Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

First Amendment is alive and well | HeraldNet.com – The Daily Herald

Letters

If I read one more letter to the editor claiming that social medias squelching of the former presidents (in my opinion) lies, fraud, bogus conspiracy theories and downright dangerous posts are somehow signaling the death knell of the First Amendment, I am going to scream. The First Amendment applies, by its face and by relevant case decisions, to governmental agencies. The Supreme Court has also held that the First Amendment does not allow speech that incites imminent lawless action.

More to the point, anyone who would take the time to actually read the First Amendment can see it begins, Congress shall make no law Facebook is not a government agency. Nor are Instagram, Twitter, nor most of the other seemingly billions of social media sites. They can, and do, set their policies for what may be posted. As long as those policies do not run afoul of some important civil rights (say, banning people because of their race or some other class protected by law), they have fairly wide latitude in how to set those rules. They could, for example, ban off-color language, nudity, etc. Conservative viewpoints are not protected discrimination classes, just as liberal views, false claims and nutjob conspiracy theories are not.

So, before we begin mourning the death of the First Amendment, you might want to read it. Its medical charts would show its not only not dying, its not even sick.

Tom Pacher

Whidbey Island

See original here:
First Amendment is alive and well | HeraldNet.com - The Daily Herald

CNN legal analyst panned for claiming ‘you don’t have a First Amendment right to lie’ – Fox News

A CNN legal analystraised eyebrowsTuesday bysuggesting on the air that lying is not protected by the First Amendment.

Jennifer Rodgers was quick to dismiss the legal arguments being made byformer President Donald Trump's lawyers ahead of next week'sSenate impeachment trial. Those arguments include the theorythat it's "unconstitutional" to impeach a former president, as well asthat Trumphad the right to make his remarks at theJan.6 rally beforepro-Trump rioters stormed Capitol Hill.

CNN AVOIDS ASKING JOHN KASICH ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS AGAINST EX-AIDE JOHN WEAVER

"Yeah, those are wrong," Rodgers said during a panel discussion. "I mean, you don't have a First Amendment right to lie. You don't have a First Amendment right to put people in danger. And he did both of those things."

Critics piled on the CNN legal analyst for her not-so-factual legal analysis.

"Umm, yes you have first amendment right to lie. What an embarrassment (and prime purveyor of lies) CNN is..." replied "Rubin Report" host Dave Rubin.

FAUCI DEBUNKS CNN REPORTING, SAYS BIDEN'S VACCINE ROLLOUT IS NOT 'STARTING FROM SCRATCH'

"If you didn't have a first amendment right to lie, everyone at CNN would be out of a job," Daily Caller's Greg Price quipped.

"But Trump was the existential threat to the constitution..." The Federalist correspondent David Marcus said.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

Rodgers later walked back her comments amid the viral backlash.

"That was wrong - obviously people can lie," Rodgers tweeted."I meant to say Trump has no 1st Am right to call for a crime to be committed (or to call for something dangerous). Sorry for the misstatement."

More:
CNN legal analyst panned for claiming 'you don't have a First Amendment right to lie' - Fox News

Opinion | Twitter and the First Amendment – The Michigan Daily

The Republican reaction to Twitters decision to permanently ban former President Donald Trump is emblematic of todays Republican Party: hypocritical and purposefully misleading. Claiming that its unconstitutional for Twitter, a private company, to ban Trump from their platform grossly misinterprets what the First Amendment says plainly: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

The key word in the First Amendment that often gets overlooked is Congress. The First Amendment is supposed to protect us the people from the government. It is not meant to protect us from the social consequences that may arise because of our speech. It is not possible for private companies to violate the First Amendment.

Republicans, while claiming to be the party of the Constitution, are lying to the American people some of whom now believe that a private company is liable under the First Amendment. This goes beyond Twitter banning Trump.

Simon & Schuster, a publishing company, announced it was canceling Sen. Josh Hawleys, R-Mo., book publication for his role in the attempt to overturn the election results. Hawley responded by saying that the situation was a direct assault on the First Amendment.

Hawley is a constitutional lawyer who clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. He knows that a private company cannot assault the First Amendment. Hawley, Trump and other Republicans who are well-versed in the true meaning of the First Amendment are exploiting the political polarization of today to give themselves more political power at the expense of the United States and its citizens.

Simon & Schuster and Twitter as well as the other social media companies that deplatformed Trump are not government entities, and thus cannot be held accountable under the First Amendment. Trump broke its terms of service, giving Twitter every right to ban him and preventing a viable lawsuit from taking place. Hawley engaged in behavior that Simon & Schuster didnt want associated with their brand. The Constitution does not guarantee Americans a right to a Twitter account or a book deal.

Rather than a disagreement over policy or values, American political discourse has transcended to disagreement over fact perpetuated by purposeful lies. Republicans are telling their voters, and all Americans, things that are simply not true.

The most prominent lie is that President Joe Biden is not the rightful president and that Trump lost due to rampant voter fraud, which led to an insurrection at the Capitol in January and continues to threaten our democracy. One solution is to prevent the spread of this dangerous information through sources that anyone can access, like social media sites. These platforms play a central role in our daily lives, which necessitates their proactivity rather than retroactivity.

Twitter was right to ban Trump. He has been tweeting falsehoods for months, which dramatically increased in number and destructiveness since the election in November culminating when he was removed from Twitter after the events in January. But while the actions taken by social media companies to ban Trump and purge other misinformation from their sites was the right action to take, it is possible that beginning to take serious action against misinformation in 2021 is too little, too late.

The repercussions of waiting to curtail the spread of misinformation could have serious consequences all over the world. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny have both expressed concern about free speech in the wake of a private company banning such a prominent figure in world politics. Their arguments have merit and demonstrate how dangerous it was for tech companies to allow misinformation on their platforms for such long periods of time in the first place.

There are several actions that the government or the companies themselves can take to show they are trying to prevent lies from being spread on these platforms. People have called for the tech companies to be more transparent in their actions, such as setting up a committee to make decisions about banning users and flagging tweets with clear standards that they adhere to.

Others, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., want tech companies to be broken up. Another option is to change Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a piece of internet legislation that provides protections for interactive computer services, saying that they cannot be treated as publishers of third-party content.

It would be difficult to change the minds of people who firmly believe in the misinformation perpetuated by Trump and the Republican Party. But something can still be done to prevent more people from thinking these lies or something even worse are true.

Twitter banning Trump and taking a more proactive step in combating misinformation on its platform is a first step, but we need more concrete action to be taken either by these companies themselves, or by the U.S. government.

Lydia Storella can be reached at storella@umich.edu.

The COVID-19 pandemic has thrown challenges at all of us including The Michigan Daily but that hasnt stopped our staff. Were committed to reporting on the issues that matter most to the community where we live, learn and work. Your donations keep our journalism free and independent. You can support our work here.

For a weekly roundup of the best stories from The Michigan Daily, sign up for our newsletter here.

Go here to read the rest:
Opinion | Twitter and the First Amendment - The Michigan Daily

The Buckeye Institute files First Amendment case on behalf of Ohio guidance counselor – The Highland County Press

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

Women’s Liberation Front Commends The University of Wisconsin Law School for Upholding First Amendment Protections – News-shield

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