Category Archives: First Amendment

High profile Wilmington attorney demands that Governor Carney lifts restrictions onreligious worshipping.

Today, in a six-page demand letter from its attorneys, the Committee To Save Christmas demanded that Governor Carney stop his illegal discrimination against religious worship, as well as peaceable protests by the faith community.

Declaring that fear of imprisonment prevented Christians from attending Church services on Easter Sunday, April 12, 2020, the Committee noted that Carney criminalized the communal celebration of Easter and barred citizens from gathering in their churches for this most holy day of the year. This must never happen again. With eight months now remaining before the communal celebration of Christmas, now is the time for Carney to take proper steps to allow religious worship inside churches, synagogues, and mosques, provided social distancing and other generally applicable health related precautions are responsibly practiced by the religious congregations. Otherwise, Christmas this year also will be criminalized here in Delaware.

More specifically, Carneys orders allow secular activities but not religious worship activities. Grocery stores, law firms, laundromats, liquor stores, and landscaping businesses, among others, continue to operate so long as they follow social distancing and other health-related precautions. But Carneys Orders do not permit soul-sustaining group services of faith organizations, even if the groups adhere to all the public health guidelines required of the other services. Under his Orders, a person can go out to a liquor store to buy beer but cannot go out to their church to worship God. Such a distinction cannot stand, because if beer is essential, so is Christmas.

While Carneys emergency Orders, criminalizing Easter worship and services within the walls of church sanctuaries, can be viewed as an honest mistake, the Committee urged him to correct that mistake and ensure it is not repeated in the future. Provided churches practice the generally applicable social distancing requirements, religious service attendance must be permitted, it demanded.

While the state has an obvious interest in preventing the spread of infectious disease, its restrictions of the fundamental right to communal worship must be the least restrictive means practically available. And, if the state permits social interaction for commercial or other purposes, as occurred here in Delaware, but denies similar social interaction for religious exercise, this is not using the least restrictive means to regulate First Amendment-protected activity and Carneys Orders are illegal, unconstitutional and cry out for correction.

As one federal court recently held If social distancing is good enough for Home Depot and Kroger, it is good enough for in-person religious services which, unlike the foregoing, benefit from constitutional protection. Tabernacle Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, F.Supp.3d , 2020 WL 2305307, at *5 (E.D. Ky. May 8, 2020).

The time of emergency is coming to an end, and there are many months to thoughtfully prepare for a Fall surge of the virus. But the illegal hurried infringements of vital constitutional freedoms will remain on the books as precedents unless these past errors are corrected to return to the normal before this crisis arose. Absent those corrections being made the Committee expects legal action would be taken in federal court to prevent the repeat of the discriminatory mistakes of the past.

Read The Letter Here 2020_05_13_Carney demand letter signed

Read more:
Neuberger Demands That Carney Lift Restrictions On Worshipping Now - First State Update

Submitted by William Elder.

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, wrote James Madison.

Strong clear words. Words often twisted to serve one political cause or another. These days it is the vociferous far right of the Republican Party, often religious conservatives. Religion, even their Protestant evangelical version of it, is alive and well in todays America, no fear except fear itself, as one President put it

Less clear is the jumbling together of freedom of speech, press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. Each could have used its own separate mention, clarification.

The press, reporting as best it can against the administrations all-out attempts to control, silence, or distort its factual examination of our shortcomings, is grappling with the right wings antipathy to fact itself, the truth regarding its failures and misgovernance, the gross incompetence of its leaders, especially top down.

The freedom of speech part, so bantered about by every side of every argument, forgets one key and vital right implied therein, though not implicitly stated: That implied right is: For your speech, however heartfelt, has the concomitant right to be ignored by all thoughtful men and women: We hear you; we understand; we choose to ignore your comments; we thank you! Next!

Petition(ing) the Government for a redress of grievances good or ill, substantive or frivolous if they were shingles they would keep us all dry for a thousand years, with a money-back guarantee for five hundred more! No Constitutional worry there.

This First Amendment is but one of the strong pillars driven into our political landscape by our Founders, not at the time of their Constitutional deliberations but forced upon them, as a required afterthought, an extended measure of not merely our structure of governance, but our invite to humanity come participate equally in it.

Related

Read the rest here:
The First Amendment To the Constitution of The United States of America - The Suburban Times

Would mandating public exposure of Russian hostile information operations in the United States violate the Constitutions First Amendment guarantee of free speech? At first glance, the question seems absurd how would the Bill of Rights protect Russian intelligence and propaganda operations?

But the issue arises because Russian messages aimed at American audiences may include comments from American sources, raising concerns that exposure would imply that the original authors of the content are part of a Russian disinformation campaign.

This could have a chilling effect on the original American authors right to free speech. They might be branded as fellow travelers a derogatory label from the Cold War or at the very least, useful idiots a term sometimes attributed to Lenin to describe nave individuals who were susceptible to Communist propaganda.

Neither label applies here. Unlike the early days of the Russian Revolution or Cold War era, todays Russian propagandists are not seeking to advance Communist ideology, but rather are intended to weaken its perceived foes. The American authors they cite are not advancing or defending Russian causes.

Russias hostile information operations are continuous and extend to a broad range of domestic issues. Russia aims to create confusion, foment distrust of all institutions, and deepen discord on just about every contentious topic, including national debates on race, immigration, policing gun control, and other issues. Russian efforts seek to amplify extreme positions, often magnifying dissonance and aggravating divisions by promoting the polar expressions of both sides of the issue. This is where domestic content is used.

The First Amendment issue recently came up in continuing discussions among participants in a workshop on Russias Weapons of Mass Deception that examined the threat of hostile Russian information operations and possible countermeasures. This was not new territory for them.

Most had long firsthand experience in this area. They had served in the White House, the State Department, United States Information Agency, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, as well as independent research centers under both Republican and Democratic administrations. They pointed out that the United States has a long history of countering Soviet and Russian disinformation, propaganda, and other influence operations targeting the West.

Among the options discussed, one of the most useful and least controversial countermeasures to Russian influence operations is public exposure. The public has a right to know what the Russians are doing, how they are doing it, and the scale of their activities. Current efforts contribute to awareness of Russian information operations but do not ensure public disclosure.

Exposure is not censorship. It does not prevent or regulate speech. It could be achieved by legally requiring self-disclosure, by mandating government exposure of foreign information operations, or by a combination of the two mandatory self-disclosure of Russian efforts and exposure of those Russian actors who do not comply.

Ample precedents exist for mandating transparency and limiting foreign interference. Persons and organizations operating in the United States on behalf of foreign governments must register as foreign agents. This law was passed in 1938 to preclude censorship.

The constitutional guarantee of free speech is generally considered also to include the right of Americans to receive speech from foreign speakers, including hostile governments. Imposing a disclosure requirement does not prevent this; it enables the public to evaluate the material better.

Other examples of the disclosure include campaign financing, the sponsors of political ads, and the routine voluntary practice by newspapers to label sponsored inserts that are paid for by foreign governments.

The United States rarely shuts down foreign news broadcasting in this country, even though the broadcasts may offer alternate viewpoints or criticism of U.S. policies.

However, the U.S. government has required RT and Sputnik, which are funded by the Russian government, and CGTN, which is funded by the government of China to register as foreign agents. This is not because of foreign-government funding, but because of a judgment that, unlike the BBC and the other foreign broadcasters, these three are responsive to current foreign-government policy goals. They are not independent.

This does not mean they cannot operate in the United States. Indeed, a Midwest radio broadcaster transmits Sputnik news daily. They must identify themselves.

While discussants were comfortable with the government exposing foreign information campaigns, they did not want to see exposure become a means of belittling or vilifying Americans whose content might be repeated in part or in whole, correctly or out of context, by Russian operators. Close oversight of any effort could be required to ensure that selective exposure is not abused to support political agendas. All of the respondents are mindful of the current partisan environment.

The lack of any effective American response could encourage Russia as well as other adversaries of the United States to continue or escalate their campaigns. Exposing Russian activities is a matter of policy and politics, not the Constitution or the law.

First Amendment concerns are important, but they do not protect hostile information campaigns by foreign actors, nor are they a legal excuse for inaction by the United States.

Brian Michael Jenkins is a senior adviser to the president of the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.

See the article here:
Exposing Russian information operations does not violate the First Amendment | TheHill - The Hill

Under FCC regulations, political calls can be made to residential numbers. But, the commission argues, cellphones present different privacy interests, and robocalls to them are much more intrusive. At the same time, the number of households that dont have landlines is exploding, so the ability to call landlines is less valuable than it was.

After the 2015 amendment was enacted, the AAPC brought a suit in a federal court in North Carolina, asking the court to strike down the entire robocall ban. Its argument deployed one of the most powerful and elusive concepts in First Amendment law: the idea of a content-based restriction on speech.

Content basis as a legal category originated with a 1972 case called Police Department of the City of Chicago v. Mosley, a challenge to a Chicago ordinance that banned picketing within 150 feet of a schoolunless the picketing was part of a labor dispute. The Supreme Court unanimously struck down the ordinance; in an opinion for seven justices, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote, Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.

Garrett Epps: The important First Amendment principle now at risk

Since Mosley, the Court has evolved a rule: A content-based restriction on speech is presumptively invalid. This rule would be more useful if it defined what content-based means. For years after Mosley, it seemed to be a useful shorthand for two ideas: subject-matter-based and viewpoint-based. Government can sometimes regulate speech because of what its aboutfor example, it can restrict the office mailboxes of its employees to documents concerning business. Usually, however, it cannot, and it can virtually never restrict speech because it disapproves of the speechs point of view. Thus, a 1988 case, Boos v. Barry, struck down a District of Columbia ordinance that banned any demonstration or sign near a foreign embassyif the demonstration or sign criticized that foreign government.

Viewed this way, the notion of content-based was useful. But the ambiguity of the wording opened it up to play a role in the remarkable evolution of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Kennedy, for all his endearing traits, was not a subtle thinker. In fact, his jurisprudence calls to mind an ungenerous comment by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. about his colleague Justice John Marshall Harlan. Holmes compared Harlans intellect to a powerful vise the jaws of which couldnt be got nearer than two inches to each other.

As early as 1991, Kennedy was signaling that he believed the First Amendment was in essence absolute, no matter how important the interest the government was protecting. Unless the law fell into one of the few categories of unprotected speechdefamation, for example, or incitement to lawless actionthe government could not regulate it at all, regardless of how urgent the need. Even a law that passed strict scrutiny, he wrote in a separate opinion in a case called Simon & Schuster v. Members of New York State Crime Victims Board, should fall, for resort to the test might be read as a concession that States may censor speech whenever they believe there is a compelling justification for doing so.

See the original post:
The Supreme Court Could Use the First Amendment to Unleash a Robocall Nightmare - The Atlantic

Divorcing couples have a First Amendment right to disparage each other on social media even if probate judges are worried the bitterness will impact the mental health of children caught between their warring parents, the states highest court has ruled.

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court said free speech rights were wrongly curtailed by a non-disparagement order forbidding the husband or wife from posting about the divorce on Facebook and other social media sites until their child turned 14. At the time the order was issued, the child was a toddler, the SJC said.

We conclude that the nondisparagement orders at issue here operate as an impermissible prior restraint on speech, the SJC ruled. The judge put careful thought into his orders in an effort to protect a child caught in the middle of a legal dispute who was unable to advocate for himself[but since] there was no showing of an exceptional circumstance that would justify the imposition of a prior restraint, the nondisparagement orders issued here are unconstitutional.

The social media ban was crafted by two Norfolk Probate and Family Court judges arising from the divorce between Ronnie Shakand his former wife, Masha M. Shak, who had one son born in 2017 during their 15-month marriage, records show.

In 2018, Ronnie Shak made multiple Facebook postings accessed by members of the former couples synagogue, Masha Shaks relatives, and a Facebook group with more than 700 members. The postings accused Masha Shak of wrongly blocking Ronnie Shak from seeing their son, leading Probate and Family Court Judge Virginia Ward to issue a two-paragraph order that banned both from posting any comments, solicitations,solicitations, references or other information regarding this litigation on social media."

Misha Shak sought a contempt citation when Ronnie Shak posted on Facebook after Wards order. Judge George Phelan then took up the matter and issued an 11-page order banning social media postings until the couples son turned 14. Phelan also put the ban on hold so the SJC could review the constitutionality of his decision, which he said he believed was necessary but raised significant legal issues that the top state court must address.

In a 13-page ruling written by Justice Kimberly S. Budd, the SJC said government has very limited authority to stop someone from publicly expressing their views under the First Amendment and Article 16 of the states constitution. Prior restraint is acceptable when harm is immediate and cannot be prevented by any means other than suppressing the free speech rights, the court noted.

But there was no evidence in this case, the court said in the decision issued Thursday.

The potential impact on a childs mental health at some point in the future does not meet that high legal threshold, especially in this case where the child cannot on his own access social media and when no information has been produced showing a current link between Facebook postings and proof of an emotional harm to the child, the court noted.

Budd added: As important as it is to protect a child from the emotional and psychological harm that might follow from one parents use of vulgar or disparaging words about the other, merely reciting that interest is not enough to satisfy the heavy burden of justifying a prior restraint."

The court noted that probate judges - and litigants - may be able to curtail social media postings under other laws, by reaching a mutually agreed upon non-disparagement order, or by civil lawsuits for emotional harm. Judges can also caution the parents their social media postings will impact custody decisions, the SJC said.

But none of the laws are even necessary, the court noted, if the parents recognize whats most important during divorce litigation - their children.

"The best solution would be for parties in divorce and child custody matters to rise above any acrimonious feelings they may have, and, with the well-being of their children paramount in their minds, simply refrain from making disparaging remarks about one another,'' the SJC said.

John R. Ellement can be reached at john.ellement@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @JREbosglobe.

Go here to see the original:
Divorcing couples have First Amendment right to disparage each other on social media, SJC rules - The Boston Globe

I was rereading one of my favorite opinionsJustice Jackson's dissent in U.S. v. Ballard (1944)and I thought I'd pass it along. The defendants were convicted for using the mails to defraud people into joining (for money) the "I Am" movement. The alleged false claims were,

that Guy W. Ballard, now deceased, alias Saint Germain, Jesus, [and] George Washington, had been selected as a divine messenger; and that the words of the alleged divine entity, Saint Germain, would be transmitted to mankind through the medium of Guy W. Ballard;

that [the Ballards], by reason of their alleged high spiritual attainments and righteous conduct, had been selected as divine messengers through which the words of Saint Germain[] would be communicated to mankind under the teachings commonly known as the "I Am" movement;

that [the Ballards] had, by reason of supernatural attainments, the power to heal persons of [incurable] diseases , and had in fact cured hundreds of persons .

The court concluded that it was permissible to convict the (surviving) Ballards based on a showing that they didn't sincerely believe what they were saying, though the jury couldn't consider the truth or falsehood of what they were saying. Justice Jackson dissented:

I should say the defendants have done just that for which they are indicted. If I might agree to their conviction without creating a precedent, I cheerfully would do so. I can see in their teachings nothing but humbug, untainted by any trace of truth. But that does not dispose of the constitutional question whether misrepresentation of religious experience or belief is prosecutable; it rather emphasizes the danger of such prosecutions.

In the first place, as a matter of either practice or philosophy I do not see how we can separate an issue as to what is believed from considerations as to what is believable. The most convincing proof that one believes his statements is to show that they have been true in his experience. Likewise, that one knowingly falsified is best proved by showing that what he said happened never did happen.

How can the Government prove these persons knew something to be false which it cannot prove to be false? If we try religious sincerity severed from religious verity, we isolate the dispute from the very considerations which in common experience provide its most reliable answer.

In the second place, any inquiry into intellectual honesty in religion raises profound psychological problems. [I]t is not theology and ceremonies which keep religion going. Its vitality is in the religious experiences of many people [:] " conversations with the unseen, voices and visions, responses to prayer, changes of heart, deliverances from fear, inflowings of help, assurances of support, whenever certain persons set their own internal attitude in certain appropriate ways."

If religious liberty includes, as it must, the right to communicate such experiences to others, it seems to me an impossible task for juries to separate fancied ones from real ones, dreams from happenings, and hallucinations from true clairvoyance. Such experiences, like some tones and colors, have existence for one, but none at all for another. They cannot be verified to the minds of those whose field of consciousness does not include religious insight. When one comes to trial which turns on any aspect of religious belief or representation, unbelievers among his judges are likely not to understand and are almost certain not to believe him.

And then I do not know what degree of skepticism or disbelief in a religious representation amounts to actionable fraud. Belief in what one may demonstrate to the senses is not faith. All schools of religious thought make enormous assumptions, generally on the basis of revelations authenticated by some sign or miracle. The appeal in such matters is to a very different plane of credulity than is invoked by representations of secular fact in commerce.

Some who profess belief in the Bible read literally what others read as allegory or metaphor, as they read Aesop's fables. Religious symbolism is even used by some with the same mental reservations one has in teaching of Santa Claus or Uncle Sam or Easter bunnies or dispassionate judges. It is hard in matters so mystical to say how literally one is bound to believe the doctrine he teaches and even more difficult to say how far it is reliance upon a teacher's literal belief which induces followers to give him money.

If the members of the ["I Am"] sect get comfort from the celestial guidance of their "Saint Germain," however doubtful it seems to me, it is hard to say that they do not get what they pay for. Scores of sects flourish in this country by teaching what to me are queer notions. It is plain that there is wide variety in American religious taste. The Ballards are not alone in catering to it with a pretty dubious product.

The chief wrong which false prophets do to their following is not financial. The collections aggregate a tempting total, but individual payments are not ruinous. I doubt if the vigilance of the law is equal to making money stick by over-credulous people.

But the real harm is on the mental and spiritual plane. There are those who hunger and thirst after higher values which they feel wanting in their humdrum lives. They live in mental confusion or moral anarchy and seek vaguely for truth and beauty and moral support. When they are deluded and then disillusioned, cynicism and confusion follow.

The wrong of these things, as I see it, is not in the money the victims part with half so much as in the mental and spiritual poison they get. But that is precisely the thing the Constitution put beyond the reach of the prosecutor, for the price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.

I do not doubt that religious leaders may be convicted of fraud for making false representations on matters other than faith or experience, as for example if one represents that funds are being used to construct a church when in fact they are being used for personal purposes. But that is not this case, which reaches into wholly dangerous ground.

When does less than full belief in a professed credo become actionable fraud if one is soliciting gifts or legacies? Such inquiries may discomfort orthodox as well as unconventional religious teachers, for even the most regular of them are sometimes accused of taking their orthodoxy with a grain of salt. I would dismiss the indictment and have done with this business of judicially examining other people's faiths.

Originally posted here:
The Price of the First Amendment "Is That We Must Put Up With a Good Deal of Rubbish" - Reason

PRESS RELEASEREGULATED INFORMATION

Paris, 7th May 2020

Availability of the first amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document

Societe Generale informs the public that the first amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document filed on 12th March 2020 under number D-20-0122, has been filed with the French Financial Markets Authority (AMF) on 7th May 2020 under number D-20-0122-A01.

This document is made available to the public, free of charge, in accordance with the conditions provided for by the regulations in force and may be consulted in the Regulated information section of the Companys website (http://www.societegenerale.com/en/measuring-our-performance/information-and-publications/regulated_information) and on the AMFs website.

Press contact:

Corentin Henry _ +33(0)1 58 98 01 75_ corentin.henry@socgen.com

Societe Generale

Societe Generale is one of the leading European financial services groups. Based on a diversified and integrated banking model, the Group combines financial strength and proven expertise in innovation with a strategy of sustainable growth. Committed to the positive transformations of the worlds societies and economies, Societe Generale and its teams seek to build, day after day, together with its clients, a better and sustainable future through responsible and innovative financial solutions.

Active in the real economy for over 150 years, with a solid position in Europe and connected to the rest of the world, Societe Generale has over 138,000 members of staff in 62 countries and supports on a daily basis 29 million individual clients, businesses and institutional investors around the world by offering a wide range of advisory services and tailored financial solutions. The Group is built on three complementary core businesses:

Societe Generale is included in the principal socially responsible investment indices: DJSI (World and Europe), FTSE4Good (Global and Europe), Euronext Vigeo (World, Europe and Eurozone), four of the STOXX ESG Leaders indices, and the MSCI Low Carbon Leaders Index. For more information, you can follow us on Twitter @societegenerale or visit our website http://www.societegenerale.com

See the rest here:
Societe Generale: Availability of the first amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document - GlobeNewswire

A federal district court judge hastaughtKansas Gov. Laura Kelly (a Democrat) a valuable lesson:The COVID-19 pandemicdoes not give her the right to suspend the First Amendment right of Kansans to practice their religious beliefs. Several other state and local officials should take heed, too.

Kelly signed a series of executive orders restricting public and private activities due to the COVID-19 crisis. On April 7, she issued Executive Order 20-18, prohibiting mass gatherings of more than 10 people in a confined or enclosed space. Violators were subject to up to a year in prison, a $2,500 fine, or both.

The executive orders exempted 26 types of secular activities and facilities, including bars and restaurants; libraries; shopping malls; retail stores; airports; hotels; child care facilities; manufacturing, processing, and distribution facilities; and office buildings. People could gather there in unlimited numbers as long as they practiced social distancing.

Yet Kelly expressly excluded religious institutions from any such accommodation. Churches, synagogues, and mosques were categorically barred from meeting inside their dwellings.

If 50 people sit in a room to talk about real estate deals, no problem. But if someone brings up John the Baptist, call the cops!

On behalf of two churches and their pastors, the Alliance Defending Freedom promptly sued the governor over this blatantly discriminatory policy.

Its court filing noted that an earlier executive orderdidhave an exemption for religious gatherings, as long as attendees followed the appropriate social distancing rules, because religious or faith-based services or activities were considered an essential function.

On April 18, federal Judge John Broomes issued a temporary restraining order against Kelly, finding that the churches were likely to prevail on their claim that her order violated the First Amendment rights of their parishioners to freely exercise their religion, including their right to attend worship services in their respective church facilities.

He brushed aside Kellys claim that her executive order treated religious institutions no differently than a large swath of both secular and non-secular behavior, noting that the order expressly targeted churches to restrict religious activity. Further, the judge observed, religious gatherings present no unique health risks that could justify such discriminatory treatment.

Kelly also tried to justify her actions by citing a 1905 U.S. Supreme Court decision,Jacobson v. Massachusetts, which involved a state law mandating smallpox vaccinations in the midst of a smallpox epidemic. But Broomes explained that even in such extreme cases as a public health crisis, the police power of the state is not without limits.

Broomes order allowed the churches to meet as long as they followed safety protocols they had voluntarily agreed to. These included making sure their facilities were deep-cleaned before and after any in-person services, social distancing, and having hand sanitizer available for use on-site.

While the two churches were out from under the governors order, Kelly initially vowed to continue to apply her restrictions to all other religious gatherings. However, she may have since gotten a little religion herself. There are nowreportsthat she will issue another executive order that will eliminate her discriminatory restrictions on religious institutions.

On April 27, U.S. Attorney General William Barr sent all U.S. attorneys amemorandumentitled Balancing Public Safety with the Preservation of Civil Rights.

It acknowledged that, in order to stop the spread of a deadly disease, it had been necessary to impose extraordinary restrictions on all of our daily lives. But, Barr added, that does not mean that states can impose unreasonable restrictions violating the constitutional rights and civil liberties of individual citizens.

He specifically noted that the First Amendment and federal statutory law prohibit discrimination against religious institutions and religious believers, and warned that the Justice Department would go after state and local governments that cross the line and go from an appropriate exercise of authority to stop the spread of COVID 19 into an overbearing infringement of constitutional and statutory protections.

Officials such as Kelly are on notice that the Justice Department is now paying attention to what they are doing and may take action. The same goes for other public officials, such as Louisville, Kentucky, Mayor Greg Fischer (another Democrat), whotriedto prohibit drive-in services on Easter Sunday.

Fischer was stopped by federal Judge Justin R. Walker, who said, On Holy Thursday, an American mayor criminalized the communal celebration of Easter. That sentence is one that this Court never expected to see outside the pages of a dystopian novel, or perhaps the pages of The Onion.

Some state and local officials are keen to impose unnecessary and unconstitutional restrictions on congregations who wish to gather together in a safe and responsible manner. Thats as dystopian as it gets. The U.S. Justice Department should do everything it can to preserve our First Amendment rights.

Originally published by the Washington Examiner

Excerpt from:
Governors Can't Suspend the First Amendment - Daily Signal

ONYX is allowed to be open, but cannot have entertainers performing, "even if the entertainers are fully clothed."

HOUSTON Editor's note: The videos in this article are from May 1, 2020.

A Houston strip club lost a legal battle with the city in an attempt to reopen under the guise of being a restaurant only, and not a sexually-oriented business.

Club ONYX's preliminary injunction motion against the city of Houston was denied by a federal judge on Friday, May 8.

Since Club ONYX generates less than 50% of its income from alcohol, it will be allowed to open, but "solely as a restaurant without additional entertainment," according to the court's ruling.

According to court documents, since GA 21 was issued on May 5, ONYX said it "ceased featuring 'nude' entertainment; the dancers are required to wear full tops and full bathing suit bottoms."

Dancers at Onyx Houston were not offering lap dances but were merely providing entertainment from a safe distance, court documents said.

Now, ONYX is allowed to be open, but cannot have entertainers performing, "even if the entertainers are fully clothed," the court order said.

On May 1, Club ONYX was granted a temporary restraining order against the city of Houston by a federal judge, allowing the gentlemen's club to resume operations.

The court said that ONYX "failed to add the State as a party to this action to address the First Amendment and equal protection issues raised by the Governors orders."

In the injunction, ONYX claimed that the city was responsible for violating its right to expression under the First Amendment. The court ruled that the claim was misplaced.

The court said the claim "relates to the orders of the Governor and not the actions the City of Houston. The City of Houston is only responsible for lawfully enforcing the Governors order."

Great news if you watch TV with an antenna

KHOU has just upgraded its technology. If you were unable to receive KHOU with your antenna in the past, try again on channel 11.11. You may have to rescan your channels for it to work if thats the case, weve got some instructions at KHOU.com/antenna. If you already see KHOU on 11.1, you may now ALSO see it on 11.11 its the exact same programming. Were really excited to be able to bring our KHOU 11 News, CBS shows and sports, Wheel of Fortune, Ellenand Great Day Houston to more homes around the area. If youre still having trouble, please contact us here and well try to get you set up.

Link:
Houston strip club allowed to open, but without dancers - KHOU.com

Local resident Regina Dayton speaks to Marco Island City Council on Jan. 21, 2020.(Photo: Omar Rodrguez Ortiz/Staff)

Tworesidents filed alawsuit against the city of Marco Island and City Council ChairpersonErik Brechnitzalleging their first amendment rightswere violated.

Regina L. Dayton and Ray Seward are requestingthe 20th Judicial Circuit courtenter its judgment compelling a declaratory and injunctive relief, punitive damages against all defendants and award of attorneys' fees to plaintiffs.

On Jan. 21, both residents slammed councilor Larry Honig during a councilmeeting after a Naples Daily News reportrevealed he admitted to betheonly person providing content to marcopolitics.com, awebsite targeting council candidates as well as current and former city councilors.

Brechnitzinterrupted Daytonon several instances during her time at the podium.

"My comments are not meant to be in opposition to a person but in support for what is right," Dayton said. "I once voted for Mr. Honig, and there is no denying his intellect nor the hours he devotes to city issues but this is a different matter."

Brechnitzinterrupted Dayton's prepared speech.

"Mrs. Dayton, if it'snot going to be about a specific councilorplease do not name any councilors," Brechnitz said. "This is about policy issues."

"If this is gonna become an attack on someone "

Chairperson of the Marco Island City Council, Erik Brechnitz, requested a motion to approve the 2019-2020 city budget on Sept. 16, 2019.(Photo: Omar Rodrguez Ortiz/Staff)

More: Marco residents, councilor speak up about Honig during City Council meeting

Dayton did not let Brechnitz finish the sentence.

"Oh no, sir," Dayton said."And I think that if you let me finish you'll see that's my intent too."

Dayton continued.

"Clearly, Mr. Honig in his written response to the FEC now admits that he alone wrote the content of the website marcopolitics, which many Marco Islanders found repulsive after repeatedly denying this."

Brechnitz interrupted Dayton again.

"Mrs. Dayton, this sounds like an attack to me," Brechnitz said.

In response, Dayton said it was not meant as an attack.

"It's what it sounds like," Brechnitz said."I dont want you to attack any personal councilor up here. Lets not make it personal."

Dayton then continued uninterrupted for the rest of her speech.

"I was going to ask [...] that all of you consider a vote of no confidence for Mr. Honig because I wanted you to be the collective consciousness of our community," Dayton said.

After her turn at the podium, Dayton spoke with the Eagle about her exchangewith Brechnitz.

"I never anticipated that response from Brechnitz," Dayton said. "If Mr. Honig's statements were considered freedom of speech, this should have been as well."

Local resident Ray Seward speaks to Marco Island City Council on Jan. 21, 2020.(Photo: Omar Rodrguez Ortiz/Staff)

Sewardalso spoke about Honig that night without specifically saying his name.

"Im not here to attack anyone but I was attacked by one individual on this council," Seward said. "I was slanderedand I was lied to."

"I feel I should have the right to confront that individual in public."

After a back and forth with Brechnitz, Seward said the individual should expect a letter from his attorney. He later told the Eagle that the individual he was referring to was Honig.

Dayton told the Eagle on April 22 she was personally hurt after the incident with Brechnitz.

"Both of us were personally hurt.We were shocked. We were embarrassed, but that wasn't our issue," she said."That's done, there is nothing that can take that away."

"But when citizens in our community want to stand before their elected officials and speak the truth and (are) told to sit down and are censored, that's wrong."

Dayton said the purpose of the lawsuit, filed April 3, is to preventother residentsfrom goingthrough a similar experience.

"What's important to me about filing this lawsuit is to ensure [...] that in the future, when others wish to speak to their elected officials, they are given that opportunity," she said.

Dayton also said the lawsuit could have been avoided.

"The hope was that chair Brechnitz would make an outreach to Ray and I and say 'my intentions were well founded [...] but it was wrong,' and we would have moved forward," Dayton said.

"There wouldn't have been no lawsuit."

Dayton was allowed by Brechnitz to "say nearly everything she wanted to say, except naming me in her baseless personal attacks," according to Honig.

"Bear in mind, this is the same person who constantly files self-serving complaints against city staff and other councilors," Honig wrote April 22. "Taxpayers have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct payments as well as legal fees and her complaints are always dismissed as frivolous."

On March 27, 2019, the Federal Election CommissionnotifiedDayton that the complaint she filed against Honigalleging his website violated Florida's election lawswas 'legally insufficient.'

"The redlined editorial contained political analysis, fact-checking, opinion, and name-calling," wrote Tim Vaccaro, the commission'sexecutive director. "However, in my opinion, it did not include anything that would amount to more than free political speech."

"The complaint appears to be based upon hearsay," Vaccaro wrote.

This is not Dayton's first complaint or lawsuit against the city or its councilors.

In 2019, the Florida Bar dismissed Dayton's complaints filed against Councilor Jared Grifoni and City Attorney Alan Gabriel over their conduct in the handling of battery allegations against former City Manager Lee Niblock.

In two separate letters to Dayton, Bar counsel Teresa Goodson wrote that there was insufficient evidence to prove either man had committed any violations of rules governing attorney conduct.

In 2014, the city paid $150,000 to Dayton and her husbandTimothy J. Dayton as part of apair of settlement agreements which concluded their long-standing dispute over the city building departments inspection of the couples home as it was being constructed.

It wasa squabble that found the Daytonsseeking redress through a Collier County Circuit Court lawsuit and multiple administrative complaints filed with the Florida Department of Building and Professional Regulation against the city and its inspectors.

As far as were concerned, this is behind us, said Dayton of the quest she and her husband began in 2007, when they filed the first of their multiple DBPR complaints against Marco and its building officials.

City Manager Mike McNees responded to the Eagle's request for comment but asked that further questions be directed to Alan Gabriel, city attorney.

"I wont have anything to say about the lawsuit while its ongoing, something that would hold true for any such suit," McNees wrote April 22.

Brechnitz did not respond to a request for comment.

Additional reporting by Naples Daily News reporter Devan Patel and correspondent Don Manley.

Omar Rodrguez Ortiz is a community reporter for Naples Daily News and Marco Eagle. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram as@Omar_fromPR, and on Facebook. Support his work by subscribing to Naples Daily News.

Read or Share this story: https://www.marconews.com/story/news/2020/04/30/lawsuit-filed-against-marco-island-alleges-first-amendment-violation/3004029001/

Read more:
Lawsuit filed against Marco Island alleges first amendment violation - Marco News