Mediaboss Marketing

RIDGEFIELD This fall, the public can learn about the past, present and future of the First Amendment from a slate of scholarly speakers in a new series titled, What Does the First Amendment Mean Today?

The programs were created by the Ridgefield Library, the Ridgefield Historical Society, the League of Women Voters of Ridgefield and other community partners to explore the First Amendments foundational principles from historical and contemporary perspectives.

The First Amendment protects the freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly and the right to petition the government.

For a lot of us the First Amendment ... is kind of a subtext, but (its issues have) really been front and center for the last couple of years, Assistant Library Director Andy Forsyth said.

These issues include the resulting tensions that have come from exercising freedom of assembly at protests nationwide; speech censorship in traditional and social media platforms; and censoring access to information, which affects the work of public libraries.

We want people to gain insight into what (the First Amendment) really is ... (from) presenters who could speak to these issues with expertise, Forsyth said.

The series kicks off Sept. 9 at 7 p.m. with a lecture by legal scholar Akhil Amar, a Sterling professor of law and political science at Yale University, in the librarys main program room.

A book discussion follows Sept. 20 at 7 p.m. with best-selling author Jess Walter, who will discuss his novel, The Cold Millions, via Zoom. The work examines free speech and the First Amendment through the lens of historical fiction.

Gloria Browne-Marshall will lead an online lecture Oct. 3 at 5 p.m. to discuss the evolution of freedoms of speech and assembly from the civil rights era to the present. Browne-Marshall is a civil rights attorney and constitutional law professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

The series concludes with a panel discussion at the library Oct. 10 at 5 p.m. Ridgefield journalist Todd Brewster will moderate the panel, which features Amar, past ACLU President Nadine Strossen, New York Times journalist Mike McIntire and Ridgefield Library Director Brenda McKinley.

Patrons will be required to wear masks when visiting the library. No social distancing or capacity limits are in place.

Ridgefield Historical Societys Development and Marketing Director Kathryn Tufano said knowing what is and isnt protected by the First Amendment is more relevant and timely than ever.

My personal thought is in the world that we live in post-Trump but also midstream in a pandemic its really important for people to understand what their rights and responsibilities are, she said. What is the difference between real education and the news spin, or the person talking (the) loudest?

Marilyn Carroll, president of the League of Women Voters of Ridgefield, said the series will provide an opportunity for attendants to learn about their rights.

Our mission is to defend democracy and empower voters. That can only be done when the First Amendment (is) vigorously protected and widely understood and respected, she said. Educating the public about those five freedoms and their importance to a civil society that welcomes a diversity of opinions is critical.

For information or to register, visit the events calendar at ridgefieldlibrary.org.

alyssa.seidman@hearstmediact.com

See more here:
Ridgefield Library series to spotlight the First Amendment - The Ridgefield Press

Judge Davis acknowledged that the board had also imposed some punishments more concrete than a reprimand, like making Mr. Wilson ineligible for reimbursement for college-related travel. Those additional penalties, the judge wrote, did not violate his First Amendment rights.

Mr. Wilsons lawyers told the justices that the power to censure must have limits. Elected bodies can censure their members for what they say during the lawmaking process, they wrote, and for conduct that is not protected by the First Amendment. But outside the official realm, they wrote, the First Amendment forbids a government bodys official punishment of a speaker for merely expressing disagreement with a political majority.

Those may appear to be fine distinctions. Mr. Wilsons brief in the case, Houston Community College System v. Wilson, No. 20-804, gave examples to illustrate how they would work outside the legislative process.

A censure would be permissible for illegal marijuana use, for example, but not for statements supporting the legalization of marijuana use, the brief said. Likewise, a censure would be permissible for slander, but not for statements that merely criticize.

The full Fifth Circuit deadlocked on whether to rehear the case, by an 8-to-8 vote. Dissenting from the decision to deny further review, Judge Edith H. Jones said the panels First Amendment analysis was backward. The boards censure was itself speech worthy of protection, she wrote, particularly in a polarized era.

Given the increasing discord in society and governmental bodies, the attempts of each side in these disputes to get a leg up on the other, and the ready availability of weapons of mass communication with which each side can tar the other, the panels decision is the harbinger of future lawsuits, Judge Jones wrote. It weaponizes any gadfly in a legislative body.

Political infighting of this sort, she wrote, should not be dignified with a false veneer of constitutional protection and has no place in the federal courts.

See the article here:
Are Censures of Politicians a Form of Free Speech or a Threat to It? - The New York Times

The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the reinstatement of a Virginia teacher who was suspended for refusal to use transgender pronouns. It never should have reached this point.

Tanner Cross, a gym teacher, had cited religious reasons for his refusal to refer to transgender students by their preferred pronouns. At a Loudoun County School Board meeting, Cross had spoken out against the board policy requiring staff to do exactly that. Soon after, he was placed on leave.

Shortly after Cross was placed on leave, he sued, alleging that the school district violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. He was granted a temporary injunction by a circuit court judge and reinstated . Loudoun County Public Schools then appealed that ruling, only to be smacked down by the Virginia Supreme Court.

It is important to note that this victory was fairly limited. The court noted in its ruling that in another case, a federal district court determined a teacher did not have a constitutionally protected right to disobey a policy requiring that he refer to students by their preferred pronouns. But that was not the question in Crosss case. He was punished for publicly speaking out against the policy, and his suspension was a retaliation against him for exercising his First Amendment rights.

Moreover, the ruling only covered the temporary injunction that allowed Cross to continue working while his lawsuit progresses through the courts. According to the Associated Press, A trial is scheduled for next week in Loudoun County to settle the issue permanently.

That means the Loudoun County School Boards policy could still make it out of this ordeal intact. That would also mean Cross, or any other teacher in Loudoun County, could still be fired for refusing to obey the policy.

Under the guise of compassion for children, Loudoun County may still be able to compel teachers to adhere to the worldview of transgender activists, redefining sex and gender not just in violation of the religious rights of teachers, but basic biology. Crosss recent victory is well-deserved, but the fact that it was necessary at all is a problem that goes far deeper.

Read the original post:
Loudoun County School Board's transgender policy is still a threat to First Amendment rights - Washington Examiner

Faith and truth still matter.

So said the Virginia Supreme Court in siding with a public school teacher who criticized his county school districts transgender policy for violating his religious beliefs.

The case involved Tanner Cross, a phys ed teacher who in May told the Loudoun County School Board that his faith precluded him from calling students by their chosen preferred pronouns as a proposed district policy mandated.

I love all of my students, but I would never lie to them regardless of the consequences, Cross told the board back in May. Im a teacher, but I serve God first and I will not affirm a biological boy can be a girl and vice versa because its against my religion, its lying to a child, its abuse to a child, and its sinning against our God.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, the state Supreme Court turned thumbs down on the argument by Loudoun County that student comfort and mental well-being trump the First Amendment.

While LCPS respects the rights of public-school employees to free speech and free exercise of religion, the school district had argued, those rights do not outweigh the rights of students to be educated in a supportive and nurturing environment.

The district also had sought to punish Cross, but a lower court judge blocked that.

On Monday, the Virginia Supreme Court maintained that the county did not produce compelling evidence to overturn the initial ruling.

It is settled law that the government may not take adverse employment actions against its employees in reprisal for their exercising their right to speak on matters of public concern, the courts ruling said.

Cross was opposing a policy that might burden his freedoms of expression and religion by requiring him to speak and interact with students in a way that affirms gender transition, a concept he rejects for secular and spiritual reasons. Under such circumstances, Cross interest in making his public comments was compelling.

Tyson Langhofer, director of the Center for Academic Freedom for the Alliance Defending Freedom, the public-interest law firm that represented Cross, said, Teachers shouldnt be forced to promote ideologies that are harmful to their students and that they believe are false, nor should they be silenced for commenting at a public meeting.

The lower courts decision was a well-reasoned application of the facts to clearly established law, as the Virginia Supreme Court found, he added.

Yet the case is not over.

The School Board last month approved the policy that Cross objected to back in May. Now, the ADF says, it has amended its lawsuit because two other teachers have come forward to object.

Because Loudoun County Public Schools is now requiring all teachers and students to deny truths about what it means to be male and female and compelling them to call students by their chosen pronouns or face punishment, we have moved to amend our lawsuit to challenge that policy on behalf of multiple faculty members, Langhofer said.

Public employees cannot be forced to contradict their core beliefs just to keep a job.

Support journalism byclicking here to our GoFundMeor sign up for ourfree newsletter by clicking here

Android Users,Click Here To Download The Free Press AppAnd Never Miss A Story. Its Free And Coming To Apple Users Soon

Related

Read more from the original source:
Virginia Supreme Court Says Teacher Was Within His First Amendment Rights To Reject Gender-Pronoun Policy - The Free Press

In addition to the drastic restrictions it places on a womans reproductive and medical care rights, the new Texas abortion law, SB8, will have devastating effects on online speech.

The law creates a cadre of bounty hunters who can use the courts to punish and silence anyone whose online advocacy, education, and other speech about abortion draws their ire. It will undoubtedly lead to a torrent of private lawsuits against online speakers who publish information about abortion rights and access in Texas, with little regard for the merits of those lawsuits or the First Amendment protections accorded to the speech. Individuals and organizations providing basic educational resources, sharing information, identifying locations of clinics, arranging rides and escorts, fundraising to support reproductive rights, or simply encouraging women to consider all their optionsnow have to consider the risk that they might be sued for merely speaking. The result will be a chilling effect on speech and a litigation cudgel that will be used to silence those who seek to give women truthful information about their reproductive options.

We will quickly see the emergence of anti-choice trolls: lawyers and plaintiffs dedicated to using the courts to extort money from a wide variety of speakers supporting reproductive rights.

SB8, also known as the Texas Heartbeat Act, encourages private persons to file lawsuits against anyone who knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion. It doesnt matter whether that person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of the law, that is, the laws new and broadly expansive definition of illegal abortion. And you can be liable even if you simply intend to help, regardless, apparently, of whether an illegal abortion actually resulted from your assistance.

And although you may defend a lawsuit if you believed the doctor performing the abortion complied with the law, it is really hard to do so. You must prove that you conducted a reasonable investigation, and as a result reasonably believed that the doctor was following the law. Thats a lot to do before you simply post something to the internet, and of course you will probably have to hire a lawyer to help you do it.

SB8 is a bounty law: it doesnt just allow these lawsuits, it provides a significant financial incentive to file them. It guarantees that a person who files and wins such a lawsuit will receive at least $10,000 for each abortion that the speech aided or abetted, plus their costs and attorneys fees. At the same time, SB8 may often shield these bounty hunters from having to pay the defendants legal costs should they lose. This removes a key financial disincentive they might have had against bringing meritless lawsuits.

Moreover, lawsuits may be filed up to six years after the purported aiding and abetting occurred. And the law allows for retroactive liability: you can be liable even if your aiding and abetting conduct was legal when you did it, if a later court decision changes the rules. Together this creates a ticking time bomb for anyone who dares to say anything that educates the public about, or even discusses, abortion online.

Given this legal structure, and the laws vast application, there is no doubt that we will quickly see the emergence of anti-choice trolls: lawyers and plaintiffs dedicated to using the courts to extort money from a wide variety of speakers supporting reproductive rights.

And unfortunately, its not clear when speech encouraging someone to or instructing them how to commit a crime rises to the level of aiding and abetting unprotected by the First Amendment. Under the leading case on the issue, it is a fact-intensive analysis, which means that defending the case on First amendment grounds may be arduous and expensive.

The result of all of this is the classic chilling effect: many would-be speakers will choose not to speak at all for fear of having to defend even the meritless lawsuits that SB8 encourages. And many speakers will choose to take down their speech if merely threatened with a lawsuit, rather than risk the laws penalties if they lose or take on the burdens of a fact-intensive case even if they were likely to win it.

The law does include an empty clause providing that it may not be construed to impose liability on any speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the states through the United States Supreme Courts interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. While that sounds nice, it offers no real protectionyou can already raise the First Amendment in any case, and you dont need the Texas legislature to give you permission. Rather, that clause is included to try to insulate the law from a facial First Amendment challengea challenge to the mere existence of the law rather than its use against a specific person. In other words, the drafters are hoping to ensure that, even if the law is unconstitutionalwhich it iseach individual plaintiff will have to raise the First Amendment issues on their own, and bear the exorbitant costsboth financial and otherwiseof having to defend the lawsuit in the first place.

One existing free speech bulwark47 U.S.C. 230 (Section 230)will provide some protection here, at least for the online intermediaries upon which many speakers depend. Section 230 immunizes online intermediaries from state law liability arising from the speech of their users, so it provides a way for online platforms and other services to get early dismissals of lawsuits against them based on their hosting of user speech. So although a user will still have to fully defend a lawsuit arising, for example, from posting clinic hours online, the platform they used to share that information will not. That is important, because without that protection, many platforms would preemptively take down abortion-related speech for fear of having to defend these lawsuits themselves. As a result, even a strong-willed abortion advocate willing to risk the burdens of litigation in order to defend their right to speak will find their speech limited if weak-kneed platforms refuse to publish it. This is exactly the way Section 230 is designed to work: to reduce the likelihood that platforms will censor in order to protect themselves from legal liability, and to enable speakers to make their own decisions about what to say and what risks to bear with their speech.

But a powerful and dangerous chilling effect remains for users. Texass anti-abortion law is an attack on many fundamental rights, including the First Amendment rights to advocate for abortion rights, to provide basic educational information, and to counsel those considering reproductive decisions. We will keep a close eye on the lawsuits the law spurs and the chilling effects that accompany them. If you experience such censorship, please contact info@eff.org.

Original post:
New Texas Abortion Law Likely to Unleash a Torrent of Lawsuits Against Online Education, Advocacy and Other Speech - EFF