Mediaboss Marketing

DOWNTOWN The citys emergency management agency is alerting residents to possible election night protests throughout the city. But so far, many activist groups have not signaled any plans to demonstrate.

Chicagos Office of Emergency Management and Communications alerted residents Tuesday afternoon of expected protest activity at six locations.

People should expect possible traffic disruptions and protests at Federal Plaza, Millennium Park, Hyde Park, Union Park, Wrigley Field and Palmer Square Park, according to the alerts.

City officials have been preparing for possible election-related protests, but most activist groups in the city have not announced plans for election night activity.

Organizers for some groups, including GoodKids MadCity, said they are not planning election night protests, although some are scheduled for Wednesday.

Despite that, some businesses have boarded up their windows and doors ahead of election results.

As polls closed Tuesday, city officials raised the Wabash Avenue bridge over the Chicago River to prevent access to Trump Tower. Police officials in tweets showed officers stationed throughout the city.

An OEMC spokesperson said in a statement there are a small number of demonstrations that we are aware of and officials are committed to protecting residents First Amendment Right to peacefully demonstrateand we are prepared to protect that right while keeping all residents and businesses safe.

Various city agencies met for a briefing on election night preparedness Tuesday, according to the emergency management agency.

Through Sunday, there will be more officers on patrol, the citys Office of Emergency Management and Communications will monitor any activity and crowds and the city has sent out garbage trucks and other large vehicles to protect business-heavy strips in the neighborhoods, the Mayors Office announced Friday.

RELATED: City Putting More Cops On Streets, Protecting Businesses Over Concerns About Election Day Unrest

Officials said they hope the measures can make people feel safer as they cast a ballot and await results during what is expected to be a tense week.

The citys efforts are focused on two issues, Mayor Lori Lightfoot said Friday: election integrity and public safety.

Critics have expressed concern on social media over the plan, which largely mirrors what the city did over the summer, when there were large protests over police violence and when businesses were looted and vandalized. Protesters and officers routinely and, at times, violently clashed.

Lightfoot did not directly say officers wouldnt interfere in potential protests, but she said police will support people who are expressing their First Amendment rights though she repeatedly said Chicagoans should be peaceful.

I want to stress that while CPD is focused on crime prevention, our officers will continue to ensure residents expressing First Amendment rights are protected and given the support they need to stay safe, Lightfoot said.

Chicago: We have to be smart, safe and peaceful. No matter the outcomes of next Tuesdays elections, we all know that emotions will be high because they already are. I urged you to channel those emotions into peaceful and productive expressions.

Block Club Chicagos election coverage is free for all readers. Block Club is an independent, 501(c)(3), journalist-run newsroom.

Subscribe to Block Club Chicago. Every dime we make fundsreportingfrom Chicagos neighborhoods.

Already subscribe?Click hereto support Block Clubwith a tax-deductible donation.

Go here to read the rest:
City Warns Of Election Night Protests But Few In Works So Far - Block Club Chicago

Employers and human resource professionals find themselves increasingly dealing with workplace strife caused by political and societal differences. When society is polarized on politics, so too are employees.

Many employers report that employees are wearing face masks to work with political messages or posting pictures in their workspaces that convey political ideals. In addition, employees are having heated conversations at work and wondering where to draw the line on those conversations. Now more than ever, employers must be vigilant to maintain a healthy workplace climate while avoiding legal liability. The 2020 election provides an excellent opportunity for employers to communicate the need to respect differences in thought and political persuasion. So often, employees are keenly aware of which political party an employer or its decision-makers support. Additionally, the 2020 election requires employers to communicate affirmatively with its employee population rather than waiting for problems to arise, and to clearly explain the companys position on political discourse at work. The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) published poll results from last October, finding workplace discussions about politics have increased over the last four years. SHRMs poll indicated 42 percent of employees had a political disagreement at work and 12 percent have experienced political affiliation bias.

Many employees believe their constitutional rights permit them to engage in political discussion they feel is necessary while at work. While political expression is a protected First Amendment right, including the right to protest and to vote, employees in the private sector have no constitutional rights to free speech that interferes with the workplace. Some states protect the exercise of political expression and prohibit any adverse employment actions taken on the exercise of those rights, including South Carolina. But employers are free to ensure that their workplace is not disrupted by the expression of political views. Further, First Amendment and other statutory rights regarding political expression do not permit employees to engage in heated political discussions that violate other company policies, such as standards of conduct (disrupting the workplace, aggressive or threatening behavior), or anti-discrimination and anti-harassment.

Employers should note that these prohibitions apply to conduct off duty, including on social media. Social media often presents complex problems and employers should be careful about taking adverse action against employees based upon social media posts. Social media posts and other political views can sometimes implicate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, which provides for protections for employees who engage in collective action around the terms and conditions of their employment.

An employer may not take any employment action against employees who exercise their First Amendment rights of expression on personal social media. Human Resource professionals must ensure managers and other employees do not treat other employees differently because of their political or societal views.

Employers should implement policies addressing civil discord, explaining the difference between appropriate political expression and inappropriate political expression, and providing examples of each. Providing employees with the tools needed to express themselves in respectful ways is integral to any successful DEI training. Employer-sponsored forums with employees, where employees are encouraged to engage in healthy and respectful discussion, to include politics, serve to provide employees with an employer-sanctioned venue for open communications.

Read the original here:
Politics And The Workplace Employers, Do You Have A Policy? - JD Supra

This week, the Ninth Circuit examines how the loss-causation requirement of a securities-fraud claim may be satisfied in cases involving FOIA disclosures, and considers the application of Younger v. Harris to a State civil-enforcement action pressed by private counsel.

DAVID GRIGSBY v. BOFI HOLDING, INC.The Court holds that information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act can constitute a corrective disclosure for purposes of alleging loss causation in a securities-fraud action.

Panel: Judges Murguia, Christen, and Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.), with Judge Christen writing the opinion.

Key highlight: Plaintiffs may rely on a corrective disclosure derived from a FOIA response by plausibly alleging that the FOIA information had not been previously disclosed. If a plaintiff relies on information obtained via a FOIA request, the pleading burden to allege loss causation is no different from the pleading burden for other types of corrective disclosures.

Background: Plaintiffs filed a putative class action on behalf of shareholders alleging that BofI Holding, Inc. and its executives violated securities law by, among other things, denying that the company was being investigated for money laundering. To prove loss causation, plaintiffs pointed to a news article that revealed the existence of an SEC investigation through a FOIA request and that immediately preceded a drop in the companys stock price. The district court dismissed the suit on the ground that information obtained under FOIA was, as a matter of law, publicly available prior to its disclosure, and thus could not be a corrective disclosure of a misrepresentation.

Result: The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court began by explaining that a securities fraud plaintiff can satisfy the loss-causation pleading burden by alleging that a corrective disclosure revealed the truth of a defendants misrepresentation and thereby caused the companys stock price to drop and investors to lose money. In general, the Court continued, a disclosure is not corrective if it contains information derived entirely from public filings and other publicly available sources of which the stock market was presumed to be aware. BofI had argued that the investigation was already reflected in its stock price before the article was published because the information was discoverable through FOIA. The Court rejected that approach for two reasons: First, FOIA information is not generally available, but must be specifically requested. And second, because the government may invoke exceptions to FOIA, certain information may never come to light. At a minimum, the Court said, there must be some indication that the relevant information was requested and produced before the information contained in a FOIA response can be considered publicly available for purposes of loss causation.

The Court went on to conclude that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the investigation into BofI had not been publicly disclosed prior to publication of the news article. It was enough that the plaintiffs had alleged that the [news] article disclosed BofI had been the subject of a formal SEC investigation, that the article revealed the falsity of BofIs prior statement, and that the revelation caused BofIs stock price to drop. Plaintiffs were not required to make an additional showing that no one else had obtained the same information through FOIA before the articles publication, and documents showing five other BofI-related FOIA requests did not render the initial allegations implausible.

The Court also concluded that the news article was corrective of BofIs allegedly false statement, rejecting BofIs argument that the article did not establish that it knew about the investigation. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district courts separate conclusion that a different news article was not a corrective disclosure with respect to another allegedly false statement because the article contained only public information, and did not require any expertise or specialized skills beyond what a typical market participant would possess. Finally, the Court declined to consider whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded scienter because the district court did not reach that issue.

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY v. CONNORSThe Court holds that Younger v. Harris precludes a federal-court challenge to a state-court civil enforcement proceeding, even where that state-court prosecution is led by private counsel and allegedly profit-driven.

The panel: Judges Watford, Friedland, and Miller, with Judge Miller writing the opinion.

Key highlight:"Conducting litigation on behalf of a State is a core sovereign function, and the people of each State, through their elected representatives, have the right to decide whether that function should be carried out by full-time government employees or, as here, by outside counsel retained for a particular case."

Background: The State of Hawaii filed suit in Hawaii state court against a variety of pharmaceutical companies. The State asserted that the defendants advertising of the drug Plavix had been misleading given the drugs allegedly reduced effectiveness in people with a genetic variation particularly prevalent among those of Asian or Pacific Islander descent. The State retained two private law firms on a contingency-fee basis in bringing this suit.

The pharmaceutical companies then sued the State in federal court, seeking an injunction against the state-court proceedings, which the companies claimed violated their First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed, invoking Younger abstention.

Result: The Ninth Circuit affirmed. As the Court explained, while federal courts have a virtually unflagging obligation to hear all cases within their jurisdiction, Younger establishes an exception to that obligation when the federal-court plaintiff seeks to enjoin certain types of civil enforcement proceedings that are akin to criminal prosecutions. The Court dismissed the companies arguments that this exception was not applicable here.

First, the Court rejected the contention that the state-court action was not in fact brought by the State because the State was relying on private counsel. As the Court explained, it is up to the State to decide who will represent it in court (or elsewhere), and thus the Court saw no reason why the application of Younger should turn on the States choice of lawyers. Rather, what mattered was that the Attorney General of Hawaii made the decision to bring the action, and the people of Hawaii may hold her accountable for that decision.

Next, the Court rejected the contention that the case was not a civil enforcement action because private counsel had conducted most of the underlying investigation, and the State was purportedly motivated by profit rather than any desire to punish wrongdoing. The Court concluded that what was relevant, for Younger purposes, was not the States interest in any particular case, but rather its interest in a given class of proceedings. After all, [a] federal-court inquiry into why a state attorney general chose to pursue a particular case, or into the thoroughness of the States pre-filing investigation, would be entirely at odds with Youngers purpose of leaving state governments free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways. And here, the Court held, the State sought to recover civil penalties for an alleged violation of a statute punishing deception, bring the proceeding comfortably within the general class of proceedings to which Younger applies.

Finally, the Court rejected the argument that because the companies First Amendment rights were at issue, the Court should apply special scrutiny, reasoning that Younger abstention routinely applies even when important rights are at stake. Because the companies claim did not fall within the narrow exception for cases of proven harassment . . . by state officials in bad faith, it was properly dismissed.

[View source.]

See original here:
This Week at The Ninth: Public Knowledge and Private Counsel - JD Supra

The First Amendment protects Americans' right to protest and the right to political dissent.Video provided by Newsy

The types of protests held by white supremacist groups in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 enjoy broad First Amendment protection.(Photo: Mykal McEldowney, Mykal McEldowney/IndyStar)

The First Amendment is a mere 45words. Butit's still giving lawmakers and judges fits 227 years after its adoption.

The government can'testablish religion,but federal, state and municipal officials can open meetings with a prayer.

The government can't block religious exercise, but it's tryingtoban travelers from majority-Muslim countries in the name of national security.

It can't restrictfree speech not even hate speech or flag-burning or protests ofmilitary funerals. But don't try shouting "Fire!" in a theater or threatening folkson Facebook.

It can't muzzle the media, unless it concerns outright lies made with malicious intent.

And peaceful protests areprotected,but that doesn't mean the Secret Service can't push you around a little in order to protect the president.

Sound confusing?Here's your guide to the First Amendment, circa 2018:

032818-first amendment_online_Online(Photo: USA TODAY)

If white nationalists and neo-Nazis can march through the college town of Charlottesville, Va., and win backing from the American Civil Liberties Union, the rights of demonstrators are in safe hands.

What remains in doubt: whether such protests can be accompanied by displays of weapons, even in states that permit firearms to be carried in public. That raises the potential for violence, which public officials have the authority to prevent.

In a series of cases dating back to the 1960s, the Supreme Court has struck down restrictions on so-called "hate speech" unless it specifically incites violence or is intended to do so.

The First Amendment, the justices have said, protected neo-Nazis seeking to march through heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., in 1977. It protected a U.S. flag burner from Texas in 1989, three cross burners from Virginia in 2003 and homophobic funeral protesters in 2011.

Even symbols of intimidation, such as torches carried by some marchers in Charlottesville, are protected unless they have specific targets. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented inthe cross-burningcase, reasoning that "those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate," but he was on the losing end of an 8-1 vote.

If right-wing demonstratorsare protected by the First Amendment, so too are right-wing speakers. The Supreme Court made that clear in 1969 when itprotected a Ku Klux Klan member decrying Jews and blacks in Ohiobecause he did not pose an imminent threat.

Richard Spencer, a white nationalist who hastraveledthe country on a controversial "alt-right" speaking tour, is but the most recent example. He'sbeen allowed to speak, along with counter-demonstrators aligned with aleft-wing coalition known as Antifa.

Poland's state-run news agency reports Polish authorities banned Spencer from the Schengen Area, which is comprised of 26 European countries.Video provided by Newsy

Spencer is better off giving sparsely attended speeches and facing opponents in Florida, Michigan and Virginiathan he would be overseas. He's been banned from visiting large portions of Europe and Great Britain by government officials who said his speeches fosterhatred.Under the First Amendment, those banswould not stand.

The American free speech tradition holds unequivocally that hate speech is protected, unless it is intended to and likely to incite imminent violence, says Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

Adds Justice Stephen Breyer: "It's there for people whose speech you don't like."

Speech isn't restricted to the spoken or written word. The First Amendment also protects movies and TV, art and music, yard signs and video games, clothing and accessories.

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of video games depicting the slaughter of animals. It has upheld derogatory trademarks,such as those promoting The Slants, an Asian-American rock band. When a Pennsylvania school district tried to stop students from wearing breastcancer awareness bracelets reading "I (Heart) Boobies," the court refused even to hear the case.

But as usual, there are exceptions. When the speaker is the government, the court has allowed for censorship such as when Texas refused to permit specialty license plates displaying the Confederate flag. The justices reasoned that the government, not the motorist, was doing the talking.

The First Amendment gives you the right to speak out as well as the right "to refrain from speaking at all," Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in 1977. That signaled a win for a New Hampshire couple who covered up part of their home state's motto, "Live Free or Die," on license plates.

The doctrine is up for grabs in three major Supreme Court cases this term. It appears likely the justices will rule that an Illinois state employee cannot be compelled to contribute to his local union. They also seem inclined to say that California cannot force anti-abortion pregnancy centers to informclients where they can get an abortion.

The third case is a closer call: Must a deeply religious Colorado baker use his creative skills to bake a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding? Here the court seems split.

"The case isn't about same-sex marriage, ultimately. It isn't about religion, ultimately," says Jeremy Tedesco, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Jack Phillips. "Its about this broader right to free speech, the right to be free of compelled speech.

Jack Phillips, a suburban Denver cake shop owner, tells USA TODAY's Richard Wolf that he's fighting an order that would compel him to make cakes for the weddings of gay couples because of religious objections.

Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites can police their own websites to control what's posted. But under the First Amendment, the government has no such right.

Thus did the Supreme Court rule that a North Carolina law criminalizing social media use by sex offenders violated the First Amendment.

The justices also gave a temporary reprieve to an angry, self-styled rapper who rattled his wife, co-workers and others on Facebook. Phrases such as "Hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class" are criminal only if intended as a threat, they ruled, and sent the case back to a lower court, which ruled against him on that basis.

If you want to put free speech rights to work in politics, you're in luck. The Supreme Courtequates campaign spending with speech.

Say you're a wealthy individual, or you run a corporation that wants to spend unlimited amounts in this year's elections. As long as you do not coordinate your spending with a candidate or political committee, you're home free.

And while there are anti-corruption limits on how muchyou can donate directly to a candidate, committee or political party, the court recently ditched restrictionson the total amount you can apportion among those recipients. That means you can give to as many campaigns as you like.

Your First Amendment rightto exercise your religion depends on what other rights it bumps up against. That's why it's a frequent conundrum in court.

When the arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby wanted out from Obamacare's requirement that employers offer free coverage of contraceptives, the Supreme Court ruled narrowly in its favor. The corporation's First Amendment right "protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control" it, Justice Samuel Alito said.

Supreme Court says employers with religious objections can refuse to pay for contraception. (June 30)

And when a Lutheran church in Missouri was denied state funds to resurface its playground, the high court said the separation of church and state does not apply to purely secular activities such as swings and slides.

But religious claims are not a slam dunk, as Phillips, the Colorado baker, may discover. At least four justices possibly five are likely to say his speech and religious beliefs must take a back seat topublic accommodations laws requiring that merchants serve all customers.

This is another area where more than two centuries haven't reduced passions on both sides, often leaving courts divided.

Public schools cannot lead children in prayer, a prohibition that has been extended in recent years to graduations and football games. But Congress, state legislatures and local governments can open their sessions with a prayer, provided the audience is not coerced to participate.

The line between what's OK and what's not is even thinner than that. On the same day in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled against displaying the Ten Commandments inside a county courthouse but said it could be memorialized outdoors on statehouse grounds.

Addressing his first Cabinet meeting of 2018, President Donald Trump touted his administration's accomplishments and said his White House would address the nation's libel laws, which he called a "sham and a disgrace." (Jan. 10)

President Trump took aim at the press soon after coming into office. Our current libel laws are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent American values or American fairness, he said.

Since the 1960s, the Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment protects statements made about public officials unless they are false andintended to defame. Only "reckless disregard for the truth" is unprotected.

Furthermore, the media can publish information from classified documents even if the government says it would threaten national security, a conclusion reached in the Pentagon Papers case featured in the recent film, The Post.

This explainer is part of the Trusting News project. Learn more about it here.

For more information on the First Amendment, check out theNational Constitution Center, theNewseum Instituteand theLegal Information Institute.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/06/what-first-amendment-protects-and-what-doesnt/469920002/

See the original post:
First Amendment: What rights it protects and where it stops

Display of political signs is a form of freedom of speech

The Allegany County Democratic Central Committee denounces the theft or destruction of political campaign signs for all candidates, regardless of political affiliation.

It is unfortunate that in recent weeks, signs for several candidates have been stolen or destroyed.

Political campaign signs come at a financial cost and are the personal property of the individuals who display them. Their display is a form of First Amendment freedom of speech. Democrats believe that the First Amendment must be protected and that theft and destruction of personal property is reprehensible.

Please keep in mind that political campaign signs may only be placed on properties in accordance with applicable laws and may only be placed with permission of the property owner. Signs may never be placed on governmental property.

The success of democracy demands that political parties stand for democracy for all. Please do not destroy or steal any candidate signs.

Brian K. Grim, chair

Allegany County Democratic Central Committee

Cumberland

See the rest here:
Display of political signs is a form of First Amendment freedom of speech - Cumberland Times-News