Mediaboss Marketing

On July 28, 2020, Plaintiff Women For America First filed a Complaint alleging that Defendants' denial of Plaintiff's request to paint a mural similar to New York City's eight "Black Lives Matter" murals deprived Plaintiff of its First Amendment rights .

The surfaces of public streets are not traditional public fora for the dissemination of private speech. Plaintiff argues that public streets are public fora that "have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum(2009). Plaintiff accordingly concludes that the government must narrowly tailor any content-based restrictions of speech to serve a compelling government interest.

This argument is unavailing. Plaintiff does not seek to congregate and share messages with the public in New York City streets. Plaintiff seeks to paint a message on New York City streets. The United States Supreme Court's characterization of a public street as a place of assembly where citizens can communicate, is undeniably distinct from an endorsement of the use of the face of a streetusually reserved for transportation-related guidanceas a message board for private speech. This conclusion is underscored by Local Law 10-117(a), which prohibits writing, painting and drawing on New York City streets, absent express permission.

As an alternative argument, Plaintiff contends that, by permitting the Murals, Defendants opened up New York City streets as designated public fora and triggered an obligation to permit similar expression of different viewpoints absent a compelling reason for denial. A designated public forum "exists where government property that has not traditionally been regarded as a public forum is intentionally opened up for that purpose." The government, however, does not create a public forumof any variety"by inaction or by permitting limited disclosure." In addition, the government does not create a public forum when it engages in government speech.

Plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of success with respect to this alternative argument because Plaintiff has not shown that the Murals constitute privatenot governmentspeech. "The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech." The government is free to "select the views it wants to express." In doing so, it does not trigger an obligation to permit similar expression of other viewpoints.

"In [Summum,] many factors indicated that park monuments represented government speech, among them, (a) government's historic use of monuments to speak to the public, (b) a tradition of parks selectively accepting and displaying donated monuments, (c) the public's close identification of public parks with the government owning the parkland, and (d) the accepted monuments were meant to and had the effect of conveying a government message."

Even privately contributed monuments can constitute government speech. "Just as government-commissioned and government-financed monuments speak for the government, so do privately financed and donated monuments that the government accepts and displays to the public on government land." For example, in Summum, the Supreme Court found that monuments placed in a public park constituted government speech, even though "many of the monuments were not designed or built by the [c]ity and were donated in completed form by private entities." The Supreme Court rejected the premise that a completed work conveys one messagethat of the creator or donorand that a government must accept that singular message to engage in government speech.

Several of the factors the Supreme Court looked to in Summum and [other cases] apply here. First, markings on public streets have historically been used as a means for the government to communicate with the public. Particularly in light of Local Law 10-117(a), the surfaces of New York City streets are reserved primarily for government communication. As a result, public street markings are likely to be "closely identified in the public mind with the [government]," specifically the DOT.

In addition, the pleadings suggest that Defendants intended the Murals to be government communication. Tweets from the Mayor's office confirm that suggestion. For example, the June 15, 2020, Tweet explains that the "Black Lives Matter" message will be shared all summer and notes that the Mayor's office intends to make the Fulton Street block pedestrians-only and to coordinate with the MTA regarding transit. In addition, the June 19, 2020, Tweet explains that Defendants were "not just painting the words #BlackLivesMatter on streets," and instead, were "sending a message that these are our values in New York City." Finally, Defendants were involved in the creation of, and controlled the content of, the six later murals. For example, Defendants paid for the mural on Fifth Avenue with DOT funds. These factors all strongly support the conclusion that the Murals constitute government speech.

The pleadings suggest that this is not an instance in which Defendants have merely affixed a seal of approval to pass private speech off as government speech. Although Defendants did not create or commission the murals on Fulton Street and Richmond Terrace, the acceptance and preservation of those murals, in combination with Tweets explaining the government's intention to share the message that "Black Lives Matter," suggest that Defendants used these privately donated works to engage in government speech. The focus and clarity of Defendants' message help to underscore this point. Cf. Matal v. Tam (2017) (rejecting the premise that federal trademark registrations constituted government speech, in part because together, the registrations were "incoherent babbling" rather than a concerted government message). Defendants adopted a message of social consequence and disseminated it during a time of social unrest. Black lives matter. It is plainly evident that these wordswhich affirm the value of Black liveshave meaning separate and apart from any organizations or movements of the same name.

Plaintiff also contends that Defendants' conduct is an affront to the First Amendment because the "Black Lives Matter" message is political. Whether the "Black Lives Matter" message has political content is not relevant to the question of whether the Murals constitute government speech. The fact that an elected official, such as the mayor, might seek to communicate a message that is appealing to voters suggests that the Free Speech Clause is serving one of its intended purposes; "the Free Speech Clause helps produce informed opinions among members of the public, who are then able to influence the choices of a government that, through words and deeds, will reflect its electoral mandate."

Because the Murals are government and not private speech, and therefore did not open up the surfaces of New York City streets as designated public fora, strict scrutiny does not apply to the denial of Plaintiff's request to paint its own street mural.

View original post here:
City's Allowing "Black Lives Matter" Street Painting Doesn't Require It to Allow Other Writings - Reason

En Espaol

The Washoe County School District (WCSD) committee meeting Tuesday on board policy 1310 had the district reversing its prior stance on allowing Black Lives Matter (BLM) and LGBTQ+ issues in the classroom.

The school district previously insisted such activities as having rainbow flags in a classroom were prohibited as political speech.

After months of upholding the board policy, the districts legal counsel was finally able to state that the teachers can have discussions about these issues. And there is nothing in this policy that actually prohibits such a practice.

Statements made at the districts Feb. 9 board of trustees meeting, while discussing an anti-racism resolution and brave spaces, foreshadowed this decision.

Following a nationwide Black Lives Matter movement after the police killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020 in Minneapolis, the school district was forced to take a hard look at discussions on issues of racism, discrimination and bullying.

Student communities such as WCSD4Change, teachers, parents and administrators engaged with the district to focus on the need for creating a more inclusive, compassionate environment for students.

They demanded a curriculum that recognizes the diversity and histories of people of color and ethnicities in Nevada and America, and they argued its a fallacy to tag discussion of LGBTQ+, Civil Rights and BLM issues as political.

During the committee meeting, WCSD General Counsel Neil Rombardo said that such an interpretation created misunderstanding and controversy around the policy. As the legal team checked the history and purpose of the policy in partnership with the department of Civil Rights Compliance, It became apparent to us that board policy 1310 expanded beyond the scope of its intended purpose when it started redressing the speech of employees and political activity of employees, he said.

The original intention of board policy 1310 was to prohibit political candidates from putting signs or symbols on the school premises and use them as a place to campaign. The policy that provides guidelines for political activities of staff is board policy 4500, which somehow morphed into 1310, added Rombardo.

We have pulled it out, he said, adding that confusing parts of board policy 1310 are going to be deleted and parts of it will be addressed in board policy 4500 concerning political activity of staff.

According to Rombardo, 1310 is about management of property in context to political signage and symbols, and 4500 is about management of staff concerning political activity.

Unlike before, from now on when the district enforces policy 1310 it will have consequences on the property and not staff. Policy 1310 alone will not prohibit staff from discussing social and political issues with students in a healthy and proper manner.

As drafting policies is always difficult, the committee has decided to have robust discussions on various aspects of the policy.

Some of the discussions concerned the meaning of a political act.

The districts legal counsel has drawn from the federal Hatch Act to come up with a clear-cut definition of what constitutes political activity. In its draft, the legal team defined political activity as any activity directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate or political office, political group, political organization, political issue, ballot initiative, bill, petition or any other matter currently before the state legislature or local government agency.

It further defines a political group as a group of people that assembles together in order to promote a common ideology and achieve particular objectives in the public, governmental sphere.

Trustee Kurt Thigpen said that such a definition might interpret groups like LGBTQ+ as a political group and run counter to the districts resolution that discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, ethnicity will not be tolerated.

Thigpen suggested that identity and culture-based groups should not be classified as political, expressing his concern that such a classification could lead to them being prohibited from celebrating things like Back History Month or LGBTQ month.

I need to think that through, said Trustee Jeff Church. We are talking [about allowing] the rainbow flag but not the Confederate flag. What if a Latino group wanted to put up the Mexican flag? So, I am reaching out to Mr. Rombardo, so we dont vote [on] a slippery slope and run into problems or marginalize other members of the community.

Well I am under the belief, unless the board decides otherwise in some other policy and regulation, that the Confederate flag is not part of your inherent upbringing The Confederate flag is hate speech, responded Rombardo.

What about the former Alabama flag that had the Confederate in the corner? quipped Church. I am just worried about the slippery slope.

Rombardo said he felt that allowing identity and culture based flags and related topics have a place in board policy 4500 and not 1310. Even then, the members felt it important to have a detailed discussion on the issue.

The main question at this point was how to respond to students demand for inclusivity and equity? How to support identity-based and historically marginalized groups like LGBTQ+ and Black students while also prohibiting an identity-based group that professes supremacy to run amok?

Board President Angie Taylor weighed in.

Do we want to be inclusive? Absolutely! Do we want to open ourselves up to [a situation], well, I identify as white therefore I am a white supremacist fan? she asked. Anybody supremacist is bad, but if we start looking at groups and peoples identity, whiteness is an identification too. Its not necessarily negative, but it certainly can be.

Taylor further noted that the district will need to continue to work on understanding and defining these issues. Later in the discussion she added that if identity-based student groups are threatening and marginalizing other groups then she would be concerned about the safety and diversity of other students.

We want to support students but we need to recognize theres this whole piece of it. We need to work on it, she said.

Harvard Professor Joan Donovan, who studies supremacist groups and their online movements, once explained how white supremacist groups have rebranded their hate-filled agendas to look acceptable amid their supporters. Part of the KKKs process was continually rebranding how their movement saw themselves. In the late 60s they were calling themselves the American Nazi movement. Then they switched to talking about a white power movement.

Trustee Ellen Minetto said that looking at flags is part of students education and when they are learning about Spanish or Mexican history, they can and should be able to see a flag. But, for all other times, the district should sport just American and Nevada flags.

There were also discussions about which topics can be discussed during school hours. Church asked what happens if some groups are allowed to talk about issues like abortion, Middle East peace and policing.

What we would not allow is for a group to come onto our campus and be pro-death penalty and pro-abortion or anti- whatever the case may be. That doesnt mean we are not going to teach about these difficult issues in an appropriate curriculum and allow for healthy debate, Rombardo responded.

The committee also discussed that most political signages will not be allowed on district property or school campuses. The district might allow bumper stickers on a personal vehicle, but large political signs painted on the side of a truck will not be allowed.

There will be grey areas, added Rombardo. And on those occasions, the superintendent will need to make a decision. But, when a district property has been rented out for a political event, with the express approval from the district, organizers can use political signage, temporarily.

The board will have its next meeting in two weeks for the community to weigh in on the proposed changes.

Read the original:
School district reviews policy that prohibited staff from discussing Black Lives Matter and LGBTQ+ - ThisisReno

A team of Newsday photographers collectively captured first place in a prestigious photography contest for their work chronicling Black Lives Matter protests on Long Island and New York City.

Pictures of the Year International, or POYI, awarded Newsdays photojournalists the top honor in the category of "Local Team Picture Story." The entry consisted of 18 pictures by Newsday photographers in a series dubbed "Justice for George Floyd."

The winning photographers are: J. Conrad Williams Jr., Alejandra Villa Loarca, Charles Eckert, Thomas A. Ferrara and Steve Pfost.

The contest was part of POYI 78th competition. It is affiliated with the Donald W. Reynolds Journalism Institute at the Missouri School of Journalism and recognizes outstanding photojournalism, online presentation and visual editing created or published in 2020, according to POYIs website.

Lynden R. Steele, the photojournalism director of the Reynolds Journalism Institute, said in an email Thursday that a panel of professional photographers unanimously determined Newsdays photos were the best in its category.

One of the awards judges, Cheriss May, an independent photographer and adjunct professor at Howard University, discussed the contest during a webinar on Wednesday. May said Newsdays winning images are "powerful" and could stand alone, but collectively they produced "a strong showing to tell a story."

John Keating, Newsdays director of multimedia news gathering, said in a statement Thursday: "It is an honor for Newsday photographers to be recognized by Pictures of the Year International. Our team fanned out across Long Island and New York City covering dozens of demonstrations over the summer."

He added: "There were risks involved. The threat of the COVID-19 virus being spread through large crowds was always present, and a number of the marches turned violent. Despite the dangers, Newsday photographers continued to work long days and often late into the night. The pictures produced helped Newsday readers understand the raw emotion behind the uprising."

Protesters chant on the ground on Carleton Avenue in Central Islip onJune 5.A bloodied protester is arrested as demonstratorsscuffle with members of the NYPD inBrooklynonMay 30. A protesterand NYPD Chief of Department Terence Monahan embrace during a solidarity rally for George Floyd onJune 1. Credits: Newsday /Steve Pfost;Charles Eckert; Newsday /Alejandra Villa Loarca

Some of Newsdays honored photos included a picture from Villa Loarca showing NYPD Chief of Department Terence Monahan hugging a woman in early June; a Williams photo taken about two weeks later in Roosevelt of a demonstrator holding a megaphone, raising his left hand while protesters march behind him, and a Pfost photo from early June taken in Central Islip.

Pfosts image shows a coordinated and symbolic demonstration of protesters laying on the ground with their hands behind their backs, as if under arrest.

To see the entire award-winning series, explore the gallery below.

Antonio Planas joined Newsday in 2018 and covers police news and general assignments. An award-winning reporter and Michigan State University alumnus, he has worked at the Boston Herald and Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Follow this link:
Newsday photographers win award for protest coverage - Newsday

BY JASON STARR

Observer staff

The Black Lives Matter flag will fly above Town Hall in Williston.

The selectboard voted 3-2 Tuesday to raise the symbol starting March 1 and ending June 21, approving a motion from board member Ted Kenney that followed a request from a group of citizens.

The request was originally submitted in October and the board deliberated on it at three separate meetings, collecting about 140 written and verbal public comments that revealed strong opinions among residents both for and against the idea.

The flag already flies at local public schools, approved in 2020 by the Champlain Valley School Board.

In making the motion to fly the flag for four months, Kenney said he separates the sentiment black lives matter from the organization of the same name. Residents who spoke against the proposal Tuesday called the organization an extremist political group.

Board member Joy Limoge, who said she received hate mail as a result of her previously stated opposition to the request, voted with Gordon St. Hilaire to oppose the motion. Jeff Fehrs and Terry Macaig voted with Kenney to approve.

Black Lives Matter is a political organization with a radical agenda, said Limoge.

She believes the board overstepped its bounds with the approval.

This is not what our function is, she said.

St. Hilaire objected because he hoped to put the question to town voters.

After the vote, Macaig directed town administrators to acquire the flag and raise it on March 1. At a meeting in June, the board plans to consider whether to extend the display.

Several residents spoke at Tuesdays meeting, some urging the board to approve the proposal and others urging the board to reject it.

It would make me feel incredibly proud that Williston was able to use its voice to talk about a more just and equitable society, said resident Jerry Greenfield, noting the countrys history of slavery and unequal treatment of black people. To address the inequality in our history, you have to be willing to speak out about things that arent right.

Resident Cindy Provost asked the board what the flag display will accomplish and said it will deface the towns historic village.

Will it really improve how people act or think, she asked. I personally feel it will be something that will divide the town more, rather than bring it together. I dont feel like we have to have a banner to make people think we will include everybody in our town.

Fehrs said the flag display is a first step toward addressing racial inequality in Williston.

I believe we are a just and caring community, but we need to do better, he said. It takes courage to admit racism does exist in our communityand we want to address that.

See the original post here:
Black Lives Matter flag to fly at Town Hall Williston Observer - Williston Observer

And its primary means are twofold: Its members engage in street protests in lots of cities; and its leaders push for 10 specific reforms set forth in Campaign Zero, which calls for an end to broken windows policing, more community oversight of police departments, stricter limits on the use of force, independent investigations of police misconduct, community representation in municipal governments, body cameras, better training, an end to policing for profit, demilitarization, and union contracts that dont protect misbehaving police officers from being held accountable.

If you disagree with any of my characterizations about the means and ends of those groups, we are at odds over facts, not values, and I am open to seeing evidence that challenges my assessment of a complicated matter. Bearing that in mind can make hashing out the truth less fraught and more likely to proceed constructively and profitably.

Given my understanding of the facts, where do I stand?

Black Lives Matter

For starters, I dont think Black Lives Matter belongs in the online conversation about whether Americans should be denouncing violence on all sides. The movements end of stopping unjust police killings is laudable; and its leaders and the vast majority of its members openly favor nonviolent means. Plus, unlike Nazis, nothing about the future it desires is inseparable from initiating violence. That doesnt mean it is beyond criticism. It is a large, free-wheeling movement without clear leaders, and individual participants have no doubt acted badly on many occasions, as is true of groups as varied as the Sons of Liberty in 1775, anti-Vietnam War protesters, and the Tea Party. I have criticized Black Lives Matter activists in the past for disrupting a Bernie Sanders event and for the tactic of blocking freeways.

But I draw a distinction between objectionable acts of civil disobedience and engaging in violence. Some Black Lives Matter critics blame the group for the killing of five Dallas police officers. But the gunman acted alone, using tactics that the protest movement never urged or used, and group leaders denounced the killings. The group has the same relationship to the Dallas killer as nonviolent pro-life groups have to the extremist who perpetrated a mass killing at a Planned Parenthood.

Antifa

Note that I am speaking of self-described members of the group, not anyone who shows up in the streets to protest against fascists. Antifa and antifascism are no more synonymous than being a member of Black Lives Matter and believing that black lives matter.

The initiation of extralegal street violence by self-appointed judges in masks is ethically wrong, legally wrong, and in the case of Antifa, tactically idiotic. (I can think of nothing more likely to contribute to Donald Trumps reelection than roving bands of masked, violent leftists attacking not only Nazis carrying swastikas in the streets, but journalists covering protests, or crowds at Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopolous speeches.) It is an easy call for me to denounce Antifa members who participate in or endorse extralegal violence. That does not contradict my simultaneous judgment that Antifas stated end of resisting fascism is laudable. If they showed up in force to protest Nazi rallies, but refrained from initiating the use of force, using it only lawfully in self defense, I would have nothing but praise for them.

Continued here:
Distinguishing Between Antifa, the KKK, and Black Lives ...