Category Archives: First Amendment

The Constitution of India can be amended by the Parliament according to Article 368 of Part XX. However, the provisions that form the 'basic structure' of the Constitution cannot be amended (as ruled by the Supreme Court in the Keshashavananda Bharti Case, 1973).

Aspirants of various competitive and government examinations can test their knowledge of the First Amendment of the Indian Constitution through the below-mentioned set of questions.

Ques 1: When was the First Amendment Act enacted?

a. 1951

b. 1964

c. 1955

d. 1960

Ans: a

Explanation:

The Constitution (First Amendment) Act was enacted in 1951.

The Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act was enacted in 1964.

The Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act was enacted in 1955.

The Constitution (Ninth Amendment) Act was enacted in 1960.

Ques 2: Which schedule was inserted into the Indian Constitution through the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951?

a. Eleventh Schedule

b. Tenth Schedule

c. Ninth Scheduled

d. Twelfth Schedule

Ans: c

Explanation:

The Ninth Schedule was inserted into the Indian Constitution through the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 to protect the land reform and other laws present in it from the judicial review.

The Tenth Schedule was inserted into the Constitution through the Constitution (Thirty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1974.

The Eleventh Schedule was inserted into the Constitution through the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992.

The Twelfth Schedule was inserted into the Constitution through the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992.

Ques 3: How many Schedules are there in the Indian Constitution?

a. 21

b. 12

c. 14

d. 20

Ans: b

There are 12 Schedules to the Indian Constitution. The Twelfth Schedule was inserted into the Constitution through the Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act, 1992.

Ques 4: Which Articles were inserted in the Indian Constitution through the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951?

(i) Article 31A

(ii) Article 19

(iii) Article 15

(iv) Article 31B

Options:

a. Only (i)

b. Both (ii) and (iv)

c. Both (i) and (iv)

d. Only (iv)

Ans: d

Explanation:

Both Article 31A and Article 31B were inserted after Article 31 of the Indian Constitution through the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.

The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 amended Articles 19 & 15.

Ques 5: Who moved the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951?

a. Indira Gandhi

b. Jawaharlal Nehru

c. Gulzarilal Nanda

d. Lal Bahadur Shastri

Ans: b

Explanation:

The Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 was moved by the then Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, on 10 May 1951. It was enacted by the Indian Parliament on 18 June 1951.

Ques 6: Which of the following Articles were amended through the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951?

a. Articles 15, 19, 85, 87, 174, 176, 341, 342, 372 and 376

b. Articles 13 and 368

c. Articles 101 and 190

d. Articles 1, 3, 49, 80, 81, 82, 131, 153, 158, 168, 170, 171, 216, 217, 220, 222, 224, 230, 231 and 232.

Ans: a

Explanation:

Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 amended Articles 15, 19, 85, 87, 174, 176, 341, 342, 372 and 376.

Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1971 amended Articles 13 and 368.

Constitution (Thirty-third Amendment Act), 1974 amended Articles 101 and 190.

Constitution (Seventh Amendment Act), 1956 amended Articles 1, 3, 49, 80, 81, 82, 131, 153, 158, 168, 170, 171, 216, 217, 220, 222, 224, 230, 231 and 232.

Ques 7: What is the title of the book written on the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951?

a. The Great Indian Novel

b. The Discovery of India

c. Sixteen Stormy Days

d. Inglorious Empire

Ans: c

Explanation:

Sixteen Stormy Days by Tripurdaman Singh is written on the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.

Ques 8: Concerning the Ninth Schedule to the Indian Constitution, consider the following:

(i) Protected the land reforms and other laws included in it from the judicial review.

(ii) Placed restrictions on freedom of speech and expression: public order, friendly relations with foreign states and incitement to an offence.

(iii) State trading and nationalisation of any trade or business by the state will not be termed invalid on the ground of violation of the right to trade or business.

Which of the following is/are correct?

a. Only (i)

b. Both (i) and (iii)

c. Only (ii)

d. Only (iii)

Ans: a

Explanation:

The Ninth Schedule to the Indian Constitution protected the land reforms and other laws included in it from the judicial review.

1. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXX of 1950).

2. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Act LXVII of 1948).

3. The Bombay Maleki Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 (Bombay Act LXI of 1949).

4. The Bombay Taluqdari Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 (Bombay Act LXII of 1949).

5. The Panch Mahals Mehwassi Tenure Abolition Act, 1949 (Bombay Act LXIII of 1949).

6. The Bombay Khoti Abolition Act, 1950 (Bombay Act VI of 1950).

7. The Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watan Abolition Act, 1950 (Bombay Act LX of 1950).

8. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (Madhya Pradesh Act I of 1951).

9. The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Madras Act XXVI of 1948).

10. The Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1950 (Madras Act I of 1950).

11. The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Uttar Pradesh Act I of 1951).

12. The Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358F. (No. LXIX of 1358, Fasli).

13. The Hyderabad Jagirs (Commutation) Regulation, 1359F. (No. XXV of 1359, Fasli).

Ques 9: Consider the following statements regarding the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951:

(i) This amendment was designed to implement the State Reorganisation Act.

(ii) It empowered the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and economically backward classes.

Read more:
GK Quiz on First Amendment of the Indian Constitution - Jagran Josh

Trump sues Facebook, Twitter over 'blacklisting and canceling'

Claims that tech companies are biased against conservatives have emerged as a top issue to rally the GOP base ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.

Associated Press, USA TODAY

Facebook, Google's YouTube and Twitter will fight a new Texas law crackingdown on social media companies for allegedly censoringconservative speech and former President Donald Trump.

Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican who publicly backed the legislation, signed the bill Thursday, making Texas the second state totargetcompanies for restricting or removing content or accounts for violating their rules.

"There is a dangerous movement by some social media companies to silence conservative ideas and values," Abbott said during a news conference. "This is wrong and we will not allow it in Texas."

The Texaslaw, passed in the final days of the second special session called by Abbott, would allow any stateresident banned from a social media platform for their political views to sue the platform.

Do Facebook and Twitter censor conservatives? Claims rally Republican base

Talking about abortion online in Texas? You may face legal risks

The state attorney generalalso would be able to sue on behalf of a user or a group of users.

It is similar to a Florida law that was blockedin June by a federal judge one day before it could take effect.

Trade groups representing the technology industry pledged to challenge the law on the same basis they challenged the Florida law which, they say, has the same First Amendment flaws and is unconstitutional.

"The same outcome will almost certainly occur in Texas, Steve DelBianco, NetChoice's president, said.

"Moderation of user posts is crucial to keeping the internet safe for Texas families, but this bill would put the Texas government in charge of content policies," he said.

Proponents of the new law hailed its passage.

"Texas new law, House Bill 20, is a paramount move taken by Lone Star legislators to protect the free speech rights of their constituents," said Samantha Fillmore, state government relations manager for conservative think tank The Heartland Institute.

"There is no question that big tech is integral to free speech in todays day and age," she said. "Because of this, Big Tech can no longer unilaterally decide who can say what without being held accountable."

Dozens of states are considering legislation to restrict how social media platforms regulate people's speech, though few have gotten this far.

These bills resonate with conservatives who believe their First Amendment rights are violated when social media posts are labeled or removed or when their accountsare banned for violating the policies of social media platforms. Trump's suspensions from the major platforms inspired the new bills.

"This move by Texas, a heavy hitter in national politics, is likely to inspire other states to take such measures to show their citizens that America is, and will continue to be, a place for free thought, speech, and expression, Fillmore said.

The First Amendment protects people from censorship by the federal government, not from content moderation decisions by private companies.

Social media companies say they don't target conservatives, only harmful speech that violates their rules.

Texas House Democrats warned during a recent hearing that the new law would stop social media companies from taking down harmful content. They offered amendments that would have allowed the removal of posts promoting Holocaust denial, terrorism and vaccine disinformation but were defeated.

Forcing social media platforms to stop moderating content, whether its misinformation or hate speech, is going to have real world consequences," said Adam Kovacevich, CEO of Chamber of Progress, a tech industry coalition that includes Facebook and Google.

"Whats said online doesnt just stay online, it spills over into peoples lives and impacts our health, our democracy, and our communities, he said in a statement to USA TODAY.

Florida was the first state to push through legislation when Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Trump ally, signed a bill in May that penalizes social media companies for removing or barring the speech of politicians.

However, a federal judge temporarily blocked the new law after NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association trade groups that represent Facebook, Google and other tech companies sued. DeSantis is appealing.

The Texas law goes further than Florida's because it applies to all users and prevents social media platforms from making decisions based on the viewpoint expressed in the post.

The Republican claimthatpowerful tech companiesare biased against conservatives isemerging as a top issue to rally the base in the2022 midterm elections.

Both Abbott and DeSantis are widely seen as possible GOP 2024 presidential contenders coming from big states with large electoral votes. Abbott is facing his first challenging Republican primary to be reelected governor.

Big Techs efforts to silence conservative viewpoints is un-American, un-Texan and unacceptable and pretty soon its going to be against the law in the state of Texas, Abbott said at a news conference announcing similar legislation in March.

The Heartland Institute recently estimated that 70 bills in 30 states are challenging big tech censorship.

The Republican claim that powerful tech companies are biased against and "cancel" conservatives is emerging as a top issue to rally the base in the 2022 midterm elections.

The GOP is betting it will boost voter registration, turnout and fundraising as it tries to retake the U.S. House and Senate, political observers say. It also could help Republicans at the state level.

Trump, who was banned from the major social media platforms after the Jan. 6 insurrection, escalated his war with Big Tech in July when he filed suit against Facebook, Google and Twitter and their CEOs, claiming the companies violated his First Amendment rights.

Trump and Republicans fundraised off the lawsuit, though legal experts say it has virtually no chance of success.

The perception that tech companies and the billionaire CEOs who run them are biased against conservatives has been around for a long time, but intensified as Trump made social media abuses a major plank of his administration and reelection campaign.

After he lost the presidency, Trump attackedtech companies for labeling or removing posts that spread falsehoods about the outcome of the presidential election.

Complaints of ideological bias come from across the political spectrum, but its difficult to prove social media platforms are targeting any one group. Tech companies disclose little about how they decide what content is allowed and what is not.

Researchers from New York University,the University of Virginia and elsewheresay theyve found no evidence to support GOP grievances that social media companies stifle conservative voices. If anything, they say, social media platforms amplify the voices of conservatives, shaping the worldviews of millions of voters.

But for some conservatives, the 2020 election proved Big Tech's ideological bias. They point to tech companies throttling the spread of a New York Post article which made uncorroborated claims about Hunter Bidens business dealings, the Trump social media bans and the takedown of Parler, a social media platform popular with the political right.

Nine in 10 Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party say its at least somewhat likely that social media platforms censor political viewpoints they find objectionable, up slightly from 85% in 2018, according to an August report from the Pew Research Center.

See the rest here:
Facebook, YouTube and Twitter will fight Texas crackdown on 'censorship' of Trump, conservative speech - USA TODAY

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 to the U.S. Constitution

First Amendment Timeline

Significant historical events, court cases, and ideas that have shaped our current system of constitutional First Amendment jurisprudence, compiled by the Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center.

1215Abuses by Englands King John cause a revolt by nobles, who compel him to recognize rights for both noblemen and ordinary Englishmen. This document, known as theMagna Carta,establishes the principle that no one, including the king or a lawmaker, is above the law, and establishes a framework for future documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

1628ThePetition of Rightis a statement of the objectives of the 1628 English legal-reform movement that leads to civil war and the deposing of King Charles I in 1649. This important document sets out the rights and liberties of the common man as opposed to the prerogatives of the crown and expresses many of the ideals that later led to the American Revolution.

1641The Massachusetts General Court formally adopts the first broad statement of American liberties, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties. The document includes a right to petition and a statement about due process.

1663The new Charter of Rhode Island grants religious freedom.

1689John LockesLetter Concerning Tolerationis published. It provides the philosophical basis for George Masons proposed Article Sixteen of the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, which deals with religion. Masons proposal provides that all Men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion.

1708Connecticut passes the first dissenter statute and allows full liberty of worship to Anglicans and Baptists.

1735New York publisher John Peter Zenger is tried for libel after publishing criticism of the Royal Governor of New York. Zenger is defended by Andrew Hamilton and acquitted. His trial establishes the principle that truth is a defense to libel and that a jury may determine whether a publication is defamatory or seditious.

1771The State of Virginia jails 50 Baptist worshipers for preaching the Gospel contrary to the AnglicanBook of Common Prayer.

1774Eighteen Baptists are jailed in Massachusetts for refusing to pay taxes that support the Congregational church.

1776Virginias House of Burgesses passes the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The Virginia Declaration is the first bill of rights to be included in a state constitution in America.

1777Thomas Jefferson completes his first draft of a Virginia state bill for religious freedom, which states: No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever. The bill later becomes the famous Virginia Ordinance for Religious Freedom.

1776The Continental Congress adopts the final draft of the Declaration of Independence on July 4.

1786The Virginia legislature adopts the Ordinance of Religious Freedom, which effectively disestablished the Anglican Church as the official church and prohibited harassment based on religious differences.

1787-1788Originally published in New York newspapers asThe Federalistand widely reprinted in newspapers throughout the U.S.,The Federalist Papersare a unique collection of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay urging ratification of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton writes on the subject of the liberty of the press, declaring that the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved.

1787Congress passes the Northwest Ordinance. Though primarily a law establishing government guidelines for colonization of new territory, it also provides that religion, morality and knowledge being necessary also to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The U.S. Constitution is adopted into law on Sept. 17 by the Federal Constitutional Convention and later ratified by the states on June 21, 1788. The U.S. Constitution is the oldest written constitution still in use.

1791On Dec. 15, Virginia becomes the 11thstate to approve the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, thereby ratifying the Bill of Rights.

1796During Tennessees constitutional convention, Andrew Jackson opposes, and plays a prominent role in defeating, a proposal requiring a profession of faith by all officeholders.

1798President John Adams oversees the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. In response, Thomas Jefferson introduces the Kentucky Resolution and James Madison issues the Virginia Resolution to give states the power to determine the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Acts. On Sept. 12, newspaper editor Benjamin Franklin Bache, the grandson of Benjamin Franklin, is arrested under the Sedition Act for libeling President John Adams.

19th century

The 19thcentury witnesses a Supreme Court hostile to many claims of freedom of speech and assembly. Fewer than 12 First Amendment cases come before the court between 1791 and 1889, according to First Amendment scholar Michael Gibson. This is due to the prevailing view among federal judges that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states.

1801Congress lets the Sedition Act of 1798 expire, and President Thomas Jefferson pardons all person convicted under the Act. The act had punished those who uttered or published false, scandalous, and malicious writings against the government.

1836The U.S. House of Representatives adopts gag rules preventing discussion of antislavery proposals. The House repeals the rules in 1844.

1859John Stuart Mill publishes the essay On Liberty. The essay expands John Miltons argument that if speech is free and the search for knowledge unfettered, then eventually the truth will rise to the surface.

1863Gen. Ambrose Burnside of the Union Army orders the suspension of the publication of theChicago Timeson account of repeated expression of disloyal and incendiary sentiments. President Lincoln rescinds Burnsides order three days later.

1864By order of President Lincoln, Gen. John A. Dix, a Union commander, suppresses theNew York Journal of Commerceand theNew York Worldand arrests the newspapers editors after both papers publish a forged presidential proclamation purporting to order another draft of 400,000 men. Lincoln withdraws the order to arrest the editors and the papers resume publication two days later.

1868The 14th Amendment to the Constitution is ratified. The amendment, in part, requires that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

1873Anti-obscenity reformer Anthony Comstock successfully lobbies Congress to pass the Comstock Law. This is the first comprehensive anti-obscenity statute enacted at the federal level. The law targets the Trade in and Circulation of, obscene literature and Articles for immoral use and makes it illegal to send any obscene, lewd or lascivious materials or any information or any article or thing related to contraception or abortion through the mail.

20th century

Free-speech claims form a substantive and integral part of the early 20thcentury First Amendment cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. This may well be due to the extraordinary social upheavals of the era: massive late-19thcentury immigration movements, World War I and the spread of socialism in the United States.

1907InPatterson v. Colorado its first free-press case the U.S. Supreme Court determines it does not have jurisdiction to review the contempt conviction of U.S. senator and Denver newspaper publisher Thomas Patterson for articles and a cartoon that criticized the state supreme court. The Court writes that what constitutes contempt, as well as the time during which it may be committed, is a matter of local law. Leaving undecided the question of whether First Amendment guarantees are applicable to the states via the 14th Amendment, the Court holds that the free-speech and press guarantees only guard against prior restraint and do not prevent subsequent punishment.

1917Congress passes the Espionage Act, making it a crime to willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or to willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States.

1917The Civil Liberties Bureau, a forerunner of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is formed in response to passage of the Espionage Act.

1918Congress passes the Sedition Act, which forbids spoken or printed criticism of the U.S. government, the Constitution or the flag.

1919InSchenck v. U.S.,U.S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes sets forth his clear-and-present-danger test: whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create aclear and present dangerthat they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent. Schenck and others had been accused of urging draftees to oppose the draft and not submit to intimidation. Justice Holmes also writes that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment, citing the now-famous example of falsely crying fire in a crowded theater.

1919InDebs v. U.S.,the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the conviction of socialist and presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs under the Espionage Act for making speeches opposing World War I. Justice Holmes claims to apply the clear and present danger test; however, he phrases it as requiring that Debs words have a natural tendency and reasonably probable effect of obstructing recruitment.

1919The U.S. Supreme Court upholds the convictions of five individuals charged with violating the Espionage Act inAbrams v. United States.The individuals had circulated pamphlets critical of the U.S. government and its involvement in World War I. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes writes that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. This passage forms the foundation of the marketplace of ideas theory of the First Amendment.

1920Roger Baldwin and others start up a new organization dedicated to preserving civil liberties called the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

1921Congress repeals the Sedition Acts.

1925InGitlow v. New York,the U.S. Supreme Court upholds under the New York criminal anarchy statute Benjamin Gitlows conviction for writing and distributing The Left Wing Manifesto. The Court concludes, however, that the free-speech clause of the First Amendment applies to the states through the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

1925The Scopes Monkey Trial occurs in Dayton, Tenn. School-teacher John Thomas Scopes is found guilty of violating a Tennessee law which prohibits teaching the theory of evolution in public schools. The case pits famed orator William Jennings Bryan against defense attorney Clarence Darrow.

1926H.L. Mencken is arrested for distributing copies ofAmerican Mercury.Censorship groups in Boston contend the periodical is obscene.

1927The U.S. Supreme Court upholds Californias criminal-syndicalism law inWhitney v. California.The case involves Charlotte Anita Whitney, a member of the Socialist Party and former member of the Communist Labor Party. Justice Louis Brandeis writes in his concurring opinion a passage that becomes a fundamental First Amendment principle: If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

1928InPeople of State of New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman,the U.S. Supreme Court upholds a New York law which mandates that organizations requiring their members to take oaths file certain organizational documents with the secretary of state. The Court writes: There can be no doubt that under that power the state may prescribe and apply to associations having an oath-bound membership any reasonable regulation calculated to confine their purposes and activities within limits which are consistent with the rights of others and the public welfare.

1931InStromberg v. California,the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the state court conviction of Yetta Stromberg, 19-year-old female member of the Young Communist League, who violated a state law prohibiting the display of a red flag as an emblem of opposition to the United States government. Legal commentators cite this case as the first in which the Court recognizes that protected speech may be nonverbal, or a form of symbolic expression.

1931InNear v. Minnesota,the U.S. Supreme Court invalidates a permanent injunction against the publisher ofThe Saturday Press.The Court rules that the Minnesota statute granting state judges the power to enjoin as a nuisance any malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical is the essence of censorship. The Court concluded that the primary aim of the First Amendment was to prevent prior restraints of the press.

1933President Franklin D. Roosevelt pardons those convicted under the Espionage and Sedition Acts.

1933California repeals its Red Flag Law, ruled unconstitutional inStromberg.

1936InGrosjean v. American Press Co.,the U.S. Supreme Court invalidates a state tax on newspaper advertising applied to papers with a circulation exceeding 20,000 copies per week as a violation of the First Amendment. The Court finds the tax unconstitutional because it is seen to be a deliberate and calculated device in the guise of a tax to limit the circulation of information to which the public is entitled in virtue of the constitutional guaranties.

1937InDeJonge v. Oregon,the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the conviction of an individual under a state criminal syndicalism law for participation in a Communist party political meeting. The Court writes that peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime. The holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed.

Go here to see the original:
First Amendment Timeline | The Free Speech Center

Union officials took full union dues from nonmember officer without consent, then ignored requests to return illegally-seized money

Cleveland, OH (August 25, 2021) Cuyahoga County probation officer Kimberlee Warren is suing the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) union in her workplace, charging union officials with breaching her First Amendment right as a public employee to refuse to support union activities. She is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, in partnership with attorneys with the Ohio-based Buckeye Institute.

Foundation staff attorneys contend that FOP union officials ignored her constitutional rights recognized in the landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision, which was argued and won by Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

In Janus, the Justices declared it a First Amendment violation to force any public sector employee to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping his or her job. The Court also ruled that public employers and unions cannot take union dues or fees from a public sector employee unless they obtain that employees affirmative consent.

The federal lawsuit says that Warren was not a member of the FOP union before the Janus decision in June 2018, but FOP union bosses collected union dues from her wages without her consent. According to the complaint, this continued until around December 2020, when Warren notified union officials that they were violating her First Amendment rights by taking the money and demanded that the union stop the coerced deductions and return all money that they had taken from her paycheck since the Janus decision.

When the deductions ended, FOP chiefs refused to give back the money that they had already seized from Warren in violation of her First Amendment rights. They claimed the deductions had appeared on her check stub and thus any responsibility to cease the deductions fell on her even though to her knowledge they had never obtained permission to opt her into membership or to take cash from her paycheck in the first place.

According to the lawsuit, Warren also asked FOP bosses to provide any dues deduction authorization document she might have signed. FOP officials rebuffed this request as well.

The High Court ruled in Janus that, because all activities public sector unions undertake involve lobbying the government and thus are political speech, forcing a public employee to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of keeping his or her job is forced political speech the First Amendment forbids.

Union bosses were permitted by state law before the Janus ruling to seize from nonmember workers paychecks only the part of dues they claimed went toward representational activities. FOP union officials took this amount from Warren prior to Janus. However, they furtively designated her as a member following the decision, and began taking full dues, deducting even more money from her wages than they did before Janus despite the complete lack of any consent.

Warren is now suing the FOP union in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Her lawsuit seeks the return of all dues that FOP union officials garnished from her paycheck since the Janus decision was handed down. It also seeks punitive damages because FOP showed reckless, callous indifference toward her First Amendment rights by snubbing her refund requests.

Warrens lawsuit comes as other Foundation-backed lawsuits for employees defending their First Amendment Janus rights seek writs of certiorari from the Supreme Court. This includes cases brought for Chicago and New Jersey public educators which challenge window periods that severely limit when they and their fellow educators can exercise their First Amendment right to stop union dues deductions, sometimes to periods as short as ten days per year. In a California federal court, Foundation staff attorneys are also aiding a University of California Irvine lab assistant in fighting an anti-Janus state law that gives union bosses full control over whether employers can stop sending an employees money to the union after that employee exercises his or her Janus rights.

All over the country, union officials are stopping at nothing to ensure they can continue ignoring workers First Amendment Janus rights and continue siphoning money from the paychecks of dissenting employees, commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. After Janus was handed down, FOP union officials in Warrens workplace could have come to her to attempt to get her to support the union voluntarily, but tellingly instead they began surreptitiously siphoning full dues out of her paycheck without her consent in direct contravention of the Supreme Court.

Despite her repeated requests, FOP bosses have continued to trample Warrens Janus rights, and Foundation staff attorneys are fighting to stop this gross injustice against her and punish FOP bosses for their brazen behavior, Mix added.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in around 250 cases nationwide per year.

Original post:
Cuyahoga County Probation Officer Hits Union with Federal Lawsuit for Years of Unconstitutional Dues Seizures - National Right to Work Foundation

Religious Freedom: A Standard or an Enigma?

By Teresa Smallwood Postdoctoral Fellow & Associate Director, Public Theology and Racial Justice Collaborative

When the Danbury Baptist Association wrote President Thomas Jefferson on October 7, 1801 regarding their desire for the separation of church and state, they were advancing a position in favor of private, individualized faith expressed without governmental intervention. In 1801 the stakes could not have been higher because the establishment clause was only a decade old and there was a flood of enactments across the colonies to preserve their status as independent sovereigns. But how that standard would be implemented and enforced was a worrisome contention for many people of faith. Jeffersons reply on January 1, 1802 reverently acknowledged the separation and vowed that there would be a wall of separation between church and state, a phrase he borrowed from Roger Williams, a London minister who greatly influenced the colonies in favor of religious liberty.

In our present context culturally, socially, economically, and legally, I posit that the wall of separation is crumbling down. Despite groups like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, founded to preserve the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all Americans, it is impossible to see a true separation between church and state in the sense of the letters exchanged over two centuries ago. In fact, the notion of religious freedom or religious liberty is hard to discern.

In the same breath, the First Amendment to the US Constitution admonishes that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion and simultaneously it declares that everyone should have the right to freedom of religion. In effect, this is a conundrum when one considers the United States Supreme Courts decision in Masterpiece Cupcake Shop, LTD., et. al. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. At issue was the shop owners right to reject customers in light of his religious beliefs. He claimed his deeply held religious beliefs would not abide his making a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The Supreme Court sided with the owner. Despite what I could say about the integrity of the decision, there is no way to avoid concluding that the US Supreme Court has been slowly eroding religious freedom to the point where the wall of separation is like Humpty Dumpty having a great fall.

For arguments sake, perhaps the fair thing to do is to advance the notion that marriage is held sacred by non-church-going people as well. Same-sex couples have religious beliefs. In fact, I would venture to say that people in covenant relationships who go to the lengths to repeat vows and celebrate with traditionally tiered wedding cakes do so in support of deeply held religious beliefs, whether they acknowledge a God concept or not. The Supreme Court never mentioned the fact that the analysis goes both ways.

Moreover, if that is the case, siding with one litigant over the other in terms of religious beliefs may look like establishment. It, however, points to a wider problemone that we as Americans, particularly people of color, must seriously consider: What happens when a case reaches the United States Supreme Court to decide whether the January 6, 2021 insurrection was employed and executed based upon deeply held religious beliefs?

Lets face it: Some of the mobsters carried Bibles in lockstep with other mobsters carrying nooses. Are we in danger of a backdoor approval of the return to chattel slavery based upon deeply held religious beliefs? The Apostle Paul did say slaves, obey your masters, did he not? The stacking of the Supreme Court with ultra-conservative jurists makes the question linger in the air.

Voter suppression, police brutality, mass incarceration, and economic disparities all point to a corrosion of basic democratic values not the least of which is religious freedom. Freedom from tyranny and freedom to exercise ones right to deeply held religious beliefs should not create a conflict so convoluted that the judiciary has to respect the establishment of someones religious belief as a means to an end while concomitantly abridging anothers right to the same freedom. Religious freedom should intimate a hands-off approach that the Supreme Court avows at all costs. That was the pledge Jefferson made. A wall of separation is a shield from contact, either literal or perceived. However, for decades the trend has been anything but hands-off.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, for example, is one case where the wall of separation is nowhere to be found. In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. allowed a for-profit company to deny its employees health coverage for contraception based on the company owners religious beliefs. Religious objections aside, these employees would be entitled to these health benefits. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was the operative legislation in this court opinion. The 1993 Act as applied to corporations creates a cyborg-ish effect. There is a danger that the inverse nature of religious freedom jurisprudence turns on itself in such a way that the freedom to practice ones religion trumps the scrutiny of every other discriminatory eventuality. The totalizing impact of this could reverse the gains Americans have made in a democracy that once valued religious freedom as much as it once valued the wall of separation. The enigmatic reality is that walls are overrated.

By Jeff Johnston Culture and Policy Analyst, The Daily Citizen

Chase Windebank was a senior at Pine Creek High School in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Beginning in his freshman year, he led a small group of students who wanted to pray for their school and the needs of fellow classmates during non-instructional time. One day, a school official called him in and told him the group could no longer meet because of the separation of church and state.

A year later, the school dropped its ban on student religious discussion and expression during free time, after Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a legal aid group advocating for First Amendment rights, filed a lawsuit against the district.

Think stories like this are unusual? Across the nation, from the schoolhouse to the military to the medical field, religious freedom is under fire. Houses of worship and ministries have felt the heat from those who work to eliminate religious expression from the public arena, often under the misguided banner of separation of church and state.

The largest legal organization in the U.S. solely devoted to defending religious liberty is First Liberty Institute. In its annual report, Undeniable: An Inside Look at the Cases, Controversies and Unrelenting Attacks on Religious Liberty in America, the organization lists more than 1,400 cases, mostly from the past 20 years, demonstrating the deep antipathy from many toward religion and people of faith.

Some of the cases are well known:

Others have received less publicity. A synagogue in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey filed suit after the city took land from the congregation and blocked its efforts to relocate for ten years. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued UPS for their policy banning drivers from having beards on behalf of Rastafarians, Muslims, and Sikhs whoms facial hair is part of their culture. A New York nurse was told she must participate in a late-term abortion, which was against her religious beliefs, and was threatened with termination and loss of her nursing license if she refused to do so.

Theres a reason that religious liberty is called our first freedom, and theres a reason people and religious legal aid groups continue to fight to preserve and protect it. Not only do the two clauses protecting religion from government incursion make up the first freedom listed in the bill of rights but freedom of religion is vital because it protects our deepest thoughts and beliefs as well as our expression of them in our daily lives.

Theres a huge misunderstanding that somehow the First Amendment places a wall of separation between church and state an unfortunate phrase used by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, in Connecticut. To deliberately mix metaphors, the wall of separation has been used as a sledgehammer, especially in recent years, against churches and people of faith.While some complain that the so-called wall of separation is crumbling, the truth is it has grown thicker and higher over the decades, threatening to crush our first freedom.

The phrase is not found in the Constitution, nor is it in the Bill of Rights. If the Founders had wanted to, they could easily have included a wall of separation. But as University of Chicagos Professor of Law Philip Hamburger argues in Separation of Church and State they strove to create something new: real religious liberty, without state overreach and control. They said that Congress could not establish a national church, nor could it prohibit the free exercise of religion.

And that free exercise of religion isnt just about private worship or individualized faith, it includes the freedom of individuals and different faiths to exercise belief and conviction in the public arena through their speech and actions.

While the phrase separation of church and state has become part of our common language, Hamburger explains how this erroneous idea grew and developed, replacing the First Amendment protection of religious liberty. As such, its seen by many to be a freedom from religion in the public square.

Hamburger writes, Yet the idea of separation of church and state was very different from the religious liberty desired by the religious dissenters whose demands shaped the First Amendment He adds that the simplistic metaphor of separation is opposed to the union of church and state, but that union and separation are over-generalizations between which lie much middle ground.

As opponents of religious freedom have tried to use the so-called wall to penalize bakers, florists, coaches, nurses and others, courts have, thankfully, begun pushing back against the complete removal of religion from public life. For example, the Supreme Court, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, saying the state showed animosity and discriminated against his convictions.

More recently, the Supreme Court has struck down onerous state government COVID decrees that shut down worship, treating churches less favorably than businesses, in cases such as Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo and Tandon v. Newsom. And in June 2021 the Court ruled 9-0, in Fulton v. Philadelphia, that the city had violated the First Amendment free exercise rights of Catholic Social Services, allowing them to continue placing children in loving homes with a mother and father.

People of faith have the right to share and live out our beliefs in the public arena. Even as assaults on religious liberty have accelerated, lets hope that courts continue to protect our cherished first freedom.

This article is part ofDivided We Falls Constitutional Questions series, covering a range of political topics fundamental to the U.S. Constitution and democratic institutions. Through this series, we ask constitutional scholars, journalists, elected officials, and activists to discuss how these ideals are and are not implemented today. If you want to read more pieces like this, clickhere.

Teresa Smallwood

Rev. Dr. Teresa L. Smallwood is a Postdoctoral Fellow and Associate Director of the Public Theology and Racial Justice Collaborative at Vanderbilt Divinity School. She is licensed and ordained to public ministry in the Baptist tradition and is presently an active member at New Covenant Christian Church in Nashville, TN where she serves as Social Justice Minister. She holds a BA degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a JD from North Carolina Central University School of Law, a Master of Divinity degree from Howard University, and a PhD degree from Chicago Theological Seminary.

Jeff Johnston

Jeff Johnston is Focus on the Familys culture and policy analyst for The Daily Citizen. He researches, writes, and speaks about education, marriage, LGBTQ issues, and healthy sexuality. After struggling for years to reconcile his faith with his same-sex attractions and sexual addiction, Johnston now shares his journey of healing and change through Gods transforming power. Johnston has been interviewed by top media outlets including CBS Sunday Morning, The New York Times, U.S. News and World Report, Rolling Stone, and more. He graduated from San Diego State University and lives in Colorado Springs with his wife and three sons.

More:
The Conundrum of the Separation of Church and State Divided We Fall - Divided We Fall

Also named as defendants in the suit, which seeks an unspecified amount of damages: the Trump campaign, longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone, a group called Stop the Steal that helped organize the rally Trump addressed on Jan. 6, more than a dozen individuals facing criminal charges related to the riot and several organizations whose members were allegedly involved, such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys.

"We joined the Capitol Police to uphold the law and protect the Capitol community," the seven officers said in a joint statement. "On Jan. 6 we tried to stop people from breaking the law and destroying our democracy. Since then our jobs and those of our colleagues have become infinitely more dangerous. We want to do what we can to make sure the people who did this are held accountable and that no one can do this again.

The lawsuit is the second by Capitol Police officers against Trump. The first, filed earlier then year by two officers, accuses Trump of inciting the Jan. 6 riot.

Members of Congress have also sued over the violence. In February, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) filed suit against Trump, Giuliani, the Proud Boys and others. A dozen other Democratic House members joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs later, and Thompson dropped out of the case in July after being named chair of the House select committee probing the origins of the riot.

In March, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) sued Trump, Giuliani, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) and Donald Trump Jr. over their alleged roles in encouraging the violence.

Lawyers for the officers pressing the newly filed suit asked that it be assigned to Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama appointee already handling the other riot-related civil cases.

Legal experts have said that cases against people actually accused of violence on Jan. 6 are likely to have traction. However, the claims against Trump, Giuliani and others face an uphill battle in court due to broad First Amendment protections accorded to speech on political topics. Attorneys pressing the cases say they hope to get the suits into a discovery phase, where they can explore how the rallies leading up to the Jan. 6 riot were financed and what discussions there were among organizers about the potential for violence.

Link:
7 Capitol Police officers sue Trump, others over Capitol riot - POLITICO

The veteran US Capitol Police officer who killed pro-Trump rioter Ashli Babbitt went public Thursday, revealing his identity and defending his actions on January 6.

The veteran US Capitol Police officer who killed pro-Trump rioter Ashli Babbitt went public Thursday, revealing his identity and defending his actions on January 6.

I know that day I saved countless lives, Lt. Michael Byrd said in an interview with NBC Nightly News. I know members of Congress, as well as my fellow officers and staff, were in jeopardy and in serious danger. And thats my job.

The officer fatally shot Babbitt in the shoulder while she climbed through a window that led into the Speakers Lobby, adjacent to the House chamber, while lawmakers were evacuating.

I tried to wait as long as I could, Byrd said of the incident in the doorway. I hoped and prayed no one tried to enter through those doors. But their failure to comply required me to take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and myself and my fellow officers.

The Justice Department said in April that Byrd wouldnt be criminally charged in connection with Babbitts death, and the US Capitol Police said last week that he wouldnt face any internal discipline. He could still face civil litigation from Babbitts family, which has threatened a lawsuit.

A Washington native who has been in law enforcement for 28 years, Byrd said he followed his training and repeatedly yelled at the mob, telling them to stop their advance toward the House chamber.

He said he was taking a tactical stance with his gun drawn while the mob approached. Youre ultimately hoping that your commands would be complied with. Unfortunately, they were not.

In the seven months since the insurrection, former President Donald Trump and his allies have attempted to frame a narrative around Babbitts death and turned her into a martyr in right-wing circles.

Trump said Babbitt, a QAnon supporter and Air Force veteran, was an innocent, wonderful, incredible woman. During a Fox News interview, Trump also falsely accused the officer of shooting Babbitt in the head. Republican lawmakers also peddled misleading claims about the incident, claiming Byrd was lying in wait to kill Babbitt and executed her in cold blood.

In the interview with NBC Nightly News, Byrd said Trumps comments were disheartening, and denied that he acted out of political animus. He protected Trump during his presidency when he visited the Capitol.

I hope they understand I did my job, Byrd said of the Republicans whove criticized him. There was imminent threat and danger to the members of Congress. I just want the truth to be told.

Many of the conspiracies have been fueled by the lack of transparency from Capitol Police and the investigators who reviewed the incident. Byrd spoke out on his own accord and has never been named by any government entity, even though its common in many jurisdictions for police departments to publicly release the names of officers who are involved in fatal shootings.

Uncertainty about Byrds identity created a new rallying cry who shot Ashli Babbitt? which Trump has brought up at recent rallies. Byrds name has been floating around right-wing websites, and he said in the at-times emotional interview Thursday that he and his family have received death threats, including racist threats.

They talked about killing me, cutting off my head, said Byrd.

In interviews with CNN earlier this year, Babbitts family said she was patriotic and was at the Capitol to express her First Amendment right and to answer the call of a still-sitting President.

The family says its considering a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against Byrd, and theyve already filed a civil lawsuit seeking records and other information from the police about the incident.

Their lawyer, Terry Roberts, said in an interview with Zenger News that he believed Byrd was unfit to serve or carry a gun in the Capitol. He also condemned the US Capitol Police for never publicly naming Byrd, which he claimed without evidence was kept secret because Byrd is Black.

The US Congress wants to protect this man. Hes got friends in high places and they want to protect him, Roberts said in the interview. And theyve done a pretty good job of it. I dont think its a proud moment for the US Capitol Police or the US Congress.

This story has been updated with additional details.

The-CNN-Wire & 2021 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved.

See the original post:
Capitol Police officer who killed Ashli Babbitt on January 6 speaks publicly for first time: I know that day I saved countless lives - WTOP

Heres where the qualified-immunity jurisprudence really goes off the rails. At one point, courts would follow a two-step process: First, did such a right exist? Second, was that right clearly established at the time? Then, in its 2009 decision in Pearson v. Callahan, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the two-step process was no longer mandatory, freeing the lower courts to decide the factors in whatever order they chose. Unsurprisingly, more than a few courts opted to simply figure out whether something was clearly established at the time rather than rule upon the deeper constitutional question. The result, as critics like Judge Don Willett have observed, is not just constitutional stagnation, but a catch-22 process where some rights never get clearly established by federal courts at all.

Thats what the Tenth Circuit opted to do in this case. We do not consider, nor opine on, whether Mr. Frasier actually had a First Amendment right to record the police performing their official duties in public spaces, the panel concluded. We exercise our discretion to bypass the constitutional question of whether such right even exists. In doing so, we are influenced by the fact that neither party disputed that such a right exists (nor did the district court question its existence). And because we ultimately determine that any First Amendment right that Mr. Frasier had to record the officers was not clearly established at the time he did so, we see no reason to risk the possibility of glibly announc[ing] new constitutional rights in dictum that will have no effect whatsoever on the case.

So, heres the end result if the Tenth Circuits decision stands: Since the panel ruled that filming the police wasnt a clearly established right when Frasier did it in 2014, the officers in that encounter will receive qualified immunity and defeat Frasiers civil rights lawsuit. And because the Tenth Circuit declined to clearly establish such a right in this casethanks to the officers litigation tactic to not dispute its existenceother Denver police officers could violate other Coloradans First Amendment right to film them, and then claim qualified immunity again if theyre sued for it. Constitutional stagnation indeed.

Frasier urged the court to reassess how lower courts determine whether something is clearly established and overturn the Tenth Circuits narrow interpretation of it. The qualified-immunity doctrine was created to prevent officers from being held unexpectedly liable based on constitutional rules they neither knew nor should have known existed, he told the court, quoting a 1982 Supreme Court case. The officers here all testified that they knew they were violating [Frasiers] rights. Their training, department policies, and precedent all underscored that reality. Whatever the outer boundaries of qualified immunity may be, this case is far beyond them.

The rest is here:
The Supreme Court Will Decide If the First Amendment Grants the Right to Film Cops - The New Republic

In 2018, the Board of Trustees of the Houston Community College System (HCC), a nine-member elected body that governs a network of community colleges in the greater Houston, Texas, area, officially censured one of its own members for "inappropriate conduct" and for acting in a fashion "not consistent with the best interests of the College or the Board." According to that member, the censure vote caused him mental anguish and violated his right to freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the matter this fall.

The case is Houston Community College System v. Wilson. David Buren Wilson was an elected member of the HCC Board of Trustees who strongly objected to some of the board's decisions, including the vote to fund a campus abroad in Qatar. He made his displeasure known by speaking out in the local media, publishing a website that cataloged his criticisms, orchestrating a robocall campaign against the HCC, hiring a private investigator to investigate his fellow board members, and suing the board itself. After the board censured him, he also sued on free speech grounds.

In April 2020, Wilson prevailed before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which said that "a reprimand against an elected official for speech addressing a matter of public concern is an actionable First Amendment claim."

But that ruling did not sit well with eight other5th Circuit judges, who argued that a full sitting of the court should have reheard the case and reached the opposite result. In particular, Judge Edith Jones, joined by Judges Don Willett, James Ho, Kyle Duncan, and Andrew Oldham, faulted the three-judge panel for turning the First Amendment on its head. "The First Amendment was never intended to curtail speech and debate within legislative bodies," Jones wrote. The HCC board, in other words, had every right to issue "a censure against this gadfly legislator."

As Jones put it, "fellow legislators may strike hard verbal blows, and all's fair when they exercise corporate authority to censure or reprimand one of their members; such actions are not a violation of the First Amendment, but its embodiment in partisan politics."

Ho wrote separately to further emphasize his objections to the three-judge panel's mishandling of the free speech principles involved in the case. "The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, not freedom from speech," he wrote. "It secures the right to criticize, not the right not to be criticized." Ho then effectively told Wilson to suck it up and stop being such a crybaby. "Leaders don't fear being booed," he wrote. "And they certainly don't sue when they are."

A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court may well heed those dissenting 5th Circuit voices when the Court considers the case this fall. After all, as the HCC points out in its principal brief, "some public speech by an individual legislator may well provoke a public censure by the body's current majority, speaking in the name of the institution itself. When it does, both statements are part of the cycle of speech and counter-speech that the First Amendment seeks to foster, not constrain."

Read this article:
Does the First Amendment Shield a Government Official From Being Censured by His Colleagues? - Reason

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Educationisnt satisfied with UNC-Chapel Hills answers to lingering questions about the schools investigation of a leaked donor agreement.

Earlier this month, Policy Watch reported the investigation into the schools contract with mega-donor Walter Hussman included reading faculty e-mails and questioning professors who have been critical of the Arkansas publisher and alumnus, who pledged $25 million to the schools journalism school in 2019.

Hussmans behind-the-scenes lobbying against the hiring of acclaimed journalist Nikole Hannah-Jonesdrew new attention to his influence at the university and was a major factor in Hannah-Jonesturning down an eventual tenure offer from the school and instead going to Howard University. When the donor agreement between Hussman and the school was published by the News & O

bserver, the school launched an investigation into the leak.

As part of the ongoing investigation, faculty have been made aware that the contract was on the schools server Database for Advancing our Vision of Institutional Excellence (DAVIE) server for months, where hundreds of people would have potentially had access to it.

FIRE previously questioned why the investigation appeared to be centering on professors who had been critical of Hussmans behavior and the school allowing him access to a confidential hiring process. Those faculty members do not appear to have had access to the contract of the server on which it was available.

In a new letter this week, FIRE said the schools explanation that it has an interest in investigating leaks to keep such agreements confidential is inadequate.

From that letter:

Assuming that the disclosure of the Hussman donor agreement did, in fact, breach university policy, an investigation into this alleged policy breach should be reasonably limited to those who had actual access to the disclosed document before its disclosure to the Raleigh News & Observer. Here, UNC has instead reportedly targeted faculty members, including journalism professors Deb Aikat and Daniel Kreiss, who did not have regular, pre-disclosure access to the Hussman agreement, as explained in our letter of August 4.

The breadth of UNCs search of faculty email accounts has not only violated its own policy, but it has also imperiled academic freedom and individual privacy.

First, UNCs probe into the email accounts of those who had no pre-disclosure access to the Hussman agreement is not reasonably necessary to acquire the information needed to investigate that disclosure. To the extent an email probe was necessary at all, an investigation targeted at that which is reasonably necessary instead would focus on, for example, the administrators, development personnel, or administrative staff who had actual access to the document in question in UNCs Database for Advancing our Vision of Institutional Excellence (DAVIE) before the document was disclosed to the News & Observer.

Second, UNCs probe will cause a chilling effect on faculty speech and academic freedom. In addition to the chill already caused by UNCs inquiry and its requests to meet with certain outspoken faculty members, as discussed in our previous letter, faculty will now experience further chill, knowing that their emails are potentially being monitored by university administrators. This chill will not only affect conversations critical to the university, but will also affect conversations related to research and pedagogy.

Research and pedagogyissues at the core of the traditional right to academic freedomoften cover controversial topics, and faculty members may fear retaliation if universityadministrators have access to personal notes and conversations related to academic pursuits.

It continues to appear that UNC has targeted outspoken faculty, including Kreiss and Aikat, not because it credibly believes these professors were involved in disclosure of the Hussmanagreement, but because they publicly criticized the university. As explained in our previous correspondence, nothing indicates Kreiss or Aikats criticism was based on access to confidential information not already obtained by the media.

Read the full letter here.

In the letter, FIRE asks for more information about how the investigation is being conducted, including whether those with access to the DAVIE server were interviewed. The group has asked for a response by August 25.

Go here to see the original:
Free speech group: Ongoing UNC leak investigation violates First Amendment, creates "chilling effect" | The Progressive Pulse - The...