Mediaboss Marketing

From Hershey v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, decided Wednesday by Judge Douglas Harpool (W.D. Mo.):

Plaintiff often handed out flyers and brochures, and he advocated for vegetarian or vegan eating. Plaintiff claims that the University's policy that placing regulations on speech on areas of campus is unconstitutional. More specifically, he claims that Defendants applied the policy, CRR 110.010, unconstitutionally against him and infringed on his First Amendment rights by restricting his speech based on content.

Plaintiff alleges that, in December of 2021, he was distributing literature at the University of Missouri-Columbia (MU) and was asked by a Jane Doe who identified herself as "with operations" to relocate to another location on campus. Plaintiff claims that Ms. Doe called University police after Plaintiff "declined to remove himself from his desired location." Plaintiff asserts that he spoke with a MU police officer for "approximately ten minutes," who purportedly told Plaintiff he would be removed from campus if he made students feel uncomfortable or if he was otherwise rude. He claims that "the University's actions interfered" with his protected speech activities and that the officer's presence "deterred some students from accepting a booklet from Hershey."

Plaintiff next alleges that, on August 23, 2021, he was distributing literature regarding vegetarianism on the University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL) campus. Plaintiff alleges that UMSL staff "demanded that he distance himself farther from his intended audience outside the [Millenium Student Center]." Plaintiff names as a defendant Dorian Hall ("Hall"), the Director of the Millenium Student Center, and claims that Director Hall "directed his staff to move Hershey farther away from the door." Plaintiff alleges that "UMSL's actions interfered with Hershey's lawful and protected speech activities" and that the "staff's presence" deterred students from accepting Hershey's literature."

Plaintiff next asserts that, on May 7, 2021, he was distributing literature on the Missouri University of Science and Technology (Missouri S&T) campus when he was approached by Sergeant Mark Ritter ("Ritter") and told he "had to leave the University." Plaintiff claims that Ritter "looked at the booklet for several seconds" and "arbitrarily, in response to the content and viewpoint of the booklet," told Plaintiff he was "prohibited from handing out his literature" and that he was on "private property." Plaintiff concedes that Ritter "relent[ed]" after speaking with his police chief. Plaintiff alleges that "Ritter's actions interfered with Hershey's lawful and protected speech activities and caused Hershey to not offer his booklets to some of the passersby." Plaintiff alleges that Ritter's presence deterred students from accepting booklets.

Last, Plaintiff alleges that, on December 5, 2018, he was distributing booklets regarding vegetarianism on MU's campus. He contends that Nancy Monteer, the Director of Campus Dining ("Monteer"), "arbitrarily, in retaliation based on the content and viewpoint of the booklet," confronted Plaintiff and "yelled" at him to "get away" from the dining hall doors. Plaintiff alleges his confrontation with Monteer culminated in Plaintiff "rais[ing] his arms up to protect himself from Monteer's increasingly aggressive advances."

Plaintiff sued for violation of the First Amendment and of the Missouri Campus Free Expression Act:

The court held that the Act hadn't sufficiently expressly waived Missouri's sovereign immunity from lawsuits in federal courts:

"[A] federal suit against state officials on the basis of state law contravenes the Eleventh Amendment." Even if a state has waived immunity with regard to "its own courts," this "is not a waiver of the Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts."

But it allowed the First Amendment claim to go forward:

Defendants do not dispute that the areas where Plaintiff alleges interference with his free speech rights, including preventing him from communicating with his target audience, harassing, accosting, arresting, and banning him, were traditional public forums. It has long been bedrock, clearly established First Amendment law that the most stringent standard is applicable to restrictions on speech in a traditional public forum, particularly at public schools, parks and streets.

Here, Plaintiff specifically alleges that the Defendants imposed content-based exclusions that are not necessary to preserve a compelling state interest and that the restrictions are not narrowly tailored.

It is clearly established law that that restrictions on speech based on the content of the speech is subject to the highest scrutiny under the law. "For the State to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. The State may enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication."

The clearly established law regarding content-based restrictions on speech is one which a reasonable person would have understood at the time of the Plaintiff's alleged deprivation. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Monteer, Hall, and Ritter infringed on his rights to freedom of speech based on the vegetarian/vegan content he was communicating. Plaintiff has sufficiently pled actions by these defendants overcome their claim to qualified immunity. Accordingly, Plaintiff's 1983 claims against the remaining defendants (Monteer, Hall, and Ritter) in their individual capacities are not dismissed.

More here:
First Amendment Lawsuit by Vegan Advocate Against University of Missouri Can Go Forward - Reason

CINCINNATI Shawnee State University professor Dr. Nick Meriwethers three-year court battle for his First Amendment rights has concluded with a settlement in his favor.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled in March 2021 that the university violated Meriwethers free speech rights when it punished him because he declined to call a student by their preferred pronouns.

According to court documents, Meriwether offered to use any name the student requested instead of titles and pronouns, but the university rejected that compromise, instead forcing the professor to speak contrary to his religious convictions and philosophical beliefs.

As part of the settlement, the university has agreed that Meriwether has the right to choose when to use, or avoid using, titles or pronouns when referring to or addressing students. The university also agreed Meriwether will never be mandated to use pronouns, including if a student requests pronouns that conflict with his or her biological sex.

This case forced us to defend what used to be a common beliefthat nobody should be forced to contradict their core beliefs just to keep their job, said ADF Senior Counsel Travis Barham. Dr. Meriwether went out of his way to accommodate his students and treat them all with dignity and respect, yet his university punished him because he wouldnt endorse an ideology that he believes is false. Were pleased to see the university recognize that the First Amendment guarantees Dr. Meriwetherand every other Americanthe right to speak and act in a manner consistent with ones faith and convictions.

Public universities should welcome intellectual and ideological diversity, where all students and professors can engage in meaningful discussions without compromising their core beliefs, said ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. Dr. Meriwether rightly defended his freedom to speak and stay silent, and not conform to the universitys demand for uniformity of thought. We commend the university for ultimately agreeing to do the right thing, in keeping with its reason for existence as a marketplace of ideas.

As part of the settlement in Meriwether v. The Trustees of Shawnee State University, the university agreed to pay $400,000 in damages and Meriwethers attorneys fees. Additionally, considering the 6th Circuits ruling, the university is rescinding the written warning it issued Meriwether in June 2018. In light of the settlement, ADF attorneys filed a voluntary dismissal of the case Thursday.

The Portsmouth Daily Times reached out to Shawnee State University but has not received a comment at this time.

Meriwether

See the original post here:
Meriwether reaches settlement in First Amendment case with university - Portsmouth Daily Times

Coin Center has vehemently pushed back the controversial SEC proposal that sought to redefine the definition of exchange within the Securities Exchange Act in a bid to include systems that offer the use of non-firm trading interest and communications protocols to bring together buyers and sellers of securities. The group deemed the regulators move as unconstitutional.

The Washington-based non-profit that focuses on cryptocurrency policies, Coin Center, announced filing a comment letter with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). According to the crypto lobby, the proposal by the commission breaches the First Amendment by requiring a license to speak, even for open source developers working behind projects in the ecosystem.

Think tanks and crypto lobby groups motivations to rebuff SECs proposal comes amidst the regulators of the country gearing up to tighten oversight.

Last month, the agency published Amendments Regarding the Definition of Exchange. Many experts believe it targets bringing the crypto and, most importantly, decentralized finance (DeFi) sector into its regulatory perimeter, thereby dramatically redefining the risk profile of operating a project in the US.

While arguing that the implications on developers, publishers, and republishers would be adverse, Coin Centers comment letter stated:

A new SEC proposal has a serious change hidden within its complex language. Bottom line: The proposal violates the First Amendment by requiring a license to speakeven of open source developers. Its unconstitutional and they should change it. Coin Center is pushing back.

The non-profits research director Peter Van Valkenburgh said that the proposal is unconstitutional and that the SEC should retract it.

The regulatory authoritys interpretation of exchange is deemed as inappropriately broad since the lengthy 200 pages document never mentions crypto or DeFi once. Coin Center also cited Supreme Courts (SC) previous precedent, which could potentially compel the SEC to withdraw the proposal if it finalizes the new rule as drafted.

Coin Center also stated that the Commission should narrow the definition of exchange before finalizing the proposal to true professional conduct. Failing to do so could cool down substantial protected speech, and stifle innovation in the country, besides facing an unfriendly Court that the lobby believes, is primed to vindicate the First Amendment freedoms.

PrimeXBT Special Offer: Use this link to register & enter POTATO50 code to receive up to $7,000 on your deposits.

Link:
SECs Proposal to Amend the Definition of Exchange Violates the First Amendment, Says Coin Center - CryptoPotato

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