Category Archives: First Amendment

TROY John Koletas has been testing this city's First Amendment resolve for a very long time.

Three decades ago, the controversial pastor of the Grace Baptist Church in Lansingburgh was best known as a street preacher who tried to save the souls of passersby in downtown Troy. In a not-quiet voice, he'd demand that they repent for their sins.

The shouting wasn't always appreciated, unsurprisingly, and Koletas was repeatedly charged with disorderly conduct. Eventually, Koletas filed a lawsuit arguing that he had a First Amendment right to preach on the street and that his repeated arrests amounted to unconstitutional harassment. Two national TV shows Fox's "A Current Affair" and NBC's "Inside Edition" even came to Troy to report on the controversy.

Koletas ultimately lost in court, when the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1995 that police did nothing wrong by arresting him.

Had I been a columnist for this newspaper back then, I generally would have been on Koletas' side. I would have argued, in other words, that he did in fact have a free speech right to preach outside, at least within reason.

No, a person shouldn't be allowed to holler on the street at, say, midnight. People do need to sleep, after all. Laws against unreasonable noise are justified.

But certainly, the city needed to accommodate the preacher's free speech rights without needless harassment. Koletas had the right to preach, even if few passersby wanted to hear it.

Fast forward three decades, and Koletas is again attracting attention. AR-15 rifle giveaways at Grace Baptist and Koletas' consistently hateful rhetoric toward Blacks, Jews, Muslims and Catholics have attracted Black Lives Matter protesters to the Fourth Street church in recent weeks.

As I noted in a column published Sunday that focused on Koletas' attacks on Catholicism, protesters aren't coming to Grace Baptist to attack Christianity or religion, as some in conservative media would have you believe. They're protesting what Koletas says, and justifiably so.

As has been well documented by bloggers and others, Koletas has referred to Blacks as "termites" and "savages." He has described himself as a racist who "believes the races should be kept separate as much as possible." Koletas says Catholicism, like the Muslim faith, is incompatible with democracy and the Bill of Rights.

In response to Sunday's column, a few supporters of Grace Baptist claimed I was attempting to silence or "cancel" Koletas' freedom of religion or speech. But I suggested no such thing.

I believe strongly that Koletas has the First Amendment right to pray and preach as he wants, assuming he stops short of advocating violence. Likewise, his followers have a First Amendment right to listen. And yes, protesters, columnists and Facebook commenters all have a First Amendment right to object to what Koletas says.

Free speech for everybody! What a concept.

Freedom of speech seems to be falling out of fashion, though. We increasingly hear that some words are too harmful to be spoken or that listeners have the right not to be offended. On college campuses, even relatively dull speakers such as economist Art Laffer can find themselves "deplatformed" for supposedly offensive views.

The shift, if widely accepted, will redefine free speech rights as we've long understood them. Actually, it would all but eliminate true freedom of speech. After all, if you can't say something that somebody might find offensive, you can hardly say anything provocative. You're limited to a fairly narrow range of expression.

The result would be a stifling monoculture of thought, devoid of intellectual diversity or compelling debate. And as any good gardener can tell you, there's nothing interesting about a monoculture.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear, wrote George Orwell in an essay planned as the introduction to "Animal Farm" that also included this gem of a line: "People don't see that if you encourage totalitarian methods, the time may come when they will be used against you instead of for you."

Had I been walking down a street in Troy in the early 1990s, I suppose I wouldn't have wanted to hear Koletas' call that I repent for my sins. I wouldn't want to sit through one of his sermons today. (Happily, I don't have to.)

But we allow Koletas to speak so that we all may speak. We counter his words with our own words.

Freedom of speech for everybody! It's a crucial concept.

cchurchill@timesunion.com 518-454-5442 @chris_churchill

Visit link:
Churchill: Troy preacher has the right to offend - Times Union

At least six more athletic conferences across various National Collegiate Athletic Association divisions announced on Friday that they were canceling fall conference play or postponing until the spring.

The Colonial Athletic Association on Friday canceled its schedule of conference football play for the fall due to the coronavirus pandemic, but member universities are permitted to pursue an independent football schedule. The CAA teams play in the NCAA's DivisionI Football Championship Subdivision.

The conference said it would explore the possibility of organizing a football season next spring.

A number of colleges that play football in the conference announced they were suspending fall sports, including football, or postponing the season until the winter or spring. Colleges that made such announcements included the College of William & Mary, in Virginia; the State University of New York at Albany; Towson University, in Maryland; and the Universities of Delaware, Maine and New Hampshire.

Several other conference members indicated they still plan or hope to play fall sports despite the cancellation of conference play. James Madison University, in Virginia, the reigning conference championship and runner-up in the FCS national championship game last season, said it remains committed to an open exploration of various options for its competitive seasons for all sports in keeping with evolving guidance on health and public safety.

The America East and Atlantic 10 conferences, both DivisionI conferences that do not sponsor conference play in football, announced they were postponing all fall sports until the spring. The Atlantic10 said, however, that its members had agreed to what they described as a look-in window in mid-September, allowing for a potentially truncated competitive schedule amongst conference opponents if the COVID-19 risk has substantially been reduced.

The East Coast Conference, which is affiliated with the NCAAs DivisionII, and two DivisionIII conferences -- the Commonwealth Coast Conference and the North Eastern Athletic Conference -- also announced cancellations of intercollegiate competition for the fall semester.

Several other conferences, including the Ivy League, the New England Small College Athletic Conference and the Patriot League, previously announced cancellation of fall sports. Two football powerhouse conferences, the Pacific-12 and the BigTen, have said they will only schedule conference games.

In nonathletic news, Hillsdale College, a conservative Christian college in Michigan famous for its refusal to accept government funding, held an in-person graduation ceremony on Saturday in defiance of state Attorney General Dana Nessel, whose office called the event illegal, The Detroit News reported. Outdoor gatherings of more than 100 people are prohibited under executive order in Michigan, where COVID-19 cases are rising.

The ceremony came at the end of three days of festivities including dinners, cocktails, music recitals and a party, according to The Detroit News. The college required attendees to wear masks and took their temperatures. At some events, attendees were seated six feet apart and instructed not to walk around.

Hillsdale defended the legality of its outdoor commencement, saying in a press release issued in advance of the ceremony it was "consistent with the governors executive orders providing that you can have these outdoor First Amendment expressive events subject to [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidelines."

This is not an act of defiance -- this is totally legal, Robert Norton, Hillsdale's vice president and general counsel, said in a statement. Because this is a core First Amendment expressive activity, the governors own guidance and the FAQs tell us that it is appropriate for us to be able to hold such an event as this if we follow leading medical guidelines. Were not only following those guidelines -- were exceeding them.

Ithaca College, a private college in the Finger Lakes region of New York, will not allow students from states on a travel advisory list maintained by New York State to travel to campus until their states are removed from the list, the Ithaca Journal reported. Students who hail from states on the list -- which as of Friday included 22 states -- will have to start classes online.

Under an executive order from Governor Andrew Cuomo, individuals from the 22 affected states must quarantine for 14 days upon arrival in New York. Ithaca administrators said they do not have the resources or infrastructure to quarantine the large number of students who would be affected by the quarantine order.

"As a result, we have made the difficult decision that students who have not remained in New York during the summer and whose permanent address is in a state on New Yorks mandatory quarantine list will need to take their classes remotely until the state of their permanent address is removed from the New York mandatory quarantine list," Ithaca said in a letter to students and families. "No exceptions will be granted."

Original post:
More conferences cancel fall sports and other COVID-19 news - Inside Higher Ed

Citizen rights, enshrined in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, were on full display Sunday afternoon on Main Street in Watsontown.

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

On Sunday, those words sanctioned and protected the rights of about 200 members of the Milton-based group, If Not Us, Then Who?, and those who joined them, to gather at the intersection of Main Street and Brimmer Avenue to protest racism, to call out the names of Black citizens who died at the hands of police and speak out for justice.

The constitutional phrases freedom of speech and right of the people peaceably to assemble also sanctioned and protected the rights of spectators to gather across the street, watch the event, express their views and exchange words with those participating in the rally.

We were disappointed at the vulgar, insulting and hurtful language that became part of some of the exchanges. The event did remain peaceful, but police came on the scene and blocked several streets. Its unfortunate that was considered necessary.

During the three-hour rally, some protesters made speeches, but all frequently broke into chants of Black lives matter, Say his name, George Floyd, I cant breathe and Silence is violence.

Across the street, some spectators argued that the Democratic party or communists were promoting the Black Lives Matter movement.

One spectator, who refused to give his name, argued that politicians are using the death of George Floyd and racial divisions to further their political objectives.

We need to have this conversation, said rally participant Matt Nolder, 35, of Milton. Thats what this is all about. From the street level to the White House, this is what it has to be about.

The sign-carrying protesters later marched through borough side streets. As they started off down Brimmer Avenue, one obviously angry spectator shouted obscenities and Keep walking! and White lives matter! at the marchers.

We observed local police officers from Watsontown, joined by a few state police troopers and officers from other nearby departments, quietly, calmly and effectively walking between the groups, ensuring that everyone had space and that the conversations would not escalate into anything else.

We also observed that several of the direct conversations among people from opposite sides of the street ended with an approving nod, firstbump or handshake. That speaks to the power of freedom of speech and the right of people to peacefully assemble.

NOTE: Opinions expressed in The Daily Items editorials are the consensus of the publisher, top newsroom executives and community members of the editorial board. Todays was written by Digital Editor Dave Hilliard.

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

Go here to read the rest:
First Amendment on the street | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item

Words matter. Reporting matters. But sometimes, its a video that matters most.

When a Minneapolis police officer knelt on George Floyds neck for more than eight minutes while he died, gasping for breath, a cellphone video shot by a teenage girl on her way to get a snack made the horror undeniable.

The world needed to see what I was seeing, Darnella Frazier told the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Days later, when Buffalo police knocked down 75-year-old protester Martin Gugino and a pool of blood spread under on the sidewalk under his head, a cellphone video enraged people all over the world.

It just so happens I was in the right place at the right time with exactly the right angle, Mike Desmond of the local public radio station WBFO explained to the Buffalo News.

Video can change the world or at least a few million opinions. But what about the potentially explosive video that cant be shot or never gets seen because law enforcement has confiscated cameras or arrested the people using them?

This week, New York Universitys First Amendment Watch released A Citizens Guide to Recording the Police a primer for amateur videographers on the rights they are entitled to in these encounters. The guide explains why, under most circumstances, the police can neither seize nor demand to view such recordings though some may try and it provides case-law examples to back up its assertions.

It comes along at a crucial time.

In this new era, we have armies of citizens out on the streets capable of producing evidence that checks the conduct of public officials, said Stephen Solomon, the organizations founding editor. The First Amendment right to record public officials, such as the police performing their official duties in public, is central to our democracy, he said.

Who can forget the bizarre and disturbing arrest of Omar Jimenez and a CNN crew while on live television in Minneapolis on May 29? That incident was roundly denounced by press freedom groups and resulted in an apology from Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz: There is absolutely no reason something like this should have happened.

But less heralded and far less visible offenses have happened throughout the United States, as the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker makes clear.

Sue Brisk, a freelance photographer, told the Tracker that she was photographing demonstrations at 42nd Street in Times Square that same day with her NYPD-issued press pass clearly displayed. I watched the police beat people with billy clubs and then they threw a woman up against a pole right in front of me, Brisk said. After that its a blur.

Brisk said that, before she knew what was happening, her head was slammed to the ground and she found herself pinned under at least three New York City police officers. Weeks later, she was still trying to retrieve her camera.

By the Trackers count, well over 400 aggressions against the press including dozens of examples of equipment being damaged have marred recent Black Lives Matter protests.

The NYU guide cites a 2012 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit decision that drew a direct connection between the creation of a recording and something thats better understood to be constitutionally protected: the publication or dissemination of a recording.

The right to publish or broadcast an audio or audiovisual recording would be insecure, or largely ineffective, the decision in ACLU v. Alvarez stated, if making the recording were unprotected. Restricting the use of [a recording] device suppresses speech just as effectively as restricting the dissemination of the resulting recording.

However, the right to record police isnt, well, bulletproof, at this moment.

About three-fifths of the U.S. population lives in states where federal appeals courts have recognized a First Amendment right to record the police in public, the guide says. The U.S. Supreme Court hasnt ruled directly on the issue.

That means legal protections arent nailed down everywhere. Yet the outlook is good: Given the resounding support so far for this First Amendment protection, it seems highly likely that the remaining federal appeals courts would reach the same conclusion if the issue appears on their docket.

Of course, the legal right to record is no guarantee of respectful treatment when events are unfolding. And they are small comfort to journalists or members of the public who have been injured or had their equipment seized as they tried to document protests.

Still, Solomon told me, its helpful to know your rights to confidently assert them when it matters most. After all like 17-year-old Darnella Frazier who started a movement by pointing her cellphone almost anyone can capture evidence of what the world needed to see.

Should that happen, its good to know the First Amendment has your back.

See original here:
Taking a cellphone video of police? Theres a First Amendment for that - Seattle Times

In a federal case of major significance in the Eastern District of California, the court on June 22 ruled that the First Amendment bars California from requiring that a Proposition 65 warning be applied to products containing glyphosate. Glyphosate is the primary active ingredient in the Monsanto product Roundup. The plaintiffs suing the state were a broad array of growers or trade groups that sell, or represent members that sell, glyphosate-based herbicides, or use those herbicides in cultivation of crops that are sold in California.

In this case, National Association of Wheat Growers, et al. v. Becerra, No. 2:17-cv-2401 WBS EFB (E.D. Cal., June 22, 2020), Judge Shubb granted the plaintiffs a permanent injunction, and enjoined California from enforcing the Proposition 65 warning requirement with regard to exposures from glyphosate.

Glyphosate was listed by the state in 2017 under Proposition 65 as a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer. The basis of that listing was a classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic to humans, which in turn was based on sufficient evidence that it caused cancer in experimental animals and limited evidence that it caused cancer in humans. However, other agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization, among others, have not concluded that glyphosate causes cancer in humans, and in some cases, concluded that glyphosate does not cause cancer in humans.

After disposing of the states ripeness argument, the court analyzed the primary U.S. Supreme Court rulings with regard to regulation of commercial speech. The court first considered the Supreme Courts seminal ruling in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., 447 U.S. 557 (1980), which held that the government may restrict commercial speech that is neither misleading nor connected to fraudulent activity as long as the governments interest in regulating the speech is substantial. An intermediate standard of review was applied to such restriction, and the restriction may be no more extensive than is necessary to serve the governments interest.

A lower level of scrutiny is applied where the government seeks to compel speech. In addressing that issue in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that the government may compel a commercial speaker to disclose purely factual and uncontroversial information, as long as the disclosure requirements are reasonably related to a substantial government interest and are neither unjustified nor unreasonably burdensome. Also relevant to the National Association of Wheat Growers courts consideration was the Supreme Courts decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S.Ct. 2361 (2018) (NIFLA). In NIFLA, the Court applied the lower Zauderer standard to California requiring that certain disclosures be made a pro-choice pregnancy centers, and found that even under that more lenient standard the state had not shown the requirement was not unjustified or unduly burdensome. To another of the disclosure requirements, the Court held that the Zauderer standard did not apply because disclosure of information concerning state-sponsored services, including abortion, was anything but uncontroversial.

In the glyphosate case, Judge Shubb ruled that application of the lower Zauderer standard was appropriate only if the Proposition 65 warning requirement for glyphosate was purely factual and uncontroversial. If not, the Central Hudson intermediate scrutiny standard would apply. In assessing the warning requirement, the court found that requiring the statement that glyphosate is known to the State of California to cause cancer is misleading because all regulators save IARC did not conclude that the chemical causes cancer in humans, and some regulators or entities affirmatively found that it does not cause cancer. The court was also not convinced by the States arguments that alternative warning language that might otherwise comply with Proposition 65 avoided the misleading nature of the warning.

Having concluded that the Zauderer standard does not apply, the court then applied the intermediate standard under Central Hudson. Under the application, the court concluded that the Proposition 65 warning requirement as applied to glyphosate was not shown by the state to directly advance an asserted government interest, nor that it was not more extensive than necessary to achieve that interest. Although the court agreed that California has a substantial interest in informing its citizens about exposure to carcinogenic chemicals, it determined that misleading statements about glyphosates carcinogenicity do not advance that interest. The court further noted that California had other means of educating its citizens without burdening business, such as advertising campaigns or posting information online.

In concert with the recent NIFLA decision, the glyphosate ruling makes clear the burden on states that seek to require disclosure of information on matters that are not wholly uncontroversial. If the state seeks to appeal the ruling in the Ninth Circuit, there is a reasonable likelihood that the Supreme Court may once again be called on to further define the parameters of when a state can compel commercial speech.

See the rest here:
First Amendment Bars California from Requiring a Proposition 65 Glyphosate Warning - JD Supra

The June 11 offer by Dan Braswell for a reasonable review of his writings is typical of the party-affiliated vortex of distraction from the issue Thats what I said but I didnt say that which is echoed from Washington too often.

The issue is citizens right to free speech. Braswell and Del. John McGuire need to review two things: The First Amendment right to free speech and the Supreme Courts decision about public officials blocking citizens from posting to their social media accounts.

The First Amendment provides the public with a venue to petition the government for redress of grievances. Since McGuire is the peoples government representative, his blocking access to and deleting comments on his Facebook account is unconstitutional and prevents us from voicing our concerns.

So where should we go if McGuire is emotionally incapable of dealing with opposition? He ignores the concerns of constituents, which is the point. We have the right to express our views to him regardless of his immature attitude. All citizens of the 56th district should be concerned about delegates who are unwilling to communicate with the public they serve.

This should be disturbing to everyone, even Braswell who actively and passively advocates McGuires abuse of First Amendment rights instead of performing an intervention to overcome those feelings of inadequacy.

More important is McGuires intimidation and bullying to prevent the publics right of access to his office. Supposedly, he took another oath to uphold the Constitution when he became delegate, but probably had his fingers crossed. If he cant perform his service to the public, why is he in office?

Why shouldnt he answer questions? Why shouldnt he be held accountable? Whenever the people of the 56th district want answers, his approach seems to be to bunker down. He cant even set up a venue where everyone is comfortable the cause for that discomfort shows itself with his Facebook rants. All his ranting seems to be the overall political strategy of his party. If we could get a coherent post from McGuire, it would help.

Right now, with all his campaigning and overall lack of communication skills, he only displays limited ability to grasp complex and comprehensive issues that are necessary for public safety. His narrow scope belies the broader perspective he cant cope with.

The United States Supreme Court decided that Trumps attempts to block citizens from his Twitter account because they didnt praise him enough, or at all, are unconstitutional. It decided that a public officials social media account cannot be used as a propaganda tool and only allow access to the party faithful for comments. This decision also applies to McGuires Facebook page.

It must be that McGuire has that same sensitivity to criticism as too many of his colleagues.

For all the glorification of military service as justification for public service, Braswell made me think of a military phrase that can be applied to McGuire. As paraphrased: Cowardice in the face of constituents!

More:
Read the First Amendment | Letters To The Editor - The Central Virginian

Editorial: Criminal justice system needs to be reformed in regard to peaceful protests.

The First Amendment right to peacefully protest is in jeopardy in Jacksonville.

This became apparent following reporting by Andrew Pantazi of the Times-Union about recent protests that revealed:

About 50 arrests for unlawful assembly or resisting arrest were so questionable that the Office of State Attorney refused to prosecute them. Sheriff Mike Williams insisted the arrests were appropriate.

Many of these same arrested people were forced to plead guilty or pay bail rather than be released on their own recognizance. In effect, they were treated as if they were presumed guilty.

And this comes before the Republican National Convention comes here in August during the 60th anniversary of Axe Handle Saturday in which peaceful protesters were attacked by white extremists.

One of the issues involves a vague Florida statute for unlawful assembly. It refers to three or more people committing a breach of the peace or other unlawful act. This is a second-degree misdemeanor.

There is a separate statute for riots. There is a clear distinction between rioting and peaceful protests. Police should stop a riot but they should not arbitrarily shut down a peaceful protest.

As reported by Pantazi, a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of four protesters calls for the following prohibitions for the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office:

Peaceful protests should not be shut down unless there is a clear danger to public safety and after police have tried other crowd control measures.

No more arrests for failing to comply with officers unless the orders are clear, specific and give protesters a chance to comply. Several people were arrested while they were trying to leave the protest area.

No more use of chemical agents unless it is a last resort to maintain the peace, and they should not be used indiscriminately at a crowd.

Those are common-sense recommendations that should already be in force.

But these were only the first examples of injustices. The second examples came when peaceful protesters were arrested.

Cookie cutter injustice

Some people arrested for unlawful assembly encountered an unfair system that treats accused people as if they are guilty and gives people with money advantages over the poor.

For misdemeanors, there should be a preference for releasing people on their own recognizance instead of putting them in jail, especially when the pandemic gives society a reason not to pack people in confined spaces.

Jailing people before trial causes a ripple of effects on the presumably innocent people and their families. They lose income and perhaps a job while incarcerated.

Jail ought to be saved for people who are a clear threat to society or a risk of fleeing before trial.

In fact, while more people have been released from jail in recent months during the pandemic, public safety has not been harmed.

A better option than jailing people before trial is providing them with services to help address the root causes that led them to crime. Florida's pretrial services have been slashed, reported the Florida Phoenix, while the state of New York provides pretrial services to almost 2,000 people per year. Those services include mental health, substance abuse and job assistance. Those services cost money but often cost less than jail.

In Florida, funding for rehabilitation within the state prison has been minimal.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of those arrested for unlawful assembly were required to post bond before being released. What's worse, Judge Michael Bateh doubled or tripled the standard amount in some cases without giving a reason for it, Pantazi reported.

In a transcript of first appearance court, Bateh offered most defendants a cookie-cutter deal: a guilty plea and five days in jail or pay a bond for misdemeanor charges.

This contrasts with Bateh's written statement to the Times-Union Editorial Board when he was running for office: "Most individuals who come before the county courts may be having their first experience with the criminal justice system. Individuals appearing before the courts want justices who are patient, who listen to both sides of the case and who will be conscientious in making their decisions and following the law that applies to their case.

"I would ensure that everyone will be treated fairly, respectfully and given an opportunity to adjudicate their case. ... Although litigants may not always agree with my ruling, they will understand how I got to my decision."

Bateh broke his promise to the voters. He failed to explain his decisions. By offering most first-time offenders either a guilty plea or a bond payment he showed poor listening skills. That showed no respect for the individuals but instead was an impersonal form of justice.

Let's be clear. The people we are referring to were not accused of violence. They were not rioters, they were peaceful protesters.

Major reforms are needed

This unjust bail system is not unique to Bateh, it is part of a bad tradition in Jacksonville in which releasing people on their own recognizance is given a low priority. This needs to change, which will require great effort given the longtime local precedent.

The citizens should expect that the criminal justice system will consider individuals accused of crimes on an individual basis. The system should be able to differentiate between those who are rioting from those who are expressing their First Amendment right to peacefully protest.

The sheriff, state attorney, public defender and chief judge need to join forces and give accused people their proper rights to be freed on their recognizance when justified.

In contrast, in the recent case of a person accused of ramming a police car, a high bond is justified.

But in a case of a first-time misdemeanor offender who is no flight risk, then being released without paying bail is entirely justified.

Reforms to the system should be obvious but history shows that the inertia of a precedent, even a bad one, can be a powerful barrier against reform.

Jacksonville has a progressive group of leaders. For instance, they have aggressively increased the use of civil citations for juveniles through a collaborative approach.

If no action is taken, then it would be appropriate for City Council to hold hearings and press for reforms.

It's time for changes. Our local criminal justice leaders are capable of making them.

Read more from the original source:
First Amendment right to protest is in jeopardy in Jacksonville - The Florida Times-Union

At the coronavirus task force briefing Friday, Vice President Mike Pence was asked a question about why the Trump campaign held a rally in Tulsa, Okla., against the advice of local health officials. He responded by citing the First Amendment.

- On the campaign, it really does sound though like you're saying do as we say, not as we do. You're telling people to listen to local officials, but in Tulsa you defied local health officials to have an event that even though you say it didn't result in a spike, dozens of Secret Service agents, dozens of campaign staffers are now quarantined after positive tests. And then in Arizona, one of the hardest-hit states, you packed a church with young people who weren't wearing masks. So how can you say that the campaign is not part of the problem that Dr. Fauci laid out?

MIKE PENCE: Well, I want to remind you again that the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States. And even in a health crisis, the American people don't forfeit our constitutional rights. And working with state officials, as we did in Oklahoma and as we did in Arizona, we're creating settings where people can choose to participate in the political process, and we'll continue to do that.

I think it's I think it's really important that we recognize how important-- how important freedom and personal responsibility are to this entire equation but allowing younger Americans--

- [INAUDIBLE] freedom [INAUDIBLE].

MIKE PENCE: --allowing younger Americans to understand, particularly in the counties that are most impacted. The unique challenges that we're facing in their age group we think is important.

Originally posted here:
Pence says First Amendment is why Trump campaign held Tulsa rally despite local health officials' warnings - Yahoo News

The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that a Montanaprogram that excluded religious schools from a student aidinitiative violates religious freedoms protected under the U.S. Constitution.

The 5-4 majority decision, which fell along ideological lines, said that by making state-backed private school scholarships off-limits to parochial schools, the program ran afoul of First Amendment protections for the free exercise of religion, which prohibits the government from treating religious and secular groups differently.

A state need not subsidize private education, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.

The courts four more liberal justices dissented.

At the center of the dispute is a 2015 tax credit program the Montana legislature passed to promote school choice. Under the plan, taxpayers could receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit by donating up to $150 to organizations that used the donations to award student scholarships to private schools.

But the program clashed with the so-called no aid provision of Montanas state Constitution. That clause makes it illegal for government entities to give any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies to religious organizations.

In 2018, the Montana Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that the tax creditscheme violated the no-aid provision and struck down the entire scholarship program. This prompted several Montana parents of Christian school students to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the ruling violated the First Amendments free exercise clause.

Updated at 10:52 a.m.

The rest is here:
Supreme Court hands win to religious schools | TheHill - The Hill

CRAIG ALEXANDER, Dana Point

Ms. Lisa Lynchs request to ban political flags and banners (To Whom It May Concern at The Dana Point Harbor) forgets one vital issue: We live in a Democratic Republic.

One of the values we hold dear in this Republic is freedom of speech or expressionthat includes political speech, even if it is divisive and hurts the feelings of some people who view it. Ms. Lynchs bias is quickly revealed by her attack on all things Donald Trump. I wonder if she would find it equally offensive if a flag on a boat said Biden 2020 or Jesus Saves or TGIF or Merry Christmas or any number of other ideas that might be expressed.

When I drive by a car with a Feel the Bern bumper sticker, I ardently do not agree with the persons support of Senator Bernie Sanders and his policy proposals. But I would defend that persons right to display his support of Sanders publicly. I am glad the sheriffs department does not have a politically correct department going around and telling us what we can and cannot display on our yards, boats and cars.

The First Amendment right of freedom of expression does not have a divisive footnote to it. Ms. Lynch should remember that people cherish the right to express their opinions and those who view those opinions need to cherish and defend the right of that expression even if it is not one they share.

As for her neighborhood association banning political flags and signsdepending on the specific facts and circumstancesthat may be illegal (California Civil Code section 4710.)

Continue reading here:
Letter to the Editor: Remember and Defend the First Amendment - Dana Point Times