Category Archives: First Amendment

April 19, 2021

Protecting First Amendment rights has long been a hallmark of Gibson Dunns practice. In particular, we have vigilantly defended freedom of the press and its indispensable role in a healthy democracy. On this episode of the podcast, Ted Boutrous and Ted Olson discuss some of the most important and interesting First Amendment cases theyve worked on.

Previous Episode | Next Episode (Coming Soon)

All episodes of The Two Teds are available on GibsonDunn.com and wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also subscribe to be notified of new episodes via e-mail.

HOSTS:

Ted Boutrous Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., a partner in the Los Angeles office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, is global Co-Chair of the firms Litigation Group and previously led the firms Appellate, Crisis Management, Transnational Litigation and Media groups. He also is a member of the firms Executive and Management Committees. Recognized for a decade of excellence in the legal profession, theDaily Journalin 2021 named Mr. Boutrous as aTop Lawyer of the Decadefor his victories. As a tireless advocate and leader for high-stakes and high-profile cases, Mr. Boutrous was also named the 2019 Litigator of the Year, Grand Prize Winner by The American Lawyer.

Ted Olson Theodore B. Olson is a Partner in Gibson, Dunn & Crutchers Washington, D.C. office; a founder of the Firms Crisis Management, Sports Law, and Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Groups.Mr. Olson was Solicitor General of the United States during the period 2001-2004. From 1981-1984, he was Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice. Except for those two intervals, he has been a lawyer with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. since 1965.

Read more from the original source:
The Two Teds - Episode 3 - The First Amendment - Gibson Dunn

In public, pillow magnate and staunch Donald Trump ally Mike Lindell has continuedlong after President Joe Bidens inaugurationto hurl wild, unfounded allegations about the 2020 election and has even gone as far as to say that Trump could be reinstalled in the White House later this year.

But behind the scenes, Lindell has assembled a legal team front-loaded with First Amendment heavyweights who arent so much looking to defend the merits of their clients bizarre claims as his constitutional right to say them free from the consequence of devastating financial ruin.

The Lindell legal team is also preparing to argue that the false claims against the voting-tech company Dominion are akin to pillorying the U.S. government, and therefore come with the same speech protections.

According to court documents filed late last week, Lindells company, MyPillow, has hired veteran First Amendment attorney Nathan Lewin to represent the company as its Trump-aligned founder faces a billion-dollar defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems over a series of baseless allegations about the company and the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

Lewin joins his friend and fellow legal heavyweight, celebrity lawyer and Trump impeachment-defense veteran Alan Dershowitz, who, while not an attorney of record in the case, recently announced that he is informally advising Lindell and his legal team on the defense. Taken together, the moves show how Lindell, whose pro-Trump claims have pushed him to the political fringes and made him a lightning rod, has nonetheless attracted the support of a high-powered legal team of mainstream attorneys willing to fight his case on constitutional grounds.

Ive been on conference calls repeatedly with [Lindells] legal team, sometimes Lindell is on, sometimes hes not, Dershowitz said in a phone interview last week. My role is to come up with ideas as they pertain to the First Amendment. I give them cases, and I suggest First Amendment theoriesmy role is limited to advising on the First Amendment issues at hand.

Our position is that Dominion is the government, for purposes of the First Amendment.

Alan Dershowitz

He added that he has been advising Team Lindell not only on a motion to dismiss the Dominion lawsuit but also on the potential litigation that Lindell has for weeks said that he and his attorneys are working on filing soon against Dominion and voting tech company Smartmatic.

Dershowitz said he personally recommended Lewin to Team Lindell, and gave a brief preview of what could likely come from the Lindell side as litigation progresses.

Our position is that Dominion is the government, for purposes of the First Amendment, he said. The government delegated to them the most important governmental function, mainly counting votes in a presidential election. And they are therefore subject to criticism in the exact same ways that the government would be subject to criticism in that situation. And criticism of how the government conducted a presidential election is the highest bar protecting the First Amendment right to criticize such action.

For years, Dershowitz and Lewin have both been registered as Democrats.

Lewin, 85, has a storied legal career that spans decades and included a dozen appearances arguing cases before the Supreme Court and in Bobby Kennedys Justice Department prosecuting Jimmy Hoffa. After leaving government work, Lewin went on to represent a host of notable clients, including Jodie Foster after John Hinckleys attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, former Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Iran-Contra scandal, President Richard Nixon, and John Lennon in an appeal of his immigration status after the Nixon administration tried to have him deported from the U.S.

In an email to The Daily Beast on Sunday afternoon, Lewin declined to comment, writing that he would have nothing to say beyond what I may file in court.

In the years since, Lewin established a reputation as a go-to attorney on First Amendment cases involving the free exercise of religion and the Establishment Clause. Lewin has represented Orthodox Jewish organizations in cases involving labeling requirements on kosher food, co-educational housing requirements for Orthodox students at Yale, the public display of a Menorah, and Jews in the armed forces seeking religious accommodation to wear beards.

Lewin also represented the America Israel Public Affairs Committee in the fallout from the 2005 espionage cases against former lobbyists Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman after Pentagon official Lawrence Franklin was caught passing classified information about Iran to the two men. Franklin pleaded guilty to leaking classified information. Prosecutors tried to charge Rosen and Weissman under the Espionage Act for passing the information along to the Israeli government but ultimately dropped the charges.

Lindells legal strategy also marks a contrast with his fellow Dominion critic Sidney Powell, who also is facing a $1.3 billion suit from the voting technology company. Powells legal team has largely drawn attorneys from within the ranks of those who sought to overturn the election in court.

Powell is represented by Howard Kleinhendler, a Republican attorney who, alongside Lin Wood, filed some of the so-called Kraken cases bearing many of the same allegations that landed Powell in Dominions crosshairs. Shes also represented by Lawrence Joseph, a Trump campaign attorney who helped draft the Supreme Court brief that Texas filed in a failed bid to overturn Joe Bidens electoral victory in a handful of battleground states.

I want to take this all the way to the Supreme Court. Im not stopping.

Mike Lindell

And during that months-long anti-democratic blitz spearheaded by then-President Donald Trump and other prominent Republicansculminating in the bloody Jan. 6. MAGA riot in Washington, D.C.Lindell emerged as a key player both in public and behind the scenes. The pillow magnate and Trump friend was a big financial backer of several legal efforts and rallies that attempted to subvert the certified outcome of a Biden win and a decisive Trump loss. During the final days of Trumps term in office, Lindell visited the then-president in the Oval Office to brief him on documents filled with groundless conspiracy theories about how China and other foreign nations were at the center of a convoluted plot to swing the 2020 election to the Democratic presidential nominee.

And unlike other major players in that broad effort to keep Trump in power, Lindell has kept going, even as he faces expensive legal jeopardy and lost business.

I want to take this all the way to the Supreme Court, Lindell has repeatedly insisted since Trump left office. Im not stopping.

Continue reading here:
MyPillow CEO Recruits First Amendment Heavy Hitters to Fight Dominion - The Daily Beast

A case to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court next week presents one of those rare instances in which different LGBTQ groups are on opposite sides. The case is Mahanoy v. BL, an appeal which asks the Supreme Court to take a new look at a long-standing First Amendment decision from 1969 and say whether it needs to be re-thought, given todays new social media and cyber-bullying realities.

In friend-of-the-court briefs submitted in the case, different LGBTQ groups and leaders are taking different sides. Some argue that schools need the authority to discipline students for inappropriate messages even when those messages are delivered off-campus and after-school. Others say students need protection from school authorities over-reaching into the personal views and expressions of students.

Both sides say the case, which has no LGBT-specific elements, could have important implications for LGBTQ students.

The case before the court started in 2017, when a student at a small public high school in central Pennsylvania posted an angry message on Snapchat, expressing her anguish at having been rejected for the varsity cheerleading squad. The student, identified in numerous news reports as Brandi Levy, is identified in court documents as B.L., and she attended Mahanoy Area High School. (She has since graduated and is attending college.)

On the weekend after learning she would have to stay on the junior varsity squad, Levy was out shopping with a friend when she decided to post a photo of herself on Snapchat, gesturing with her middle finger and adding a caption that read, Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.

Levy was suspended from the JV squad for the year

The post reached about 250 people, including other students at her high school (which had an enrollment of only about 280 students). One of the students who saw the post captured the Snapchat image and forwarded it to Levys JV cheerleading coaches.

Mahanoy school officials brief to the Supreme Court said that Students were visibly upset over Levys Snapchat post, that the post violated school rules against foul language and inappropriate gestures, and that they felt they had to take disciplinary action to avoid chaos and maintain a team-like environment. So, they suspended Levy from the JV squad for the year.

Levys parents attempted to reverse that decision by talking with school officials. When they got nowhere, they sued in federal court, charging that the school had violated their daughters First Amendment right to free speech.

A federal district court agreed, noting Levys Snapchat post was done off-campus and had not caused any substantial disruption of school activities. The Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed. It cited a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisionTinker v. Des Moineswhich held that students have a right to freedom of speech unless a school can prove that the students actions or speech would substantially interfere with school operations. The Tinker case involved students wearing black armbands at school during school hours, in protest of the Vietnam War. The Mahanoy case involved something done off-campus after-school.

While acknowledging that social media have blurred the lines between what constitutes on and off-campus, the Third Circuit said Levys Snapchat post was clearly off-campus and that the online nature of that off-campus speech makes no constitutional difference.

schools face hard calls about how to address off-campus speech

Attorneys for the school appealed the Third Circuit decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that other federal appeals panels have ruled that Tinker can apply to off-campus speech that has a close nexus to the school environment. The Third Circuit decision, they said, broke ranks with all other circuits on the matter.

The Mahanoy school attorneys noted that schools face hard calls about how to address such off-campus speech, including instances of where students use social media to harass other students and teachers. But schools have exercised authority to discipline speech that disrupts the campus or harms other students, whether that speech originates on campus or off.

Garden State Equality and other LGBTQ groups submitted a brief siding with the school district

Joining several other anti-bullying organizations, the Garden State Equality group, the Tyler Clementi Foundation, and Stomp Out Bullyingwhich focus on LGBTQ issuesall submitted a brief on the side of the Mahanoy school district. They noted that a study found that more than 80 percent of LGBTQ youth reported being bullied or harassed at school. They said, there must be a clear and unmistakable pronouncement that school officials may take reasonable measures to curtail peer bullying that negatively impacts students ability to access their education, wherever and in whatever form it takes place.

A large number of other LGBTQ groups submitted a brief in support of the student.

Bestowing schools with overly broad authority to regulate off-campus speech risks school overreach, said the LGBTQ groups. They said studies show that historically marginalized groupslike LGBTQ studentsare more likely to receive unwarranted school discipline for their off-campus speech. At the very least, they argue, the Supreme Court should make clear that any restrictions to off-campus student speech only apply to prevent invasions of students rights to safety and access to equal educational opportunities, and not to regulate all potential substantial disruptions of school activities.

The brief was submitted by Lambda Legal, Equality California, GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the Human Rights Campaign, National Center for Lesbian Rights, and more than two dozen other groups committed to gender, LGBTQ, racial, and disability justice for students.

We support B.L. in this case because we believe the school was not within its authority to discipline her and violated her First Amendment rights to speech and expression, said Camilla Taylor, director of constitutional litigation for Lambda Legal and one of the authors of the brief supporting the student. When student speech occurs off-campus and does not threaten harm to anyone, said Taylor, students enjoy an unfettered right to express themselves without school interference.

The groups brief urged the Supreme Court make a very careful rulingone that enables schools to respond to off-campus speech that invades a students rights to be safe and to access equal educational opportunities but one that does not impair a students off-campus speech that is otherwise protected under the First Amendment.

Acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar submitted the Biden administrations brief in March and will be speaking before the court on April 28. Her brief supports the school district, saying that schools must be able to address any speech, including off-campus speech, that threatens or targets specific individuals or groups in the school community.

California, Illinois, New Jersey, and North Carolina, say the Supreme Court should vacate the decision

Interestingly, the openly lesbian Attorneys General of Massachusetts and Michigan submitted a brief, along with the attorneys general of 21 other states, including California, Illinois, New Jersey, and North Carolina, saying the Supreme Court should vacate the Third Circuit decision. The attorneys general explicitly declined to take sides with either the student or the school district, but its argument clearly landed to benefit the schools.

Bullying occurs both during and outside of school hours, particularly now that students communicate so frequently via social media, said the attorneys general brief. And regardless of when and where it occurs, bullying can create a school climate in which student victims feel unsafe and unable to engage in learning.

The Court should reject the Third Circuits approach and reaffirm the ability of schools to address off-campus bullying under the well-established student-speech framework.

Gary Buseck, senior adviser with GLAD and a 35-year veteran of LGBTQ litigation, acknowledged that it seems odd that the pro-LGBTQ briefs stand in support of different sides of the appeal.

However, my sense is that all of the parties on these three specific amicus briefs are actually in agreement on one issue, i.e., that school boards have to be allowed to deal with bullying and harassment that occurs off-campus but that impacts a students life in school and educational opportunities and experience, said Buseck. All three briefs, he said, are concerned less about the facts of this case and its bottom-line result than about possible dangers in the Third Circuit opinion bearing on how school must be allowed to address bullying/harassment.

The Mahanoy argument comes at a time when LGBTQ groups are anxiously awaiting how the Supreme Court will rule on a major case that does involve LGBTQ issues specifically: Fulton v. Philadelphia. That case, argued in November, is the latest in a long line of lawsuits that have attempted to secure for some people and businesses an exemption to laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Those arguing for the exemptions claim that requiring them to obey the non-discrimination laws violates their First Amendment freedom to exercise of their religious beliefs against LGBTQ people.

2021 Keen News Service. All rights reserved.

Originally posted here:
Some LGBTQ groups and leaders are taking different sides in First Amendment case - Out In Jersey

Tenth Circuit Grants Qualified Immunity to Police Who Knowingly Violated the First Amendment | Cato at Liberty Blog Skip to main content `; } const addClickListeners = (alertBoxWrapper) => { alertBoxWrapper.addEventListener('click', ({ target }) => { if (target.classList.contains('js-cato-live-alert-link')) { var ga = window.ga=window.ga||function(){(ga.q=ga.q||[]).push(arguments)}; var _hsq = window._hsq = window._hsq || []; ga( 'send', 'event', 'Live Alert Link', 'click', target.getAttribute('href') ); const { dataset: { researchAreas, } } = target; Object.values(JSON.parse(researchAreas)).forEach(({ title }) => { _hsq.push(["trackEvent", { id: `Live Alert Link - ${title}` }]); }); } }); }; const buildAlert = (events) => { const { pathname: currentPath } = new URL(window.location.href); if (currentPath === '/') { return; } const alertWrapper = document.querySelector('.js-live-alert-wrapper'); const alert = document.querySelector('.js-live-alert'); const eventsWrapper = alertWrapper.querySelector('.js-live-alert-inner'); let eventsCode = ''; events.forEach(({ title, link, research_areas: researchAreas }) => { if (link !== currentPath) { eventsCode += buildEventCode( title, link, JSON.stringify(researchAreas) ); } }); if (!eventsCode) { return; } eventsWrapper.innerHTML = eventsCode; alert.classList.add( `cato-live-alert--${events.length > 1 ? 'multiple' : 'single'}` ); addClickListeners(alertWrapper); alertWrapper.classList.remove('d-none'); }; getCatoStreamingEvents .then(( { events }) => { if (events === undefined) { window.liveAlertProcessed = true; window.dispatchEvent(new Event('liveAlertPlaced')); return; } buildAlert(Object.values(events).slice(0, 2)); window.liveAlertProcessed = true; window.dispatchEvent(new Event('liveAlertPlaced')); }) .catch((error) => { console.log(error); window.liveAlertProcessed = true; window.dispatchEvent(new Event('liveAlertPlaced')); }); })(getCatoStreamingEvents);

Read more:
Tenth Circuit Grants Qualified Immunity to Police Who Knowingly Violated the First Amendment - Cato Institute

UMass Laws Shaun Spencer and UCLA Laws Eugene Volokh discussed First Amendment issues raised by potential legislation limiting social media deplatforming.

UMass Law Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Shaun Spencer joined UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh for a panel discussion titled, The First Amendment and Big Tech Censorship, presented by the UMass Law chapter of the Federalist Society.

Spencer and Volokh discussed First Amendment issues raised by calls for legislation limiting social media platforms ability to deplatform their users. They surveyed prior Supreme Court cases addressing laws compelling newspapers, parade organizers, cable television operators, shopping malls, and universities to host the speech of others, and debated how those cases might apply to legislation that restricts deplatforming. They also discussed Justice Clarence Thomas recent concurrence in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute, in which Justice Thomas floated potential theories that the Court could use to uphold legislation limiting the platforms power to remove users. And they reviewed additional First Amendment hurdles that potential legislation would have to overcome, including claims that the legislation would restrict the platforms speech based on the content of the speech or the identity of the speaker.

Video of the panel discussion is available here.

School of Law, School of Law School of Law Faculty

Go here to see the original:
Spencer and Volokh Discuss the First Amendment and Content Moderation on Social Media Platforms - UMass Dartmouth

The five freedoms of the First Amendment include speech, assembly, religion, petition and the press.

To kick off Iowa States annual First Amendment Days celebration, guest speakers Gene Policinski and Robert Bickel gave a lecture on how the First Amendment affected the civil rights movement and what it means for social activism today.

The two are co-authors of The First Amendment and the Civil Rights Movement, a free online course that addresses the topics they discussed in their lecture. Their thesis was that the First Amendment and the exercise of its five rights by activists and journalists played a crucial role in the success of the civil rights movement.

Throughout the lecture, Policinski and Bickel both referenced two key ideas: without the First Amendment, the civil rights movement would be like a bird without wings, and that without lawyers, a bird without a voice.

The first portion of the lecture consisted of Policinski and Bickel going over pivotal moments in the civil rights movement and explaining how each part of the First Amendment assisted the cause. Bickel said the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1956 was when the civil rights movement truly began and it revitalized the freedoms of assembly and religion.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott reawakened both assembly and religion, the mass meetings were all in Black churches so we can add the religion clause. Dont forget, its all five freedoms of the First Amendment that make the movement successful, Bickel said.

Bickel also discussed at length the events of Bloody Sunday and the Williams v. Wallace case. Bloody Sunday describes the events of the mass protest march on March 7, 1965, led by John Lewis that was met with violent opposition from police. Williams v. Wallace was one of the many cases surrounding the events.

Williams versus Wallace becomes the greatest First Amendment case ever written because it speaks to assembly in the context of Frank Johnson (the judge) having to prove a multi-thousand person, 52-mile march from Selma to Montgomery. Mass assembly and protest doesn't get any bigger than that, Bickel said.

Bickel also said the emergence of television and journalism was crucial to winning that case because Johnson was able to rule on direct evidence of the events of the march. He said the ability for people to see the violence on film electrified Americans and helped grow the movement.

Policinski discussed the First Amendments role in social change applied to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and other present-day causes.

Policinski also mentioned several challenges movements like BLM face such as protest laws in many states that limit the rights of the First Amendment. His advice to current activists would be to start utilizing their voices in the legal systems to take the progress made and turn it into real legislation that can create lasting change.

I think its very important that journalists go into these future events with the idea that journalists should not be portrayed as representing some elite. Journalists are there on behalf of the public. The movement recognized that and encouraged journalists to be that. We would like to encourage you to be that, Policinski said.

Link:
Lecturers speak on the importance of the First Amendment in the civil rights movement - Iowa State Daily

Smartmatic, the election technology company suing Fox News for defamation, responded on Monday to the media empires recent motion to dismiss its $2.7 billion lawsuit, denouncing Foxs free speech argument as flagrant self-deception. The First Amendment does not provide the Fox defendants a get-out-of-jail-free card, Smartmatic lawyer Erik Connolly wrote in the 120-page brief reported by the New York Times. This is not a game.

In February, Smartmatic filed a lawsuit accusing Rupert Murdochs Fox Corporation of damaging the companys reputation and business with false claims broadcast in the aftermath of the 2020 election, naming current and former network stars Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro, and Lou Dobbs as defendantsall of whom stood by then-President Donald Trump throughout his democracy-defying crusade to reverse his loss to Joe Biden and, to that end, helped advance conspiracy theories peddled by Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell about Smartmatics voting machines. The Fox defendants wedded themselves to Giuliani and Powell during their programs and cannot distance themselves now, Smartmatic said in Mondays brief, contending that the outlets election-related disinformation was no accident, according to the Times. The Fox defendants do not get a do-over with their reporting now that they have been sued.

Fox responded more or less predictably. In a statement, a Fox News spokesperson said, The filing only confirms our view that the suit is meritless and FOX News covered the election in the highest tradition of the First Amendment. Motions to dismiss Smartmatics case filed by Fox and its anchors have cited free speech protections and journalistic responsibility, claiming that covering Smartmatic was a necessary part of its reporting on Trumps newsworthy post-election efforts to overturn the results. Such claims are Foxs attempt to cloak themselves in the First Amendment in a situation where the cloak does not fit, Smartmatic argued in this weeks filing.

Connolly told CNNs Oliver Darcy that the company has a straightforward case of defamation against Fox and on Monday attempted to hold Fox and the anchors responsible for their coverage, which Connolly called the theme of their opposition. Fox reportedly has weeks to respond to Smartmatics brief before a judge ultimately decides if the case will proceed. The Smartmatic case is just one of two massive defamation suits Murdochs outlet is facing as a result of its conspiracy-addled election coverage: earlier this month, Dominion Voting Systems, another election technology company targeted by Trump and his allies baseless claims that there was widespread fraud and manipulation of voting machines, sued Fox for $1.6 billion.

More Great Stories From Vanity Fair

Inside the Messy Breakup of an OnlyFans Model and Her ber-Wealthy Boyfriend Wyoming Tells Donald Trump Jr. to Sit Down and STFU A Wave of Displaced New Yorkers Is Upending the Hamptons Social Order How a Group of Rich Memphians Acted on Trumps Big Lie During Capitol Attack Prosecutors Are Lining Up Witnesses in Trump Investigations Republicans Brave Plan to Stop Mass Shootings: Do Nothing Next-Level Harassment of Female Journalists Puts News Outlets to the Test Six Photographers Share Images From Their COVID Year From the Archive: American Nightmare, the Ballad of Richard Jewell Serena Williams, Michael B. Jordan, Gal Gadot, and more are coming to your favorite screen April 1315. Get your tickets to Vanity Fairs Cocktail Hour, Live! here.

Follow this link:
Smartmatic Calls Bulls--t on Foxs First Amendment Argument - Vanity Fair

As the murder trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin enters its third week, all eyes are not just on the facts surrounding the death of George Floyd, but also on the state of policing in America.

Unconventionally, the prosecution has called multiple current or former members of the Minneapolis police force to testify against Chauvin, painting a stark contrast between ethical policing and the horrors revealed through multiple videos taken on May 25, 2020. Meanwhile, a string of separate narratives has unfolded during the trial, with numerous bystander witnesses describing the helplessness they felt as they watched Floyd expire while pleading with Chauvin and the other officers to ease up and give him basic medical assistance. Its impossible to watch any snippet of the trial without concluding that something went seriously wrong that day and that it wasnt a lack of sufficient police power.

Yet thats precisely what the Ohio legislature appears to be aiming at in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests. One House bill would, among other things, make it a crime to [i]nterfere with or obstruct a law enforcement officer in a manner that . . . Inhibits or restricts the law enforcement officers control of a subject or detainee, if done with reckless disregard as to whether the action diverts or obstructs the law enforcement officers attention. In theory, then, peacefully shouting at a police officer to stop what appears to be unreasonable force against someone like Floyd could become a crime in Ohio.

Another provision would empower police officers to bring civil actions for money damages against private persons for injuries the officers allegedly suffered during the performance of official duties in connection with offenses against the public peace which include rioting, vandalism, disorderly conduct and failure to disburse. Officers could also sue any organization that provides material support or resources with purpose that the material support or resources will be used . . . to plan, prepare, carry out, or aid in conduct thats banned under the law. The Ohio Senate has introduced similar bills. The notion of empowering police officers to sue bystanders is especially ironic given the raging debate over the perceived overuse of qualified immunity as a defense to private actions against police officers for alleged violations of individual constitutional rights.

Over the weekend, the proposals prompted a slew of gatherings across the state, with organizers calling on Ohioans to Protest While You Can against the anti-protest bills in Ohio. Activists argue that the measures run afoul of the First Amendment, while supporters claim they are needed in order to keep future protests under control. To be sure, the First Amendment includes a right to assemble peaceably, so government officials can constitutionally take steps to restrain the ability to protest in the interest of public safety. Protestors who participate in events that wind up blocking traffic, violating a curfew or ignoring a police order to disburse can validly face arrest; the First Amendment wont protect them.

Given the wider stakes playing out on national television in connection with the Chauvin trial, however, the Ohio legislatures maneuvers are nothing short of bizarre. America is mired in a debate about what to do about over-policing not any lack of available police force tactics. Numerous figures across the political spectrum, including President Joe Biden and former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, have urged a reconfiguration of police departments to incorporate personnel with expertise in social sciences such as mental health care, youth services and housing in addition to law enforcement. Although Biden is also calling for an uptick in police hiring, many in Congress have consistently balked at additional federal money for state and local governments, including dollars that would help fund police forces.

Ohio lawmakers clumsy response to the delicate balancing of free speech rights and the need to retain order in the public sphere also hits the wrong note in light of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, which stands as a horrific tale of an overwhelmed and vastly outnumbered Capitol police force, whose plan for containment was a catastrophic failure. Although hundreds of individuals who participated in the riots are now under criminal investigation, arrest or indictment, the bare existence of even more criminal laws would not have prevented what happened on Jan. 6. A more prepared, equipped and staffed police presence might have. Its still up to Congress to empanel a 9/11-style commission to get to the bottom of what went wrong on that day.

The story of law enforcement in America has always come down to two competing interests: public safety and the safety of officers on one hand, and the constitutional rights of individual citizens on the other. Tamping down on the latter indiscriminately is hardly the way out of the thorny problem of contemporary policing.

Kimberly Wehle is a professor at University of Baltimore School of Law and author of the books "How to Read the Constitution and Why, and What You Need to Know About Voting and Why. Follow her on Twitter and Instagram @kimwehle.

Read the original here:
Protect the police or the First Amendment? | TheHill - The Hill

Editor:

Like every piece of legislation crafted by the left, the Equality Acts noble title has little to do with its intent. Its main purpose is to give more rights to certain people at the expense of the rights of others. Its primary target is the First Amendments freedom of religious worship and exercise. The radical secularists goal is to rid our country of its moral foundation, the Judeo-Christian ethic. That and capitalism are the main obstacles to Marxism.

Readers may be wondering why they have not heard religious denominations speaking out against this assault on our religious liberties. The answer is that they do not want to be treated like Georgia. The left has silenced denominations through intimidation. What state or religious institution wants to be maligned and misrepresented by the media, corporations, and the left. Their Marxist partners have shown their contempt for religion by burning Bibles and churches during their riots in 2020.

Our senators need to hear from their constituents, churches and denominational leaders before they vote, not after the law is passed. Will people be silenced by intimidation or make their voices heard?

Alan Marsdale

Oley

Read the rest here:
Letter: Equality Act targets First Amendment rights | Letters to the Editor | readingeagle.com - Reading Eagle

KALAMAZOO, MI MLive/Kalamazoo Gazette journalist Brad Devereauxs work on issues of public transparency has been recognized with the prestigious First Amendment Award from the Associated Press Media Editors.

Devereaux was announced as the winner during the APME boards annual meeting Wednesday, April 14, held over Zoom. This is Devereauxs second time winning the organizations First Amendment Award, having secured it five years ago for reporting on a police department in Saginaw County.

As a whole, MLive Media Group reporters, photographers and videographers won 51 awards in this years APME contest for work published in 2020.

Related: MLive Media Group wins 51 AP awards for 2020 coverage

Earning Devereaux the First Amendment Award win this year was a series of stories published on MLive.com and in the Kalamazoo Gazette detailing a long-held practice among Kalamazoo city commissioners to routinely meet behind closed doors, in advance of public meetings, to discuss issues on the upcoming agendas.

There is nothing more gratifying to a journalist than performing the watchdog role on behalf of our readers and communities, said John Hiner, vice president of content for MLive Media Group. Its gratifying that the Gazettes efforts to compel transparency in government were recognized with this honor.

The series, titled Kalamazoos Closed-Door Meetings, in its entirety:

Those subquorum meetings, Devereaux discovered, had been held for decades in Kalamazoo with few, if any, questioning the practice. Legal experts say the meetings, held with fewer than a quorum of city commissioners present, cut citizens out of key discussions and likely violated Michigans Open Meetings Act.

Devereaux, 36, of Kalamazoo, knew as the reporter responsible for covering Kalamazoo City Hall that he had a duty to be there on the publics behalf.

They kept the door shut on me and anyone else not invited to attend, he said.

Devereaux used the Freedom of Information Act to seek documentation on the meetings, as well as discussing their history, purpose and legality with officials, citizens and experts alike.

When the meetings were questioned, elected officials were quick to point out the city attorney said they were legal, Devereaux said. I was given conflicting information about what was happening at the private meetings. There were no minutes taken, so the only information about what happened was in the minds of the attendees.

Documents he received in response to his FOIA request detailed topics for prior closed-door meetings, which ran the gamut of controversial local issues. Among them was discussion of a recent change in holiday decorations that caused some in Kalamazoo to criticize the citys new Candy Cane Lane.

If candy canes are too controversial to talk about in public, what else are you talking about behind closed doors? Devereaux asked. And why?

The closed-door meeting discussion included much more than candy canes: public safety issues, protests, recreational marijuana rules, and hundreds of other topics. To me, these sound like discussions the public should be allowed to hear.

The stories not only highlighted a government transparency issue previously unknown to most Kalamazoo residents; they also drove change.

A city commissioner critical of the long-held practice, after talking with Devereaux about the issue, proposed the city change the format to ensure public access. Officials discussed the proposal and ultimately voted in favor of replacing the private, small-group meetings with public Committee of the Whole meetings now being held regularly.

Related: Kalamazoo commissioners will test out public meetings to replace closed-door sessions

City residents can now watch the meetings to see detailed presentations from city staff and discussion of issues that, previously, would have been out of reach for all but those invited to the subquorum meetings.

Few things are more central to the mission of journalism than serving as a check on our governments and on all those who hold power, said Mark Tower, news leader for MLive/Kalamazoo Gazette. We stand for everyday people their eyes and ears as well as their voice. From the instinct and tenacity that spurred his initial questions and FOIA requests to the execution of the stories, Brad Devereauxs work is a clear example of that core mission.

The Michigan APME First Amendment Award, according to the organization, recognizes individuals and news organizations that made a distinguished contribution on behalf of the First Amendment or Freedom of Information and work done to overcome obstacles on behalf of the unrestricted flow of information vital to a free society.

In 2016, Devereaux won APMEs First Amendment Award for his coverage of reserve police officers in the Saginaw County village of Oakley. He used the Freedom of Information Act to report the story, even as village officials threw up roadblocks and legal action ensued.

The series of more than 50 articles, titled Small Town, Big Problem, detailed ongoing legal and insurance problems for the small village related to its large force of reserve police officers.

In recognition of his work on that series, Devereaux also won the State Bar of Michigans Wade H. McCree Award for the Advancement of Justice.

Devereaux, a Romeo-area native, graduated from Romeo High School in 2002. In 2007, he graduated from Western Michigan University with a journalism degree.

Devereaux has worked as a reporter for MLive.com and the Kalamazoo Gazette as well as The Saginaw News, and also worked as news editor for the Lovell Chronicle in Lovell, Wyoming.

In addition to the First Amendment Award, Devereaux and MLive multimedia specialist Joel Bissell together won first place for Best Illustration or Graphic, for a GIF they created to show how high water and other forces have shrunk beaches in South Haven and elsewhere.

Elsewhere in the 2020 Michigan APME contest, Kalamazoo Gazette was recognized with a first place win in the Spot News category, for coverage of summer protests and unrest in Kalamazoo.

Judges had high praise in their comments.

Simply outstanding balanced coverage and a great team effort, judges wrote. Staff members did not stand on the sideline but put themselves in the middle of this unrest, which allowed readers to see and feel and the tension and passion that boiled over into the streets.

The Kalamazoo Gazette also one second place for best digital presence in its division, and multimedia specialist Joel Bissell received a third place award for Best Feature Photo.

More from MLive:

Kalamazoo airport zip-ties valve shut after PFAS firefighting foam spilled

Kalamazoo homeless encampment doubles in size after Mills Street site vacated

A mask shouldnt have a political party, says GOP leader who thinks he caught COVID-19 at Republican meeting

See more here:
MLive/Kalamazoo Gazettes Brad Devereaux wins First Amendment Award for exposing closed-door meetings - MLive.com