Mediaboss Marketing

A New York judge blocked the state's attorney general from trying to put the National Rifle Association out of business but will allow a lawsuit accusing top executives of misusing funds to proceed.

Manhattan Judge Joel M. Cohen expressed concerns that shutting down the NRA could infringe on the First Amendment rights of its millions of members. However, the lawsuit regarding allegedly misused funds can continue, but it does not warrant the "corporate death penalty" sought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, the Associated Press reported.

"The complaint does not allege that any financial misconduct benefited the NRA, or that the NRA exists primarily to carry out such activity, or that the NRA is incapable of continuing its legitimate activities on behalf of its millions of members," the judge wrote in his opinion.

In August 2020, James filed a lawsuit to shut down the NRA alleging three top executives and CEO Wayne LaPierre diverted tens of millions of dollars in funds to use for personal use, violating the charity law. The lawsuit alleges LaPierre used the nonprofit's money to fly on private jets, hire car services, pay for travel consultants and personal security, and that he spent more than $500,000 for several trips to the Bahamas with his family, the AP added.

The lawsuit alleges that LaPierre "exploited the organization for his financial benefit, and the benefit of a close circle of NRA staff, board members and vendors." The suit claims NRA senior executives "regularly ignored, overrode or otherwise violated the bylaws and internal policies and procedures that they were charged with enforcing" in order to divert assets, Vox reported.

The CEO is also accused of setting up a $17 million post-employment contract for himself and accepting luxury gifts from vendors including African safaris and a 107-foot yacht, according to the AP.

"The court let stand all of the Office of the Attorney General's claims of self-dealing, abuse, and unlawful conduct by LaPierre, who has been at the helm of the NRA for three decades," James' office said in a statement. "Today, the court affirmed my office's right to pursue its long-standing claims that fraud, abuse, and greed permeate through the NRA and its senior leadership."

The NRA initially denied the allegations of misspending, but the group filed a tax document with the IRS stating the organization "became aware during 2019 of a significant diversion of its assets." The document also showed LaPierre reimbursed the NRA for $300,000 in travel costs, Vox reported.

However, Wednesday's ruling means the New York Attorney General's Office cannot shut down the association or seize its assets.

"This is a resounding win for the NRA, its 5 million members, and all who believe in this organization," NRA President Charles Cotton said in a statement. "The message is loud and clear: The NRA is strong and secure in its mission to protect constitutional freedom."

In 2021, the NRA declared bankruptcy and reported between $100 million and $500 million in assets and the same amount in liabilities, according to the bankruptcy documents. The organization tried to move its state of incorporation to Texas from New York, but a Texas judge blocked the move, saying the bankruptcy was not filed in good faith, the AP reported.

Update 3/2/22, 6:00 p.m. ET: This article was updated with a statement from the NRA.

Go here to see the original:
New York AG's Effort to Shutter NRA Rejected Over First Amendment Rights - Newsweek

With the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics now underway, concerns over Chinas treatment of the Uyghurs have come back into public light. While many voice outrage over the Chine Communist Partys treatment of ethnic minorities, some choose to ignore the crisis or flat out state that no one cares about human rights abuses in China.

It certainly poses as a conundrum for Western nations: how can a country which promotes civil liberties, individual rights, and the equitable adjudication of the law partake in games hosted by a state which actively and systematically imprisons, tortures, and kills citizens?

Some American leaders have instructed athletes to not speak out against the regime.

As I wish the athletes well, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently warned, I do not encourage them to speak out against the Chinese government there because I fear for their safety if they do.

Similar inaction can be seen in Karnataka, India, where five school girls were barred from entering school, as a hijab ban was introduced. This ban spread to five other locations, preventing students with religious attire from entering. This is seen throughout Karnataka, as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Party (RSS) recently gained majority electoral control. The RSS is known for attacking Muslims and Christians over their traditions, beliefs, and food choices. The judge referred the hijab ban case to an upper court; meanwhile, students remain banned until the case is decided.

Violence against Indias Muslim communities has be prevalent for years. Hindu mobs have been known to openly assault Muslims. The local police have made minimal effort in apprehending suspects, and many assaulters run free. A 2019 study found that 90 percent of victims of hate crimes in India were Muslim.

After a military coup in Myanmar in February 2021, there has been an increase in persecutions of the nations 4 million Christians. Infighting in majority Christian states Kachin and Shan shows the burning of churches and homes, and the killing of Christian pastors. The countrys various Buddhist, Muslim, and tribal communities express strong opposition towards their Christian neighbors; they see them as outsiders for converting.

Salai Za Uk Ling, the deputy director of the Chin Human Rights Organization describes the violence the Myanmar military inflicted on the town of Thantlang.

The killing of Cung Biak Hum and mutilation of his finger demonstrate the extent of disrespect and brutality with which [Myanmar military] soldiers are conducting themselves in their ongoing war against the people'', Salai told Al Jazeera.

The military justified their actions by stating that they received intel that local rebels were hiding in the town. This echoes the CCPs Uyghur camp response in which state officials proclaimed they were investigating Islamic Extremism.

But what do the civil rights abuses in China, Myanmar, and India have in common? Unlike the United States, these countries do not have an honored and enforced First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.

Though India and China both have constitutional provisions mentioning freedom of speech, assembly, and association, little is done to actually uphold these provisions. (Myanmar, meanwhile, doesnt have anything even approaching a First Amendment.)

In these states, the ability to speak freely and associate with any group is viewed as a privilege rather than a right. With no structure to support a communitys liberties, the majority is able to abuse the system and act violently, most of the time without repercussions. In China and Myanmar, the very government which is entrusted with the defense of its populace acts against its people. Whether for political control, quashing rebellions, or discriminating against minority communities, the lack of a first amendment and an objective rule of law allow those in power to subject people to abuses. India currently has a free speech score of 3.68/6; China and Myanmar arent even on the list. For reference, the US score is 5.73/6.

In forming the US Constitution, James Madison frequently wrote on the importance of protecting individual rights from an oppressive majority. In Federalist No. 10, he wrote on the dangers of a pure democracy:

...it may be concluded that a pure democracy a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.

In this system, there are no safeguards for individual life, liberty, or property: the minority lamb is at the mercy of the majority wolves. Madison describes the various checks and balances a republic holds, and how factitious, radical groups cannot gain a foothold as easily:

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source.

The structure of a constitutional republic enforces its laws and honors its constitution, regardless of the will of encroaching hostile factions. Its the safeguard against injustice, whether it is targeted towards Uyghurs, Indian Muslims, Myanmar Christians, or others. America is unique in that it is one of the only countries in the world whose government enforces and honors its free speech. Though there may be instances of private censorship in the form of cancel culture, the federal government itself may not censor or imprison citizens for speech that does not constitute a true threat.

The First Amendment is a check on the government. It acknowledges the rights of citizens, and explicitly states that the government may not infringe on said rights. In China, the CCP is above the law, so it may abuse whichever rights it pleases, whenever it pleases. Indian officials do not honor the right to self-expression and identification, often turning a blind eye to mobs directing violence at religious minorities. In Myanmar, the constitution doesnt even enumerate individual rights to that extent, and the military in power is free to persecute Christians and other minorities.

So as we see civil liberties abuses occur in countries that dont support an individuals right to self-expression and identity, its important to remember that, regardless of your position on any hot-button topicwhether left, right, center, or otherthe First Amendment prevents the government from infringing on your inalienable human rights.

Read the original:
How the First Amendment Protects the Marginalized and Saves Lives | Connor Vasile - Foundation for Economic Education

This matter is in the news again, because of a proposal in Boston to limit residential picketing so that it can only happen from 9 am to 9 pm. (This appears to have been prompted by residential picketing outside Mayor Michelle Wu's home.) I therefore thought I'd repost an item of mine that answers the question:Is this sort of targeted residential picketing protected by the First Amendment?

The short answer: No, but any restrictions on such picketing have to be imposed through content-neutral statutes or ordinances (or, in some situations, injunctions); and they have to leave people free to demonstrate in the same neighborhood:

Carey involved a pro-busing group picketing the home of a mayor, while Frisby and Madsen involved anti-abortion groups picketing the homes of clinic employees. Indeed, most of the residential picketing cases I've seen have involved anti-abortion protesters; at least in the 1980s and 1990s, such residential picketing seemed to be a favored tactic of at least some parts of that movement.

But the Court of course didn't draw distinctions based on the content of the speech or based on whether the picketing was aimed at a public official. For instance, Justice Scalia, who had often faulted the Court in free speech cases where he thought anti-abortion speech was being treated unfairly, was in the majority in Frisby; Justices Brennan and Marshall, strong supporters of abortion rights, dissented; none of them seemed swayed by the speakers' ideology. Rather, as I note above, the Court expressly forbade such distinctions.

So a city or a state could ban picketing or allow it. But the rules would apply equally to anti-racism protesters, antifa protesters, anti-abortion protesters, alt.right protesters, and any other protesters.

To my knowledge, residential picketing is banned on a statewide basis only in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota, though the statutes operate somewhat differently. (The Arizona ban is limited to picketing conducted "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm"; the Minnesota law allows injunctions to be issued based on targeted residential picketing that happens "on more than one occasion," rather than banning such picketing outright.) But various cities ban it as well.

Finally, even when there is no ordinance banning residential picketing, particular kinds of behavior while picketingespecially loud noise at night (cf. the August 2020 Washington protest outside the Postmaster General's home)may be banned by content-neutral restrictions. See Kovacs v. Cooper (1949). Of course, those restrictions must be enforced in a content-neutral manner as well: A city can't deliberately ignore loud protests that express certain views but then punish loud protests that express others.

Visit link:
Protests Outside People's Homes (Residential Picketing) and the First Amendment - Reason

By Anna Maria Basquez

EL PASO COUNTY, Colo. (CBS4) Administrators and a teacher at a Colorado Springs area high school are engaging in discussions with students and parents after an incident in which the teacher is alleged to have used racial slurs in the course of instruction.

Samantha Briggs, spokeswoman for Widefield School District 3, said Mesa Ridge High School Navy JROTC instructor Brian Gauck used the N-word in multiple classes. The district states the word was used in a discussion about the First Amendment.

I can confirm a JROTC instructor used the word during a class discussion around the First Amendment and language, Briggs said. The word was not used to call or refer to anyone.

The schools principal took immediate action once she was made aware of the situation and the instructor publicly apologized to all students in the classes.

In addition, the principal has apologized to students and parents on behalf of the school, she said. The principal and the instructor are engaging in individual conversations with students and parents to restore relationships. The district and the school are committed to providing a safe, welcoming, and culturally inclusive environment for all of our students and families. That is all the information I have on the situation at this time.

Briggs said she wouldnt provide any specifics on any possible disciplinary action that may have resulted from the situation.

View original post here:
Colorado Teacher Apologizes After Using N-Word In The Classroom During First Amendment Instruction - CBS Denver

A bill passed by the Arizona House this week that would ban people from taking close-rangerecordings of police without permission has raised concerns of violatingpeople's First Amendment rights.

House Bill 2319 initially restricted people within 15 feet of law enforcement activity from recording police without permission. It was later amended to 8 feet to addressconcerns it would be unconstitutional, bill sponsorRep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills)said at a committee hearing on Monday.

"Based on comments made by people testifyingin committee and by my working withour Rules attorneysand their intern, I received a lot of goodinput to make this bill conform with the Constitution," he said.

"The major changes areI went from 15 feet to 8 feetand that is based upon 8 feet being established bythe U.S.SupremeCourt as being a reasonable distance as they applied it to peopleentering and leaving abortionclinics when faced with protesters, they said that was a good balance," Kavanagh continued.

Other amendments to the bill before passageincluded allowingany person at the center of police contact or any occupants of a vehicle stopped by police to record those interactions from a close distance aslong as they don'tinterfere with police actions, like searches or field sobriety tests.

The bill now also defines law enforcement activity as any instance in which police are questioning a suspicious person, arresting someone or interacting with "an emotionally disturbed or disorderly person who is exhibiting abnormal behavior."

HB 2319 would make it a petty offense punishable with a fine for anyone found in violation of the potential law.However, offenders risk facing a misdemeanorif they failto followan officer's verbal warnings or hadpreviously been convictedof violating the law.

Kavanagh, a former detective at the Port Authority in New York, proposed a similar bill in 2016 while he served as a state senator. He killed thatbill himself before it was assigned a hearing because it was "mired in controversy," he said at the time.

The measureproposed this legislative session was approved on Wednesday by the Houseona 31-28party-line vote, with Republicansin favor,and will next go to the Senate for consideration.

Democratic Minority Leader Reginald Bolding voted against the measure, stating it "would make it less transparent for citizens."

"(It's) not the direction that we should be walking in as a state," he said. "I further believe that right now what we have to do as a state is make sure that we are standing up directly for ourcommunities to ensure that they know that they are safe."

SomeFirst Amendment experts say the bill poses a constitutional issue and grants police too much discretion.Various news organizations including Gannett, the company that owns The Arizona Republic, also signed a letter from the National Press Photographers Association opposing the bill because it violated the free speech and press clauses of the First Amendment as well as"the 'clearly established right' to photograph and record police officers performing their official duties in a public place."

"As several federal courts have affirmed, people have the First Amendment right to record police officers while they carry out their duties and the ability to record police interactions has become an important tool to ensure police accountability and transparency," said ACLU of Arizona Communications DirectorMarcela Taracena.

Bystander videos of law enforcement activityhave become increasingly common, and at times helpful at exposing instances of police misconduct. It was instrumental in the case against former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin who was ultimately convicted in the murder of George Floyd.

Video captured by a bystander also recently showed13-year-old Taylor Thomasbeing punched by a Phoenix police officer.Phoenix's new Office of Accountability and Transparency director Roger Smith told The Republic earlier this month the law "cuts against transparency."

"The more quality information you can get about these incidents, the better," he said. "And for officers who are doing their jobs right, it's better to have more information than less. You'd be able to help those officers to present the fact that they did their jobs correctly."

Aside from the First Amendment issues the bill poses, Arizona First Amendment Coalition Attorney Dan Barr pointed out that it'd be difficult for peopleto follow. Gregg Leslie, director of Arizona State University's First Amendment Clinic, also separately noted that police situations were too fluid to be able to applylimits like the 8-foot distance set by the bill.

"Let's say you're observing the police and you're outside the 8-foot area but the police come at you and they say 'hey turn that camera off' and they come within 8feet of you, are you nowcommitting a crime?" Barr questioned.

Barr later added if HB 2319 issigned into law, it'd only a matter of time before it's challenged in court.

"When you're in public, you just don'thave the same kind of privacy that gives you control over other people'sactions," Leslie said. "So once you add police to the context, there's always an interest in knowing how police are performing their function, even if you're pro-police andyou'rerecording them to show that you think they're doing the right thing ... there's just a public interestin knowing how police are doing their job that is fundamentally important to people."

Reach the reporter at chelsea.curtis@arizonarepublic.comor follow her on Twitter@curtis_chels.

Support local journalism.Subscribe to azcentraltoday.

Excerpt from:
Arizona House approves bill that bans close range recordings of police - The Arizona Republic