Mediaboss Marketing

Its not often that sports and politics collide. But that happened last week, when the Oakwood Adventist Academy (OAA) varsity basketball team forfeited a game that could have put them in competition for the state championship.

The decision by OAA, precipitated by an Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) ruling, drew the attention of Gov. Kay Ivey. And the governor has sided with the OAA basketball team not the association.

OAA, based in Huntsville, is affiliated with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, a Christian denomination I know something about because Ive been an active member since I was 7. We SDAs are known for a few things that fall outside of mainstream Christian doctrines and practices.

For example, we are taught not to eat pork, shrimp and other animal foods described in the Old Testament of the Bible as unclean. Our doctrines also teach against drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes.

But most notably, we go to church on Saturdays, honoring what many call the Jewish Sabbath as a weekly holy day meaning sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

Historically, for most SDAs, that has meant no secular activities during those 24 hours. No work, except for those who work for the church or are first responders (medical professionals, police officers, fire fighters, etc.). No play, meaning no secular music concerts, movies, television shows, and other activities that can be indulged in during the other six days.

No play also includes no competitive sports.

Notice the qualifiers I used: historically and most. Some SDAs deviate, based on preference or principle. But most still adhere to the basic idea of Sabbath-keeping.

So when the OAA basketball team learned its game was scheduled for this past Saturday at 4:30 p.m. before sundown the team decided to put its faith over a chance to be one of Alabamas best high school teams. That got Iveys attention especially, perhaps, because there was another option.

Not for the OAA team. But for the AHSAA.

The AHSAA could have allowed the team and its opponent to swap schedules with the teams slotted for 7:30 p.m. According to my OAA sources, the affected teams were willing to do just that. So why wasnt the AHSAA? Its representatives wont say.

Apparently, Gov. Ivey was wondering the same thing. So she wrote the AHSAA a letter.

I hope youll understand why I was most disturbed to read about Oakwoods alleged treatment at the AHSAAs basketball tournament, the governor wrote. This episode raises some very pressing questions, not only for me but for public officials and citizens across our great State.

Among other things, Ivey asked who at the AHSAA was responsible for this decision and if it violated any AHSAA policy. She also wants to know this circumstance can be prevented from happening again.

The governor seems to want accountability and change. Well see if she gets what she wants.

Ivey also wrote a letter to the OAA team, expressing her support and inviting them to meet with her at the state capitol. My cynical side says that Ivey wants a photo op with young black men affiliated with a historically black institution (Oakwood University, my alma mater).

But I also recognized that this may be about more than politics for Ivey. Of the 2,930 voters who cast a ballot at the Oakwood University precinct in 2020, 83 percent voted a straight Democratic ticket. President Biden beat Donald Trump by 67 percent. Former Democratic Senator Doug Jones beat current Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville by 64 percent.

No matter how magnanimous and supportive Ivey is of the OAA team, shes not likely to get votes from that precinct or most black voters. In fact, I suspect most will respond to her efforts the way she does to Biden in one of her current commercials: Bless her heart. And then they will vote for Democrats anyway.

Either way, whether because of politics or principle, I like what Ivey has done. Not because Im an SDA, but because I believe in the First Amendment and in a society that seeks to accommodate those of all faiths and no faith.

Gov. Ivey and I dont agree on most things. But it appears we do agree on this.

Visit link:
Opinion | Oakwood Adventist Academy basketball is a real First Amendment case - alreporter.com

Most people know, or think they know, that the U.S. Constitution guarantees free speech.

Well, yes and no. What the First Amendment to the Constitution actually says is this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law ... means that the government cannot criminalize speech, and we all know that there are exceptions, the most well known being falsely shouting Fire! where that would create a panic and possible loss of life.

We have laws criminalizing lying when one has sworn to tell the truth (perjury), and a somewhat obscure law making it a crime to lie to the FBI. I didnt even know about this one until 2002 Louisiana state Insurance Commissioner James Brown was charged and convicted for it. So if the FBI ever wants to talk to you, about anything, either decline or have a lawyer present should anything you tell them turn out to be untrue.

There is also a long history of cases in which the government has tried to limit political speech. In recent years, rarely has the government prevailed, and if it did, it was later overturned.

As Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black stated in Mills v. State of Alabama, Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.

As for dangerous political speech, in Schenck v. U.S., the court articulated the clear and present danger standard, but in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court modified it to speech advocating violence that was imminent and probable for speech to be curtailed.

This constitutional provision does not stop private actors from stifling speech. The biggest offenders are employers, who often place restrictions on what you can say about the company, at risk of firing. Bad news, but no state action, so no violation of free speech in the constitutional sense, unless, of course, you work for the government. Then you may be covered.

The difference bears on the current kerfuffle regarding free speech over Spotify podcaster Joe Rogan, who has hosted people who give out incorrect medical information on COVID-19, which, if believed, could result in deaths. Some musicians whose music is on Spotify asked that their work be taken off.

Some people screamed, Censorship! Others said, Good for them! Cries of Free speech! rang on both sides.

This is not a free speech issue. The podcaster has not been arrested. Nothing he did violates the law. The musicians who object are exercising their rights to not be associated with his content.

This brings me back to what free speech means. If you believe the First Amendment does not apply to lies, well, yes, mostly it does. And if you argue that Rogans right to free speech is being curtailed, no, it is not. We are allowed to speak as we please, even if what we say isnt true, but we are not immunized from the consequences of what we say.

The late writer Christopher Hitchens said in his memoir, Hitch 22, that one of the main reasons he decided to become an American citizen was his respect for the protections of speech, and the press, in our First Amendment, protections not explicitly provided in his native Great Britain.

Lets not misconstrue what these great rights mean.

Now retired, J. Michael Malec of Albany formerly worked as a legislative lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union in Louisiana.

Read more:
Commentary: What the First Amendment does and what it doesn't do - Times Union

Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh knows that being a cop is hard. He spent 20 years as a Port Authority Police Officer before decamping for sunnier climes, so hes always down to back the blue. And so hes sponsored a bill that would make cops lives easier AHEM promote public safety by banning bystanders from recording police from anything closer than eight feet.

Under HB2319 (as amended) which passed out of the Arizona House Appropriations Committee yesterday 7-5 on party lines, it would be illegal to knowingly make a video recording of law enforcement activity, including the handling of an emotionally disturbed person, if the person making the video recording does not have the permission of a law enforcement officer and is within eight feet of where the law enforcement activity is occurring.

The law would not affect the right of the person interacting directly with law enforcement to record, and violation would be a mere petty offense, unless the recorder fails to comply with a verbal warning.

It distracts the cop against the person they are making enforcement against, Kavanagh told the Arizona Mirror, recounting a time he had lost focusduring an arrest and failed to see the suspect dump a large quantity of drugs.

Evidence can be lost, the cop can be assaulted, Kavanagh said, without specifying exactly how a citizen holding up an iPhone is going to cause a cop to be assaulted.

I think you get a better picture from 15 feet away, he added. You get the full scene.

As the Electronic Freedom Foundation points out,the First, Third,Fifth,Seventh,Eleventh Circuits have upheld the right to record police at work, as has the Ninth Circuit which affirmed the right to film police 26 years ago. But Kavanagh has an answer for that, and it is abortion.

Well, obviously.

See, the Supreme Court upheld an eight-foot buffer zone for abortion clinic protestors in 2000, so obviously that means that Arizona can restrict First Amendment activity to stop cops from getting distracted.

I think this fully conforms with constitutionality and weighs officer safety with the citizens right, the publics right, to see law enforcement officers in action, Kavanagh told the AP. And it looks like the state may be about to test that hypothesis, as the law proceeds to the Rules Committee, before heading to the wider chamber for a vote.

Ex-cop lawmaker wants to restrict recording videos of cops [AZ Mirror]House panel OKs revised ban on videotaping police [AP]

Liz Dyelives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

Originally posted here:
Arizona Looks To Protect Cops From That Pesky First Amendment - Above the Law

Current law requires someone running for the Legislature to file an annual statement of economic interest with the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board.

County commissioners, judges and a public or local official in a metropolitan governmental unit must file one after being seated or accepting employment.

Rep. Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa) thinks lobbyists should have to annually disclose certain financial interests, such as their source of income, business interests, investments and securities, within five days of registration as a lobbyist.

His bill, HF2683, was held over Thursday by the House State Government Finance and Elections Committee for possible omnibus bill inclusion. It has no Senate companion.

Legislators have been required to fill this document out because the voters have a right to know who is making payments to their elected officials. This is done to prevent our public servants from receiving money in unethical ways that could lead to a conflict of interest or corruption, Drazkowski said.

He said similar laws exist elsewhere. For example, Connecticut requires annual detailed information on lobbyist compensation and New York requires bi-monthly filing of compensation paid or owed to a lobbyist.

Everyday Minnesotans do not have the time to go through hundreds of pages of campaign finance documents in an effort to follow the money that is influencing their state. However, requiring lobbyists to fill out a statement of economic interest would give voters a straightforward, easy and streamlined way of seeing who is being compensated, what kind of compensation is being received and whose interests are being represented, Drazkowski said.

Eric Hyland has been a registered lobbyist and member of the Minnesota Government Relations Council for 25 years, serving as its president in 2010. Simply inappropriate and unnecessary is how he describes the bill.

Legislators and other public officials must file statements because they have, by election or appointment, been bestowed the responsibility to protect the public interest and public funds, he said. The purpose of these filings is obvious: To create public confidence that the people actually making decisions on behalf of the public are doing so without financial gain. Lobbyists are not public officials; we do not make decisions on behalf of the public. Lobbyists are private individuals who represent clients who are exercising their First Amendment constitutional right to petition their government.

Twice a year for each client, lobbyists must file a public disbursement report with the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board showing, in part, they are being compensated by a client. However, Jeff Sigurdson, the boards executive director, said that report does not show whats received from each organization the lobbyist represents.

Lobbyist compensation is reported by the principal on a principals report. But, Sigurdson noted, that number equals all compensation the principal paid to be represented in Minnesota, not a breakdown in compensation paid to individual lobbyists.

Common Cause Minnesota promotes an ethical government working in the public interest. It believes the bill is good start; however, a letter from Executive Director Annastacia Belladonna-Carrera indicates more teeth is needed regarding violations.

Currently someone who fails to submit the Statement of Economic Interest under 10A.09 pays a fine of $1,000. Perhaps including language that speaks to suspending the lobbyist's privileges would be more attuned with actual accountability, otherwise the effects of HF2683 become symbolic at best and does very little to contribute to increased accountability.

See the original post here:
Lobbyists could be required to disclose financial interests each year - Session Daily - Minnesota House of Representatives - Minnesota House of...

When we think of freedom of speech, the spoken word is usually what comes to mind. But the First Amendment of the federal Constitution (and, hence, Article II, section 7 of Montanas Constitution) also protect symbolic speech.

Symbolic speech is non-verbal action that clearly conveys a specific message to anyone who sees and reads it. It can take the form of public protests, such as sit-ins and marches, demonstrations, wearing buttons, armbands or clothing items such as t-shirts, nudity, flag-waving, flag-burning, burning draft cards and bras, braille, sign language and even non-criminal actions that others might find offensive (the universal one finger salute), to name a few.

My friend, Alan Nicholson, and I were exchanging emails, and he raised an interesting question:

Could the right to vote be an exercise of free speech? I believe that Alan is correct, voting is the exercise of free speech. I suggest that it is a form of symbolic speech.

One commentator put it this way: Voting is an act of pure expression. It is one of the most consequential expressive acts in a persons life, when a voice becomes an action, and those actions dictate how we are governed.

Another author states: It seems like an obvious proposition that a citizen registering to vote or casting a ballot is engaging in free speech, a fundamental right entitled to full protection under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

This commentator notes, however, that the US Supreme Court rarely interprets the regulation of voting as it does other regulation of speech that is, with the most stringent form of review, strict scrutiny, applying robust First Amendment law.

Ironically, this from the Court that determined in Citizens United that money equals speech. However, keep in mind a fundamental principle of constitutional law: under its own constitution, a state can provide more protection of a right protected under the federal constitution; but a state cannot provide less protection.

With that principle in mind, assume that registering to vote, filling out a ballot (either mailed or at a polling place) and casting that ballot are actions that are, at the very least, forms of symbolic free speech an expressive non-verbal action that clearly conveys a specific message to anyone who sees and reads it.

Then, add to that the mandates and prohibitions of Montanas Article II, section 13, which states: All elections shall be free and open, and no power, civil or military shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage. One could hardly craft a stronger protection of the right to vote a constitutional guarantee that all elections must be free and open and prohibiting any civil power (including the legislature, of course) from interfering to prevent the exercise of this right.

Thus, reading together the rights in Articles II, section 7 (free speech and expression) and section 13 (right of suffrage) it is clear (as Alan also observed) that under Montana constitutional law, the right to vote must be protected with no less rigor than is the right of free speech and expression. That is, that both rights, being fundamental rights, any restrictions on the right to vote must be subjected to free speech strict scrutiny analysis.

To that point, Montanas right of free speech proclaims, in pertinent part that: No law shall be passed

impairing the freedom of speech or expression.

Voting being a form of speech and expression means that no law shall be passed impairing the right to vote. And the mandates and prohibitions of Article II, section 13 double-down on that point!

There is simply no constitutional basis by which the legislature, the governor or any public official or branch of government can impair or interfere with Montanans right of suffrage. No law shall be passed .

This article was originally published as: Voting is Free Speech.

Courtesy: Counterpunch.org

See the original post here:
Right to vote - The News International