trump donors, 36 percent of strong conservatives support firing Biden donors, and 32 percent are worried about missing out on job opportunities because of their political opinions.

Freedom of speech has long been the very foundation of our country, but a majority of Americans are now afraid to exercise it?

That sad fact has become the new normal in America.

And thats a lot more frightening than the scariest haunted house anyone will enter this autumn.

Tom Purcell is an author and humor columnist for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Email him at [emailprotected]

Read more:
Is It Autumn for the First Amendment? - FlaglerLive.com

ATLANTA Students, lawyers, public officials, public employees and the general public interested in open government are invited to attend UGA School of Laws First Amendment Clinic and Georgia First Amendment Foundation's virtual trainingsession to learn about accessing government records and the right to attend public meetings.

"The session is built as a citizens training, you don't have to be a lawyer or legal professional to join," said Clare Norins, director of the UGA First Amendment Clinic. "It's just to give people more information about the open government laws here in Georgia, the Open Records Act and the Open Meetings Act, to help people understand some of the basics of those laws."

The Sept. 30 virtual session, to be led by a few UGA law school students, will begin at noon and focus on some of the groups frequently received questions from the public.

The pandemic has shown us that its more important than ever to understand what their local governments are doing and how theyre making decisions, said Kathy Brister, president of GFAF. At the beginning of the pandemic it was more about straight access to meetings. There was a lot of confusion, as governments had to pivot, about actually being able to attend public meetings.

Some topics will include:

- Are local governments required to allow public comment during meetings?

- Does my school board have to share the data behind COVID-19 policies?

- What is executive session and when can my local government use it?

- If my city has live-stream technology, is the council required to use it for meetings?

During the virtual session, the group will also brief the public on how to request documents or information from a government entity and who to contact in the event that the government is not being compliant.

By in-large the law requires local government to consider access to the public as the highest priority, said Brister. We operate in a democracy. The public is the government. The government belongs to them."

The session will conclude with a Q&A session with attendees.

To register for the session, visit bit.ly/OpenGovAnswers.

More information of Georgia's open government laws can be found in GFAF's A Guide to Open Government in Georgia which can be found online athttps://gfaf.org/resources/the-red-book/.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Link:
First amendment groups invite public to virtual session on open government - The Union-Recorder

From Judge Brett Ludwig's decision yesterday in Cohoon v. Konrath (E.D. Wisc.); generally quite correct, I think (though there might be room for punishing people whounlike the plaintiff heredeliberately publicly lied about having a communicable disease, as there may be for punishing people who put out hoaxes about having committed crimes):

The SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19 have had a tremendous impact on American society. But, as this case makes clear, that impact has its limits and, more specifically, does not extend to overriding the protections of the First Amendment. [Defendants Sheriff Joseph Konrath and Patrol Sergeant Cameron Klump] violated [Amyiah Cohoon's] free-speech rights by demanding that she take down her social media posts or face criminal citation or arrest.

In March 2020, Amyiah, then a sophomore at Westfield Area High School, traveled with her school band on a spring break trip to Disney World and Universal Studios in Florida. During that trip, various states, including Florida and Wisconsin, declared public health emergencies in response to the then just-emerging COVID-19 pandemic. Four days after returning home from Florida, Amyiah began feeling ill. Her symptoms included a fever and dry cough. Two days later, she began having trouble breathing, so her mother took her to the emergency room at Divine Savior Hospital in Portage, Wisconsin.

The doctors at Divine Savior evaluated Amyiah and diagnosed her with an "acute upper respiratory infection." They informed her that her symptoms were consistent with COVID- 19 but said they could not test her for the virus due to the testing criteria in effect at the time. They then discharged her with an inhaler and instructions to strictly self-quarantine for 14 days and return if her condition worsened. They also instructed her parents to self-quarantine for 14 days, consistent with the COVID-19 protocols in place at the time. After returning home, Amyiah posted about her experience on Instagram, captioning a photo of herself from the spring break trip with: "Hey guys sorry I've been on a long break.. I won[']t be back for a while longer due to me no[w] having the COVID-19 virus I don't want the attention it[']s just the truth I am now in self quarantine and am not allow[e]d to leave my room and have an inhaler since they said to go home best of wishes. love you guys."

Three days later, on March 25, 2020, Amyiah's symptoms worsened. Her mother promptly took her back to Divine Savior, which then redirected her via ambulance to University of Wisconsin Children's Hospital in Madison. Once admitted to UW Children's, Amyiah was finally tested for COVID-19. Her test came back negative the following morning, but the doctors told the Cohoons that she may still have had COVID-19 and simply missed the window for testing positive. To that end, they released her with orders to continue her 14-day quarantine.

After arriving home from the hospital, Amyiah again took to Instagram. She posted a photo of herself with an oxygen mask on her face, captioned: "I am finally home after being hospitalized for a day and a half. I am still o[n] breathing treatment but have beaten the corona virus. Stay home and be safe[.]" At the time of this post, Marquette County, Wisconsin had yet to register even a single confirmed positive COVID case. In response to Amyiah's post, the County Health Department and the Westfield School District received numerous phone calls from concerned citizens.

In hopes of convincing Amyiah to voluntarily remove the post, the County Health Department referred the matter to County Sheriff Konrath. Sheriff Konrath relayed the necessary information to Sergeant Klump, who was on duty at the time. The content of this conversation was later summarized in Sergeant Klump's Detail Incident Report, which Sheriff Konrath reviewed and approved. The Report states: "Sheriff Konrath advised he wished for me to respond to the residence and have [Amyiah's] post removed from her social media When I advised [Mr. Cohoon] that I was there to have [Amyiah] remove the post, he became upset ."

On the evening of March 27, 2020, Sergeant Klump arrived at the Cohoons' home. A microphone and dash-cam captured the audio and video of the ensuing interaction. Sergeant Klump spoke for some time with Mr. Cohoon before Mrs. Cohoon and Amyiah joined them outside the house. Upon exiting the house, Amyiah heard Sergeant Klump explain: "All I'm here for is to figure out what this post is about, seeing she tested negative . And we need to get it taken down." Amyiah then agreed to go inside and take the post down. While she was inside, Sergeant Klump threatened Mr. Cohoon: "If [the post] doesn't come down, the Sheriff has directed me to issue disorderly conduct citations, if not start taking people to jail."

After removing the post, Amyiah exited the house again and showed Sergeant Klump her Instagram page. While outside, Amyiah heard her father twice repeat Sergeant Klump's earlier threat: "[Y]ou guys want to threaten somebody with going to jail over it and add insult to injury?," and "[I]t doesn't do any good when you can't warn [people] when you got a Sheriff's department threatening to throw people in jail over it." Sergeant Klump did not correct Mr. Cohoon's recitation of the threat, instead saying, "I'm just doing what we can do as a Sheriff's Office. Okay?"

After Sergeant Klump departed, Amyiah also deleted her March 22 Instagram post about her first trip to Divine Savior. Later that evening, the Cohoons discovered that Westfield School District Superintendent Robert Meicher had sent a news update to families in the district that included a statement about Amyiah's posts. The update read: "It was brought to my attention today that there was a rumor floating out there that one of our students contracted Covid-19 while on the band trip to Florida two weeks ago. Let me assure you there is NO truth to this. This was a foolish means to get attention and the source of the rumor has been addressed." Amyiah has not posted about her experience with COVID-19 on social media since.

Plaintiff's Instagram Post Was Unquestionably Protected Speech Under the First Amendment.

Even if short and often grammatically scurrilous, social media posts do not fall outside the ambit of the First Amendment. To the contrary, they are exactly what the First Amendment seeks to protect. In the eyes of the law, when Amyiah Cohoon took to Instagram, she was no different than John F. Tinker wearing his black armband in the halls of the Des Moines public schools, or Paul Robert Cohen donning his "Fuck the Draft" jacket in the corridors of the Los Angeles County Courthouse, and her speech deserved the same degree of protection.

But Defendants disagree. In their view, Amyiah forfeited her constitutional protection when she published a post that caused concern in the community and led to an influx of phone calls to the Westfield School District and Marquette County Health Department. According to Sheriff Konrath, this was akin to "screaming fire in a crowded movie theater." Even setting aside that the popular movie theater analogy actually referred to "falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic," Schenck v. United States (1919) (emphasis added), Defendants' argument still fails. While content-based speech restrictions are permissible in limited circumstances (incitement, obscenity, defamation, fighting words, child pornography, etc.), the Supreme Court "has rejected as 'startling and dangerous' a 'free-floating test for First Amendment coverage based on an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits.'"

Labeling censorship societally beneficial does not render it lawful. If it did, nearly all censorship would evade First Amendment scrutiny. Defendants may have preferred to keep Marquette County residents ignorant to the possibility of COVID-19 in their community for a while longer, so they could avoid having to field calls from concerned citizens, but that preference did not give them authority to hunt down and eradicate inconvenient Instagram posts. Amyiah's post is not captured by any of the categorical exceptions to the First Amendment, so this Court will not balance the social utility of curtailing it against its government-assigned value.

But Defendants persist. They cast Amyiah's characterization of her illness as a lie, insisting that because she ultimately tested negative, she was prohibited from publicly proclaiming that she had beaten COVID-19. But the very doctors who tested her also informed her that she may have had COVID-19 in spite of the negative test.

Her Instagram posts were, therefore, at worst, incomplete. The notion that the long arm of the governmentredaction pen in handcan extend to this sort of incomplete speech is plainly wrong. The Marquette County Sheriff had no more ability to silence Amyiah's posts than it would to silence the many talking heads on cable news, who routinely pronounce one-sided hot takes on the issues of the day, purposefully ignoring any inconvenient facts that might disrupt their preferred narratives. Indeed, even if Amyiah's posts had been untruthful, no court has ever suggested that noncommercial false speech is exempt from First Amendment scrutiny. See United States v. Alvarez (2012). The Supreme Court has emphasized: "[t]he remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society." The government here had every opportunity to counter Amyiah's speech, but it opted instead to engage in the objectionable practice of censorship.

{Defendants insist that, based on his knowledge at the time of the encounter, Sergeant Klump had probable cause to arrest Amyiah under the Wisconsin and Marquette County Disorderly Conduct provisions. In relevant part, these provisions punish "[w]hoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance[.]"

Defendants appear to recognize that none of the statute's specific enumerations even remotely apply to Amyiah's Instagram post and thus focus on the "otherwise disorderly conduct" language. Wisconsin courts have interpreted this phrase to encompass acts that corrupt public morals or outrage the sense of public decency. Defendants argue that, even if his belief was ultimately mistaken, Sergeant Klump had a reasonable basis to believe there was probable cause to arrest Amyiah under the catchall disorderly conduct language because he had been informed that her Instagram post was causing significant disturbance, anxiety, fear, concern, and even panic among other citizens.

Defendants' probable-cause argument dramatically understates the probable-cause analysis for disorderly conduct. If accepted, Defendants' position would largely gut the First Amendment's protection for free speech, allowing police officers a free hand to wrongfully arrest anyone engaging in protected speech so long as the offending officer could point to a possible disturbance or perceived anxiety among those who opposed the speech. Accordingly, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that speech that "falls within the protection of the First Amendment may not be punished as disorderly conduct." Defendants offer no answer to this precedent, which removes any basis for probable cause. Because Amyiah's social media posts were protected speech, Sergeant Klump could not have reasonably believed he had probable cause to arrest her or her family. Defendants' probable-cause defense fails as a matter of law.}

Defendants Took Adverse Action Against Plaintiff.

The audiovisual recording of the police encounter at the Cohoon home captured Sergeant Klump threatening Mr. Cohoon: "If [the post] doesn't come down, the Sheriff has directed me to issue disorderly conduct citations, if not start taking people to jail." According to Defendants, though, because Sergeant Klump never made this threat to Amyiah directlyinstead uttering the threat when only her father was presentshe could not have personally experienced any threat of adverse action. This superficial analysis fails for a number of reasons.

First, the record makes clear that Sergeant Klump's intention throughout his 30-minute visit was to get Amyiah to remove her social media posts through the use of threats against her and perhaps her parents. That he expressed this intent only during his discussions with Amyiah's father, after Amyiah had retreated into the house to comply with the police officer's demand, does not mean that she was not the realistic subject of threatened police action. Indeed, it appears that Amyiah made the logical 'hop' necessary to infer the sergeant had threatened her arrest because, in her sworn declaration, she recalled, "After [Sergeant Klump] left, I was afraid that he would find my first post and come back for that one, so I deleted that post too." Moreover, she stated, "I would also like to post further about my scare with COVID-19 on social media, and to repost the posts I removed, but I am afraid that another officer will come to my home and cite or arrest my parents or me." So not only was Sergeant Klump's threat of arrest likely to deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in protected conduct, in this case it did just that.

Analogizing to a citizen's ability to consent to a warrantless police search of their property, Defendants argue that Amyiah's decision to acquiesce in deleting her Instagram post rendered her action voluntary and, therefore, outside the scope of First Amendment protection. Defendants correctly allude to the important "difference between government expression and intimidationthe first permitted by the First Amendment, the latter forbidden by it." In the First Amendment retaliation context, "'[w]hat matters is the distinction between attempts to convince and attempts to coerce.'"

Defendants ask the Court to lump Sergeant Klump's efforts into the "attempts to convince" basket. Amyiah agreed to delete her Instagram post prior to learning of Sergeant Klump's threats. How then, Defendants ask, can she possibly claim coercion? This argument ignores the inherently chilling and coercive nature of a uniformed police officer showing up at a teenager's home and demanding that she cease otherwise protected speech.

Sergeant Klump's dash-cam footage shows that it was not his persuasive rhetoric that led Amyiah to delete her social media post, but rather his demand made under the auspices of the Sheriff's Department: "[W]e need to get it taken down." That was coercion by any metric. The state cannot dispatch a law enforcement officer to the home of a teenager to demand that she remove an Instagram post that government officials disagree with and then claim the officials were only engaging in the Socratic method.

It is possible that a Westfield administrator or Marquette County Health Department employee could have engaged in a mutually-respectful discussion with Amyiah to try to convince her to retract her post voluntarily, but that is not the method they chose. They elected, instead, to rely on the coercive power of the Sheriff's Department, and any attempt to obfuscate that fact by casting Sergeant Klump as an earnest public relations expert must fail.

Conclusion

The First Amendment is not a game setting for the government to toggle off and on. It applies in times of tranquility and times of strife. While Defendants in this case may have believed their actions served the greater good, that belief cannot insulate them. Demanding a 16-year-old remove protected speech from her Instagram account is a First Amendment violation. Declaratory judgment {establishing that Defendants violated her First Amendment rights} is granted.

Congratulations to Luke Berg and Rick Esenberg of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, who represented Cohoon.

Read more here:
Sheriff Violated First Amendment by Ordering Teen to Take Down Post Saying She Had COVID - Reason

President Biden talks COVID, climate and Afghanistan at UN

While speaking at the United Nations General Assembly, President Biden said the international community is "at an inflection point in history."

Associated Press, USA TODAY

Right-wing demonstrators headed to the nations capital on Sept. 18 to express their support for the individuals federally charged in connection with the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

There were more police officers and reporters than protesters who attended the Justice for J6 rally, and officials reported just four arrests. But as law enforcementbraced for the possibility ofviolence ahead of thedemonstration, a warning went viral on social media claiming that swearing at the president might be illegal.

Its Not Just Dangerous; Screaming F*** Biden May Also Be Illegal, reads the headline of a purported Sept. 14 news article, which was shared to Instagram on Sept. 16. The post accumulated more than 2,000likeswithin less than a week.

Text below the headline reads, Experts warn that in addition to the violent incitement caused by screaming expletives at the president, such threats may also be criminal.

Pages on Facebook such as The Typical Liberal and Young Americans for Liberty shared similar versions of the claim, whileothers claimed the article was satirical.

However, the article is not authentic, and legal experts who spoke with USA TODAY said using profanity when speaking about thepresident is protected by the Constitution.

"There is no law preventing Americans from yelling profanities at the president of the United States," said KenPaulson,director of the Free Speech Center at the College of Media and Entertainment at Middle Tennessee State University.

Fact check: Biden's approval rating is higher than Trump's term low

The pages that shared the post did not return requests for comment.

A search of the headline included in the posts leads to memes on iFunny and online forums. The author of the text, who goes under the name "Eugene Bischvetz," first shared the screenshot of the text toInstagram on Sept. 15.

The social media pages for the account "Eugene Bischvetz" feature satirical contentand memes, and thescreenshot circulating online is not alegitimate news report.

Meanwhile, legal experts say using profanity when speaking about the president or public officials is not illegal, as the posts claim.

"Cursing at the president is protected speech under the First Amendment," said Robert Richards,founding director of the Pennsylvania Center forthe First Amendment at Penn State.

Richards pointed to the1971 Cohen v. California Supreme Court case, in which a man had the F-word emblazoned on a jacket, and wore it in a courthouse to show his contempt for the military draft.

"The court expressed concern that, if the government could criminalize such expression, it could do so as a guise for suppressing unpopular views," Richards said via email.

The court ruled the man had a right to say it, and in his opinion,Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote,"One man's vulgarity is another's lyric."

Clay Calvert, a professor of law and director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida, also referenced the Cohen case.

"At the heart of the First Amendment is the ability to freely criticize both government officials and government policies," Calvert said via email. "The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that what it calls the 'emotive' function of speech merits constitutional protection."

Calvert said as long as the speech does not amount to what courts calla "true threat" of violence, then it is protected.

"In brief, it's completely legal to swear about the president of the United States," he said."It is not legal, however, to threaten the president of the United States."

Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA, noted there could be some cases where profanity toward a president might be unprotected.

"If you shouted it in a library, you might be disturbing the peace," Volokh said. "If you were to actually come up to Biden and say, Fyou, that might be so-called fighting words,personally addressed insults that are likely to start a fight."

Fact check: Biden can't mandate vaccinations for Congress; order covers executive branch only

In recent local controversies, attorneys have found that casesinvolving swear words and the president are protected speech.

For example, in February, assistant city of Fargo attorney Alissa Farolsaid a homeowner'sflag in North Dakota that used profanity against President Joe Biden was protected by the First Amendment. A similar situation took place in New Philadelphia, Ohio, where a law director told city council members the city could not do anything about a banner that used an expletive to attack Biden.

Based on our research, we rate FALSE the claim that swearing at the president may be illegal. Legal experts say cursing the president is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution unless someone is disturbing the peace,using fight words, or making a direct threat to the president. Further, the headline seen in the posts is not an authentic news report.

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app, or electronic newspaper replica here.

Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.

Link:
Fact check: Shouting profanity about the president is protected by the First Amendment, legal experts say - USA TODAY

A promise from a university to protect students rights is endearing but, unless codified, is ultimately worthless.

The University of Georgia finds itself in a paradoxical position in terms of its policy concerning free speech. On UGAs freedom of expression webpage, the header boasts that, no rights are more highly regarded at the University of Georgia than the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and expression. Yet, further examination of UGAs policies governing posters on campus calls UGAs statement into question.

Per the flyer requirement and regulations laid out in thestudent organization manual, flyers posted in the Tate Student Center and Memorial Hall must be approved by the information desk or information desk supervisor. The policy broadly grants the information desk the right to deny any flyers, ads, brochures, etc., without content and viewpoint-neutral guidelines for what would compel poster denial. In plainer terms, a poster could be denied for any reason, including because the information desk simply dislikes its message.

A warning on one of the bulletin boards in Tate Student Center that reads, "This board is maintained by the Tate Student Center Information Desk. All flyers on this board must be approved by the Tate Student Center Information Desk."

Other campus policies require similar administrative approval for posting flyers, including the non-commercial solicitation policy and university housings bulletin policy.Not only does no central policy exist in reference to bulletin boards,aUGA spokesperson was unable to confirm if there are any places on campus where students, faculty or other members of the UGA community can post flyers without needing to ask permission.

For these reasons, UGA received a yellow light rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Educations spotlight database. A yellow light indicates that a schools policies restrict a more limited amount of protected expression but according to FIRE by virtue of vague wording, can too easily be used to restrict protected expression.

FIREs spotlight database documents numerous instances of universities paying lip service to their commitment to First Amendment rights while quietly continuing to enforce policies that detract from those rights.

We often see these types of posting schemes where administrators want to be able to regulate indoor postings in a student union or what have you, but this is overly restrictive in trying to accomplish that goal, and it subjects all postings to an approval process, said Mary Zoeller, a senior program officer in FIREs policy reform department.

In reference to the posting policy in UGAs student organization manual, Zoeller said the restrictions would likely not be considered reasonable under the First Amendment.

To improve this policy and others governing posting space on campus, it is imperative that administrators revise language to include content and viewpoint-neutral guidelines for administrative approvals, such as size and timeliness of posters and permitting students to post freely somewhere on campus.

Anything less fails the promise UGA makes to its students and compromises their First Amendment rights.

Read the original:
OPINION: UGA, your promise to protect First Amendment rights is not enough - Red and Black