Category Archives: First Amendment

To the editor:

Why does the left want the First Amendment modified?

With the passing of Rush Limbaugh we may have ended a period that brought comfort to a generation that refused to be canceled or keep their mouths shut. Liberals despise freedom of speech when it isnt them speaking. Liberals dont just want to oppose conservative speech, they want it canceled.

I was CEO and owner of a company with locations in Indiana and Kentucky. I traveled by car and later on my companies twin engine Cessna. On one trip, to accompany one of my Louisville salesman to visit a large international account at their general headquarters, something strange happened.

Riding up the elevator there were a couple salesmen from a soda pop company going to see my friend, a VP and fellow fan of Limbaugh. They expressed their hate for Limbaugh and believed he should have his heart ripped out. It was a long ride to the top floor and they spent the whole time talking about their hate for Limbaugh.

My friend was ready for his appointment with the soda pop fellows but I walked into his office and told him what they had said about Limbaugh. He suggested they be taken to task. Before they started their doomed sales pitch and were asked to leave and not return, he asked them their thoughts about advertising on The Rush Limbaugh show? As far as I know, through the ownership changes through the years, that soda pop has never been available in their stores.

Floyd Shirrell

Indianapolis

Excerpt from:
Letter: Why the left wants the First Amendment modified - Daily Journal

SF 534 increases penalties for protest related charges. Though proponents claim it will protect law enforcement and prevent destruction of property, its real blow is to the First Amendment.

A bill that would increase penalties for protest-related charges passed the Iowa Senate on March 10 along party lines. Reacting to this summers protests, the bill does not explicitly infringe on First Amendment rights, but it makes it much more difficult for Iowans to safely exercise their right to protest.

Now in the House Public Safety committee, SF 534 (formerly SF 497) covers everything from vehicle-related accidents to aiming laser pointers in peoples faces all in an attempt to crack down on protesters following this summers demonstrations.

The bill is largely based on Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds Back the Blue proposal, which faced opposition from the ACLU of Iowa, among other groups.

In short, the bill draws wider bounds for what is considered an unlawful assembly or riot, lowers the requirements for involvement in these assemblies, increases sanctions for protesters, and defines additional criminal acts.

Any gathering of three or more people can be deemed unlawful even if just one person acts in a violent manner and intends to commit a public offense. Similarly, a gathering can be deemed a riot if the group disturbs others and just one of them intends to use force against another person or cause property damage.

That means that an entire protest could be condemned because of one bad actor, or because of police-instigated violence.

The government, though bound by citizens First Amendment rights to speech and assembly, has a vested interest in declaring protests against the state unlawful assemblies. With this bill, peaceful protesters with legitimate concerns could be more easily arrested and charged, and their voices stifled.

Under some of the bills most expansive provisions, a person could be charged with an aggravated misdemeanor if they engage in disorderly conduct by making loud noise near a public or residential building, for example while merely present during a gathering deemed unlawful. If the gathering is deemed a riot, the charge could increase to a class D felony.

This, among the bills other stringent sanctions, could put peaceful protesters in jeopardy should a gathering they attend, through no action of their own, later be deemed unlawful. Similarly, the term present could be broadly construed to mean in the vicinity of, and could implicate onlookers nearby.

The bill also increases sanctions for property damage and stipulates that any acts that damage, deface, alter, or destroy any publicly owned property constitute a class D felony.

Though we would hope that police and prosecutors would exercise discretion in arrests and charges, this summers protests have shown differently. Given their track record, I dont have much faith in their judgement.

Iowa recently made national headlines for the arrest and subsequent prosecution of Andrea Sahouri, a Des Moines Registerreporter who was covering a racial justice protest on May 31. Though she was acquitted of two misdemeanor charges, the fact she was arrested and prosecuted at all casts doubt on Iowa officials capacity for rational discretion.

This bill, combined with high-profile cases like Sahouris, serves to discourage people from using their First Amendment rights. It creates unreasonably harsh penalties designed to intimidate Iowa residents and prevent them from taking part in protests.

The provisions of the bill are much too broad and the penalties much too harsh. If this was really about protecting the safety of law enforcement officers or preventing destruction of property, as the bills proponents claim, it would be more focused.

Instead, SF 534 makes it far too easy to arrest and charge protesters for crimes with unduly harsh penalties and limits Iowans First Amendment rights.

Columns reflect the opinions of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board, The Daily Iowan, or other organizations in which the author may be involved.

Visit link:
Opinion | Iowa protest bill stifles free speech and assembly through harsh penalties - UI The Daily Iowan

March 14-20 is known in the news media profession as Sunshine Week, or as I like to call it, the annual effort in futility that always gets lost in the midst of St. Patricks Day and the NCAA basketball tournament.

Sunshine Week serves only one real purpose, anyway. And thats to send a friendly reminder to private-sector workers and taxpayers, the majority of whom dont care that many of their public officials do their best to keep the Mushroom Principle one step ahead of the Sunshine laws.

Each year, the American Society of News Editors and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press provides new information and best practices for public officials at http://sunshineweek.rcfp.org/.

In a previous Sunshine Week column, Jim Zachary of the Valdosta (Ga.) Daily Times and president emeritus of the Georgia First Amendment Foundation, wrote: Newspapers have a long legacy of holding government accountable, and operating as the Fourth Estate. Sadly, many newspapers have abandoned that role, leaving it up to the general public to police local governments. Any newspaper that does not defend the First Amendment and champion open government is not worth the paper it is printed on or the ink that fills its pages.

I agree.

As an editor whos written about Sunshine laws, public records and open meetings protocol for more than 25 consecutive years, I greatly appreciate Mr. Zacharys comments.

Too often these days, some media spend more time on political propaganda than defending the First Amendment. (Did you happen to notice the too-little, too-late corrections today by the WAPO and CNN for their inaccurate Georgia reporting on President Donald J. Trump? Of course not.)

I've shared this before, but on the local level, one public official whos always encouraged the press in its role as government watchdog is the Hon. Judge Kevin L. Greer. Many times when Judge Greer has administered the oath of office for a local official, he has purposely mentioned the press and its oversight role. The judge has told more than one new office-holder that this oversight is an important function and can make him or her a better public servant.

Granted, I did write a column in 2015 under the headline: "It's time to abolish Ohio's public records laws; turn out the lights on the Sunshine Laws, too."

In my occasionally cynical vein, I surmised that its time that the state of Ohio does away with its archaic public records laws and its so-called Sunshine Laws. In fact, it is past time.

Lets face it: You as voters and taxpayers do not need to know what your elected office-holders are up to. Its none of your business. Really. Just trust them. They know best. (What scandals?! Certainly not in Ohio. Ahem.)

For more than 25 years, I have written those obligatory newspaper editorials and columns in support of the publics right to their own information. Ive written the Sunshine Week columns every March, even though in Ohio the sun doesnt shine until May or June unless you are selling or leasing your land to become a "solar farm," in which case southern Ohio supposedly is sunnier than south Florida. By the way, how many former or current public officials have owned property that has been sold or leased to these new "solar farm" operations? I can name at least two.

For the record, I have championed the publics right to their public records for a long, long time. But I was wrong. Public records are none of your business. Period. Yes, you paid for them. And you paid people to make them available under Ohio law. But really, who are we, as members of the taxpaying public, to seek our own records? The nerve.

The availability of public records is, of course, a relatively simple concept. Records are kept and maintained by public officials in order that members of the public may have access to said records. The concept is simple; until someone complicates it for no good reason.

The Ohio Revised Code addresses denial of public record requests: (3) If a request is ultimately denied, in part or in whole, the public office or the person responsible for the requested public record shall provide the requester with an explanation, including legal authority, setting forth why the request was denied. If the initial request was provided in writing, the explanation also shall be provided to the requester in writing. The explanation shall not preclude the public office or the person responsible for the requested public record from relying upon additional reasons or legal authority in defending an action commenced under division (C) of this section. (See http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/149.43)

Herein lies the rub: The state really doesn't provide any serious penalty or deterrent for malicious and/or ignorant public officials who deny access to the public's business and records.

So let's stop all the grandstanding on Sunshine Week until local, state and federal governments take it as seriously as we all should. Until then, Sunshine Week carries about as much weight as the cries to end gerrymandering and establish reasonable political districts across the state and nation. (Words full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...)

In some places in government, the sun never shines. Record-setting executive orders in 2021 by a confused commander in chief come to mind.

* * *

A statesman in the 'Show Me State'

Missouri Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer is becoming one of the more admirable members of the People's House. His column this week (online athttps://highlandcountypress.com/Content/Opinions/Opinion/Article/The-far-left-to-do-list/4/22/66205) begins: "Defunding the police, taxpayer-funded elections, restricting Second Amendment rights, and a massive partisan spending package disguised as coronavirus relief. These are the bills the House of Representatives have prioritized this year."

Someone asked me why The Highland County Press publishes Rep. Luetkemeyer's columns. Fair enough. Rep. Luetkemeyer has been more consistent in providing significant information vital to taxpayers and freedom-loving Americans than any Ohio member of Congress in recent months.

In fact, Luetkemeyer's House website has been one of my "go-to" sources for information. For gun owners and champions of the Second Amendment without which, the First Amendment and most others are pointless Luetkemeyer deserves support.

He points out in his most-recent column: "(Last) week the House passed two bills that would limit a law-abiding citizens ability to buy a gun. If these bills became law, they would criminalize activities that are common practices among law-abiding gun owners and create arbitrary delays on background checks, hindering millions of Americans Second Amendment right to defend themselves and their families. Taking law enforcement officers off our streets and making it difficult to exercise Second Amendment rights is not only irresponsible, its downright dangerous."

Indeed. For hunters, shooters and gun enthusiasts among us, you might want to wake up and contact your representatives in Congress. More importantly, you might want to contact any moderate Democrat you can find. I'd start with the Marine from Maine, Rep. Jared Golden and perhaps Sen. Joe (keep the filibuster until there's too much pressure on me) Manchin in West Virginia. Democrats need to wake up against woke-ness. Soon.

The only thing at stake is the Bill of Rights.

* * *

Another job-killer in Congress

Another clue that most House Democrats have never owned a private business: The PRO Act, which passed the U.S. House on a mostly partisan vote, could eliminate most forms of independent contracting and freelancing potentially impacting as many as 59 million freelance workers who represent 36 percent of the total U.S. workforce. The majority of independent contractors said the union-backed bill could negatively impact their livelihood." No kidding.

* * *

Good work, Counselor Collins

A tip of the ball cap this week to local jurors and Highland County Prosecutor Anneka Collins, all of whom no doubt struggled to do what was right during a recent three-day trial in Highland County Common Pleas Court involving the endangerment of two young children.

Highland County Press managing editor Caitlin Forsha has already reported most of the sad and sordid details of the case. There's no need to rehash it here.

But I will say this to anyone who fails to appreciate the wonders of a newborn child and who fails to love that child: Well, there's a special place for you. Don't look upward, though. The skies are raining tears.

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

Read the original here:
Sunshine Week and a Show Me State statesman - The Highland County Press

^

Keep Dallas Observer Free

Support the independent voice of Dallas and help keep the future of Dallas Observer free.

Following the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced hed take on Twitter for its decision to ban former President Donald Trump from its service. Now, the Big Tech titan is biting back.

On Monday, Twitter filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent Paxton and his office from investigating the companys content moderation policies. An unshakeable Trump supporter, Paxton announced an investigation into the platform after it booted the outgoing president on Jan. 8 over fears hed incite more political violence.

In the lawsuit, Twitter argues that Paxtons push to obtain confidential documents through a civil investigative demand (CID) is unlawful.

The investigation and CID unlawfully intrude on Twitters internal editorial processes and burden its protected activity, and do so solely because Twitter exercised its First Amendment rights in a way disagreeable to AG Paxton, the lawsuit reads. This retaliatory conduct violates the Constitution.

Twitter further alleges the attorney general is using the full weight of his office to retaliate against the platform, which ultimately violates its free speech and freedom of the press rights.

Paxtons office did not return the Observers requests for comment.

Twitters lawsuit is the latest in a string of bad press for the attorney general, who is facing multiple legal challenges himself. Last month, a court filing alleged that Paxton had helped an Austin real estate developers business affairs in exchange for a home remodel and a job for Paxton's mistress.

Paxton is also the subject of an FBI investigation, according to The Associated Press,and faces felony securities fraud charges from 2015.

Its only government actors who are prohibited from abridging the freedom of speech under the First Amendment." Attorney Michael Shapiro

Following the news of Twitter's lawsuit, liberals were quick to pounce on Texas embattled top lawyer. Joe Jaworski, a 2022 Democratic candidate for Texas attorney general, seized the opportunity to question Paxton's priorities.

Another legal distraction for Paxton who continues to prioritize fighting for Trump over fighting for Texans recovering from the winter storm, Jaworski said in a tweet. We need an AG who does their job without starting petty partisan fights.

Republicans have long claimed that social networking sites are biased against conservatives, which Big Tech companies largely refute. Democrats, meanwhile, readily point out that tech giants are private companies that can moderate content as they see fit.

Traditionally, the First Amendment doesnt apply to private actors, said Michael Shapiro, an attorney at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Laws First Amendment Clinic.

As much as certain people vehemently object to Donald Trump not having his platform on Twitter, we understand Twitter to be a private company, Shapiro said. Its only government actors who are prohibited from abridging the freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

Social media networks play a big role in providing a soapbox for political discourse, he added. It makes sense that people get sensitive about decisions that could alter the speech they see on those networks and who is allowed to participate.

But Shapiro said Twitter is arguing that their editorial decisions regarding content moderation are also protected by the First Amendment.

That might not stop other conservative lawmakers from attacking Big Tech. Tuesday, Plano state Rep. Matt Shaheen announced hed filed a bill that would hold social media companies liable for censorship by allowing Texans to sue them.

Social media companies are no longer neutral, Shaheen said in a news release.

These companies are now more powerful than ever in controlling the narrative, labeling conservative content as untrue and censoring us every single day, he said. No other publishing medium is legally allowed to do this because it is dangerous and destructive, and citizens should have the right to fight back against this outrageous censorship.

Earlier this month, East Texas state Sen. Bryan Hughes filed a similar bill in the Senate. On Friday, he tweeted that the bill would allow Texans to participate on the virtual public square free from Silicon Valley censorship; Gov. Greg Abbott also announced his support for the move.

Meanwhile, a new study by New York University researchers contests that conservative talking point. They found the idea of an anti-conservative animus from social media companies is a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it.

"No trustworthy large-scale studies have determined that conservative content is being removed for ideological reasons or that searches are being manipulated to favor liberal interests," the researchers wrote.

Keep the Dallas Observer Free... Since we started the Dallas Observer, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Dallas, and we would like to keep it that way. Offering our readers free access to incisive coverage of local news, food and culture. Producing stories on everything from political scandals to the hottest new bands, with gutsy reporting, stylish writing, and staffers who've won everything from the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi feature-writing award to the Casey Medal for Meritorious Journalism. But with local journalism's existence under siege and advertising revenue setbacks having a larger impact, it is important now more than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" membership program, allowing us to keep covering Dallas with no paywalls.

Simone Carter, a staff news reporter at the Dallas Observer, graduated from the University of North Texas' Mayborn School of Journalism. Her favorite color is red, but she digs Miles Davis' Kind of Blue.

Read more:
Twitter Sued Texas AG Ken Paxton over First Amendment Concerns - Dallas Observer

BOISE, Idaho -- Anti-government activist Ammon Bundy was arrested Monday after failing to attend his trial on charges that he trespassed during an Idaho legislative session last fall. Bundy didn't appear in the courtroom because he was protesting outside the building instead, apparently angry in part over mask requirements put in place during the coronavirus pandemic.

Bundy was joined by about two dozen other protesters on Monday morning, some holding signs with slogans like Ammon stands for truth and others yelling misinformation and conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic popularized by groups like QAnon.

The Idaho Supreme Court has ordered that everyone wear masks while inside state courtrooms in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19. The Ada County Sheriff's office said both Bundy and another man expected to appear for a jury trial on trespassing charges, Aaron von Schmidt, refused to wear masks so they could enter the courthouse for their trials.

After the judge issued arrest warrants because the men failed to appear in court, a deputy asked both men if they would voluntarily turn themselves in. Both men refused, the Ada County sheriff's office wrote in a prepared statement released later that day.

When a team of deputies tried to make the arrests, the protesters resisted, the Ada County Sheriff's Office said. Deputies said Bundy laid down on the ground and refused to move, while other protesters reportedly locked arms to try to impede the deputies' approach. A third man, 69-year-old Casey J. Baker of Nampa, was ultimately arrested on suspicion of battering a law enforcement officer and a fourth man was issued a citation after deputies said he resisted and obstructed officers.

The sheriff's office said a fifth person who wasn't involved in the confrontation with deputies got caught up in the crowd and fell down, hitting his head on the ground. That person was taken to a hospital for treatment.

Bundy and followers of his People's Rights organization have frequently protested coronavirus-related measures in southwestern Idaho since the pandemic began, including the protests at the Statehouse last August that originally led to Bundy's arrest on trespassing charges.

In one of the August protests, angry unmasked protesters forced their way into a House gallery with limited seating, shattering a glass door in the process. The next day, more than 100 protesters shouted down and forced from the room lawmakers on a committee considering a bill to shield businesses and government agencies from coronavirus-related liability. Bundy was arrested for trespassing when he wouldnt leave the room, and again the next day when he returned to the Statehouse despite a one-year ban.

Bundy is representing himself in his criminal case. Shortly after his August arrests, he told Judge David Manweiler that he doesn't believe his actions at the Idaho Statehouse were illegal, and he claims the state doesn't have legal standing to charge him with a crime.

He also filed subpoenas legal orders to testify or turn over documents to several bystanders and officials who were at the Idaho Statehouse during his arrests, including Associated Press reporter Keith Ridler, who photographed and reported on the incidents.

The AP asked Manweiler to reject the subpoena for Ridler's testimony and his reporting materials in part because the news agency said the subpoena would violate the Idaho's Reporter's Privilege, a legal balancing act that courts take to determine if a subpoena given to a member of the news media would chill their First Amendment rights.

Bundy didn't respond at all to the AP's motion.

On Monday, Manweiler said Bundy failed to show that the subpoena would have met the three prongs of the reporter's privilege test: that there is probable cause to believe the reporter had some information that was clearly relevant to a specific violation of the law, that the information can't be found in another way, and that there was a compelling and overriding interest in the information that would have justified potentially limiting Ridler's First Amendment rights.

Subpoenas to members of the media are particularly onerous because they threaten to intrude into the newsgathering process," the AP's attorneys wrote in their motion to the court. Being forced to testify or produce evidence in a court case also threatens the independence of a free press and potentially puts journalists at personal risk. It risks causing Ridler to be viewed as aligned with one party or the other, potentially impacting how the public will perceive the independence of his reporting, and could even make him a target the next time he covers a public event.

As of Monday evening, Bundy and Schmidt remained in jail, both being held in lieu of $10,000 bonds. Baker, who was arrested on suspicion of battering a law enforcement officer, was being held without bail according to jail records.

Bundy garnered international attention when in 2016 he led a group of armed activists in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to protest the federal control of public lands. He and others were ultimately arrested, ending the 41-day occupation. But Bundy was acquitted of all federal charges in that case by an Oregon jury.

In 2014, Bundy, several brothers and his father led an armed standoff in Nevada with Bureau of Land Management agents who attempted to confiscate his fathers cattle for grazing on public land without a permit. He spent almost two years in federal custody before the judge later declared a mistrial.

Read more here:
Ammon Bundy arrested after missing trial on trespass charge - ABC News

Contentious item pulled from agenda at last weeks Santa Monica City Council agenda

By Sam Catanzaro

A contentious law that would have placed restrictions on certain forms of protesting in Santa Monica has been withdrawn.

On December 15, 2020, Santa Monica City Councilmembers Phil Brock and Christine Parra directed staff to propose an amendment to the city code to reduce prolonged noise from protest activities in residential neighborhoods while still upholding First Amendment rights. The move was in part a response to a series of recurring protests in December targeted at the Santa Monica residence of County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl who was spotted eating at a restaurant hours after voting to ban outdoor dining.

These protests, which went on for several weeks, involved nightly, hours-long uses of amplified sound in a residential neighborhood that appeared intended to and did unreasonably harass and disturb the privacy and tranquility of residents reads a March 5 city report on the topic.

Similar protests have also been held at the Santa Monica home of Assemblymember Richard Bloom.

At the December 15 meeting, Councilmember Brock said limiting excessive noise during evening hours at targeted protests could be done while also protecting First Amendment rights.

What we are really trying to do is have an enhanced noise ordinance in the [residential] zones that allow families to have peace and quiet in their neighborhood. I want to make it very clear. I have absolutely nothing against protests and people should march, people should have placards and people who want to use their voices to express themselves on a street corner or in front of a house, they should be allowed to, Brock said. Its about first amendment rights but it is also about the rights of people who live in a neighborhood.

At the December 15 City Council meeting, all seven members voted to direct staff draft a proposal. Many Councilmembers, however, expressed concern about infringing on First Amendment rights by enacting such legislation.

I am deeply deeply concerned about infringing on first amendment rights, said Mayor Pro Tem Kristen McCowan. We have to be careful.

On March 5 Interim City Attorney George Cardona returned with a proposed ordinance that Brock said went beyond the scope of what he had intended and therefore requested the item be pulled from the agenda at the March 9 Council meeting.

Im astounded, frankly, that a small adjustment to the residential noise ordinance that I requested in December along with Councilmember Parra as a result of requests from Sunset Park residents, who could not have peace and tranquility in their purely residential neighborhood, morphed into an overarching anti-protest ordinance revision that affects the entire city, Brock said during the meeting. I resent that my specific, targeted method of helping our families in their homes at night became a ploy to change the rules of noise protests and the implements that protesters might utilize in the whole city.

Cardonas proposal would have prohibited using sound-amplifying equipment on a public sidewalk, street, alley or parkway located in a residential district after 10 p.m. and before 7 a.m. on weekdays or 8 a.m. on weekends. In addition, between the hours of 8 p.m. and 10 p.m., people could only operate sound-amplifying equipment on a public sidewalk, street, alley, or parkway in a residential district if they are stationary staying in a fixed location for 5 minutes or morewhich would enable decibel levels to be more easily monitored as part of a determination whether the persons conduct was in violation of city code. Thirdly, the changes would have imposed additional restrictions on those who use sound-amplifying equipment at night within 500 feet of the same location multiple times in a 7-day period.

The ordinance also called for a prohibition on carrying certain items at community events, public assemblies and targeted residential protests. In 2008, City Council adopted an ordinance that prohibits carrying certain wooden objects during a protest or public assembly. Cardona proposed expanding the list of items prohibited at public assemblies, community events and targeted residential protests. The expanded list included items such as poles, sticks, wood and metal pipes, projectiles like rocks and pieces of concrete, glass bottles, aerosol sprays, shields, baseball or softball bats and laser pointers.

Since the item has now been pulled from last weeks agenda (as opposed to being voted down), Cardona says Council can not give staff any specific direction about changes to the legislation.

The attention surrounding the proposal comes as police departments across the country brace for potential unrest as the trial against Derek Chauvin, the police officer charged with killing George Floyd, began in Minneapolis this week.

On May 31, 2020 in Santa Monica rioters, taking advantage of a peaceful protest against the killing of Floyd, looted hundreds of Santa Monica businesses. The Santa Monica Police Department (SMPD) was criticized for its response to the event, at one point firing tear gas and rubber bullets on a crowd of protestors while just blocks away looters tore through downtown Santa Monica.

Last week, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) West Los Angeles Area Captain Jonathan Tom notified residents and business owners the department is preparing for different reactions to the trial. According to Tom, the West Los Angeles division does not have any specific intelligence regarding potential unrest in the area, but has pre-identified locations that are likely to be targets of looting, vandalism and protests.

If it becomes necessary, we will pre-deploy officers to those locations, Tom wrote.

Tom said in a phone call that the Westside locations are Westfield Century City, Westwood Village, Palisades Village and Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard corridors.

SMPD Sgt. Rudy Flores told the Mirror in an email that the the Santa Monica police do NOT have any specific intelligence suggesting any type of unrest in SM however we will have a plan in place similar to what we did during inauguration week and after the events that occurred at our nations Capital. Community safety in SM is definitely our priority, so we definitely will have a comprehensive response plan.

More here:
Santa Monica Lawmakers Withdraw Law That Would Have Restricted Certain Forms of Protest - SM Mirror - Santa Monica Mirror

By Jillian C. York and Karen Gullo| For InsideSources.com

The U.S. election and its dramatic aftermath have elevated the debate about how to deal with online misinformation and disinformation, lies and extremism. We saw social media companies permanently kick the president, some of his allies and conspiracy groups off their platforms for election misinformation, raising eyebrows around the world and leading to accusations that theyre being robbed of their First Amendment rights. At the same time, people used social media to communicate plans to commit violence at the Capitol, drawing complaints that platforms dont do enough to censor extremism.

This has exacerbated calls by politicians and others to regulate online speech by imposing rules on Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms. Lawmakers are backing various wrongheaded proposals for this. One would change the law to hold tech companies legally liable for the speech they host, by amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act the thought being that platforms will remove harmful speech to avoid multiple lawsuits. Another would give state legislatures power to regulate internet speech. Last but not least, now-former president Donald Trump issued in May an executive order that would essentially insert the federal government into private internet speech, letting government agencies adjudicate platforms decisions to remove a post or kick someone off. The Biden administration can rescind the order but so far it has not.

It is important to note that the law as it currently exists gives platforms both the right to curate their content as they see fit (thanks to the First Amendment) and protects them from liability for the choices they make about what to remove or leave up. Without these protections, it is unlikely that we would have seen the growth of these platforms in the first place, nor are we likely to see further flourishing of competition in the space.

The purported remedies under consideration by lawmakers are highly and dangerously flawed and flout First Amendment speech protections. They would foster state censorship antithetical to democracy. Big tech companies would have more control over online speech than they already have because they can afford the legal fights that will scare off new entrants to the market. Whats more, they would push legal, protected speech offline, and silence the voices of marginalized and less powerful people who rely on the internet to speak out a diverse set of people that includes activists, journalists, LGBTQ individuals and many more.

Instead, users should have more power to control what they see on their feeds. They should be able to move freely with their data from one platform to another when they dont like what they see. There should be more competition and more choice of platforms so users can seek out the one that works for them. Mergers and acquisitions among social media companies should be more closely scrutinized, and our antitrust laws better enforced to foster competition. Instead of having one giant platform gobbling up its competitors, as Facebook did with Instagram and WhatsApp, we need multiple, diverse platforms for people to choose from.

Facebook, Twitter and Google have way too much control over public discourse and do a mostly horrendous job at moderating speech on their platforms. The decisions they make to take down posts or close accounts are inconsistent and vague, and lack transparency. That needs to change. Platforms should adopt standards like the Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation (developed by civil society and endorsed by numerous companies), which frame content moderation practices around human rights considerations, including the right to appeal take down decisions and have humans, not algorithms, review removals.

Tech companies have a First Amendment right to edit and curate the content on their platforms, free of government interference. The government cannot force sites to display or promote speech they dont want to display or remove speech they dont want to remove. We support this right. The government shouldnt have the power to dictate what people can or cannot say online.

But until platforms embrace fairness, consistency and transparency in their editing practices, give users more power over their social media accounts, and embrace interoperability so users wont lose data if they decide to switch platforms, and until policymakers find ways to foster competition, we will continue to see misguided calls for the government to step in and regulate online speech.

Jillian C. York is director of the left-leaningInternational Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Karen Gullo is an analyst and senior media relations specialist at EFF.

Go here to see the original:
Control over online speech should be in the hands of users, not the government - Bucks County Courier Times

Employers in Colorado may demote workers for their off-duty conduct, even if it does not violate any law, the Court of Appeals decided last week.

State law, wrote Judge Christina F. Gomez for the three-member appellate panel, unambiguously prohibits only termination or discharge of an employees employment and does not extend to demotion of an employee to another position with the same employer.

However, the judges reviewing the issue which was previously appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court also clarified the law does protect workers from retaliation if they testify before courts or the General Assembly.

The court considered the case of Jerud Butler, who spoke on behalf of his sister-in-law in her contentious divorce proceedings. She was married to Jeremy Spor, a coworker of Butler's with San Miguel Countys Road & Bridge Department.

One day, Butler took time off from work to support his sister-in-laws child custody hearing at her attorneys request, testifying to the court generally about the two mens jobs with the county. Although Butler said he had no authority over Spor, recollections differed between the parties about exactly what Butler told the judge about Spor.

The court ended up giving Spor less parenting time in the divorce proceedings than he was seeking. Afterward, Spor complained to the county about Butlers court appearance. Following an investigation, the county decided Butlers testimony about Spors work schedule showed poor judgment as a manager, and brought a family dispute into the workplace. He consequently received a demotion.

Butler sued San Miguel County under the lawful activities statute and the Access Act. To Butlers first claim, state law generally bars employers from terminating a worker who engages in lawful activity during non-working hours. There are exceptions if the activity is related to the employees job or shows the appearance of a conflict of interest.

District Court Judge Keri A. Yoder determined Butler had no claim under the law as written, and the Court of Appeals panel upheld her ruling.

Had the legislature intended to include demotions or other adverse employment actions within the scope of the statute, it could have said so, wrote Gomez in the March 11 opinion.

The Access Act, formally titled the Freedom of Legislative and Judicial Access Act, outlaws employment policies that prohibit employees from testifying before a legislative committee or a court, or retaliate against employees for doing so. However, the prohibition only takes effect if the workers testimony is at the request of the committee or court.

Yoder sided with San Miguel County, but the appellate panel described the law as ambiguous. It was unclear, Gomez indicated, what the legislation meant when it characterized the request of a court.

The Access Act does not specify the request must come from a judge, Nicholas Mayle, Butlers attorney, told the panel at oral argument. "A court is a broad term.

Elaborating in the opinion, judges, Gomez reasoned, do not normally ask witnesses to testify. That job is left to the parties in a court proceeding and their attorneys. One member of the panel, Judge Diana Terry, said she had only seen one instance in 14 years of a judge issuing a subpoena.

The appellate panel looked to the legislative session of 1997, when the law was up for debate, for answers. At the time, some lawmakers reportedly were concerned about the possibility of employees demanding time off of work to talk with General Assembly members or testify before a committee about any old matter.

Therefore, the legislature amended the bill to only cover testimony at the request of lawmakers.

The appellate judges interpreted that gesture to mean employees could invoke the statutes protections if and only if they had a legitimate reason to go to the legislature or the court, Gomez wrote.

Applying this logic to court proceedings, the Court of Appeals panel determined it was not the General Assemblys intent to protect an employees appearance before a judge only if there were a court order or a subpoena. Consequently, the Access Act bars employers from taking adverse action against workers whom a lawyer or litigant calls to testify.

"I don't know that the ruling expands the rights under the Access Act, but I think it helps publicize the protection that's available for employees," said Damon Davis of Killian, Davis, Richter & Mayle, who represents Butler. San Miguel County did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The appeals panel reinstated Butlers claim under the Access Act and sent the matter back to the district court to move forward.

The county's response to Butler's testimony has been at issue in the courts for several years. Previously, Butler filed a federal claim in the same incident, arguing San Miguel County violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech when it retaliated against him for his testimony.

By a vote of 2-1, a three-member panel of the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit rejected his claim. A majority on the panel concluded that as a government employee, Butlers testimony was motivated by personal reasons, and had nothing to do with issues in the public interest. Therefore, he had no protection from his employer.

In July 2019, Butler asked all 12 judges on the 10th Circuit to review his case as a group. Only four members voted to hear the case, falling short of the threshold. Senior Judge Carlos F. Lucero, who was also the dissenting member of the earlier panel, argued afterward that the panel's majority was mistaken because state of Colorado treats the wellbeing of children in custody proceedings as a matter of public interest.

The precedent announced by this panel, which allows local governments to interfere with both the rights of litigants and witnesses and in which the local government has no concern, must not be allowed to stand, wrote Lucero.

Butler subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and organizations including the National Whistleblower Center and the First Amendment Clinic at Duke Law School filed briefs supporting him. Butler relied on a2014 decision from the Supreme Court that established a First Amendment protection for public employees who testify in court apart from their normal job duties but only if compelled by a subpoena.

He asked the justices to review his case, arguing the 10th Circuit had effectively chilled the free speech rights of government workers.

Allowing government employers to punish employees for testimony given in a child custody proceeding opens the door to a much broader scope of government regulation of employee speech than has previously been tolerated, wrote Butlers lawyers, among whom was the Obama administrations former Acting Solicitor General, Neal Katyal. Government employees, fearful of losing their jobs or facing other punishment, will be forced to censor any speech they believe may trouble their supervisors no matter how far afield it is from the job context or how important the speech may be to their family and friends.

In December 2019, the justices declined to hear the appeal.

The case is Butler v. Board of County Commissioners for San Miguel County.

Continued here:
Court clarifies protections for testifying workers, but rules they can still be demoted - coloradopolitics.com

Despite what one might think are far more pressing problems, in the past few weeks a number of Tennessee legislators have threatened to penalize state colleges and universities that permit athletes to take a knee during the playing of the national anthem prior to athletic events.

If ever there were a need for national unity, this might be the time, and there is certainly value in uniting behind common symbols. At the start of the Revolutionary War, Americans united behind the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence. The following year Congress prescribed the design of the U.S. flag. During the War of 1812, Francis Scott Lee penned lyrics to accompany the flag, which Congress finally adopted as the national anthem in 1931.

Over time, the flag and the national anthem have been collectively celebrated together at sports events where individuals typically face the flag, often with hands across their hearts, as the anthem is played. Although they were designed to unite, both symbols can be flashpoints for protest.

Flag burning remains one of the most provocative (and, in my judgment, counterproductive) actions people can take to protest U.S. policies. Perhaps in part because it is so often associated with disrespectful actions by Americas enemies, the act of flag burning prompts visceral reactions against those who employ it. When state and national legislators sought to enact criminal penalties for flag burning, however, the U.S. Supreme Court reminded the nation in Texas v. Johnson (1989) and U.S. v. Eichman (1990) that flag burning was a form of symbolic speech that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protected both against state and federal actions.

Years before, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the Court had overturned a previous decision issued just three years earlier to declare that school children, with religious objections, could not be forced to salute the flag. Writing for the Court, Justice Robert Jackson noted that If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens by word or act their faith therein.

At a time when some are still questioning whether the current President was legitimately elected and others have forcefully invaded the U.S. Capitol Building killing and wounding police officers in the process, one doesnt have to be a prophet or a son of a prophet to know that our nation is deeply divided. Over the past few years, videos have depicted an increasing number of African Americans (some unarmed) who have died in apparent police overreactions. In protest, some professional athletes chose first to sit, and later to kneel, during the anthem to express their concerns. Precedents suggest that students at state colleges and universities have an even greater constitutional right to do so, while the very idea of taking a knee is both peaceful and far more respectful than the act of flag burning.

Students are not robots, and colleges and universities strive to teach students to think and act for themselves. Instead of using threats of withholding state money against schools whose students have enough backbone to express their opinions, we should work together on remedying the issues that have led to their protests.

The American philosopher George Santayana said that Those who cannot remember the past are bound to repeat it. We should remember that despite all our many positive achievements, Americans once burned down abolitionist printing presses, force fed women suffragists, and jailed peaceful demonstrators protesting racial segregation. In time, we found that the path that led to renewed national healing was that of listening and improving our laws and procedures so that they more closely approximated equal justice for all. Instead of threatening student athletes, we should listen to them and respect their peaceful protests. Lets continue to build a state and a nation where all Gods children, regardless of their skin color or political affiliation, can take pride in both of Americas premier symbols.

Dr. John R. Vile is a professor of political science and dean of the University Honors College at Middle Tennessee State University. He is the author of The American Flag: An Encyclopedia of the Stars and Stripes in U.S History, Culture, and Law, of Americas National Anthem: The Star-Spangled Banner in U.S. History, Culture, and Law, and many other books.

Originally posted here:
Let's keep Tennessee's knee off the First Amendment - Johnson City Press (subscription)

On a recent episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick talked with Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, to unpack how the scope of the First Amendment continues to grow even as it fails in the face of so many of the free speech issues we face today. A portion of their conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, has been transcribed below.

Dahlia Lithwick: I think Ive had a Post-it note pinned to my screen saying, Do a First Amendment show for three years. It sweeps in every news cycle. From the Facebook Supreme Court, your own litigation around Trumps tweets, cancel culture, the speech defenses that came up at the impeachment trialI think of the First Amendment as a framework that governs all of those things. But of course it implicates less and less of those things. As you suggested to me, when we were thinking about this show, the First Amendment is everywhere but nowhere. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about this tension, where the Supreme Court is protecting more and more activity under the First Amendment, but as private actors flood this zone, the First Amendment actually matters less and less. Is that an accurate description of what is going on?

Jameel Jaffer: Yeah, I think so. When I said that the First Amendment is everywhere and nowhere, I was thinking about the fact that the Supreme Court does keep expanding the First Amendments reach to more and more kinds of expressionnot just expression but speech very broadly construed. There was a case called Sorrell from a few years ago, which involved data mining and drug companies efforts to market their drugs to doctors. The Supreme Court held that this particular kind of commercial activity was speech, and theres a stray phrase in Justice Anthony Kennedys opinion, which says something like, Information is speech. Data is speech.

There is this thread in recent Supreme Court jurisprudence that is consistent with that very broad conception of the First Amendment. This idea that the First Amendment protects not just speech as colloquially understood but any effort to convey information. If youre a First Amendment enthusiast, then maybe your first reaction to that is, Well, isnt that great? Isnt it great that the First Amendment is getting attached to more and more things? Well, it might be great or it might be not so great.

The consequence of attaching the First Amendment to new forms of expression or speech is that it becomes much, much harder for government to regulate those activities. Theres a case in the district court now, involving Clearview, which is a company that scraped millions and millions of photographs from the internet in order to build a facial recognition app. The ACLU and others have sued Clearview under an Illinois state law that applies to the collection and sale of biometric information. Clearview is represented by Floyd Abrams here, who is a legendary First Amendment litigator. Clearview is arguing that their activities are protected by the First Amendment and that this Illinois law is unconstitutional as applied to its activities.

That just gives you a sense of whats at stake in these debates about the scope of the First Amendment. Because if you interpret the First Amendment very, very broadly to encompass the right of a company like Clearview to scrape photographs from the internet and build facial recognition apps of this kind, then you have really disabled legislatures from enacting laws that many people, including me, think are necessary to protect individual privacyand maybe even necessary to protect the integrity of public discourse, which is supposed to be what the First Amendment is all about. So the First Amendment is everywhere in the sense that the courts are extending the First Amendments application to more and more kinds of activity.

But its also true that the First Amendment is strangely absent in some places where we really should want it to be present. Some of them have nothing to do with the digital age and some of them are just much more places where we for a long time would have expected the First Amendment to be, but it doesnt seem to be. Im thinking about protest rights, for example, or whistleblower rights, right? During the Black Lives Matter protests over the last year, there were all kinds of abuses by police, abuses of protesters, abuses of the journalists being prevented from reporting on important public activities of the police. The First Amendment seemed to do very little work in protecting those core First Amendment rights.

I would say the same thing with respect to whistleblowers. The Obama administration infamously used the Espionage Act more than any previous administration against whistleblowers who were sharing information with the press, and the Trump administration continued the trend. The First Amendment is really nowhere to be found when it comes to the right of whistleblowers to share informationnational security secrets with the press where those national security secrets would inform the public of the abuse of power by government officials, for example, or large-scale waste or fraud on the part of government officials. The First Amendment doesnt seem to be doing very much work. So the First Amendment is everywhere in some senses and nowhere in other senses.

What youre saying is there are benefits to being able to regulate some of this under First Amendment doctrine, but theyre real harms. And one of the harms is that it then falls almost entirely onto private entities. In some ways thats a good thing. I think you would contend right from the beginning we dont want the government deciding what is speech. But youre saying that the cost of saying, You know what, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. Its entirely a private entity and they should regulate that, it might be what the Framers wanted, but it creates a whole host of new problems.

I think all of that is true. Now we have these private entities that are doing a lot of the work of regulating speech. When we engage in political speech now, its often on social media platforms or on new communications platforms that are controlled not by the government but by private corporations. Those private corporations now have a very significant role in determining who gets to speak, and what can be said, and what ideas get traction in the public sphere. That, I think, is a new thing and one that we havent collectively quite figured out how to deal with.

It feels as though part of what youre saying is the Supreme Court has been diligently beavering away and we all stipulate this is the most speech-protective Supreme Court probably in historycreating new free speech rights in all sorts of contexts. Yet there are these archaic rights, like assembly, which is something that we dont quite know what it means. Its fallen into disuse. The doctrine is aged. So its not actually doing the things its meant to be doing.

The circle is expanding to encompass a whole bunch of other stuff, and then theres this other circle that is completely a separate sphere from government regulation of speech, which has all these private actors. We keep falling into this habit of thinking of them as First Amendment problems, but theyre entirely separate.

Its true that these private companies are not bound by the First Amendment in that particular sense. Id just say that thats true under current doctrine. There are many serious First Amendment theorists who think the current doctrine is wrong and that the First Amendment should have something to do with whether Facebook, for example, can tell somebody that they cant use Facebook. But under current doctrine, thats not governed by the First Amendment. Facebook is free to make whatever decisions it wants.

But when governments try to regulate the technology companies, often the technology companies are relying on the First Amendment as a means of challenging the legitimacy of those regulations. The Clearview case is a good example of it, but its not the only example. Theres another case that my institute is tangentially involved in in Maine, involving an internet privacy law that restricts what internet service providers can collect about their customers and how they can use that data. The ISPs are challenging the law on First Amendment grounds. Theyre saying, This law prevents us from collecting certain kinds of information and from doing targeted advertising on the basis of that information and thats a restriction of our First Amendment rights and the law needs to be struck down.

So its not just that the First Amendment doesnt regulate the activities that these companies are engaged in; its that when Congress tries to regulate those activities, these companies rely on the First Amendment to challenge the legitimacy of the regulations. Some people are looking to the First Amendment to be the solution to our problems in the digital public sphere. I think theres a real question: Can the First Amendment be a solution here? But theres also a question: Is the First Amendment the problem? Is the First Amendment, as currently understood, an obstacle to the kind of legislation and regulation we need to protect the integrity and the vitality of the digital public sphere?

To hear their entire discussion,listen below, or subscribe to the show onApple Podcasts,Overcast,Spotify,Stitcher,Google Play, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Readers like you make our work possible. Help us continue to provide the reporting, commentary, and criticism you wont find anywhere else.

Go here to read the rest:
Who Gets First Amendment Protections These Days, Anyway? - Slate