Category Archives: Free Speech

WASHINGTON, March 26, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, Independent Women's Voice (IWV) announced the launch of the Free Speech Pledge. Signed by elected officials and the American public, the Free Speech Pledge demonstrates their commitment to protecting free speech and the ability of all Americans to speak, protest, and express their opinions publicly.

Early signers of the Free Speech Pledge include Senator Mike Braun (IN) and Representatives Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-05), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01), Ken Buck (CO-04), Michael Burgess (TX-26), Mike Gallagher (WI-08), Nancy Mace (SC-01), Stephanie Bice (OK-05), Tom McClintock (CA-04), Victoria Spartz (IN-05) and Yvette Herrell (NM-02).

Today, freedom of speech is under attack. Efforts to stifle debate and silence dissenters are compounded by cancel culture, a dangerous movement which imposes severe social and economic sanctions on those who express insufficiently woke opinions.

The Pledge lets voters know which lawmakers are committed to using their office to defend Americans' rights to speak freely and protest peacefully, and to ensure that large platforms and services apply their rules consistently and do not engage in viewpoint discrimination against users.

"Freedom of speech must be defended," said Heather R. Higgins, CEO of Independent Women's Voice. "Today, many Americans are afraid to express their beliefs out of fear of retaliation or being 'canceled.' What is happening right now isn't about suppressing hate speech. It'sabout suppressing history, facts, and viewpoints that some self-appointed woke arbiters who are looking to be offended have decreed are damaging and hateful. That's a recipe for a society defined by fear, division, mistrust, intolerance, discrimination, and ultimately violence."

In summer 2020, Cato Institute released a study finding that 62% of Americans "strongly" or "somewhat" agree that "the political climate these days prevents me from saying things I believe because others might find them offensive." According to the study, only "very liberal" Americans feel like they are able to freely express their beliefs.

"This is not how America is supposed to function," Higgins added. "This is not the foundation of a healthy, pro-human, society in which people with different ideas and beliefs civilly debate their positions, actually listen to each other, display charity and forgiveness, and work together in search of common ground."

For more information on the Free Speech Pledge, please visit freespeechpledge.com.

Related links:freespeechpledge.comwww.iwv.org

###

Independent Women's Voice fights for women and families by effectively expanding support among women, independents, and millennials for policy solutions that aren't just well intended, but actually enhance people's freedom, choices, and opportunities.

Contact: Elizabeth Tew [emailprotected]

SOURCE Independent Women's Voice

More:
Free Speech Pledge: Lawmakers and the Public Speak Up for Freedom of Speech - PRNewswire

ON FREE SPEECH: A SOCIETY WITHOUT IT IS NO LONGER FREEIn response to Keith Burris commentary titled Definitely Not For Thee: The piece was well written and truthful. Just as a nation without protected borders is no longer a sovereign nation, a society without free speech is no longer free.

The First Amendment protects all speech, no matter how vulgar or offensive, but there is no constitutional protection for offense. Words do however carry responsibility, such as words spoken with clear intent to cause harm, such as screaming Fire in a crowded venue. Theres also fighting words as defined by the Supreme Court that intentionally solicit a physical response by the victim of abuse or harassment. Theres no such thing as hate speech, there is only speech and the individuals perception of certain speech.

My protected right to free speech cannot be legislated to keep your feelings from getting hurt or your perception to be offended. It says so in the Amendment; Congress (state or federal) shall make no law...

Remember, any legislation that conflicts with the Constitution is not a law, but an Edict, which comes from a King or a Dictator, neither of which represent the people of the country. The people are the Government of the United States, not the elected officials.

FOOD INSECURITY A REAL PROBLEM FOR OLDER TEXANSSo many older Texans who are eligible for SNAP benefits arent enrolled. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has very long and difficult certification requirements, and they are just too daunting. Food insecurity for older Texans is a real problem, and it is associated with increased risks of several health problems. Eligible seniors need this help.

Three bills that have been filed in the legislature deal with this problem: SB 224, HB 701, and HB 1230. I hope our representatives will support these bills.

Excerpt from:
Letters to the Editor: Readers write in on free speech, food insecurity - Tyler Morning Telegraph

HAMPTON The town's selectmen want to regulate street performers at Hampton Beach, even though town counsel is urging them to tread lightly as restrictions on buskers on public sidewalks could open the town up to lawsuits.

The board met with the town attorney last week, directing him along with Hampton Police Chief David Hobbs to continue to work on developing regulations for street performers that will pass legal muster.

Ocean Boulevard attracted a number of performers last summer including dance groups,clowns, guitarists, drummers and even an individual who was juggling chainsaws.

While tourists seemed to like the entertainment, nearby businesses did not, complaining about noise, that they took up too much space, and of safety issues.

Town Attorney Mark Gearreald told selectmen that the courts have ruled that buskers, like panhandlers, on public ways are protected by First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution.He said any regulation that limits those free speech rights could expose the town to civil rights lawsuits.

More: From Faneuil Hall to Hampton Beach: Street performers wow crowds, irk business owners

Im bringing this all to your attention so you can better judge whether or not the effort in developing and enforcing an ordinance is worth the potential benefit (when considering) the potential cost, said Gearreld.

Selectman Richard Sawyer, who recently retired as the towns police chief, agreedthe town should be cautious.

I did a lot of research on this and you are hard-pressed to find a case where somebody sues the government on one of these cases and they dont prevail, Sawyer said. There is a lot of liability to doing it.

Sawyer said last summer was unique in that a portion of Ocean Boulevard was closed off to traffic creating a walking mall. He said a number of street performers, like the YAK hip hop dance crew, came to Hampton because places like Faneuil Hall in Boston were shut down due to the COVID pandemic.

More: Hampton Beach planning 'normal summer' in 2021 without walking mall

Prior to COVID, we didnt have a big issue with street performers, Sawyer said.

With the boulevard open this summer to traffic, Sawyer said he doesnt expect to see the same number of entertainers at the beach as last summer. And if they do return, they would be more likely to set up on the east side sidewalk on Ocean Boulevard, which is on state parks property.

State Parks and Recreation Director Phil Bryce told selectmen two weeks ago they are working on a plan to deal with buskers at the Hampton Beach State Park. He said they intend to require buskers to get a permit to perform and the only place they will be allowed is on the Seashell Stage.

As for the west side sidewalk on Ocean Boulevard, Gearreald said that is also owned by the state but under the jurisdiction of the state Department of Transportation.

Selectman Regina Barnes said if traffic is open on Ocean Boulevard, then all the pedestrian traffic will be on the sidewalks.

There is not going to be any room for these people to set up, Barnes said.

Sawyer said there are state laws on the books already that could help the town in addressing buskers this summer, including the one that says you cant block a sidewalk.

More: Hampton Beach residents want to ban non-resident street parking. Here's why.

But Selectmen Chuck Rage, Jim Waddell and Rusty Bridle said they still want to see something specific to street performers.

I think we want to control it, said Waddell. I think we really have to take action. Most likely they wont come, but what if they do? Lets make sure we've got something in place."

Rage said there was already a busker down at the beach a couple of weeks ago, banging drums.He said he hears about it every day from business owners who want the board to do something.

Bridle said he would like to see Hampton follow suit with Portsmouth and Concord, which have regulations for street performers.

The city of Portsmouth has guidelines for street performers, including that they do not obstruct sidewalks or use amplification or drums. The Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce limits busking to two hours in one location during set times, Monday through Thursday 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. and Friday and Saturday from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Bridle said he doesnt see prohibiting street performers from using amplification or drums as a First Amendment issue.

Until you are in U.S. District Court and you lose, Sawyer said. Nobody looked at the preachers like that.

'Its time to let it go': Hampton Beach waterslide park closing after 35 years

Sawyer was referring to when the town was sued in 2009 by two Christian preachers, who were arrested by Hampton police on disorderly conduct charges for being too loud in singing He Set Me Free using a handmade, paper megaphone during a concert at the Seashell Stage.

The town ended up settling the federal lawsuit. As part of the agreement, the preachers were allowed to preach from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. and allowed to use amplification if it did not exceed 85 decibels from a distance of 65 feet.

Gearreald said whatever the town adopts relating to buskers will be subject to legal challenge.

Waddell said he doesnt understand why the town can force businesses to get a permit for entertainment but cant do the same for people who want to perform in the streets.

Were saying to those people, You run a business, you have to come get a permit for outside entertainment, but you can go on the street and do whatever you want to and youre not supposed to charge, but you can take donations, Waddell said. Its not logical.

More: NH State Parks all in for normal summer at Hampton Beach: What it means for you.

Sawyer didnt disagree.

Im saying the reality is we have to be very careful what we take on in this area because were going to wind up paying out a lot of money in lawyers and settlements, Sawyer said.

Selectmen agreed to have Gearreald and Hobbs explore more options over the next month and revisit the issue in April.

Town Manager Jamie Sullivan told selectmen they will explore it further, but it comes down to whether the board wants to delve into an issue that could cause a risk or liability to the town or not.

See the rest here:
Crackdown of street performers at Hampton Beach could be costly to the town - Seacoastonline.com

As we have seen in our recent discussion of tests employed by the U.S. Supreme Court to determine the parameters of speech afforded protection under the First Amendment, the great dilemma confronting our nation occurs when speech appears to incite serious, unlawful conduct.

Heres the problem, in a nutshell. It is a fundamental premise of democracy that citizens should be able to express their political views, particularly criticisms of governmental acts. Yet, society also has the right to protect itself from the commission of crimes. Criminal conduct, as we know, is punishable under law. But what about speech that encourages or incites people to break the law? At that point, speech assumes the form of conduct. Is that constitutionally protected speech?

In Schenck v. United States (1919), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes introduced the Clear and Present Danger Test and held for the Supreme Court that Schencks flyers, which encouraged people to resist the draft in World War I, were not protected by the First Amendment. Congress, Holmes wrote, has the constitutional power to provide for the common defense, which entails authority to enact both selective service laws and bans on the use of the postal system to undermine the draft. Schencks speech was not protected by the First Amendment since it intended to bring about the substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent.

This standard, as applied by the court over the next 50 years, meant that Congress, as well as state legislatures, could pass laws that suppressed virtually any speech that might be said to pose a Clear and Present Danger. The test made the protection of speech dependent on judicial findings of whether a clear and present danger existed. Judges committed to judicial self-restraint, deferred to the legislatures and, as a consequence, the scope of protection afforded to dissident or radical speech was quite narrow. For roughly half a century, the court ignored the brilliant dissenting opinions of Holmes and Brandeis, who tried to persuade their colleagues that the danger test should incorporate an element of immediacy, so that advocacy by itself shouldnt be suppressed or punished, unless there was no time for speech to counteract speech, as Brandeis expressed it in Whitney v. California (1927) in a concurring opinion that read like a dissent.

Without the element of imminent danger, speech that rankled the majority could be suppressed and punished. Justice Brandeis Whitney opinion finally found support in 1969, when the Supreme Court embraced the requirement of imminence to suppress speech and set forth a new standard for speech protection, one that governs to this today.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court announced that constitutional guarantees of free speech do not permit a state to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

The court thus exiled the Clear and Present Danger Test and provided about as much protection for subversive speech as we are likely to see, unless the justices become absolutists and permit no limitation or regulation of speech. Such a gravity-defying leap is unfathomable in a constitutional system in which all rights, like all powers, are subject to some degree of regulation.

Constitutional protection for subversive speech provides comfort so long as the speech is expressed on a street corner and there is little likelihood that the speech will incite widespread violence or rebellion. But when speech is intended to incite violence against institutions of government, for example, whether expressed by an ordinary citizen, a senator or a president, then the question of the degree of protection granted to such a speaker becomes much more complicated.

Adler is president of The Alturas Institute, created to advance American Democracy through promotion of the Constitution, civic education, equal protection and gender equality.

Send questions about the Constitution to Dr. Adler at NDWTPColumn@gmail.com and he will attempt to answer them in subsequent columns.

This column is provided by the North Dakota Newspaper Association and Humanities North Dakota.

When Justice Holmes wrote his famous dissent in Abrams v. United States (1919), and reminded Americans that time had upset many fighting faiths, he sought protection for dissident and radical speech because the good sense of the citizenry and its commitment to democracy would ultimately win out. He would be vindicated by the historic demise of communism, and the triumph of democracy over the forces of fascism, in World War II. But what happens if and when Americans forsake the premises, promises, values and principles of constitutional democracy, and all that it entails and protects? What happens to freedom of speech if and when Americas fighting faith in democracy has been abandoned?

Adler is president of The Alturas Institute, created to advance American Democracy through promotion of the Constitution, civic education, equal protection and gender equality.

Send questions about the Constitution to Dr. Adler at NDWTPColumn@gmail.com and he will attempt to answer them in subsequent columns.

This column is provided by the North Dakota Newspaper Association and Humanities North Dakota.

Link:
Protecting freedom of speech | Columnists | willistonherald.com - Williston Daily Herald

By Matthew T. Mangino| Beaver County Times

In 1987, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote in a ruling striking down a Houston ordinance that made it unlawful to oppose or interrupt a police officer, "The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state."

In spite of Justice Brennan's admonition, 34 years after the decision the Kentucky Senate approved a measure that would make it a crime to insult or taunt a police officer.

Senate Bill 211 would make it a misdemeanor offense for someone to taunt "a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person."

The ACLU called the legislation "an extreme bill to stifle dissent."

Kentucky is part of the Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction over federal appeals arising from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.

In 2017, a Taylor, Mich., police officer pulled over a woman for speeding but gave her a ticket for a lesser violation. As the woman drove off she flashed the officer her middle finger flipped him the bird, i.e. shot him the finger. The officer pulled her over a second time and amended the ticket to the more serious speeding offense, reported the Detroit News.

"Fits of rudeness or lack of gratitude may violate the golden rule," Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote. "But that doesn't make them illegal or for that matter punishable or for that matter grounds for a seizure."

Judge Sutton said that, if the allegations are true, the officer violated her right to be free from an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, as well as her free speech rights under the First Amendment.

"Any reasonable officer would know that a citizen who raises her middle finger engages in speech protected by the First Amendment," the court said.

Not that the Kentucky Senate cares there are a series of cases over the last half-century that have found that insulting police officers is protected speech.

The Sixth Circuit found, in 1997, that an individual has a First Amendment right to shout "f--- you" and "flip off" a police officer from a moving vehicle. The court relied on a 1971 landmark Supreme Court decision that upheld the right of a man to wear a jacket that said "f--- the draft" into a courthouse.

In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of a New York man who sued after he was arrested for disorderly conduct after making an obscene gesture to a police officer. The court held that the "ancient gesture of insult is not the basis for a reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or impending criminal activity."

Even without a statute prohibiting the insult of police officers, more and more police departments are getting creative. In Pennsylvania, the police are using the state's hate crime statute "ethnic intimidation" defined as "malicious intention toward the race, color, religion or national origin of another individual or group of individuals" against people who direct insults toward the police.

According to The Appeal, a Pittsburgh man being arrested called police "Nazis," "skinheads" and "Gestapo." The police charged him with a hate crime.

"This is completely ridiculous," Mary Catherine Roper, deputy legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, told The Appeal in 2018. "This is not what the hate crime statute was for. This is criminalizing pure speech and that violates the First Amendment."

In deference to Kentuckians, not everyone is on board in the state Senate. Minority Leader Morgan McGarvey told the Lexington Herald-Leader, "We are criminalizing speech."

Matthew T. Mangino is a counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. He is a former Lawrence County district attorney. His book "The Executioner's Toll, 2010" was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at http://www.mattmangino.comand follow him on Twitter at @MatthewTMangino.

Read more from the original source:
Matthew T. Mangino: Kentucky wants to criminalize free speech - The Times

WHICH is worse, a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed or hacking off an innocent teachers head?

The question from talkRADIO host Julia Hartley-Brewer scarcely needed a seconds thought.

5

For Muslim charity worker Mohammad Sajad Hussain last week it was debatable.

Hussain had just publicly named and seriously endangered the Batley schoolteacher who showed the cartoon during a lesson covering blasphemy. Some might call it a fatwa.

It is likely Hussain would have known the shocking fate of French schoolmaster Samuel Paty, slaughtered in the street near Paris just six months ago for showing pupils a similar cartoon.

He too was named online. His killer tracked him down and filmed himself waving the severed head.

Hussains on-air hesitation reveals the shocking cultural gulf between Muslim hard-liners, the British public and members of his own faith.

It has reopened a row over free speech and the explosion of dubious laws against so-called hate crimes.

Offence needs merely to be taken by an alleged victim or even an uninvolved observer for hate crime to be committed. This turns justice on its head.

The popular 29-year-old West Yorkshire teacher had gone out of his way to avoid offence, giving notice of his plan to display the image.

5

5

Yet his career is in ruins despite his apology and support from pupils and parents, many of them Muslim.

One Muslim dad wrote: I would like to convey my support for the school and also the teacher. I am confident the teacher did not mean any offence.

A petition backing the rugby-playing family man has been signed by 50,000 people.

At the centre of the row is an image of the founder of Islam as a terrorist deeply offensive to Muslims who bar all images of the Prophet.

Staff at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo learned this the hard way, gunned down for publishing a similar cartoon in 2015.

This time, the image was shown during a lesson on blasphemy, part of the school curriculum. Other teachers had produced it previously without incident.

Angry protestors, parents and a local imam turned up at the school gates demanding, figuratively, the teachers head, saying he should be sacked on the spot.

After the Paty atrocity, police feared it might be taken literally and swept the teacher into hiding for his own safety.

5

To his credit, Education Secretary Gavin Williamson has stepped in, denouncing the mob protest as completely unacceptable.

Equalities chief Baroness Kishwer Falkner weighed in, branding the teachers treatment unacceptable and urging police to act. BBC presenter Nicky Campbell slammed the lunacy of blasphemy.

And atheist comic Ricky Gervais tweeted: What next? People being punished for insulting unicorns? Everyone has the right to believe anything they want. And everyone else has the right to find it f***ing ridiculous.

Free speech is no small thing. Without it, democracy dies.

At its heart lies the right to offend a principle which is being extinguished by human rights activists in the divisive culture wars on racism, sexism and gender definition.

Islam, far more than Christianity and Judaism, is an assertive faith. It demands respect from both believers and non-believers.

There have been calls for it to be protected by a specific hate law against Islamaphobia.

The clash with freedom of speech is inevitable. Which will prevail?

Gavin Williamson is planning new legislation to protect universities and schools from woke campaigners and the cancel culture. Staff will be given the right to sue if gagged.

Batley is an absolute test of whether we believe in freedom of speech, says a senior minister involved.

5

Life or death decision

PERHAPS to his own surprise, Tory Europhile and arch-Remainer Tom Tugendhat found himself telling Sun readers this week they were right to vote for Brexit.

Not in so many words of course, but the Tory MP conceded there is one big advantage to leaving the European Union effectively the difference between life and death.

I would be prepared to offer this column space for diehards Michael Heseltine or Ken Clarke to follow suit and say whether they would argue today for Britain to rejoin this undemocratic gang of lethal incompetents.

GIVE US THE JAB, VLADMerkel & Macron 'negotiate with Putin for vaccine' amid more AZ chaos

TIED THE NOTArchbishop confirms he DIDN'T marry Meghan & Harry 3 days before royal wedding

JABS BLITZ WINOver half of Brits have immunity against Covid thanks to vaccine rollout

STONED WRIDEShameless mayor caught driving while high on cannabis refuses to step down

'LIVE IN FEAR'Teacher who broke into neighbours flat 'needed cash to pay a prostitute'

PARK LIFEThousands party night away in parks despite booze ban as Brits enjoy 24C scorcher

If you threaten people aggressively, you win more often than not. It is not always a physical threat. People simply get howled down.

The siege of Batley Grammar School may well be the acid test for Boris Johnsons love of Britains hard-won freedoms.

Headteacher Gary Kibbles instant and unequivocal apology does not offer grounds for optimism.

GOT a story? RING The Sun on 0207 782 4104 or WHATSAPP on 07423720250 or EMAILexclusive@the-sun.co.uk

Continue reading here:
Free speech is no small thing without it, our democracy dies... - The Sun

There were angry protests outside Batley Grammar School in West Yorkshire after a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad was shown in class(Picture: PA)

The RE teacher suspended over a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad reportedly defended his right to freedom of speech in a heated telephone call with a parent.

The teacher, who has not been named,is believed to have told the parent British values allowed him to show the cartoon to his class of year nine students.

Protests erupted outside Bately Grammar School in West Yorkshire on Thursday after it was claimed a cartoon of Muhammad, thought to have previously been published by French satirical magazineCharlie Hebdo, was shown in a religious studies class.

Any depiction of the prophet is deeply offensive to Muslims but some have defended the use of the image using freedom of speech arguments.

According to the Mail Online, the teacher allegedly called an upset father who had left a message with the school asking to speak with him following the incident.

He told the parent that he had warned his pupils that some would find it offensive but his aim was to pose a question to his class.

He believed he was right to show the cartoon as he wanted to discuss whether the cartoonist was to blame or the terrorists who had committed murder over it in France in 2015.

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a webbrowser thatsupports HTML5video

In a group Whatsapp message shared among parents and protesters who have demonstrated outside the school, the father said he was not satisfied with this explanation.

The messages, seen by Mail Online, read: I expressed I was not happy with his actions and he had caused offence to the community. He should have known better, after all these images caused international outrage.

He was not apologetic and was arrogant in his response that what he did was right. He stated that he knew some of the pupils would tell their parents.

The school has apologised for what happened and said the teacher has been suspended pending an independent formal investigation.

The teacher, 29, has allegedly gone into hiding, and has not been seen at his home for several days, according to neighbours.

Protesters say they will continue demonstrating until the teacher is sacked.

But past students and parents have defended him, saying hes been singled out and the image has been used as a resource by different teachers previously, without attracting the same controversy.

One parent told The Times: This was taught last year to my daughter by a different teacher. I know its been taught in other years, in other lessons. Why single this teacher out?

The protests have sparked a major debate in the country, with even the Education Secretary Gavin Williamson weighing in and condemning the threats and intimidation.

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a webbrowser thatsupports HTML5video

Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick also called for the deeply unsettling scenes outside the school to come to an end.

It must be right that a teacher can appropriately show images of the Prophet Muhammad, he told the BBC.

In a free society, we want religions to be taught to children and for children to be able to question and query them.

Meanwhile, a petition to reinstate the teacher has over 44,000 signatures.

The organisers behind the petition claim to be students at the West Yorkshire school.

They said the teacher was trying to educate students about racism and blasphemy and was not racist and did not support the Islamophobic cartoons in any manner.

It added: This has got out of hand and due to this, students have missed out on lessons because of peaceful protestors .

The school was forced to close for the rest of the week after the protests started on Thursday.

A protester speaking on behalf of the Muslim community read out a statement outside of the school on Friday, in which he said: The teachers have breached the position of trust and failed their duty of safeguarding, and this issue must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

We do not accept that the school has taken this issue seriously, given that its taken them four days to merely suspend only one of the teachers involved.

He called on the entire British Muslim community to review the materials being taught in their childrens schools.

Dr Shazad Amin, deputy chair of Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND), said it had been helping several parents liaise with the school.

He said he saw no problem with blasphemy being discussed at the school but said the particular image shown to pupils was deeply offensive and furthered stereotypes and anti-Islamic tropes.

As a result, he said, people in the local community had a right to feel hurt and a right to feel angry but called for them to allow the matter to be properly investigated.

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us atwebnews@metro.co.uk.

For more stories like this,check our news page.

Read more:
Prophet Muhammad cartoon row: Teacher 'defended right to free speech' - Metro.co.uk

LISBON The Ohio Attorney Generals Office has indicated it intends to appeal the recent decision by visiting Judge David E. Stucki to dismiss violations of election law charges against John Gamble.

As a candidate for the county prosecutors office, Gamble had been accused of four counts of complicity to violate Ohios Little Hatch Act, which regulates the participation of civil service employees in partisan politics. Gamble had used photos on his campaign Facebook page, including at least one that pictured him with many law enforcement officers in the county and a caption Pictured here over 500 years of law enforcement experience standing with John Gamble. They have his back in this election because hes had their backs for the last 30 years.

Gamble was a longtime assistant county prosecutor.

Some of the officers were from East Liverpool, which has prospective officers apply by civil service. No charges were filed against the officers, but Gamble was charged with four counts of complicity to violate the Little Hatch Act.

Arguing on behalf of Gamble in early March, his defense attorneys, John Juhasz and Ronald Yarwood, had contended Gamble is not a classified employee and therefore not subject to the regulations of Ohios Little Hatch Act. Additionally, they had noted Gamble is entitled to the constitutional right to freedom of speech as well as associate with others.

Following arguments for and against dismissal, Stucki, a retired judge from Stark County who heard the case in county Municipal Court, had issued a written decision date March 8, which dismissed the complaint against Gamble.

In order for the State of Ohio to restrict/infringe on these individual freedoms, they must show a compelling state interest to do so, Stucki had written in regard to one of his reasons for dismissal. The states interest does not rise to that level herein.

Daniel M. Kasaris, the attorney from the Ohio Attorney Generals Office who had argued for the prosecution of the case, has now filed his intent to have the dismissal of the four misdemeanor charges appealed to the Seventh District Court of Appeals.

In his request, Kasaris said the issues he is asking the appeals court to determine are whether the allegations of violations of the Little Hatch Act were committed and whether by charging Gamble with complicity it violated his First Amendment right to free speech.

Juhasz commented on the case Tuesday, stating they really thought Stuckis decision was the only possible decision that could have been made and he was uncertain what kind of record the Ohio Attorney Generals Office intended to make to try to overturn it.

It will still be interesting to watch, Juhasz said.

djohnson@mojonews.com

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the rest here:
State appeals Gamble decision | News, Sports, Jobs - The Review - The Review

The hallmark of a healthy democracy is civil debate, protest, civic engagement, and an unwavering right to voice ones beliefs even when there is disagreement especially when there is disagreement. Free speech and assembly are fundamental to a functioning democracy. Their placement in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution implies their importance. It comes as a surprise then to see that the Missouri House is poised to pass a bill that would silence the voices of those rising in defense of Black lives by enacting criminal penalties on the right to protest.

Not only that, but it is particularly targeted at protests that we led in St. Louis this past summer as leaders of the protest group #ExpectUS.

We serve in the General Assembly and the United States House of Representatives. Yet, we have been called terrorists, thugs, and monsters for affirming what should be clear: Black lives matter. Theyve always mattered, but time and time again, generation after generation, Black folks have had to take to acts of protest to affirm our humanity and civil rights. Like our ancestors before us, we are both products of mass protests, taking to the streets demanding that our communities be heard and our lives protected. Our protest has always been an act of love.

We have organized together in a protest group that begins each protest with a giant circle of love, people dancing and clapping. A protest group that cares for one another and brings snacks and water for one another. One that is rooted in the Ferguson Uprising and one that continues to grow. In our ranks are public officials, clergy, local leaders, business owners, students, parents, and people of all races and socioeconomic backgrounds. Our protest is an act of love, but it is also a demand that elected leaders do more to ensure we no longer need to take to the streets. To absolve us of the fear that our loved ones will leave home and will not make it safely back. Both of us ran for office because the policies coming out of Jefferson City and Washington, D.C., not only fell short but failed to center the reality on the ground faced by so many people in our community so many people who look like us and share our pain.

SB 26 is a continuation of policies that fail to protect Black and brown communities. It must not pass the Missouri House of Representatives or be signed into law by Gov. Mike Parson. Rather than take up this bill, lawmakers should play a critical role in supporting and encouraging robust speech and protest. Ultimately, what gets lost in the consideration of this anti-democratic, anti-protest legislation is why we protest in the first place.

We protest because the St. Louis Police Department leads the nation in police killings per capita, disproportionately killing Black people. Year after year after year. Weve seen none of our demands met by our government.

We protest because Black lives are not safe in Missouri. They werent safe in 2014 when an officer in Ferguson murdered Mike Brown, Jr. They werent safe in 2015 in Mississippi County when Tory Sanders got lost, ran out of gas, and was effectively tortured to death in a jail cell hours later. They werent safe in 2018 when Black people were 91 percent more likely to be pulled over by the police across the state a number that has increased over the years. They werent safe in 2020 when police killed Donnie Sanders in Kansas City. They have never been safe under the violence of starvation wages that we disproportionately receive wages that must be increased to at least $15.

Some proponents of this legislation have said that it would keep protesters and the general public safe. But silencing dissent cements the status quo. And for Black people in Missouri, there is nothing more dangerous to our livelihoods than the status quo. If public safety is truly at the heart of this legislation, then the Missouri State Legislature must waste no time addressing the series of initiatives protesters and activists have proposed to remedy the cycles of violence that are so rampant in our state and in our communities.

We invite members of the state legislature to engage with us and our communities in a good faith effort to build a better Missouri. We appeal to the fundamental constitutional values of free speech and free assembly as we implore our leaders and Missourians everywhere to reject SB 26 and, instead, focus on building a more robust and inclusive democracy that meets the needs of Black Missourians who are ready and eager for a chance to build strong communities and enact policies that will truly keep our families safe. The right to assemble is the bedrock of any healthy democracy, and it must be protected at all costs, not rolled back.

Rep. Rasheen Aldridge represents HD 78 in the Missouri House; Congresswoman Cori Bush serves Missouris 1st congressional district.

More here:
Opinion: The right to assemble is the bedrock of our democracy Vote NO on SB 26 - The Missouri Times

James Dreier, Guest Columnist Published 5:00 a.m. CT March 22, 2021

I read with interest Rep. Holly Brinks opinion piece, "University of Iowa dean abused his office..." (Feb. 27, 2021). Her claims regarding Critical Race Theoryprompted me to do some brief research about the origins and tenants of the theory and more.

I teach a lecture class at the UI called "Jazz Cultures in America and Abroad" and we look at American history and culture in the U.S. and another country from "abroad" (Brazil this year) through the lens of the regional development of jazz. Since we discuss issues of race, gender, history and culture, I tell my students early on:

When writing papers, I ask them to support any observation or opinion with solid, factual sources.

Rep. Brinks intentional use of phrases like "liberal, elite, professors" is rhetoric that exposes an implicit bias. I am a professor (School of Music), but I actually am critical of some in higher education who can be dogmatic and dismissive of alternative points of view. Although I see this attitude more as an exception than a norm, it should be addressed and confronted. One can make a reasonable argument that this dean was heavy-handed and made poor decisions. I believe in free speech and oppose restrictions, even on those who espouse radical and contrary points of view. People can protest, but ideas should not be "canceled" (with rare exceptions). I believe Rep. Brink and I agree on this. But her argument here leaves me with more questions than answers.

More: Fact check: Did University of Iowa dental students 'abandon' their patients to protest earlier this year?

Rep. Brink equates CRT as "Marxist." As a student of history (according to her bio), Im sure she knows that Marx was concerned and focused on the means of production and the power between workers and the ruling class. His mid-19th century writings were a building block in the push towardan inevitable (in his mind) revolution to change this power structure. Very little about racial issues in his writing that I can see. How is CRT Marxist? Can this claim be backed up?

If we are all about free speech and against "cancel culture," then it has to work both ways. Why cloak theories in false narratives and use inflammatory language? Why try and hide this theory (and other social/historical perspectives) from critical study and review? Why not object on legitimate grounds, with informed ideas and accurate historical perspective from all points of view? This I ask of my students. Should we not expect the same from our taxpayer-funded Iowa elected officials?

James Dreier lives in Iowa City.

Read or Share this story: https://www.press-citizen.com/story/opinion/contributors/guest-editorials/2021/03/22/james-dreier-responds-to-holly-brink-on-free-speech-critical-race-theory-crt-cancel-culture/4641140001/

The rest is here:
If we're all about free speech and opposed to 'cancel culture,' then it has to go both ways - Iowa City Press-Citizen