Category Archives: First Amendment

News Roundup

By Amanda Robert

January 4, 2021, 4:17 pm CST

Supreme Court asked to weigh in on students discipline over social media

At its first private conference after the holiday break, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this week whether to hear a case involving a former high school cheerleader who sent vulgar messages on Snapchat to about 250 friends. In Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the justices have been specifically asked to consider whether Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which holds that public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school, applies to student speech that occurs off campus. After the student was suspended from cheerleading for a year, she sued the school district and won in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Philadelphia. (The Aug. 28 petition, The New York Times)

Former US attorney general, Pennsylvania governor dies at 88

Richard Dick L. Thornburgh, a former U.S. attorney general and former Pennsylvania governor, died Dec. 31 at age 88. Thornburgh, who began his legal career with K&L Gates in 1959, was remembered by Jim Segerdahl, the firms global managing partner, as a giant in the legal world and in the realm of public service. He joined the Department of Justice as the U.S. attorney in the Western District of Pennsylvania in 1969 and later led its criminal division. After serving as a two-term governor, he was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to serve as the U.S. attorney general. He was then retained by President George H.W. Bush. In a Jan. 2 statement, Acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen said, Gov. Thornburgh was widely respected as a brilliant lawyer, a true patriot and a model leader. (The Washington Post, Law.com)

Judge dismisses bias suit against Quinn Emanuel after ex-associate refuses to abide by deadlines

A federal judge has dismissed a former associates employment discrimination lawsuit against Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, citing a series of missed deadlines, including the Nov. 27 due date for a response to the law firms motion to dismiss her case. Crystal Nwaneri alleged in her 2019 lawsuit that she was fired from the firm three years earlier in retaliation for raising concerns about its frat-house atmosphere. Quinn Emanuel said Nwaneri was fired for poor performance. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden of the District of Columbia wrote that Nwaneris habitual lack of diligence and refusal to abide by this courts deadlines warrants dismissal. (The Dec. 30 memorandum opinion, Law.com)

Read the rest here:
Afternoon Briefs: SCOTUS will consider cheerleader's First Amendment case; former AG dies at 88 - ABA Journal

Jan. 4, 2021 11:57 am ET

I agree with Rick White that Laws Governing Online Speech Need Reform, Not Repeal (op-ed, Dec. 23). Outright repeal of Section 230, which grants immunity from liability to internet platforms for content posted on their sites by third parties, would prompt even more censorship. The social-media companies would try to protect themselves from litigation over all kinds of potentially offensive or illegal content that users post.

Since the First Amendment is a well-litigated line between permissible and impermissible speech consistent with the values of a free society, it offers the best solution for regulating the social-media companies. The government should condition the grant of immunity under Section 230 on a pledge from the platforms not to censor third-party content unless it falls outside the protections of the First Amendment, such as libel, threats to overthrow the government, direct threats of physical violence and certain types of indecent material. Censoring hate speech or content suspected of originating with hackers couldnt meet this standard because such speech is within the protection of the First Amendment. Any internet provider that refused to adopt this policy would lose the protections of Section 230 entirely.

Robert Goodfriend

Dallas

Read the original here:
No Blanket Protection for Internet Platforms - The Wall Street Journal

Boston city councilors plan to refile legislation that would restrict how and when police can use tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets after Mayor Marty Walsh vetoed the measure.

Walsh said in a statement that he had legal concerns with the measure, and that he supported restrictions on the so-called "less lethal" equipment in the newly signed state police reform law.

"We strongly believe CCCAs [chemical crowd control agents] and KIPs [kinetic impact projectiles] are only to be used when absolutely necessary to prevent violence or riots so people can safely and peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights," Walsh said. "This community policing principle is something our Boston Police Department is committed to ensuring, along with the appropriate conduct by officers."

Walsh's veto announcement came the same day he signed an ordinance creating a new police watchdog agency, called the Office of Police Accountability and Transparency. It will have subpoena power to investigate citizen complaints and examine police internal affairs investigations.

The police accountability office was the central recommendation of a police reform task force Walsh convened this summer amid calls for police accountability and racial justice.

City Councilor Ricardo Arroyo, who sponsored the ordinance restricting the weapons, said Walsh's veto does not meet the moment.

"I think that's the bare minimum we can do, as far as giving a warning [that gives]time to disperse before using weaponry that can take a life, and the fact that it was vetoed is disappointing," he said.

Police body cam videosrecently released from the night of the racial justice protests on May 31 last year showed police using chemical spray on protesters as they tried to clear the crowd.In some of those moments, officers appear to issue warnings to protesters first, and at others, officers appear not to communicate that they intend to use their weapons.

City councilor Andrea Campbell, who also sponsored the ordinance and is running for mayor, pointed to those videos as why the restrictions are necessary. She said in a statement that she'll push to pass the legislation.

Mayor Walsh's veto to this legislation is a failure of leadership when this is an opportunity to establish clear restrictions on lethal crowd control weapons and greater accountability in policing," she said. "Tear gas is deadly and banned by international law, and just last week, we saw body camera footage of Boston police indiscriminately pepper-spraying peaceful protestors."

The ordinance would have forced police to give warnings before using either tear gas or rubber bullets, announce what weapons they plan to deploy, and give people a chance to disperse.

The City Council passed the ordinance with a 8-5 vote. To secure a veto-proof majority, the council needs at least one other previously no vote to agree to the measure.

The new state police reform law requires officers use de-escalation tactics, if "feasible," before using any "less lethal" measure like chemical weapons, rubber bullets or police dogs. Any police department that uses them is required to file a report with the new statewide police oversight agency, which will rule whether the use was justified.

With reporting from WBUR's Hannah Chanatry andSimn Rios.

Read this article:
Walsh Vetoes Ordinance That Would Restrict Police Use Of Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets - WBUR

2020 is the challenging year that just wont go away, however much we wish it would, as many current issues over First Amendment freedoms flop over into the new year.

In the broad realm of freedom of speech, theres little doubt debate will continue in the new Congress around the tangential First Amendment controversy over legal protections for companies hosting content on the web aka Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

The law largely removes liability from companies for user-posted content on their sites. While not directly a First Amendment issue, the fight does have major implications for users free speech on the web, as we know it today, as well for as social media companies rights.

President Donald J. Trump and conservatives claim the provision is being used to hide partisan discrimination by major technology companies against right-wing voices. Liberal critics say the law removes incentives for such online operations to seriously fight misinformation.

Advocates for keeping the law as is say that without it, social media companies would face a myriad of potential lawsuits and thus dramatically limit what users can freely post on sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, WhatsApp and Instagram. No company will be able moderate the webs current traffic, they say, estimated by multiple sources at 500,000 hours of user video uploaded to YouTube, 188 million emails and 18 million texts every minute.

Controversy will also continue surrounding the First Amendments two least-known freedoms petition and assembly as multiple state legislatures consider increasing criminal and civil penalties for demonstrators who block streets or sidewalks or simply participate in events where, at some point, a violent act occurs.

Critics of the proposals, many of which have been introduced over the past five years, say their real motives are the stifling of dissenting or minority views, though advocates claim the new provisions are rooted in legitimate law and order concerns about violence and property damages.

In the area of religious liberty, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this spring on Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, involving both the First Amendments free exercise and establishment clauses. In the case, a religious-backed foster care agency is challenging a city decision to cancel a contract because the agency refused to provide services to married same-sex couples, citing religious grounds.

There is no doubt that as COVID-19 pandemic restrictions on public gatherings continue into the new year, so will legal challenges rooted in the First Amendments protection of religious liberty.

There are some new First Amendment issues for 2021 as a result of the incoming Biden administration, though even here, many are tinged by actions or views from the Trump years.

A top concern for free-press advocates is the potential for the Supreme Courts new conservative majority to review the 1963 New York Times v. Sullivan decision, which provided wide protection from defamation claims by government officials and other public figures if actual error was inadvertent or not caused by reckless disregard for the truth.

A longstanding target of press critics and Trump, the decision is rooted in the theory that such protection is needed to foster the widest possible debate on public issues. Trump and others claim the decision makes it virtually impossible for officials and public figures to successfully repair deliberate damage to their reputations and that it gives journalists free license to report so-called fake news.

Of concern for some is the potential return to Obama-era regulations reversed by Trump that were aimed at combatting sexual harassment on college campuses, which critics said stepped on free-speech protections, particularly where online comments were deemed to be sexual in nature.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide in January whether to hear an appeal of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that public school authorities may not punish student speech made away from school grounds. Other circuits have made differing decisions.

Some First Amendment experts also are concerned the incoming administration may be open to reducing or eliminating the First Amendment protections for what some deem hate speech or speech demeaning to women or minority religious groups. At present, such speech generally is protected, with some arguing that in addition to a core right to voice ones own views, it is necessary to hear such speech to effectively argue against it.

Free-press supporters are already calling on President-elect Joe Biden to actively repudiate the Trump claim that mainstream news media are the enemy of the people, with some calling for new legislation to aid financially ailing local news operations seen by some as counterintuitive for a free press along with an international-U.S. effort to support free-press principles and journalists globally.

Welcome to the First Amendment in 2021 with its echoes of 2020s year of pandemic, protest and presidential-political turmoil.

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum, and president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at gpolicinski@freedomforum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.

See the original post:
Happy new and old year: 2020 just won't go away when it comes to first amendment issues in 2021 - Hopkinsville Kentucky New Era

Over on social media, far-right Virginia State Senator Bill DeSteph (R) is busy claiming that he has prevailed in his efforts to compel the General Assemblys Democrat [sic] majority leadership to provide office space for in-person, public access to legislators. DeSteph further claims that [t]his is a huge victory for the First Amendment and for open access to government for all Virginians. DeStephs argument is that the decision to close the Pocahontas Building was a clear violation of the First Amendment and communicated an eagerness by Senator Locke, Speaker Filler-Corn, and the Northam Administration to shut out public input in the legislative process.

The big question, of course, is whether ANY of this is true. Sadly, given DeStephs track record over the years see Hes Just a Genie in a BottleVirginia State Sen. Bill DeSteph (R) Wore Costume with Rub Me Lamp Protruding from Crotch, Bad on all sorts of levels GOP Sen. Bill DeSteph sparks backlash over another conflict of interest , Virginia State Sen. Bill Rub Me Lamp DeSteph (R) Shared Video by Anti-Muslim Activist on His Official Facebook Page, Bill DeSteph: Muslems Build Mosques to Represent Islamic Supremacy Over Their Enemy, etc. its hard to give him the benefit of the doubt. And in this case, thats the case yet again. For starters, check out the following (click to enlarge) from Susan Clarke Schaar, Clerk of the Senate, emailed yesterday:

Following the hearing in Federal court yesterday it was determined that to ensure the health and safety of the constituents of Virginia, essential legislative staff and members the Pocahontas Building and the Capitol will remain closed for the 202[1] session. T[h]e buildings will only be open to current members and credentialed legislative staff.

The Clerk of the House and I will explore possibilities of space in close proximity to the Pocahontas Building or the Science Museum that would afford meeting space for members to meet with their constituents. A reservation system will be set to reserve rooms. A member may reserve a room for one hour. No more than ten people may be in the meeting with themember and EVERYONE must wear a mask or face shield. Failure to follow these guidelines will result in loss of the meeting space privilege.

Hmmmdoes that sound like what DeSteph was saying? Nope, didnt think so. Also, see below for one-page ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which says:

For the reasons stated during the on-the-record call with counsel on December 30, 2020, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs Motion (ECF No. 10). Additionally, for the reasons stated during the call, the Court FINDS that Plaintiffs proposed witnesses Dr. Roxann Robinson, David LaRock, Meg Graham and Carrie Coyner are precluded from testifying during the hearing on December 31, 2020.

In short, Clerks agreed to find space for State Senators to meet with groups smaller than 10 at the Science Museum and/or near the Pocahontas Building, as long as everyone wears masks. Sen. DeSteph wanted the Pocahontas Building opened; the judge said NO. Finally, as you can see below in the Amended Joint Stipulation of Facts:

Soyeah, DeSteph claimed that he achieved a huge victory for the First Amendment and for open access to government for all Virginians. Exceptnope, he definitely did NOT do any of that, given that the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs Motion. But whatever, details detailsLOL.

UPDATE Saturday 1 pm Im informed that DeStephs lawsuit was tossed, but also that the order I posted which was sent to me by an attorney isnt the one that shows that what DeStephs saying is NOT what the court order says. If and when I receive the actual order that denies DeStephs request to reopen the Pocahontas Building, Ill post it here.

More:
Far-Right VA State Senator Claims huge victory for the First Amendment and for open access to government for all Virginians. Except That the Court...

Hospitals must now post on their websites, in a consumer-friendly format, the specific costs for 300 common and "shoppable" services, such as having a baby, getting a joint replacement, having a hernia repaired or undergoing a diagnostic brain scan. FS Productions/Tetra images RF/Getty Images hide caption

Hospitals must now post on their websites, in a consumer-friendly format, the specific costs for 300 common and "shoppable" services, such as having a baby, getting a joint replacement, having a hernia repaired or undergoing a diagnostic brain scan.

Hospitals are facing the new year with new requirements to post price information they have long sought to obscure: the actual prices they negotiate with insurers and the discounts they offer their cash-paying customers.

The move is part of a larger push by the Trump administration to use price transparency to curtail prices and create better-informed consumers. Yet there is disagreement on whether posting the prices for hospital services and procedures will actually achieve that goal.

As of Jan. 1, the facilities must post on their websites prices for every service, drug and supply they provide. Next year, under a separate rule, health insurers must take similar steps. A related effort to force drugmakers to list their prices in advertisements was struck down by the courts.

With the new hospital rule, consumers should be able to see the tremendous variation in prices for the exact same care among hospitals and get an estimate of what they will be charged for care before they seek it.

The new data requirements go well beyond the previous rule of requiring hospitals to post their "chargemasters" the hospital-generated list prices that bear little relation to what it costs a hospital to provide care. Also, few consumers or insurers actually pay those listed prices.

Instead, under the new rule put forward by the Trump administration, "these are the real prices in health care," says Cynthia Fisher, founder and chairman of Patient Rights Advocate, a group that promotes price transparency.

Here's what consumers should know:

How will this work?

Each hospital must post publicly online and in a machine-readable format that is easy to process by computers several prices for every item and service they provide: gross charges; the actual, and most likely far lower, prices they've negotiated with insurers, including de-identified minimum and maximum negotiated charges; and the cash price they offer patients who are uninsured or not using their insurance.

In addition, each hospital must also post, in a "consumer-friendly format," the specific costs for 300 common and "shoppable" services, such as having a baby, getting a joint replacement, having a hernia repaired or undergoing a diagnostic brain scan.

Those 300 bundles of procedures and services must total all costs involved from the hardware used to the operating room time, to drugs given and the fees of hospital-employed physicians so patients won't have to attempt the nearly impossible job of figuring it out themselves.

Hospitals can mostly select which services fall into this category, although the federal government has dictated 70 that must be listed including certain surgeries, diagnostic tests, imaging scans, new patient visits and psychotherapy sessions.

Will prices be exact?

No. At best, these are ballpark figures.

Other factors influence consumers' costs, like the type of insurance plan a patient has, the size and remaining amount of the annual deductible on their health plan, and the complexity of their medical problem.

An estimate on a surgery, for example, might prove inexact. If all goes as expected, the price quoted likely will be close. But unexpected complications could arise, adding to the cost.

"You'll get the average price, but you are not average," says Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health who studies hospital pricing.

Tools to help consumers determine in advance the amount of deductible they'll owe are already available from many insurers. And experts expect the additional information being made available this month will prompt entrepreneurs to create their own apps or services to help consumers analyze the price data.

For now, though, the hospital requirements are a worthy start, say specialists in U.S. health care costs.

"It's very good news for consumers," said George Nation, a professor of law and business at Lehigh University who studies hospital pricing. "Individuals will be able to get price information, although how much they are going to use it will remain to be seen."

Who else will use this information?

Zack Cooper, an associate professor of public health and economics at Yale, doubts that the data alone will make much of a difference for most consumers.

"It's not likely that my neighbor or me, for that matter will go on and look at prices and, therefore, dramatically change decisions about where to get care," Cooper says.

Some cost information is already made available by insurers to their enrollees, particularly out-of-pocket costs for elective services, "but most people don't consult it," he says.

That could be because many consumers carry types of insurance in which they pay flat-dollar copayments for such things as doctor visits, drugs or hospital stays payments that have no correlation to the underlying charges.

Still, the information may be of great interest to the uninsured and to the increasing number of Americans with high-deductible plans, in which they are responsible for hundreds or even thousands of dollars in costs annually before the insurer begins picking up the bulk of the cost.

For them, the negotiated rate and cash discount information may prove more useful, Nation says.

"If I have a $10,000 deductible plan and it's December and I'm not close to meeting that, I may go to a hospital and try to get the cash price," Nation says.

Employers, however, may have a keen interest in the new data, says James Gelfand, senior vice president at the ERISA Industry Committee, which lobbies on behalf of large employers that offer health insurance to their workers. Employers will want to know how much they are paying each hospital compared with others in the area and how well their insurers stack up in negotiating rates, Gelfand says.

For some employers, he says, it could be eye-opening to see how hospitals cross-subsidize by charging exorbitant amounts for some things and minimal amounts for others.

"The rule puts that all into the light," says Gelfand. "When an employer sees these ridiculous prices, for the first time they will have the ability to say no." That could mean rejecting specific prices or the hospital entirely.

Typically, employers can't or won't limit workers' choices by outright cutting a hospital from an insurance network. More likely, they may use the information to create financial incentives to use the lowest-cost facilities, says Anderson at Johns Hopkins.

"If I'm an employer," he says, "I'll look at three hospitals in my area and say, 'I'll pay the price for the lowest one. If you want to go to one of the other two, you can pay the difference.' "

Will price transparency reduce overall health spending?

Revealing actual negotiated prices, as this rule requires, may push the more expensive hospitals in an area to reduce prices in their future bargaining talks with insurers or employers, potentially lowering health spending in those regions.

It could also go the other way, with lower-cost hospitals demanding a raise, driving up spending.

Bottom line: Price transparency can help, but the market power of the various players might matter more.

In some places, where there may be one dominant hospital, even employers "who know they are getting ripped off" may not feel they can cut out a big, brand-name facility from their networks, no matter the price, Anderson says.

Is the rule change a done deal?

The hospital industry went to court, arguing that parts of the rule go too far, violating their First Amendment rights and also unfairly forcing hospitals to disclose trade secrets. That information, the industry says, can then be used against them in negotiations with insurers and employers.

But the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia disagreed with the hospitals and upheld the rule, prompting an appeal by the industry. On Dec. 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed that lower court decision and did not move to block enforcement of the rule.

In a written statement last week, the American Hospital Association's general counsel cited "disappointment" with the ruling, and said the organization is "reviewing the decision carefully to determine next steps."

Apart from the litigation, the AHA says it plans to talk with the incoming Biden administration "to try to persuade them there are some elements to this rule and the insurer rule that are tricky," says Tom Nickels, an executive vice president of the trade group. "We want to be of help to consumers, but is it really in people's best interest to provide privately negotiated rates?"

Fisher thinks so: "Hospitals are fighting this because they want to keep their negotiated deals with insurers secret," she says. "What these rules do is give the American consumer the power of being informed."

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit, editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation and is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The rest is here:
Will You Save Money On Hospital Bills With New Price Transparency Rule? : Shots - Health News - NPR

From Mayor Bowsers Office:

Mayor Bowser is continuing preparations for this weeks First Amendment activities. She had previously directed the DC Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency (HSEMA) to stand up the Districts Emergency Operations Center (EOC) beginning Monday, January 4, to coordinate the response for the upcoming First Amendment demonstrations, permitted by the National Park Service, scheduled for January 5 and January 6. The EOC serves as the coordination hub between District agencies and regional and federal partners. On Tuesday, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) begins its full activation with all staff reporting for response on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Mayor Bowser instructed District agencies to create a comprehensive public safety response to ensure residents safety. Additionally, HSEMA and MPD are conducting event overviews for the Council of the District of Columbia, faith leaders, and the downtown business community. Residents are encouraged to report suspicious activity by making a report through iwatchdc.org or by calling 911 for immediate threats or emergencies.

MPD and HSEMA are coordinating among District agencies and with federal authorities to ensure our residents and businesses remain safe, said Mayor Muriel Bowser. I am asking Washingtonians and those who live in the region to stay out of the downtown area on Tuesday and Wednesday and not to engage with demonstrators who come to our city seeking confrontation, and we will do what we must to ensure all who attend remain peaceful.

Members of the public and anyone attending the events are reminded that District law prohibits anyone from carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of any First Amendment activity. Under federal law, it is illegal to possess firearms on the U.S. Capitol grounds and on National Park Service areas, such as Freedom Plaza, the Ellipse, and the National Mall. Additionally, members of the public are reminded that the District of Columbia does not have reciprocity with other states concealed pistol licenses; unless a person has been issued a concealed pistol license by the District of Columbia, they cannot conceal carry a firearm in the city. Finally, it is illegal to open carry firearms in the District.

From MPD:

multiple First Amendment demonstrations are expected to occur in the District of Columbia. In conjunction with these demonstrations, there will be parking restriction and potential street closures that motorists should take into consideration:

The following streets will be posted as Emergency No Parking on Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 6:00 a.m. to Thursday, January 7, 2021 11:59 p.m:

H Street from 15th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWI Street from 15th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWConnecticut Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NWVermont Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NW15th Street from I Street to K Street, NW (west side of McPherson Square)17th Street from I Street to K Street, NW (east side of Farragut Square)

The following streets will be posted as Emergency No Parking for Tuesday, January 5, 2021 and Wednesday, January 6, 2021 at 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m:

Constitution Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to 18th Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue from 3rd Street, NW to 18th Street, NW

E Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NW

F Street from 12th Street, NW to 15th Street, NW

G Street from 12th Street, NW to 15th Street, NW

I Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWI Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWH Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWH Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWK Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWNew York Avenue from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NW17th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW

(west side of Farragut Square)

15th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW

(east side of McPherson Square)

16th Street from K Street, NW to O Street, NW14th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NW13th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to L Street, NW12th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW11th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to E Street, NW10th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW9th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW7th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to E Street, NW6th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW4th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW3rd Street from Independence Avenue, SW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NWNew York Avenue from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWC Street from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWD Street from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWMadison Drive from 3rd Street, NW to 15th Street, NWJefferson Drive from 3rd Street, SW to 15th Street, SW

Street Closures

On Tuesday, January 5, 2021 and Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the following streets will be restricted to vehicular traffic from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. The decision to restrict vehicles will be based upon public safety and if safe to do so, vehicles will be allowed to enter the restricted area if they are on essential business or traveling to-and-from their residence.

Constitution Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue to 18th Street, NWK Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWI Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWH Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWNew York Avenue from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWNew York Avenue from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWG Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NW

G Street from 12th Street, NW to 15th Street, NW

G Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWF Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NW

F Street from 12th Street, NW to 15th Street, NW

F Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWE Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWE Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWD Street from 5th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWD Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWC Street from 3rd Street, NW to 6th Street, NWC Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue, NW from 3rd Street, NW to 15th Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue, NW from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWIndiana Avenue from 3rd Street to 5th Street, NW3rd Street from Independence Avenue, SW to D Street, NW4th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW4th Street from Indiana Avenue, NW to E Street, NW5th Street from Indiana Avenue, NW to E Street, NW6th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW7th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to E Street, NW9th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW10th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW11th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to L Street, NW12th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW13th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to L Street, NW14th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NW15th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NW16th Street from H Street, NW to L Street, NWVermont Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NWConnecticut Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NW17th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NWMadison Drive from 3rd Street, NW to 15th Street, NWJefferson Drive from 3rd Street, SW to 15th Street, SW12th Street Tunnel9th Street Tunnel

While the Metropolitan Police Department does not anticipate additional street closures on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, there is the potential for intermittent closures in the downtown area. Additionally, while the Metropolitan Police Department does not anticipate street closures on Tuesday, January 5, 2021 or Thursday, January 7, 2021, there is the potential for intermittent closures in the downtown area. Any decision to close a street will be based upon public safety. For timely traffic information, please visit: twitter.com/DCPoliceTraffic,

The public should expect parking restrictions along the street and should be guided by the posted emergency no parking signage. All vehicles that are parked in violation of the emergency no parking signs will be ticketed and towed.

Motorists could encounter possible delays if operating in the vicinity of downtown area and may wish to consider alternative routes. The Metropolitan Police Department and the D.C. Department of Transportation also wishes to remind motorists in the vicinity of this event to proceed with caution as increased pedestrian traffic can be anticipated.

Members of the public are reminded that DC CODE: 7-2509.07 expressly prohibits anyone from carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of any First Amendment activity, to include members of the public who have been issued a Concealed Carry Permit in the District of Columbia.

Read more here:
"I am asking Washingtonians and those who live in the region to stay out of the downtown area on Tuesday and Wednesday and not to engage with...

LONDON A British judge ruled on Monday that the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange cannot be extradited to the United States to face trial on charges of violating the Espionage Act, saying he would be at extreme risk of suicide.

The decision in the high-profile case grants Mr. Assange a major victory against the U.S. authorities who charged him over his role in obtaining and publishing secret military and diplomatic documents related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rights groups and advocates applauded the ruling, but many expressed concern about its rationale. The judge focused on Mr. Assanges mental health issues, but rejected the defense argument that the charges were an attack on press freedom and were politically motivated.

Mr. Assange, 49, who was present at Mondays hearing and wearing a face mask, was indicted in 2019 on 17 counts of violating the Espionage Act and conspiring to hack government computers in 2010 and 2011. If found guilty on all counts, he could face a sentence of up to 175 years in prison.

The judge, Vanessa Baraitser of Westminster Magistrates Court, said in Mondays ruling that she was satisfied that the American authorities had brought forth the case in good faith, and that Mr. Assanges actions went beyond simply encouraging a journalist. But she said there was evidence of a risk to Mr. Assanges health if he were to face trial in the United States, noting that she found Mr. Assanges risk of committing suicide, if an extradition order were to be made, to be substantial.

She ruled that the extradition should be refused because it would be unjust and oppressive by reason of Mr. Assanges mental condition, pointing to conditions he would most likely be held under in the United States.

The ruling on Monday at the Central Criminal Court in London, known as the Old Bailey, was a major turning point in a legal struggle that has lasted nearly a decade. But that battle is likely to drag on, as U.S. prosecutors indicated they would appeal. They have two weeks to do so.

A crowd of supporters outside the court erupted in cheers when the verdict was delivered.

Today, we are swept away by our joy at the fact that Julian will shortly be with us, Craig Murray, a former British diplomat and rights activist who has been documenting the hearing, told reporters outside the courthouse. He said that while he was delighted we have seen some humanity, the ruling on mental health grounds was an excuse to deliver justice.

Rights groups also applauded the denial of the extradition request, but some expressed concerns about the substance of the ruling. Among them was Rebecca Vincent, the director of international campaigns for Reporters Without Borders.

We disagree with the judges assessment that this case is not politically motivated, that it is not about free speech, Ms. Vincent said. We continue to believe that Mr. Assange was targeted for his contributions to journalism, and until the underlying issues here are addressed, other journalists, sources and publishers remain at risk.

Stella Moris, Mr. Assanges partner, echoed the sentiment, saying that while she was pleased that the extradition request had been rejected, the charges had not been dropped. She called on President Trump to end this now.

In a statement, the Justice Department said it was extremely disappointed by the decision but gratified that the United States prevailed on every point of law raised, and noted that it would still seek to extradite Mr. Assange.

Mr. Assange, who is Australian, rose to prominence in 2010 by publishing documents provided by the former U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning. He then took refuge at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London to escape extradition to Sweden, where he faced an inquiry into rape allegations that was later dropped. In the meantime, he kept running WikiLeaks as a self-proclaimed political refugee. He spent seven years there before his arrest by the British police in 2019.

During the extradition hearing, which began in February but was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic, lawyers representing the United States argued that Mr. Assange had unlawfully obtained secret documents and put lives at risk by revealing the names of people who had provided information to the United States in war zones.

Reporting or journalism is not an excuse for criminal activities or a license to break ordinary criminal laws, James Lewis, a lawyer representing the U.S. government, told the court last year.

Mr. Assanges lawyers framed the prosecution as a politically driven attack on press freedom.

The greatest risk for him in the U.S. is that he wont face a fair trial, said Greg Barns, an Australian lawyer and adviser to Mr. Assange. Then he could spend the rest of his life in prison, in solitary confinement, treated in a cruel and arbitrary fashion.

The hearing was stymied by multiple technical glitches and restricted access for observers, which rights groups and legal experts said hurt the courts credibility and hampered their ability to monitor the proceedings.

Mr. Assange has been held at Belmarsh, a high-security prison in London, since 2019. Mr. Assange remained in custody after the ruling was announced on Monday, but his defense team said they planned to file an application for bail on Wednesday as the appeals process continued.

Many have hailed Mr. Assange as a hero for transparency who helped expose U.S. wrongdoings in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he has also been criticized as a publicity seeker with an erratic personality. The publication by WikiLeaks of emails associated with Hillary Clintons presidential campaign, which U.S. officials have said were hacked by Russian intelligence to damage her candidacy, also undermined his reputation with many previous supporters.

Mr. Assange jumped bail in 2012 and fled into the Ecuadorean Embassy in London. During his years there, he gave news conferences and hosted a parade of visitors, including the singer Lady Gaga and the actress Pamela Anderson. He had also angered embassy workers by riding his skateboard in the halls.

By the time he was dragged away, Mr. Assange had become an unwelcome guest. Weeks later, he was indicted in the United States.

Mr. Assanges mental and physical health deteriorated while he was held in prison in Britain, experts warned. Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture and ill treatment, said in November 2019 that the punishment against Mr. Assange amounted to psychological torture.

Doctors said that his health had worsened during the hearing.

News and press freedom organizations, as well as rights groups, have long warned that Mr. Assanges indictment and a potential trial in the United States would set a dangerous precedent for press freedom.

Prosecutors have never charged a journalist under the Espionage Act, but legal experts have argued that prosecuting a reporter or news organization for doing their job making valuable information available to the public would violate the First Amendment. Mr. Assanges actions remain difficult to distinguish in a legally meaningful way from those of traditional news organizations.

Jameel Jaffer, the executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, warned that the charges that Mr. Assange still faces cast a dark shadow over journalism. The charges focused on pure publication of the material were of particular concern, he said.

Those counts are an unprecedented attack on press freedom, he said in a statement, one calculated to deter journalists and publishers from exercising rights that the First Amendment should be understood to protect.

Charlie Savage contributed reporting.

See more here:
Julian Assange Extradition to U.S. Blocked Over Mental Health Concerns - The New York Times

First, digital conversations onmatters of public concern, legally the centerpiece of First Amendment jurisprudence, were consistently blocked by partisan social-media operators throughout the 2020 election cycle. That alone is arresting; it has changed public access to information and calls for action.

Social-media companies moved from offering a public forum (with concurrent legal duties, including openness) to a content editor (typically imposing higher liability, such as for defamation), then into the unseemly, otherworldly role of kingmaker. By appearances, they know exactly what they are doing no apologies.

Second, critical information official, highly damning material, and verifiably accurate information concerning Joe Bidens son, apparently under investigation for months was blocked by these social-media giants, potentially affecting the election. The nub is that this information not only reflected poorly on the Democrat presidential candidate now president-elect but [I believe] implicated him.

Only after the election did we learn that data blocked could be objectively disqualifying. If members of Joe Bidens family, close for years, are under investigation for trading access for money, who is the him guilty of offering access? It takes to two to tango, as they say and Joe Biden is one of the two.

All this becomes even more insidious, objectionable, and arguably unconstitutional, when explicit and implied financial assistance, political advocacy, and campaign-tipping support is aligned with the Democratic Party.

In effect, political actors soon running the federal government have been assisted in shutting out the truth, in order to acquire power and this power, in turn, serves the personal, financial, and political agenda of those who control the social-media giants.

The time has come to separate mass power over information and the Democratic Party. More, the time has come to open these social-media giants to antitrust actions, public and private, and end the now-absurd notion that they should be immune from civil lawsuits, because they must be nurtured.

They have been effectively nurtured into monster-hood, a societal overlord position that allows dominance, controls critical information, and shuts off information flow essential to a free, open, and properly informed republic.

What power do these social media and big-tech players have? Beyond the ability to distort public dialogue on matters of public concern including blocking a December AMAC podcast discussing election lawsuits these giants have become sources of mass dependence.

For example, on Dec. 14, social-media users around the globe personally and professionally suffered the impact of a mass-access outage, shutting off access not only to dialogue, but also to mass databases. That downtime impacted everything from business communications, website accessibility, data access, and distance learning shutting schools.

The outage also illustrated how much dependence has arisen on these information-controlling outlets. Paired with political manipulation, the outage raises serious questions about the role, responsibility, and regulation of these huge, largely uncontrolled social media and high-tech companies.

In a nutshell, the time has come to open these oligopolistic companies to civil liability beginning with a repeal of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Then, we must aggressively regulate, deconstruct, break up, reduce the influence of, de-politicize, and hold accountable these digital behemoths.

The influence of big tech on America on our social harmony, mental health, basic human interactions, decision-making, political stability, institutional and political accountability, commerce, and contentment in short, their manipulation of the public mind is working at cross-purposes with democracy.

It has become a threat to the free flow of information vital for sustaining a free republic, not only teaming with powerful political actors (including socialist ideologues and promotors of leftist violence), but also undermining the currency of any democracy, the guarantee of citizen free speech.

So, looking back on history, the most heinous deprivations of individual liberty including impairment of the God-given freedoms of worship, assembly, travel, protest, self-defense, confronting accusers, fair trial, no false imprisonment, harm to life or limb, fear of government all begin with loss of free speech.

That is why the outrage of the moment is a talisman of our future. If Americans will see and speak truth, enact laws that protect political, personal, and professional free speech rather than empowering oppressors of free speech we can rise above this. If we do not act, we will wish we had. The First Amendment is under siege, and most Americans know it. We do not need more political violence. We need free speech, and protection of it. The time if there ever was one is now, to say so.

Robert Charles is national spokesman for the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC). The 2.3-million-member AMAC says it is a senior advocacy organization. Charles is a former assistant secretary of state for President George W. Bush, former naval intelligence officer, and litigator. He served in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses, as congressional counsel for five years, and wrote Narcotics and Terrorism (2003) and Eagles and Evergreens (2018), the latter on WW II vets in a Maine town.

See the original post:
The First Amendment is under siege and most Americans know it - The Central New York Business Journal

30 December 2020

Foley Hoag LLP

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The First Circuit's recent opinion in Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, upheld a challengeto the Massachusetts anti-wiretap law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99, carving out an exceptionfor certain activity protected by the FirstAmendment. The opinion begins:

Massachusetts, like other states concerned about the threat toprivacy that commercially available electronic eavesdroppingdevices pose, makes it a crime to record another person'swords secretly and without consent. But, unlike other concernedstates, Massachusetts does not recognize any exceptions based onwhether that person has an expectation of privacy in what isrecorded. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99 (Section99). As a result, Massachusetts makes it as much a crime fora civic-minded observer to use a smartphone to record from a safedistance what is said during a police officer's mistreatmentof a civilian in a city park as it is for a revengeseeker to hide atape recorder under the table at a private home to capture aconversation with an ex-spouse. The categorical and sweeping natureof Section 99 gives rise to the important questions under the FirstAmendment to the United States Constitution that the challengesthat underlie the consolidated appeals before us present.

Section 99 violates the First Amendment by prohibiting thesecret, nonconsensual audio recording of police officersdischarging their official duties in public spaces. We also affirmthe District Court's order dismissing Project Veritas'sFirst Amendment overbreadth challenge for failing to state a claimon which relief may be granted.

The 72-page opinion has a lengthy description of the origins ofSection 99 and is worth reading for that alone. On the merits, theFirst Circuit equated unauthorized recording to more traditionalforms of newsgathering:

a citizen's audio recording of on-duty policeofficers' treatment of civilians in public spaces whilecarrying out their official duties, even when conducted without anofficer's knowledge, can constitute newsgathering every bitas much as a credentialed reporter's after-the-fact effortsto ascertain what had transpired.

However, the court declined to invalidate all of Section 99under First Amendment overbreadth concepts.

Originally Published by Foley Hoag, December 2020

To view Foley Hoag's Security, Privacy and The LawBlog please click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Privacy from United States

See the article here:
First Circuit Creates Exception To Massachusetts Wiretap Statute Based On First Amendment Rights, Allows Citizens And Press To Record Police Activity...