Mediaboss Marketing

The Justice Department has hit the Eagle Forum of Alabama with a voluminous subpoena that violates the organizations First Amendment rights to speak freely, engage in the political process, and talk to their elected representatives. Its an intimidation tactic, pure and simple, and shows just how partisan the department has become. This out-of-control behavior should scare every citizen and volunteer organization, no matter where they stand on the political or social spectrum.

Eagle Forum is a very small non-profit in Alabama. It only has one full-time employee and a second, part-time employee. Virtually all of its work on issues of interest to its members is done by volunteers. It is the quintessential, uniquely American grassroots membership organization that French historian Alexis de Tocqueville lauded inDemocracy in America.

As the Eagle Forumsmotion to quashthe government subpoena says, one of the issues its members have been concerned over is gender-altering medical treatment to minors and the permanent and adverse effects of such medical procedures on those minors. Those serious, lifelong effects deeply concern many physicians and parents.

Members of the Eagle Forum made their worries known by doing things every American has an absolute right to do: they spoke out, made speeches, organized meetings, talked to other residents and organizations in the state, and contacted their elected state representatives. In other words, they exercised their constitutional rights to engage in freedom of speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. They also exercised their right to associate, recognized by the Supreme Court as implicit under the Fourteenth Amendment.

>>>Bidens DOJ Increases Power and Rewards Political Allies

None of these activities should trigger stalking by Justice Department lawyers. So how has this come about?

Earlier this year, the Alabama legislature passed the Alabama Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, which became effective on May 8. It bans puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgery to alter the biological sex of a minor. A huge number of left-wing advocacy organizations immediately sued the state, and the U.S. Justice Department intervened in the lawsuit, echoing their claims that the new Alabama law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Eagle Forum is not a party to the lawsuit. Yet the Justice Department has served what is referred to as a third-party subpoena on the Eagle Forum. This subpoena outrageously demands that the Eagle Forum and its members turn over all:

In other words, the Justice Department wants to turn the Eagle Forum inside out, forcing it to turn over its records on everything it does. This would let government lawyers paw through and scrutinize everything, including privileged communications and even personal discussions and communications with other private citizens and nonprofit organizations.

And there isnt a single, justifiable reason for the department to do this. The Eagle Forum is not a party in the lawsuit. It is not a government agency. It is not the legislature. It has no power to vote to enact this (or any) legislation or sign it into law.

Keep in mind that the lawsuit is making a constitutional claim. The plaintiffs, including the Justice Department, are arguing that the statute as written violates the U.S. Constitution. So, what do the Eagle Forums polling data or social media posts have to do with that constitutional question? What do its internal records, its policy goals, initiatives, and/or strategies, or the communications of its members with state legislators have to do with that issue?

The answer is: absolutely nothing. None of the documents or information sought by the Justice Department has any relevance to whether the text of a state law violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

>>>On Offense Against Radical Gender Ideology

This subpoena, issued by Jason R. Cheeks, an attorney in the U.S. Attorneys Office in the Northern District of Alabama, has but one intent: to harass and intimidate a conservative organization for daring to engage in the democratic process by working on an issue that inflames the Left.

The right to associate freely with other citizens who share your interests was recognized by the Supreme Court in 1959 inNAACP v. Alabama.Ironically enough, in that case, the Alabama state government was harassing the NAACP with similar demands for information due to its work on civil rights issues and legislation.

In an affidavit filed with the court in the current case, Rebecca Gerritson, the executive director of the Eagle Forum of Alabama, correctly warns:

If this subpoena is enforced, legitimate, law-abiding organizations like ours will be subject to scrutiny for engaging in constitutionally protected activities. Further correspondence by EFA, including emails, notes, presentations, speeches, interviews, etc. could be weaponized by government officials who hold (or are being required to assert) opposite political views. In addition, enforcement of the federal governments subpoena would set a precedent that would stifle other citizens who want to exercise their constitutional right to make their views known to their elected officials on public policy matters.

This is a dangerous action by the Justice Department. Its something that all Americans who value their constitutional rights should oppose.

Continued here:
This Should Terrify Every American: DOJ Harasses Citizens for Exercising Their First Amendment Rights - Heritage.org

A conservative birth clinic operates in a building in Brookline; city councillors seek to keep one from opening in Cambridge. (Photo: Google)

The City Council voted unanimously to continue a hearing wrought with passionate debate about whether limited resource pregnancy centers actually provide options to clients or push people away from getting abortions. Tuesdays hearing reviewed an ordinance proposing a ban of LRPCs on the basis that they engage in deceptive practices, similar to legislation that Somervilles City Council passed in March.

The sites, also called crisis pregnancy centers, claim to support pregnant people regardless of their decisions while actually pushing people away from abortions, the ordinance alleges. City Solicitor Nancy Glowa said there is a lack of clarification in the proposed policy order defining deception that would make proceeding with it difficult.

There are no such clinics in Cambridge or Somerville, but at a June meeting, councillors identified at least nine in the state, one being as close as Brookline.

The several speakers who gave public comment, ranging from workers at pregnancy centers to Harvard law students, all opposed the proposal. Diana OToole, the executive director for the Boston Center for Pregnancy Choices, said her center creates a safe space for [people] to really think through their decision whether or not to have the baby and give it up for adoption, whether or not to keep the baby, and we provide resources to enable them to do that. OToole referred to some services the center provides as after-abortion healing counseling.

Nate Bartholomew, a Harvard Law student, said the ordinance would violate the First Amendments freedom of speech clause.

Other speakers falsely said that Planned Parenthood, an organization that unlike LRPCs offers services that include abortion, engage in deception by hiding evidence of trafficking and purposely withholding ultrasound images.

City councillor Patty Nolan said she was infuriated by the lies about Planned Parenthood, which provides a full range of services.

Planned Parenthood provides support for all pregnant people who are seeking options. In fact, I have sat with people in those counseling sessions, and they ask for advice and recommendations, Nolan said. They are not pushed one way. Its here are some options, here are the various things you can be thinking about but that is not what crisis pregnancy centers do.

By comparison, deception is at the heart of the typical [LRPC] business model. This is about deceptive practices, lack of health licensures, no medical staff on site or on payroll, and no requirement to keep patient confidentiality in an extremely volatile time, vice mayor Alanna Mallon said.

Councillor Marc McGovern agreed, saying he has worked with Planned Parenthood in his decades of social work and found them to be nothing but professional. I do find it a little ironic for folks to come up and say theyre being misrepresented and then go on to misrepresent another organization, councillor Marc McGovern said.

I guess my question is, appreciating the First Amendment: Does that mean that people can falsely advertise and deceive to get people in the door to their business, to offer something different than what they are saying they offer publicly? McGovern said. Certainly people have the right to believe and say whatever they want under the First Amendment, but I dont think youre allowed to deceive people as an organization or as a business.

In her response to the ordinance, Glowa said the proposals prohibition of LRPCs would make it a content-based regulation of protected speech, which could violate the First Amendment because it would prevent the issuance of permits or licenses as well as limit the content of written or oral statements by the centers.

To hold up against a legal challenge, the ordinances language would need to be more tightly tailored and need to show that it furthers a compelling interest by using the least restrictive means to achieve that interest, Glowa said.

Council decided to continue the debate in a later meeting and asked Glowa to reach out to the City of Somerville about how it was able to craft an ordinance that passed.

This post was updated Sept. 27, 2022, to correct attribution of some comments to city councillor Patty Nolan andcorrect the spelling of DianaOTooles name.

View post:
First Amendment rights of conservative clinics needs to be addressed before a ban can be voted - Cambridge Day

Learn about Tennessee's four proposed constitutional amendments

Four constitutional amendments will appear on Tennessee's Nov. 8, 2022 general election ballot. Here's a breakdown of what you're voting on.

Wochit

Tennessee voters will have a chance to vote on four constitutional amendments this fall, ranging from union issues to an effort to strip antiquated slavery language from the state's guiding document.

Constitutional amendments in Tennessee do not simply succeed if they receive more yes votes than no votes. Voter turnout in the governors race, where incumbent Republican Gov. Bill Lee faces Democrat Jason Martin, plays a significant role in the amendment process.

An amendment can only pass if it receives more yes votes than no votes and if the total number of yes votes constitutes a majority of the vote total in the gubernatorial election.

This unusual system has been challenged in the past, notably over a 2014 ballot measure that eliminated the right to an abortion from the Tennessee state constitution. The measure passed by 53 percent of voters.

A group of voters, who opposed the ballot measure, challenged Tennessees method of counting votes as a fundamentally unfair voting process, arguing voters in favor of the anti-abortion amendment could abstain from casting a vote for governor, thereby lowering the total number of votes the amendment would need to succeed.

Lawyers argued this gave yes voters an unconstitutional advantage over no voters, but a federal appellate court eventually sided with Tennessee and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case in 2018.

Here is a guide to the amendment measures on the Nov. 8 ballot:

Previously:US Supreme Court won't hear challenge to Tennessee's abortion amendment measure

The first amendment on Tennessee's ballot this fall is a "right-to-work" law that state Republicans and some business leaders support, while Democrats and major unions in the state have opposed it.

The amendment would allow employees to opt-out of joining a union and paying the dues even if the workforce is unionized.

With union participation on the rise in Tennessee and across the country, the state's major unions oppose the measure, arguing that if a majority of a workplace unionized, people could opt out of paying dues but still reap union benefits.

Meanwhile, major Republicans like Gov. Bill Lee and business interests support the amendment.

Read more:Tennessee's Amendment 1 would add right-to-work to state's constitution, unions oppose it

Tennessee's constitutional protocol in the event of an emergency that might incapacitate the governor is currently murky, which Amendment 2 seeks to change.

The amendment would create a temporary line of succession if the governor is unable to perform his or her duties.

Though the lieutenant governor is technically next in line, the position also serves at Speaker of the Senate. This could conflict with a constitutional ban on a person serving simultaneously in the state's executive and legislative branches.

Under the amendment, the Speaker of the Senate would assume the temporary duties of the governor and not be required to resign his or her seat in the General Assembly. But the Senate speaker would not be able to preside over a legislative chamber while temporarily holding the powers of the governor.

Read this:Amendment 2 would create a temporary line of succession if the governor is incapacitated

Amendment 3 aims to replace slavery language that has existed in the Tennessee Constitution for more than 150 years.

Though the Constitution was amended in 1865 to prohibit nearly all forms of slavery, a single line lingered to allow slavery and involuntary servitude for people convicted of crimes.

Amendment 3 would replace this line with an unmistakable ban: Slavery and involuntary servitude are forever prohibited in this State.

The campaign to pass the amendment has attracted widespread, bipartisan support.

'A matter of right and wrong': Amendment 3 to ban slavery from state constitution

The final amendment on the ballot would remove a longstanding but unenforced ban on clergy serving in the General Assembly.

Banning religious leaders from serving in state legislatures was a larger trend as states wrote their constitutions following the American Revolution, an effort to create a clear divide between church and state.

In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the ban was unconstitutional. It is no longer enforced, but the constitutional language has lingered. A yes vote on Amendment 4 would officially repeal the ban.

Related:Removing an unenforced ban on clergy in legislature: Tennessee's Amendment 4

Adam Friedman, Liam Adams and Lucas Finton contributed to this report.

Reach Melissa Brown at mabrown@tennessean.com.

Original post:
Constitutional amendments: A voting guide to Tennessee's 2022 ballot - Columbia Daily Herald

09/27/2022

A news media specialist from Syracuse University will explore why many false communications including fake news, campaign lies and digital deepfakes are protected as free speech under the U.S. Constitution, on Wednesday, Oct. 12, at SUNY Cortland.

Nina Brown, an assistant professor in the universitys Newhouse School of Public Communications will present False Speech and the First Amendment at 4:30 p.m. in Moffett Center, Room 115.

Browns lecture continues SUNY Cortlands 2022-23 Rozanne M. Brooks Lecture Series on the theme of The Culture of Truth. Over the last decade, truth has seemed to become a rare resource. This years series investigates why truth seems so fleeting in todays world, but also where we might find it in the most surprising places.

The series talks and accompanying receptions are free and open to the public.

In her talk, Brown will discuss why the First Amendment often protects false speech, even when it causes harm.

Her talk, False Speech and the First Amendment, will explore what constitutes false, but protected, speech and whether current U.S. law can strike the right balance in preserving free speech rights.

Even though they are false and often harmful, these types of speech are typically protected by the First Amendment, Brown said. Speech need not be true to receive protection under our laws.

She will explore whether that is the right framework and will examine the exceptions to rules on free speech.

We will look at the impact of social media on false speech and at efforts to regulate both despite clear constitutional protections, she said.

A faculty member at S.U. since 2015, Brown earned her law degree from Cornell Law School. There, she served as notes editor and associate editor of the Cornell International Law Journal and Moot Court Board member. She has a B.S. in advertising from the Newhouse School.

Brown teaches both undergraduate and graduate levels from freshmen through graduate and law students and has developed or co-developed courses, including a graduate Public Relations Law course and an online law course.

Her academic research has been cited in academic articles, creative publications, and the court system.

Editors of the 2020 Entertainment, Publishing and the Arts Handbook, an anthology published annually by Thomson Reuters (West), included and described her article in Va. J. L. & Tech., 1 (2020) on Deepfakes and the Weaponization of Disinformation, as one of the best law review articles related to entertainment, publishing and/or the arts published within the last year.

Brown was selected as a Fall 2019-2020 Kopenhaver Center Faculty Fellow and earned a 2018 Meredith Teaching Recognition Award from Syracuse University. The Newhouse graduating class of 2018 presented her with its Newhouse Award for Teaching Excellence.

She placed third in 2018 and 2017 for the AEJMC Law Division Teaching Award of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communications.

The talks all take place on Wednesdays and begin at 4:30 p.m. in Moffett Center, Room 115. Seating will be limited and cannot be exceeded so attendees should come early to secure a seat. A reception to welcome each speaker one half hour before the talk may be announced. Events in the series are subject to change.

The 2022-23 Brooks Lecture Series is sponsored by the Cortland College Foundation and Cortland Auxiliary.

For more information, contact Brooks lecture series organizer and Brooks Museum director Sharon Steadman, a SUNY distinguished professor and chair of SUNY Cortlands Sociology/Anthropology Department, at 607-753-2308.

Excerpt from:
False communication is talk topic - SUNY Cortland News

LocalFramingham City Council is hoping to reduce panhandling on city roadways. (Craig F. Walker/Globe Staff)

Framingham City Council passed an ordinance last week with the goal of stopping beggars from approaching cars, but its not like previous anti-panhandling laws which have been struck down.

Instead of restricting panhandling itself, the law limits pedestrian entry into roadways on most major roads in the city, making it illegal to walk along a road or get within five feet of a car if a sidewalk, island, median, or other such option is available.

Those who break the law would be subject to a $50 fine for the first offense, a $100 fine for the second, and a $300 fine for any subsequent offenses.

The law targets what city councilors have called aggressive solicitation on roadways, which they say is threatening public safety.

Over the past year, there has been a dramatic increase in incidents of aggressive and unsafe solicitation that create public safety hazards, especially the aggressive solicitation of cars in traffic on major roadways throughout Framingham, the Framingham City Council Ordinances and Rules Subcommittee wrote in a June 2022 letter to the larger council.

The new law has been signed by the mayor and goes into effect immediately, according to Framingham SOURCE, but it will need to be reviewed by the Massachusetts attorney general.

Even so, the law was designed to withstand legal challenges that other Massachusetts cities attempts at restricting begging have not.

Back in 2015, both Lowell and Worcester tried to ban panhandling in certain public spaces, but both of the cities ordinances were struck down after the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts (ACLUM) challenged them.

In Lowells case, it tried to ban begging entirely in its downtown district, as well as prohibit aggressive panhandling. But a federal judge deemed it unconstitutional under the First Amendment right to free speech.

Worcester tried to make panhandling illegal outside banks and theaters, outlaw aggressive panhandling, and make it illegal to stand or walk on a traffic island or roadway if you are not crossing. Again, the law was struck down under the First Amendment by a different federal judge.

Then, in 2020, a Fall River law which criminalized begging was challenged by the ACLUM, and was struck down by the states highest court for violating the right to free speech.

This led Brockton City Council to repeal a similar law earlier this year for fear it wouldnt withstand legal challenges.

After proposing an initial ordinance with language much like the laws which had been deemed unconstitutional, Framingham City Council asked both their city solicitor and an independent legal group to evaluate their law.

Both the legal group and the city solicitor wrote back to the council saying that they didnt think the law would withstand legal challenges based on the Lowell, Worcester, and Fall River rulings.

The problem, the lawyers said, is that these laws were content-based, meaning they targeted a particular type of speech, in this case, panhandling.

For such a law to withstand a legal challenge, they said, courts have ruled that cities must define a specific behavior which causes danger to the public and prohibit it in the least restrictive way. Additionally, they must show that current laws that would restrict dangerous behavior, such as assault, are insufficient for addressing the behavior.

In response, city officials crafted a new, content-neutral law they say addresses public safety issues with panhandling while applying the law equally to all pedestrians and maintaining the right to use medians and sidewalks.

Please keep in mind that the proposed Median Safety ordinance may also be subject to challenge. However, it is markedly different than the solicitation ordinance and is intentionally limited in scope and specifically, narrowly tailored to address the public safety interests and issues at stake, City Solicitor Kathryn Fallon wrote to the council in an Aug. 25 letter.

Stay up to date on all the latest news from Boston.com

Read the rest here:
Framingham passed an anti-begging law, but will it withstand legal challenges? - Boston.com