Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

Understanding Free Speech on Campus: The Ten Critical Judgments the Supreme Court Has Made About the Meaning of the First Amendment | James Madison…

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...

State moves to block release of certain driver records, then reverses itself – Detroit Free Press

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

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

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

Our leaders rolled out the red carpet for hate with Reawaken America Tour – Statesman Journal

Levi Herrera-Lpez| Guest Opinion

Was Clay Clark and Gen. Mike Flynns Reawaken America Tour, held in Keizer on April 1-2, an event filled with love, as some have stated?

Does love include saying the war in Ukraine is not a war, but a false-flag operation to dismantle the deep state sites and schemes in Ukraine And that Putin may actually be the good guy fighting against the same global elite that holds us all hostages , as stated by John Michael Chambers and Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano?

Thousands of people cheered the statement by Pastor Mark Burns that, there is no such thing as trans kids only abusive parents

Is that love?

Speaker Mel K and tour organizer Clay Clark both said a Jewish person was responsible for masterminding COVID-19.

Clark at one point turned to his colleague, Aaron Antis, and asked him what he thought The hospitals of today are being turned into? Antis responded, Id say that those are the gas chambers of America Once they are in the grips of the hospital is like theyve gone to the gas chambers and they dont come back.

Another speaker, Scott McKay, used a code word at a different stop of the tour to claim a Jewish global mafia is responsible for killing you in hospitals; theyre killing you in the streets; they launched antifa and BLM. In Keizer, he added he would like to punch the people who demonstrated against the tour.

Some on social media argued these are anti-Nazi statements.

Organizations such as the American Jewish Committee lists many of the words used at this event as antisemitic code words or phrases e.g., globalists, cabal, elitists or elites, direct references to Jewish puppet-masters, etc. The Anti-Defamation League says, Comparing something that bothers you to the Holocaust, like what was said by Clark and, later on, by speaker Leigh Dundas, is deeply inaccurate, insulting and troubling. There is simply no comparison between the systematic murder of over 13 million people, including 6 million Jews, and the efforts to save lives and keep communities safe amidst a raging global pandemic.

Non-Christians didnt get much love, either, as one pastor said, Were taking this state and this country back in the name of Jesus Christ. That sounds distinctly anti-First Amendment in its aspiration to establish one movement of Christianity as the faith of the state.

There were no riots. But thousands attended a rally and cheered anti-Semitic, transphobic and anti-democratic code words and phrases. Read that again. And some of them attended an anti-LGBTQ+ rally in Salem on April 11.

If you hurt a man, in time his wounds would heal. If you break windows, those windows can be replaced. But when some of our neighbors question how safe they are to be themselves in this town, that is real violence and loss of safety.

And our top civic leaders in Keizer rolled out the red carpet to this and didnt say a word.

Levi Herrera-Lpez is executive director of the Mano a Mano Family Center, whose mission is to strengthen families by promoting hope and reducing toxic stress. He also serves as Chair of the Salem-Keizer School Districts Budget Committee. You may reach him at levi@manoamanofc.org

See the article here:
Our leaders rolled out the red carpet for hate with Reawaken America Tour - Statesman Journal

Crown Crafts : AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AND SEVERANCE PROTECTION AGREEMENT – Form 8-K – Marketscreener.com

AMENDMENT TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AND

SEVERANCE PROTECTION AGREEMENT

This AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AND SEVERANCE PROTECTION AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") is made and entered into as of the 14th day of April, 2022, by and between CROWN CRAFTS, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and E. RANDALL CHESTNUT, an individual resident of the State of South Carolina (the "Executive").

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have entered into that certain: (a) Employment Agreement, dated July 23, 2001, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated as of November 6, 2008; and (b) Amended and Restated Severance Protection Agreement, dated as of April 20, 2004, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Amended and Restated Severance Protection Agreement, dated as of November 6, 2008 (together, the "Original Agreements");

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have entered into the Amended and Restated Employment and Severance Protection Agreement, dated as of December 16, 2020 (the "Agreement"), to amend the Original Agreements and to facilitate the transition of the management of the Company;

WHEREAS, in connection with such transition, the Board of Directors of the Company appointed Olivia Elliott as President and Chief Operating Officer, effective January 4, 2021, and appointed Olivia Elliott as President and Chief Executive Officer, effective March 1, 2022;

WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive wish to amend the Agreement as provided herein in furtherance of the transition of management of the Company and the Executive's retirement from the Company; and

WHEREAS, capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the same meanings given to such terms in the Agreement;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants and agreements herein, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows:

1.

Executive's Retirement. The Executive and the Company hereby acknowledge and agree that the Executive shall retire from the Company as of May 1, 2022, and, in connection therewith, the Executive hereby resigns his position as a director of the Company and all other positions he holds with the Company and its subsidiaries, effective May 1, 2022. The Executive acknowledges that the Company has provided to him the disclosures that the Company is making on Form 8-K in connection with his resignation, and the Executive agrees with such disclosures. The Company and the Executive agree that effective May 1, 2022, the Executive will no longer be an employee of the Company.

2.

Remaining Payments. In connection with the Executive's retirement as set forth herein, and in lieu of any other payments, compensation or benefits that the Executive would be entitled to receive pursuant to the Agreement or otherwise (including, without limitation, pursuant to Section 5 of the Agreement) relating to his employment with the Company, the Company agrees as follows:

(a) The Executive shall continue to receive the payments he is currently receiving from the Company pursuant to Section 3 of the Agreement through May 1, 2022;

(b) The Company will pay to the Executive $155,692.15 in a lump sum payment no later than May 2, 2022 (subject to any required payroll and withholding tax obligations), which payment shall be in lieu of compensation and benefits that the Executive would otherwise have been entitled to receive through April 2, 2023; and

(c) The Executive's grant of 8,033 shares of restricted stock dated August 11, 2021, shall become vested at the end of the Term on May 1, 2022, and accrued but unpaid dividends with respect to such shares will be paid to the Executive within three (3) days thereof. In accordance with the provisions of Section 7(a)(ii) of the Restricted Stock Award Certificate with respect to such shares, Executive authorizes, and the Company shall, withhold shares to satisfy any tax withholding obligations in connection with the vesting of such shares.

3.

Amendments to Agreement. In furtherance of the foregoing, Sections 1, 2.2(b), 2.3 and 3.1 of the Agreement are each hereby amended by deleting "April 2, 2023" and replacing it with "May 1, 2022".

4.

Restrictive Covenants. Executive and the Company acknowledge and agree that the restrictive covenants set forth in Section 6 of the Agreement remain in full force and effect except that the Restricted Period is hereby amended by deleting Section 6.2(c)(vi) of the Agreement and replacing it with the following: "Restricted Period" means a period of time that is one (1) year following the expiration of the Term on May 1, 2022.

(a) Existing Terms. The existing terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect except as such terms and conditions are specifically amended by, or conflict with, the terms of this Amendment.

(b) Choice of Law. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware without giving effect to the conflict of laws principles thereof.

(c) Legal Fees. The Company shall pay the reasonable legal fees of the Executive in connection with this Amendment.

(d) Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

2

(e) Severability. If any term or provision of this Amendment is held by a court of competent jurisdiction or other authority to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized as of the date first written above.

CROWN CRAFTS, INC.

By: /s/ Olivia Elliott

Name:Olivia Elliott

Title:President & CEO

/s/E. Randall Chestnut

E. RANDALL CHESTNUT

3

See the original post here:
Crown Crafts : AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AND SEVERANCE PROTECTION AGREEMENT - Form 8-K - Marketscreener.com