Category Archives: First Amendment

U.S. history is full of instances where people have taken a stand against what they perceive as excess, overreach, inaction, ineptness, or just plain evil on the part of local, state and/or federal government.

Dean Manning is a reporter at the News Journal.

The nation was founded by just such people, and they added provisions in the U.S. Constitution to ensure future generations would have a legal leg to stand on should they feel the need.

The Constitution guarantees the right for people to peacefully assemble and to speak their minds without fear of reprisal from the government.

Since 1791 when the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, was ratified, courts have found some limitations.

In 1919, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that false speech, such as the familiar Yelling fire in a crowded theater and causing panic, is not protected, unless there is actually a fire.

The ongoing COVID19 pandemic has resulted in pushback from people across multiple states, including Kentucky, who are demanding governors ease the restrictions.

Gov.Andy Beshear instituted restrictions on what businesses may remain open. Main Street in Corbin is a ghost town, while the budding revitalization of downtown Williamsburg has been stopped in its tracks.

One of the final steps was closing state parks, including Cumberland Falls and banning groups of more than 10 people from congregating.

The governor had also ordered that churches not hold in-person services, using online and drive-in options.

When protestors went to the State Capitol in Frankfort, where thousands have gone in the past to voice their anger, the protestors were called out by their fellow citizens.

Among the suggestions was that Gov. Beshear call in the Kentucky State Police to break up the protest.

Im a liveandletlive type of person.

You want to be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, Hindu, Shinto, Sikh, Pagan, other, or none of the above? Preach it!

You love President Trump, or hate President Trump, and want to march down Main Street in Corbin with a sign proclaiming that, or shout it on your Facebook page? Go for it!

You want to abolish the United States and want to join a one-world government, or just start over with whatever utopia you may dream up? More power to you!

And, yes, if you dont like a particular race, creed, color or sexual orientation and want to voice that, I will defend your right to say that without interference from the government, even though I believe it makes you among the worst people there are.

I understand the governor is trying to keep COVID19 from spreading. But just as he can get on his soapbox every day at 5 p.m. and speak to the masses, so those protestors, and, yes, those who agree with him, have the right to gather and voice that.

With the popular opinion on free speech spiraling further and further toward perceived hate speech being banished, the need to stand for free speech is even greater.

Perception is a pendulum. What is accepted speech today, may be hate speech tomorrow and a citizen who stands by while free speech is eroding could very easily find their own views outlawed in the future.

So, while you may not like what the protestors who stood outside the capitol were saying, voicing support for their right to do so is essential, as you may be part of the next group seeking to exercise that same right.

Read this article:
First amendment rights should not be suppressed, even during pandemic The News Journal - The News Journal

Dr. Dan Erickson, who owns several urgent care facilities throughout California and is a specialist in emergency medicine, warned of the collateral damage resulting from the coronavirus outbreak and the stay at home orders, which, he said, only elongates the curve and decreases immune systems, and isnt a good plan and his early warnings on the issue, he said, were silenced.

Erickson made the comments during a Facebook Live broadcast on Thursday night with House Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Andy Biggs, R-AZ, and Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser.

As Im weighing both the collateral damage and the virus, itself damage and saying I think the collateral damage in the state of California far outweighs the actual virus. Californias at about 1,800 deaths today and we have about 40 million people, Dr. Erickson said. Every death is of course terrible, but, again, the influenza also in 2017-2018 had about 60,000 deaths. So some of the early models we saw were predicting 2 million and that didnt exactly occur.

The early decision to keep the country at home, Erickson said, despite not knowing if it was the best decision or not. Initially the rate of diagnosis at his clinic was 6.5 percent, and, after testing 5,213 patients during a two-month period. Erickson then decided to hold a press conference to be transparent after he had tested 50-60 percent of the population in Kern County. The video, which was posted to Youtube, was promptly removed from the platform for what the tech-giant says violates community guidelines.

One model that Erickson said hes been persistently monitoring is in Sweden, where the countrys top epidemiologists, including Anders Tegnell, have taken a different approach to the virus than the U.S. by keeping the economy open and allowing life to stay as normal as possible, which he says is successful and should be looked at as a possible way for our country to reopen. The model, although not initially intended by Swedens epidemiologists, may have also brought about a certain herd immunity to the virus in its population.

The decision to lock down the U.S. was because it was something to do and we were afraid when we watched China, he said. But theres data for handwashing, we have great data for handwashing, but I think we took on a program that didnt have a lot of science to it, I tried it and I toed the line for two months. And then after I had collected all my data, I looked at it, I said, you know, I think theres a better approach.'

Because many states have implemented pauses on elective surgeries, hospitals are being forced to close and/or furlough workers. He also said that the stay at home orders have presented significant tolls on patients mental health. In order to navigate the debate on reopening the country, Erickson advocated for a formation of a physicians COVID alliance for doctors treating patients with the virus on a daily basis to bring what theyre seeing with their own eyes to the publics attention.

Excerpt from:
Urgent Care Doctor Silenced By Youtube Says His First Amendment Rights Have Been Attacked - Sara A. Carter

Audrey S. Whitlock, one of the founders of "ReOpen NC" and an admin of the ReOpen NC Facebook page, a group agitating to end social distancing measures in North Carolina, recently revealed that she tested positive for COVID-19 and was an asymptomatic carrier for who knows how long.

While most people in Whitlock's position might feel horrible, might be worried about who else they may have infected, might walk back some of the bullshit they've been spreading ... she is doing no such thing. In fact, without a hint of regret, Whitlock took to Facebook to claim that requiring her and others with COVID-19 to quarantine themselves is a violation of both their First Amendment rights and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Which, you know, it's not.

Yes, she's literally mad that she's not allowed to go rally for the right for everyone to spread highly communicable diseases just because she's got a highly communicable disease.

Via The Raleigh News & Observer:

"I have been told not to participate in public or private accommodations as requested by the government, and therefore denied my 1st amendment right of freedom of religion," Whitlock wrote. "If I were an essential employee, I would be denied access to my job by my employer and the government, though compensated, those with other communicable diseases are afforded the right to work. It has been insinuated by others that if I go out, I could be arrested for denying a quarantine order. However, the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination by employers, places of public accommodation, and state and local government entities. . Where do we draw the line?"

The line, actually, is very clear. She could Google for the line. Freedom of Religion does not mean the right to attend, in person, a specific church, while one is being quarantined due to having a contagious illness. Whitlock is free to practice her religion at home, by herself, as many are doing right now and as many did even prior to the pandemic.

While the ADA does protect those with communicable diseases, it doesn't cover situations wherein the person with the communicable disease poses a direct threat to other people. In cases like this, people can be quarantined and they can be denied access to certain public accommodations for as long as they are infectious.

Via The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coverage of Contagious Diseases:

Audrey Whitlock may really want to go to her rallies, she might really want to go to church, but it is perfectly legal to prevent her from doing those things that if she poses a threat to others. Despite what she may have been led to believe, she is not actually the only person in the whole entire world. While she may be asymptomatic, while COVID-19 may not have killed her or put her on a ventilator, other people who also exist might not be so lucky. Ms. Whitlock might not care if those people die or get sick, but they might, and therein lies the rub.

The ReOpen NC group has continued holding protests every Tuesday throughout this, and Whitlock has refused to tell the news media whether or not she has attended these rallies. However, screenshots from the ReOpen NC Facebook group posted in the public group Banned From ReOpen NC suggest that she may have been to and posted video from at least one of them.

Nice!

[The Raleigh News & Observer]

Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us! Also if you are buying stuff on Amazon, click this link!

Go here to read the rest:
'ReOpen NC' Founder Has COVID-19, Says It Is Her First Amendment Right To Infect Others - Wonkette

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports that a Florida university has earned the foundation's highest rating for following policies that respect student speech.

To earn a "green light" rating, FIRE's Mary Zoeller says Florida State University revised a vague policy that encouraged students to report on other students, which demonstrated behavior inconsistent with the Seminole creed.

"But now the policy has great First Amendment language, Zoeller reports, that encourages students to express themselves and it states that the university values and embraces free expression."

At the same time, the University of Miami has a "red light" rating for an extremely restrictive IT policy.

"And that 'red light' IT policy bans students from creating language on the social network that is hateful, threatening, vulgar or derogatory, Zoeller says.

That policy is even more relevant now that schools are using online learning and could do so in the fall.

Additionally, the universities of Florida and North Florida previously earned "green light" ratings, according to Zoeller.

Go here to read the rest:
A tale of two universities and one First Amendment - OneNewsNow

President Donald Trump is a menace to the First Amendment.

His hostility to the White House press corps and the non-right-wing news media is well documented.

But while being rude to reporters and reflexively shouting "fake news" are effective tactics to make his base even less inclined to believe anything negative about Trump, they're trivial concerns compared to the speech-chilling lawsuits filed by his reelection campaign against media outlets both big and small.

These petty lawsuits accusing various outlets of libel have little chance of success, but they will drain resources from media organizations who have published or aired opinions and ads that are critical of the president.

And they will serve as warnings to every organization that a deep-pocketed presidential campaign is willing and able to bring the pain.

Trump's reelection campaign has filed suit against CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times for publishing opinion pieces that they claim are libelous.

It "flies in the face of basic First Amendment doctrine," Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a California lawyer who has worked on a number of high-profile free-speech cases, told The New York Times.

He added: "The complaint is attacking opinions where the authors are expressing their views based on widely reported facts."

Put simply, opinions are protected by the First Amendment. Even opinions that aren't 100% based in fact are protected by the First Amendment.

Libel, which requires "actual malice" that a deliberately false statement was published to hurt a person's reputation, is not protected by the First Amendment. And that's a good thing for Trump, because he's been well known to say patently false things about people with the intent of disparaging their reputations.

Trump's latest salvo in his war on free expression is a suit filed by his campaign against the small television station WFJW, a northern Wisconsin NBC affiliate. The station had been airing an ad produced by Priorities USA, one of the largest and well-funded pro-Democratic Party super PACs.

In the ad, titled "Exponential Threat," a series of Trump clips are played over ominous music. Early in the ad, two clips from two different Trump recordings are played back to back: "The coronavirus this is their new hoax."

In reality, Trump never directly called the coronavirus a "hoax." He did regularly downplay the danger it posed, likening it to the flu, and even opined that it would just miraculously disappear. Trump's "hoax" comment was a reference to the Democrats' failed attempt to remove him from office through impeachment.

To Trump, that was a "hoax," just as Democrats' criticism of his administration's response to the then burgeoning crisis was a "hoax." Is that dirty pool, or is that just politics?

"If this is the bar for what is a defamatory campaign ad then the vast majority of campaign ads are defamatory," Ken White, a California civil-liberties lawyer who blogs and tweets under the "Popehat" moniker, told Insider. White added: "Even arguably taking [words] out of context is absolutely routine. It is not a false statement of provable fact."

White says the Trump campaign's allegation of libel is a "nonsense argument" that is "performative" and "doesn't have much of a chance of succeeding in the long term."

But, he adds: "Even when a lawsuit is completely frivolous, it's ruinously expensive to defend. For most individuals and small businesses, it's completely impossible to afford. And even for a relatively moderate-sized business like a TV station, it can destroy it."

White thinks it's not a coincidence that the campaign chose to sue an individual TV station rather than the well-funded super PAC that produced it. He also thinks the fact that they chose Wisconsin, which Trump narrowly won in 2016, was strategic: Wisconsin has no anti-SLAPP law.

SLAPP Is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. They are the lawsuit equivalent of censorship by intimidation. Anti-SLAPP laws which vary from state to state allow defendants to request a motion to dismiss a frivolous suit before it bleeds them financially dry.

To recap: The Trump campaign is ignoring the big-money super PAC and is instead going after a small TV station in a state where there are no protections against bogus lawsuits like this.

These cash-draining suits come at a time when an already struggling industry is bleeding even more jobs as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. And while major corporate media outlets like CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times have the resources to fight such suits, a small Midwestern TV affiliate surely does not.

Should this suit move forward in Wisconsin's legal system, it will send a chill up the spines of any modestly funded media outlet that wants to publish anything even a campaign ad that makes Trump look bad.

This goes beyond "fake news" insults; it is an intimidation tactic by the president designed to bring the media to heel by causing financial ruin in response to coverage he doesn't like.

There was an attempt at anti-SLAPP legislation at the federal level, the SPEAK FREE Act of 2015. While it had bipartisan support of 30 members of Congress, it wasn't enough for the bill to make it out of committee. But this is a worthy law for Congress to take up, because it defends the First Amendment from deep-pocketed bad-faith litigants.

No one, not even Trump, should be able to sue free speech into submission.

Read the original:
The Trump campaign's frivolous lawsuits are next-level threats to the First Amendment - Business Insider - Business Insider

So that was a story with three camps: (1) The 99% of religious leaders who cooperated and took worship online (that wasnt big news), (2) the small number of preachers who rebelled (big story in national media) and (3) government leaders who just wanted to do the right thing and keep people alive.

However, things got more complex during the Easter weekend (for Western churches) and thats what Crossroads host Todd Wilken and I discussed during this weeks podcast (click here to tune that in).

As it turned out, there were FIVE CAMPS in this First Amendment drama and the two that made news seemed to be off the radar of most journalists.

But not all. As Julia Duin noted in a post early last week (Enforcement overkill? Louisville newspaper tries to document the war on Easter), the Courier-Journal team managed, with a few small holes, to cover the mess created by different legal guidelines established by Kentuckys governor and the mayor of Louisville.

Thats where drive-in worship stories emerged as the important legal wrinkle that made an already complex subject even harder to get straight.

Those five camps? They are (1) the 99% of religious leaders who cooperated and took worship online, (2) some religious leaders who (think drive-in worship or drive-thru confessions) who tried to create activities that followed social-distancing standards, (3) a few preachers who rebelled, period, (4) lots of government leaders who established logical laws and tried to be consistent with sacred and secular activities and (5) some politicians who seemed to think drive-in religious events were more dangerous than their secular counterparts.

Say what? Look at the Louisville laws, for example. Why were drive-in worship services with, oh, 100 cars containing people in a big space more dangerous than businesses and food pantry efforts that produced, well, several hundred cars in a parking lot?

Why was if OK for people in cars to bunch up at a drive-thru liquor establishment, but they couldnt part near each other at a church service?

Meanwhile, you had people doing essential things at grocery stores and big-box discount stores that jammed parking lots and then had people (masks and gloves optional) getting out of their cars and going inside. Why was a drive-thru confessional with the priest 10-plus feet away from someone in a car more dangerous than that?

The same clash was happening in a few other places. The Associated Press did a solid piece about what was happening in Mississippi: Justice Department takes churchs side in 1st Amendment suit. Heres the start of that:

WASHINGTON (AP) The Justice Department took the rare step of weighing in on the side of a Mississippi Christian church where local officials had tried to stop Holy Week services broadcast to congregants sitting in their cars in the parking lot.

As the coronavirus pandemic spread, leaders at Temple Baptist Church in Greenville began holdingdrive-in servicesfor their congregation on a short-wave radio frequency from inside an empty church save for the preacher.

Arthur Scott, the 82-year-old pastor, said Tuesday that it was a good compromise for his group, a wonderful way to preach the gospel and still its like they are there, but you cant go out and see them, but you know theyre there.

The federal involvement adds to the rising tension over reconciling religious freedom with public health restrictions designed to fightthe pandemic, disputes that are playing out along the same partisan lines that mark the nations overall divide.

Greenville city leaders argue the services violate stay-at-home orders and could have put peoples lives in jeopardy. Church officials believe they have been singled out for their religion, especially after eight police officers were sent last week to ticket the faithful, $500 apiece, for attending services, including the pastors wife.

This detail was really interesting:

Attorney Ryan Tucker of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the church, says theres a Sonic Drive-In restaurant about 200 yards (180 meters) from the church where patrons are still allowed to roll down their windows and talk.

Ah, but some of those drive-in worshipers might roll down their car windows and raise their hands, singing praises to God. Thats way more dangerous than a drive-thru liquor window or fast-food takeout services. Right?

Heres one more look at the legal nature of this conflict:

The Justice Department argued in the filing that the city appeared to be targeting religious conduct by singling churches out as the only essential service (as designated by the state of Mississippi) that may not operate despite following all Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state recommendations regarding social distancing.

The facts alleged in the complaint strongly suggest that the citys actions target religious conduct, the filing says. If proven, these facts establish a free exercise violation unless the city demonstrates that its actions are neutral and apply generally to nonreligious and religious institutions or satisfies the demanding strict scrutiny standard.

In other words, this is kind of like an equal access laws case. You cant regulate religious activities MORE than you do secular activities with similar methods and circumstances. Government officials cant rule that religion is uniquely dangerous.

Who would have thought wed see First Amendment battles about drive-ins!

Theres much more in the podcast. Please give it a listen and pass it on.

This story isnt over yet, I am sure.

Continue reading here:
New podcast: Who-da thunk it? Drive-in churches are First Amendment battlegrounds - GetReligion

A lawsuit filed Thursday said a patrol sergeant following a sheriff's orders violated a Wisconsin teenager's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by telling her to remove an Instagram post, in which she said she was suffering from COVID-19 symptoms.

The patrol sergeant said he would "start taking people to jail" if the post was not deleted, according to the complaint.

Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) filed the lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of the teenager, identified in the complaint as a student at Westfield Area High School in Marquette County. Patrol Sergeant Cameron Klump and Sheriff Joseph Konrath of the Marquette County Sheriff's Department were both listed as defendants.

"The First Amendment's protection of speech, especially online speech, is as vital as ever during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic," the complaint said. "This case is about preserving the right to share our experiences with each other during this difficult time."

The law firm said the teenager began experiencing respiratory symptoms common among COVID-19 patients after a trip to Florida with her classmates in March. The teenager and her classmates returned home as the coronavirus pandemic began forcing states across the country to shut down. The complaint said she then developed a fever and cough within five days of arriving back home on March 15.

The teenager's parents tried to contact their daughter's teacher to alert other students of her possible COVID-19 symptoms, but their attempts were unsuccessful, the complaint said. In the days that followed, she was briefly hospitalized for her symptoms but ultimately tested negative for the virus, the law firm said.

Doctors told the teenager and her parents that "in their opinion" she "likely had COVID-19, but had missed the window for testing positive," WILL wrote in an April 3 letter to Konrath. The letter went on to say that the family "believed and still believe the doctors' diagnosis."

The teenager returned home after receiving her negative results and posted an update on Instagram that read, "I am finally home after being hospitalized for a day and a half. I am still om [sic] breathing treatment but have beaten the corona virus [sic]. Stay home and be safe."

According to the complaint, Klump arrived at the family's home on March 27 and told the teenager's parents Konrath had received a complaint from her school about the post. Klump said he had direct orders from Konrath to "demand" that she "delete this post," and if she did not, to cite the teen and/or her parents for "disorderly conduct," the complaint said.

Klump said Konrath wanted the post deleted because no cases of COVID-19 had been confirmed in the county at that time, the complaint said. Marquette County confirmed its first COVID-19 cases three days later.

Deputy Counsel Luke Berg, who represents the family, told Newsweek the firm was pursuing a records request with the school to determine who had filed the alleged complaint with the sheriff's department.

"It struck me as a flagrant First Amendment violation," he said of the incident. "The thought that law enforcement would be patrolling social media is terrifying, quite frankly."

Konrath did not respond to Newsweek's request for comment by publication time.

See the original post:
Teenager Who Shared Coronavirus Infection on Instagram Threatened With Arrest By Police, Lawsuit Says - Newsweek

The Atlanta Journal Constitution (Shaddi Abusaid)reports,

Two Carrollton High School seniors were expelled Friday and won't be allowed to graduate after a racist video they posted online went viral.

In a statement, Carrollton City Schools Superintendent Mark Albertus said the students' behavior was unacceptable and "not representative of the district's respect for all people."

The racist behavior observed in the video easily violates this standard," he said. "They are no longer students at Carrollton High School."

The video, initially posted to the social media platform TikTok on Thursday, went viral after showing the two teenagers using the n-word and making disparaging remarks about black people.

The 50-second clip was shared so many times that"Carrollton" was trending on Twitter by Friday morning.

Filmed in a bathroom, the studentsone boy and one girlmimic a cooking show as they pour cups of water into the sink.

"First we have 'black,'" the girl can be heard saying as the boy grabs one cup and pours it in. "Next we have 'don't have a dad.'"

The video sounds appalling, but fully protected by the First Amendment. And while the government has the power to restrict various kinds of speech (disruptive speech, vulgar speech, nonpolitical pro-drug-use speech) at school or in school-sponsored events, I think its broad powers can't be applied 24/7 to all speech that students engage in everywhere (including speech that appears not to be about any other student at the school, involve threats of violence, and the like). And even if off-campus speech can be restricted on the grounds that it causes disruptive effects on campus (e.g., fights when the students come to school)a matter on which lower courts are unsettledDavid Bernstein (InstaPundit) points out that "the schools are closed for the academic year due to Covid-19, and the students are high school seniors."

The title of the post comes from a quote fromTinker v. Des Moines Independent School District(1969), where the Court wrote,

First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

According to the school district, though, even outside "the school environment" with its "special characteristics," nowhere near the "schoolhouse gate," certain kinds of viewpoints can be punished with expulsion and apparently denial of a diploma.

Thanks to Hans Bader for the pointer.

Visit link:
Students Don't "Shed Their Freedom of Speech at the Schoolhouse Gate" - Reason

The president of the Skylands Tea Party said he was threatened with arrest after he planned a protest on the Newton Green in response to Gov. Phil Murphy's executive orders during the coronavirus pandemic.

William Hayden, of Frankford, said he had planned a small gathering Saturday of around 10 to 20 people on the Newton Green in protest, targeting Murphy's stay-at-home directives. The plan was to keep 6 feet apart while live streaming a reading of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which, in essense, calls for the protection against laws that prohibit freedom of speech, religion and the press and the right to assemble and to petition the government. The Newton Green is Sussex Countys only county-owned park.

Hayden knows the coronavirus is serious, stating that his wife, an ICU nurse, sees it first-hand, but notes that Murphy has "taken it upon himself to violate all of our rights."

An avid hiker, Hayden takes particular issue with the closure of county and state parks, noting that as open-air spaces remain closed, popular retailers like Home Depot, Lowes and Walmart are open, allowing more people in tight, enclosed areas.

Murphy ordered parks to close after seeing and receiving reports from state and county officials that people were gathering and failing to abide by social distancing orders. The decision was made in an effort to halt the spread of the novel coronavirus, which as of Friday afternoon had claimed 3,840 lives, including 48 Sussex County residents 26 of whom were clients at the Andover Subacute and Rehabilitation I and II facilities in Andover Township.

But the decision to close parks didn't come without pushback by some Republican lawmakers, including 24th District Assembly members Parker Space and Hal Wirths, who supported the introduction of a resolution by Republican Assemblyman Jay Webber, of Morris County, to reopen the parks. Webber also started an online petition that has, since April 7, garnered over 11,000 signatures.

Hayden said he had obtained a permit in January to host a Patriot's Day event on the Newton Green. The day, held on the third Monday of April each year, commemorates the battles of Lexington and Concord. The coronavirus pandemic forced the cancellation of the event he said.

County officials closed off the Newton Green this week. On Friday, barriers were placed in the park, blocking the entrance points to the Newton Green which is often bustling with people on a workday or even weekend along with caution tape surrounding the perimeter.

Hayden said he has always had a good relationship with Newton Police Chief Robert Osborn, but "the dynamic changed" when they spoke over the phone this week after the chief got wind of Hayden's plans to hold a protest on the Green, which had been posted on social media.

"He told me he would have to arrest me if I went through (with the protest)," Hayden said.

When asked if he was planning on moving the protest elsewhere today, Hayden didn't rule out the idea, stating he "may be doing something."

Osborn decline comment Friday, but instead referred to a statement issued by the Sussex County Prosecutor's Office.

Gregory Mueller, first assistant prosecutor, said Friday his office was advised of Haydens plan, and based on follow up with social media posts, his office responded by issuing a press release.

In the release, Mueller thanked the residents of Sussex County for their "sacrifice, patience and strength" during the ongoing pandemic, noting that their cooperation and adherence to county and state officials along with Murphy's executive orders has "saved many lives in our community."

The statement, in part, continued: "Your commitment in this regard shows your compassion for your fellow neighbor, honors the sacrifice they are making and reduces the danger posed to first responders and health care workers in our county."

"Your actions now, and in the coming weeks," Mueller said, "Could save the life of someone you know or someone you may never meet," the statement ended.

Murphy has echoed similar sentiments in his daily coronavirus briefings, stating that it is essential to stay home and keep with social distancing to flatten the curve.

On Thursday, Murphy stated, "We will get through this unequivocally, not without cost. Look at the lives, the thousands now, of lives we've lost. But we will, New Jersey, get through this together as one extraordinary family, stronger than ever before."

Hayden said that Murphy's executive orders violate the Bill of Rights, a topic that was addressed during a rare interview between Fox News' Tucker Carson and Murphy on Wednesday.

Murphy, in response during the often-heated interview, said he "wasn't thinking of the Bill of Rights" when he issued his March 21 executive order to require New Jersey residents to stay home while banning social gatherings. Instead, Murphy said he looked at "data and science," specifically that "it says people have to stay away from each other."

First Assistant Prosecutor Mueller, when asked his thoughts of the topic, said he was going to respond by quoting a phrase most often attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Hayden said he has plans to attend the Open New Jersey rally that is planned for April 28 at the Trenton War Memorial, the location of Murphys daily coronavirus briefings. The event is expected to include hundreds of people, or more.

Lori Comstock can also be reached on Twitter: @LoriComstockNJH, on Facebook: http://www.Facebook.com/LoriComstockNJH or by phone: 973-383-1194.

See the original post:
Tea Party president says he was threatened with arrest for planning protest on Newton Green - New Jersey Herald

President Donald Trump may have gotten more than he bargained for Friday, when he posted three tweets, just sixteen words in total, that stunned and infuriated the nation and have legal experts weighing in on just how much trouble he could be in.

One, a former U.S. Dept. of Justice official, suggests possibly a lot.

But first, the tweets:

The average Trump supporter might say, So? Or, as Trump has often defended his actions, he has a First Amendment right to say what he wants.

Both are wrong, according to Mary McCord, a former Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the U.S. Department of Justice, and former Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division, according to her bio at Georgetown Law, where she is a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center.

If all thats not enough, McCord currently serves as the Legal Director at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP).

In other words, she knows what shes talking about. And what shes saying, in a just-published Washington Post op-ed, is Trumps actions meet the definition of inciting insurrection, and inciting insurrection is illegal.

President Trump incited insurrection Friday against the duly elected governors of the states of Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia, McCord begins. Just a day after issuing guidance for re-opening America that clearly deferred decision-making to state officials as it must under our Constitutional order the president undercut his own guidance by calling for criminal acts against the governors for not opening fast enough.

The op-eds subtitle notes: Federal law bans advocating the overthrow of government.

Theres a lot more, but she sets up her argument well.

Liberate particularly when its declared by the chief executive of our republic isnt some sort of cheeky throwaway, McCord continues. Its definition is to set at liberty, specifically to free (something, such as a country) from domination by a foreign power. We historically associate it with the armed defeat of hostile forces during war, such as the liberation of Western Europe from Nazi Germanys control during World War II. Just over a year ago, Trump himself announced that the United States has liberated all ISIS-controlled territory in Syria and Iraq.'

In that context, its not at all unreasonable to consider Trumps tweets about liberation as at least tacit encouragement to citizens to take up arms against duly elected state officials of the party opposite his own, in response to sometimes unpopular but legally issued stay-at-home orders.

McCord also says and this is important for the naysaying MAGA KAGs in the back, we cant write these tweets off as just hyperbole or political banter.

And thats why these tweets arent protected free speech. Although generally advocating for the use of force or violation of law is protected (as hard to conceive as that may be when the statements are made by someone in a position of public trust, like the president of the United States), the Supreme Court has previously articulated that where such advocacy is inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action, it loses its First Amendment protection.

Read McCords entire op-ed here.

then let us make a small request. AlterNets journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. Were here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And were proud to say that weve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 yearslonger than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

Its through the generosity of our supporters that were able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone cant pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Go here to read the rest:
Legal expert: Trumps liberate Tweets incite insurrection and thats illegal - AlterNet