Mediaboss Marketing

NEW BRITAIN Several residents expressed concern about a proposed resolution regarding park use regulations and how it would impact first amendment rights.

The citys Common Council met Wednesday night and discussed a resolution that would amend a portion of Chapter 17 of the citys Code of Ordinances regarding park use. The change proposes residents be required to obtain a permit from the board of Park and Recreation commissioners to reserve any area or place in any park for special or private use by groups of more than 25 persons. The proposed change would also require that applicants submit requests at least 60 days prior to the event.

New Britain Racial Justice Coalition Founder Alicia Strong said the proposed changes could have a significant impact on community and advocacy groups that wish to assemble in the future. Strong said, if passed, the resolution could not only impact individual residents but a number of local community groups.

I think right now New Britain has amazing and beautiful parks and I think we should allow all organizations and all residents to take part in that without feeling like theyre breaking some kind of rule or doing something wrong, Strong said.

Strong said requiring a permit for groups of more than 25 and requiring an application for a permit 60 prior could infringe on residents rights to assemble. Strong referenced a recent protest by teachers and paraprofessionals organized in Central Park, which was planned in less than 60 days. She said under the new provision that type of organization would not be allowed to happen.

The mandate to apply 60 days for a permit before [an event] is also very difficult not only for our work that we do in the community but for a lot of protests and actions and things of that nature that happen, Strong said.

Resident Jason Peppin said the city could run into legal problems if they passed the resolution because of implications that it would infringe on residents first amendment rights. He said if the city shuts down an event because of the regulation and arrests are made, it could open the city to potential lawsuits.

If this city has to worry about a budget, worrying about paying for a lawyer or anything like that is just a ridiculous thing to infringe on someone's first amendment right, Peppin said.

The resolution also states persons/organizations holding a special event per the definitions herein without a permit shall be subject to a $99 fine. Additionally, the change states the city can shut down the event and costs related to the shutdown of said event will be the responsibility of the event organizer. Strong said the coalition has conducted multiple community giveaways and protests and if the proposed regulation passed, the organization would be at risk to receive a fine. She said its something that would significantly impact the coalition, which has a small operating budget.

The citys Common Council voted to refer the resolution to the Consolidated Subcommittee, which is slated to meet again Wednesday, May 5 in the Council Chambers at City Hall.

Excerpt from:
Several New Britain residents speak up against proposed resolution regarding park use regulations, say it goes against first amendment rights - New...

Exton, Pennsylvania What should library staff do when self-proclaimed citizen journalists enter the library claiming a right to question employees and film in any space accessible to the public? The May 11 webinar First Amendment Audits: What Your Library Board and Staff Need to Know, presented by United for Libraries and the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom, will share how to prepare by adopting well-crafted policies and training staff.

This program will also cover the library as a public forum and the necessary components of user behavior policies and meeting room policies. The program will include opportunities to participate in role-play scenarios that demonstrate best practices when board members interact with library users and members of the public. The program will include a Q&A with presenters Deborah Caldwell-Stone and Lori Fisher.

Deborah Caldwell-Stone is Director of ALAs Office for Intellectual Freedom and Executive Director of the Freedom to Read Foundation. She is a recovering attorney and former appellate litigator who works closely with library professionals and library trustees on a wide range of intellectual freedom issues. She advises ALA's Intellectual Freedom Committee and its Privacy Subcommittee on law and policy issues, and has served on the faculty of the ALA-sponsored Lawyers for Libraries and Law for Librarians workshops. She is a contributor to the 10th edition of the Intellectual Freedom Manual and has contributed articles on law, policy, and intellectual freedom to American Libraries and other publications.

Lori Fisher is the Assistant State Librarian for New Hampshire since 2019, previously working as a small public library director for over 11 years in Bow, NH. She is the ALA Councilor for the NH Library Association (2019-2023) and a current member of the ALA Committee on Legislation, ALA Policy Corps (cohort 2), and the United for Libraries Public Policy & Advocacy Committee. Lori has served as President of NH Library Association (2012), and is a current co-chair of the NHLA Advocacy & Legislative Committee. Aside from managing IMLS ARPA monies on behalf of the state library, Lori creates and leads professional development opportunities for staff at all types of libraries locally, regionally, and nationally.

This webinar is free for Intellectual Freedom Round Table members, and United for Libraries Statewide All-Access Partners (those in MD, MA, MI, MT, NE, NH, ND, OR, SC, SD, TX, & VA). Visit the eLearning registration page for more information and to register. Statewide All-Access Partners can register here.

United for Libraries: The Association of Library Trustees, Advocates, Friends and Foundations, is a division of the American Library Association with approximately 4,000 personal and group members representing hundreds of thousands of library supporters. United for Libraries supports those who govern, promote, advocate, and fundraise for libraries, and brings together library trustees, advocates, friends, and foundations into a partnership that creates a powerful force for libraries in the 21st century. To join, please visit http://www.ala.org/unitedor call (800) 545-2433, ext. 2161.

More here:
United for Libraries and OIF to present May 11 webinar on 'First Amendment Audits: What Your Library Board and Staff Need to Know' - ala.org

Join us for the James Madison Program's Initiative on Freedom of Thought, Inquiry, and Expressioninaugural event!

To understand the core principles of free speech on campus, it is helpful to understanding the evolution of First Amendment jurisprudence over the past century. As the Justices of the Supreme Court have struggled to make sense of the Constitutions vague and open-ended guarantee that Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, it has gradually embraced ten core principles that now define our constitutional understanding of the freedom of speech. By exploring the wisdom or unwisdom of those ten principles, it is possible to better understand why our nations colleges and universities have moved in a similar direction in their commitment to academic freedom and what they mean by that term.

Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. After serving as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Mr. Stone joined the faculty of The University of Chicago Law School in 1973. In the years since, he has served as Dean of the Law School (1987-1994) and Provost of the University (1994-2002).

Mr. Stone is the author or co-author of many books on constitutional law, including Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and The Future of Our Democracy (forthcoming 2022); National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press (2021); Democracy and Equality: The Enduring Constitutional Vision of the Warren Court (2020); The Free Speech Century (2018); Sex and the Constitution (2017); and Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime (2004). Mr. Stones books have received many national awards, including the Robert F. Kennedy Award for the Best Book of the Year, Harvard Universitys Award for the Best Book of the Year in Public Affairs, and the American Political Science Associations Award for the Best Book of the Year in Political Science.

Mr. Stone is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Law Institute and the American Philosophical Society. He has served as Chair of the Board of the American Constitution Society and as a Senior Advisor to the American Civil Liberties Union. In 2013, in the wake of Edward Snowdens leaks, President Obama appointed Mr. Stone to serve on a five-member Commission to review the NSAs surveillance policies and to make recommendations to the President and to Congress. In 2014, Mr. Stone chaired the University of Chicago committee that drafted what has come to be known as The Chicago Free Speech Principles, which have been adopted by more than eighty colleges and universities across the nation.

Go here to read the rest:
Understanding Free Speech on Campus: The Ten Critical Judgments the Supreme Court Has Made About the Meaning of the First Amendment | James Madison...

Grand Rapids police release video of officer fatally shooting Patrick Lyoya

WARNING: This video contains graphic content. Video from the Grand Rapids Police Department was released at a press conference and shows one of their officers fatally shooting Patrick Lyoya.

Provided by the Grand Rapids Police Department

LANSING The Michigan Department of State said Friday it would no longer release the driving records of victims of violence, but Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson reversed the policy change a few hours later.

"There is no change in policy at this time," Benson said in a news release later Friday.

"The department is currently reviewing the manner in which it provides the driver record of any Michigan resident to third parties to ensure we balance the critical importance of government transparency and access to information with the need to protect the privacy of Michiganders."

But while the review is underway, "there will be no changes to our current policy, nor will there be any changes to media or public access to such data."

The earlier announcement had brought sharp blowback and criticism from First Amendment proponents.

Driving records and other motor vehicle recordsare routinely and quickly obtained by members of the news media and members of some other industries, such as insurance companies. But Tracy Wimmer, a spokeswoman for the department, said the statehas discretion and the law says it "may release" such information, not that it must.

In an unsigned news release issued earlier Friday, the Department of State, which Benson heads,said its sudden policy change was related to the police killing in Grand Rapids last week of Patrick Lyoya, a 26-year-old unarmed Black man, during a traffic stop. The police shooting is under investigation by the Michigan State Police.

The release said the state agency had provided Lyoya's driving record to three unidentified media outlets"before recognizing that it was being included as an irrelevant detail that wrongly suggests he is culpable for being shot in the back of the head by a Grand Rapids police officer."

Department officials would not say whether the Free Press, which obtained the information and reported only that Lyoya's license was revoked, was one of the media outlets that prompted the policy change.

More: Grand Rapids police release video of officer fatally shooting Patrick Lyoya

More: Patrick Lyoya escaped violence and persecution in Congo only to die in Michigan

The department "condemns the killing of Patrick Lyoya," and "will no longer provide the driving record and personal information of Mr. Lyoya to the media, nor will it provide to media such records and information of other victims of violence," said the statement, which was later reversed.

Detroit Free Press Editor Peter Bhatia said obtaining driving records is"a standard journalistic practice and a long-standing service provided by the Secretary of State's Office to the media." Bhatia said it was his understanding that the Free Press reporting was in part the cause of the press release.

"While we acknowledge that some may see the publication of such information as inflammatory, and cite press reports after the killings of other Black men by police officers, we saw the license revocationas important context given the sequence of events in Grand Rapids and that the encounter between Lyoya and the officer deteriorated quickly after the officer asked for Lyoya's license. Our intention was purely journalistic," Bhatia said.

"In situations such as this we are extremely careful to provide information about everyone involved in context and at the appropriate time in the evolution of a case. We do not rush to publish because we might have some details first."

Lisa McGraw, public affairs manager for the Michigan Press Association, said she has "grave concerns" about any state agency withholding or releasing information based on how that agency believes the information is going to be used.

"That flies in the face of the intent of the law," she said. "At what point does that allow officials to protect themselves?"

In the specific case of the fatal shooting of Lyoya, "it's in the public interest to have as much transparency as possible," McGraw said.

Free Press legal counsel Herschel Fink said the policy floated Friday would set a dangerous precedent.

"This is censorship pure and simple. Its not the place of a secretary of state toimpose her political judgment on what information the public is entitled to have concerning investigations of possible crimes. Its the function of law enforcement and prosecutors, and, where necessary, the courts interpreting open record laws."

In the earlier statement, the Department of Statecalled on state lawmakers to "strengthen the law to demonstrate that they value the privacy of Michiganders." In the meantime, it said it will continue to review and revise policies under which it provides "the personal information of any Michigan resident to third parties."

Wimmer said that because the department has discretion about what information it releases and under what circumstances, there would likely be lengthier conversations to assess the purpose of requestsbefore information is released.

Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or pegan@freepress.com.Follow him on Twitter @paulegan4. Read more on Michigan politics and sign up for our elections newsletter.

Become asubscriber.

See the original post:
State moves to block release of certain driver records, then reverses itself - Detroit Free Press

Amidst a chorus of cheers, boos and "Let her finish" chants, conservative political commentatorAnn Coulter walked off the Whittenberger Auditoriumstage before college student Tara Layous finished asking her question.

Prior toits slightly fiery conclusion, the student action against Coulter'sappearance at Indiana University earlythis month was relatively restrained.There were no protesters picketing outside theevent. The nearby sidewalk's chalk work, sporting"Racist gathering" in bright pink letters with an arrow pointing toward the IMU, was the only prominent sign in the surrounding area. During Coulter's speech on the history of conservatism, the crowd's interruptions were sparse and far between.

More: IU waiting for instruction on Trump's campus speech order

It was only during the event's Q&A portion, when Coulter said Layous was taking too long to ask a question, that the mood shifted.

After a brief back and forth with a few audience members, Coulter left the stage. When asked why she was in such a hurry to shuffle along questions, Coulter responded she had a plane to catch. She noted the event, which was scheduled for 60 minutes, had already run over its allotted time.

Coulter later tweeted the event was "the funnest (sic)event I've done since COVID," with many questions from "the liberals, who were perfectly polite" until Layous' turn.

Immediately following the event, Layous, a senior at IU, told The Herald-Times she didn't come to the event as a protester. Layous said she didn't intend to prompt Coulter to leave and was disappointed the people after her didn't get to ask their own questions.

While Layous said she can't speak on whether free speech at Indiana University is protected as a whole, "I don't think it was (protected)today."

That's something state lawmakers sought to change during the most recent session of theIndiana General Assembly.Legislators intensified free speech protection oncollege campuses by passingHouse Bill 1190, which was later signed into law by Gov. Eric Holcomb.

Under this legislation, universities must create and publish clear policies on free speech rights and protections for students, faculty members and staff. Universities cannot prohibitprotected expressive activities atan outdoor, accessible area on campus,though they canenforce restrictions on the time, placeand manner.

The new law also requires universities to submit an annual report ofcomplaints to a higher education commission. If a student or student organization claims their right to free speech hasbeen violated on campus, theycan seek legal action, which could grant them upto $50,000, court costs andattorney's fees.

While the new law's stated purposeis to better protect speech, some have questioned whether its fine print will preserve or hinder a person's constitutional rights.

"The statute, whatever the intent of it might be, might actually chill protected speech instead of protect speech," said Joseph Tomain, a lecturer at IU's Maurer School of Law.

The legislation has drawn negative reactions from some IU faculty members, including Tomain.He describes himself as a fierce protectorof free speech and has dedicated his time both as a lawyer and educator to the topic.

"It's better to have some false speech be protected than it is to risk having truthful speech be unprotected. There is a cost to the United States' strong free speech protections, but ultimately, I think it's a cost worth paying in order to ensure that we have a functional democracy," Tomain said, noting that democracies work best when there's a free marketplace of ideas.

There are some aspects of the new law Tomain appreciates, such as requiring universities to have accessible free speech policies and attempting to bar counter-protesters from using a "heckler's veto,"which happens when a person or group who disagrees with a speaker's message is able to silence them through disruptive intervention.

Those positives aside, Tomain said he has some issues with the bill's language.

For example, the law defines"harassment" as speech or conduct that is unwelcome, severe, pervasive and "subjectively and objectively offensive" and results in a student being denied equal access to educational opportunities or benefits provided by the institution.

"The definition of harassment is most likely in violation of the First Amendment," Tomain said. According to Tomain, the First Amendment protects speech that is unwelcome, severe and pervasive while also noting "offensive" is too subjective to be used in this context.

The legislation also prohibits universities fromrequiringleaders or members of a student organization tocomply with that organization's beliefs orstandard of conduct.

"Once you start to put these kind of limits, these requirements that anybody can join any organization, thatcould be a unconstitutional interference with freedom of association," Tomain said.

Under the First Amendment's freedom of association, an organization canaccept or decline membership based on certain criteria.

"Say, for example, you have a pro-life organizationand you have pro-choice members that start totake it over. They become the president (and) they become members. Well, should we really require the pro-choice or the pro-life organization to include (members that havethe inverse belief)?" Tomain said.

Tomain isn't the only one who has voiced reservations about the law. Speaking with Indiana education-focused publicationChalkbeat,Sheila Kennedy, a professor emeritus of law and public policy at IUPUI's Paul H. ONeill School of Public and Environmental Affairs, said the legislation could encourage additional litigation and complicatethe legal precedent of the First Amendment.

Tomain also took issue with the law's granting of legal proceedings if a student or student organization feels their right to free speech has been violated.

"The remedial provision here has the potential to chill speech if people start to be afraid that they're going to be sued, and not only have to pay for their own lawyers, but also potentially pay for the lawyers of the other side and the court costs," Tomain said.

While the statute explicitly states the university wouldcover the plaintiff's attorney fees if proven to be at fault,the statute does not limit who can be sued, according to Tomain.

While constitutional rights are protected against federal or state infringement, such as police, schools or Congress, Tomain noted it's possible for claims of free speech violationsto be brought against private citizens or groups.

"I'm not certain that this is the best way to protect free speech," Tomain said.

IU's free speech policy is posted onlineatfreespeech.iu.edu. The webpage features a note about campus diversity as well as a separate page answering frequently asked questions. Students can also contact faculty members who are considered experts on the First Amendment.

IU spokesman Chuck Carney said the webpage has been up for several years and was created after IU students began asking similar questions about their rights on campus.

"We wanted to have a central location to point people to in case they had questions," Carney said.

Since 2017, IU has enlisted the Demonstration Response and Safety Team, which includes volunteerfaculty members and student affairs professionals, to attend demonstrations, rallies andprotests held on campus.

At least two team members try to be at any demonstration on campus. The team members are passive observers who are there to answer any questions about a person's rights to free speech. They also ensure there arenodisruptions, such as a heckler's veto, that preventfreedom of expression.

DRST is currently led byKathy Adams Riester, associate vice provost for student affairs and executive associate dean of students, and Katie Paulin, assistant dean for student support and outreach. John Summerlot, the university coordinator of military andveteran services, previously led the team and still acts as a volunteer.

According toSummerlot, the team's formation was inspired by political scientistCharles Murray'scontroversial visit to IU's campus in April 2017. Murray, who identifies as a libertarian, has been accused of promoting racist views.

More: The price of free speech: Murray's visit and accompanying protests cost IU nearly $15,000

"We didn't have anybody versed in freedom of speech on campus,"Summerlot noted.

According to Carney, the new law won't lead to any major changes at IU. The university already has some of the legislation's stipulations in place, such as the published free speech policy. The university also regularly updates its free speech policies and procedures to stay in adherence to best practices and guidelines, he said.

According to Carney, IU was ultimately supportive of the new law.

"We felt like this was something that we certainly were comfortable with, because we knew that we were already implementing many of the things that were put in place," Carney said.

Though the law could conceivably be challenged in court later on, it is currently in place foruniversities in Indiana.

Contact Rachel Smithat rksmith@heraldt.com or @RachelSmithNews on Twitter.

See original here:
New Indiana law is meant to protect free speech at universities. It may do the opposite. - The Herald-Times