Mediaboss Marketing

The Buckeye Institute

The Buckeye Institute has filed a complaint on behalf of Barbara Kolkowski, who objects to being forced to accept union representation and decisions made by union arbitrators in a contract dispute particularly given that she is not a member of said union. This case was filed in the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas.

Even though Ms. Kolkowski is not a member of the union, she is being forced to have a union representative speak for her. This unlawful arrangement contravenes the well-established First Amendment rights of public-sector employees and plainly violates Ohio statute, said Jay Carson, senior litigator with The Buckeye Institutes Legal Center and Ms. Kolkowskis lawyer.

Ohios collective bargaining statute guarantees certain rights to all public-sector employees, among which is the right to present grievances and to have them adjusted without the intervention of the union, Carson said.

Kolkowski is a high school guidance counselor in Ashtabula. When a dispute arose regarding payment under a supplemental contract, Kolkowski pursued remedies through the contractual grievance process, and as required by her districts collective bargaining agreement requested that the union submit her grievance to arbitration. Because she is not a member of the union, Kolkowski also requested that she be able to hire her own private attorney at her own expense in order to pursue her claim in the arbitration proceedings, rather than relying upon a representative chosen by the union of which she is not a member.

The union refused her request and denied Kolkowski her right to associate with and speak through her own counsel.

See the article here:
The Buckeye Institute files First Amendment case on behalf of Ohio guidance counselor - The Highland County Press

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --As an organization dedicated to defending civil rights, the Women's Liberation Front (WoLF) commends The University of Wisconsin Law School (UW Law) in its decision to uphold the First Amendment by refusing to discriminate against organizations with diverse viewpoints.

WoLF chose to participate in the school's Public Interest Interview Program because of UW Law's long tradition of public service and the "Law-in-Action" approach to legal education, which teaches future attorneys how to navigate the real-world complexities of the law. This tradition aligns with WoLF's mission to advance and restore the rights of women and girls, combat the global epidemic of male violence, and resist the harms of an expanding sex industry.

In response to a statement by the student organization QLaw, the UW Law statement of support reflects our shared value of defending civil liberties, even when disagreements arise. While publicly funded institutions are legally required to uphold the First Amendment, UW Law's statement demonstrates courage in the face of a toxic intolerance pervasive within University and college campuses.

WoLF's defense of hard-fought single-sex spaces, sports, and services serves the public interest of the women and girls of Wisconsin. As 2020 national polling showed, the majority of Americans in states as different as Idaho and California agree that single-sex spaces for women and girls should be protected. Just last month, a Wisconsin court ordered the Department of Corrections to transfer a man convicted of repeatedly raping his ten-year-old daughter to the women's prison, since he now identifies as a woman. The vulnerable women in state custody, who are disproportionately women of color, will soon be housed in close confinement with a dangerous sex offender.

While organizations like QLaw may find this acceptable, WoLF stands with UW Law in the recognition that public interest organizations have the freedom to speak out against such policies and must not be discriminated against for doing so.

UW Law's commitment to protecting civil liberties affirms why WoLF chose to partner through its Public Interest Interview Program. We look forward to interviewing a diverse range of qualified candidates as well as working with UW Law to build up the next generation of lawyers with a steadfast dedication to freedom for allincluding women.

Natasha ChartWoLF Executive Director

Learn more about WoLF's work:https://www.womensliberationfront.org/our-work

For media inquiries please contact:media@womensliberationfront.org

Read more here:
Women's Liberation Front Commends The University of Wisconsin Law School for Upholding First Amendment Protections - News-shield

Public Safety Canada notes that last month, members of the Proud Boys "played a pivotal role in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol." Here, Proud Boys members join Donald Trump supporters at a protest outside the Colorado State Capitol last month in Denver. Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images hide caption

Public Safety Canada notes that last month, members of the Proud Boys "played a pivotal role in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol." Here, Proud Boys members join Donald Trump supporters at a protest outside the Colorado State Capitol last month in Denver.

Updated at 2:30 p.m. ET

Canada's government designated the Proud Boys and 12 other extremist groups as terrorist entities on Wednesday, placing the groups on the same list as the Islamic State and al-Qaida.

"Based on their actions, each group meets the legal threshold" for the criminal designation, Public Safety Canada said as it announced the move. The agency cited "reasonable grounds to believe that an entity has knowingly participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity" or has acted on behalf of or in association with such a terrorist entity.

The agency describes the Proud Boys as "a neo-fascist organization that engages in political violence" and whose members "espouse misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, and/or white supremacist ideologies and associate with white supremacist groups."

Public Safety Canada also notes the group's prominent role in last month's attack in Washington: "On January 6, 2021, the Proud Boys played a pivotal role in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Leaders of the group planned their participation by setting out objectives, issuing instructions, and directing members during the insurrection."

The terror designation means that Canadian banks and other financial institutions must freeze any assets connected to the groups and that it's illegal for anyone to knowingly do business with them. It's also a crime to give support to the groups behavior that could range from travel and training to recruitment, the government says.

There is no provision in U.S. federal law to identify and criminalize domestic groups as terrorist, a legal issue complicated by First Amendment free speech guarantees.

In 2018, the FBI designated the Proud Boys as an extremist group with ties to white nationalism a categorization that first came to light through an internal report that was obtained from law enforcement in Washington state.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has classified the Proud Boys as a hate group, sparking a 2019 defamation lawsuit by Gavin McInnes, who founded the far-right organization in 2016.

In addition to the Proud Boys, Canada's government categorized the Atomwaffen Division, The Base and the Russian Imperial Movement as terrorist entities. Also included were three al-Qaida affiliates, five ISIS affiliates and the Hizbul Mujahideen, which operates in India-administered Kashmir.

The Proud Boys have been linked to several violent episodes in the U.S. Rather than condemn its tactics, President Donald Trump notably told the group during a campaign debate with Joe Biden to "stand back, and stand by."

Far-right and white supremacy movements have also been a problem for Canada.

Some of the groups' members have crossed the border: Last year, Canadian national Patrik Jordan Mathews was arrested in the U.S. with other alleged members of The Base on charges ranging from the illegal transport of a machine gun to harboring aliens. Mathews had apparently entered the U.S. days after a high-profile police raid on his house in rural Manitoba, Canada, in 2019.

As Canada moved against The Base, the Proud Boys and other groups, Bill Blair, minister of public safety and emergency preparedness, called it "an important step in our effort to combat violent extremism in all forms."

Canada now lists a total of 73 terrorist groups.

Originally posted here:
Proud Boys Now Listed As A Terrorist Group In Canada - NPR

NEWBURYPORT The Committee on General Government voted to move a resolution condemning the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol back before the City Council with a recommended amendment.

During a brief meeting of the committee and the Committee of the Whole on Tuesday, councilors reviewed a resolution condemning the riotsthattook place as members of Congress convened to confirm the results of the Electoral College. The attack resulted in the vandalization of the Capitol and left five people dead, including a Capitol police officer.

In addition tocondemning what took place that day, the resolution would urge Congress to exercise its power under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to prohibit former President Donald Trump from holding public office again.

If the proposal is approved, the city clerk would send a copy of the resolution to U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Sen. Edward Markey and U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton.

Councilor at large Charles Tontar, who proposed the resolution at a council meetingJan. 27, said what took place Jan. 6 was "a fundamental threat to our democracy" and "it should never happen again."

Since first proposing the resolution, Tontarsaid, "I think there's actually even more evidence that suggests that this was a very troubling event, something more than just a First Amendment demonstration that got out of hand."

Though he supported most of the resolution, Ward 5 Councilor James McCauley suggested striking a portion that specifically urged Congress to use its power under the 14th Amendment since it isalready presumeda thorough investigation of what happened would take place.

Tontar revealed that this part was added by Councilor at large Barry Connell, who co-sponsored the resolution.

"I think we effectively condemn the actions," McCauley said. "I think we effectively call for an investigationa thorough investigation."

Councilor at large Joseph Devlin, a licensed attorney, agreed.

"I don't always feel comfortable when we make conclusions of law," he said.

Devlin, a member of the Committee on General Government, motioned to recommend the amendment to put the resolution before the City Council on Monday. Council President Jared Eigerman seconded the motion. Connell, who is also a committee member, was absent for the vote.

The resolution has eight co-sponsors: Tontar, Connell, Eigerman,Ward 3 Councilor Heather Shand, Ward 4 Councilor Christine Wallace, Ward 6 Councilor Byron Lane andCouncilors at large Afroz Khan and Bruce Vogel.

Khan welcomed any other councilors to sign on as a sponsor Tuesday. Devlin said he would vote in favor of the resolution with the amendment but did not feel compelled to sponsor or not sponsor the resolution.

Shand added that the vote is what really matters, not the sponsors.

Lane said he felt "very strongly" about the resolution and was hopeful all 11 councilors would eventually sign on as sponsors to show unity against the events Jan. 6.

More on this question of sponsors can be found atwww.newburyportnews.com/news/local_news/council-resolution-raises-questions-about-soliciting-sponsors/article_570ac2f0-50b6-5d78-b632-4201da66e067.html

The City Council will meet remotely Monday at 7:30 p.m. An agenda is tobe posted atwww.cityofnewburyport.com.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read more here:
Newburyport resolution on Jan. 6 attack recommended with amendment - The Daily News of Newburyport

The First Circuits recent opinion in Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, upheld a challenge to the Massachusetts anti-wiretap law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99, carving out an exception for certain activity protected by the First Amendment. The opinion begins:

Massachusetts, like other states concerned about the threat to privacy that commercially available electronic eavesdropping devices pose, makes it a crime to record another persons words secretly and without consent. But, unlike other concerned states, Massachusetts does not recognize any exceptions based on whether that person has an expectation of privacy in what is recorded. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99 (Section 99). As a result, Massachusetts makes it as much a crime for a civic-minded observer to use a smartphone to record from a safe distance what is said during a police officers mistreatment of a civilian in a city park as it is for a revengeseeker to hide a tape recorder under the table at a private home to capture a conversation with an ex-spouse. The categorical and sweeping nature of Section 99 gives rise to the important questions under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution that the challenges that underlie the consolidated appeals before us present.

* * *

Section 99 violates the First Amendment by prohibiting the secret, nonconsensual audio recording of police officers discharging their official duties in public spaces. We also affirm the District Courts order dismissing Project Veritass First Amendment overbreadth challenge for failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

The 72-page opinion has a lengthy description of the origins of Section 99 and is worth reading for that alone. On the merits, the First Circuit equated unauthorized recording to more traditional forms of newsgathering:

a citizens audio recording of on-duty police officers treatment of civilians in public spaces while carrying out their official duties, even when conducted without an officers knowledge, can constitute newsgathering every bit as much as a credentialed reporters after-the-fact efforts to ascertain what had transpired.

However, the court declined to invalidate all of Section 99 under First Amendment overbreadth concepts.

See the original post here:
First Circuit Creates Exception to Massachusetts Wiretap Statute Based on First Amendment Rights, Allows Citizens and Press to Record Police Activity...