Mediaboss Marketing

Next Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Kennedy v. Bremerton, a dispute involving high school football coach Joseph Kennedy, who refused to stop holding post-game prayers on the field and later sued the Bremerton, Wash., school district.

Kennedy claims his 50-yard line prayers were private prayers protected by the First Amendment.

Of course coaches, like all Americans, have a right to the free exercise of religion. But when they sign up to serve in a public school, coaches agree to uphold the prohibition on government endorsement of religion mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Kennedys prayers occurred while he was still on duty, and students came to midfield to join his prayers.

School officials point out that Kennedy had been organizing prayer with students after games for more than seven years. After stopping for a brief time, Kennedy resumed praying on the field with students and refused the schools offer of alternative places to pray in private.

Joseph Kennedys attempt to push the constitutional envelope by praying with students is a familiar story. Over the past 30 years, I have together with religious liberty attorney Oliver Thomas mediated scores of disputes like this and given First Amendment training to thousands of coaches, teachers and administrators in school districts across the country.

Coaches have been among the most challenging staff members to persuade to uphold the law.

Coaches have been among the most challenging staff members to persuade to uphold the law. Coaches often see it as part of their job to share Christ and pray with their team. If told to stop, some coaches find creative ways to take a knee or otherwise circumvent what is required of them under the First Amendment.

In our discussions with coaches and teachers, we often ask them to put on their First Amendment hat when arriving at school each day and keep it on as long as they are on the job. As authority figures and government employees, they must be neutral, honest brokers protecting the rights of all students. If they wish to pray during the school day, they must do so outside the presence of students.

Encouraging school officials to practice religious neutrality while guarding religious liberty for students has been the national consensus for many years. And it works.

The guidelines we offer over what current law requires developed through years of negotiation appeal to most coaches and teachers, leading to greater understanding of the constitutional role of religion in public schools. Left to right, many religious and educational groups have long agreed that public schools may neither inculcate nor inhibit religion. School officials must be neutral among religions and between religion and non-religion.

At the same time, schools must ensure that the religious liberty rights of all students religious and non-religious are protected. For coaches, this means refraining from praying with students. It also means allowing players who wish to do so to pray without pressuring fellow students to join in.

Consider that today, some 30 years after this consensus was first formed, there is more academic study of religions and more constitutional student religious expression in schools today than at any time in many decades. Contrary to culture war myths, religion does come into public schools, but thanks to legal guidelines, it arrives mostly through a First Amendment door.

Contrary to culture war myths, religion does come into public schools, but thanks to legal guidelines, it arrives mostly through a First Amendment door.

Should Joseph Kennedy prevail, this long settled and widely held consensus about the constitutional role of religion in public schools could be upended. New First Amendment lines could be drawn, eroding the requirement of neutrality toward religion by school officials now required under current law.

If that happens, what would we say to coaches and teachers? It is fine to pray with students if you label it private prayer? What would we say to students who feel coerced into joining the coach in prayer for fear of retribution? How would we instruct administrators on where to draw the line when teachers insist on practicing their religion in the presence of students?

In short, if the Supreme Court uses this case to redraw First Amendment boundaries in schools which is very possible given its current makeup decades of effort to get religious liberty right in public schools could be at risk.

Make no mistake: This case has nothing to do with the right to private prayer. Instead, it is about protecting the conscience of every student by requiring religious neutrality of school officials during the school day. That is or should be the core meaning of no establishment under the First Amendment.

Charles Haynes is senior fellow with the Freedom Forum Religious Freedom Center.

Related articles:

Former high school football coach gets a second shot at the Supreme Court with his claim that he ought to be able to lead public post-game prayers on the 50-yard-line

As fired coachs case heads to Supreme Court, broad coalition says its his students who were the victims, not the coach

Originally posted here:
At the Supreme Court: The First Amendment on the 50-yard line - Baptist News Global

Enlarge / Tesla CEO Elon Musk speaks at gigafactory opening party in Austin, Texas, on April 7, 2022.

Getty Images | Suzanne Cordeiro

On Wednesday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk urged a judge to reject a request for a gag order that would prevent him from continuing to publicly claim that his infamous "Funding secured" tweet was accurate.

The motion for a temporary restraining order "asks this Court to trample on Elon Musk's First Amendment rights by barring him from publicly discussing this case or its underlying facts. Plaintiff's motion cannot be reconciled with the Constitution's guarantee of free speech and should be denied," Musk's lawyer wrote in a court filing Wednesday.

Musk and Tesla face a class action lawsuit in US District Court for the Northern District of California over Musk's August 2018 claim that he had secured funding to take Tesla private. Musk and Tesla previously agreed to pay $20 million each in penalties and impose controls on Musk's social media statements to settle a lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which said that "Musk's misleading tweets" about taking Tesla private caused the stock price to jump "and led to significant market disruption."

Musk acknowledged that no financial deal had been completed, but he argued it was close enough to justify his claim that funding was "secured." In a TED conference appearance last week, Musk again claimed that "funding was actually secured" and he called the SEC "bastards."

After Musk's TED appearance, the lead plaintiff in the class action suit sought a temporary restraining order to prohibit Musk "from speaking with the press, media, news, and other public outlets about this case or the underlying facts until the end of trial."

"Musk's extensive pretrial media interviews pose a clear danger and serious risk to a fair trial because they attract pretrial publicity, poison the jury pool, and influence the outcome on the eve of trial," plaintiff Glen Littleton's motion argued. Advertisement

Littleton's filing said the federal judge overseeing the case has already ruled that Musk's tweets about taking Tesla private "were false and misleading and that Musk made these false statements recklessly and with full awareness of the facts that he misrepresented in his tweets." That ruling by District Judge Edward Chen is still under seal.

"The truth of the August 7, 2018 tweets and Musk's state of mind when publishing them are no longer issues to be decided by the jury. Therefore, Musk's continuing public statements about these issues only serve to prejudice the jury pool in this case by potentially influencing their deliberations during trial," the plaintiff's filing said.

Musk countered that "Both the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court have made clear that the extraordinary relief of a prior restraint on litigants' speech is subject to strict scrutiny and permissible only where there is a clear and discernable danger that an entire community will be corrupted by pretrial publicity such that locating twelve objective jurors would be impossible. This is not one of those rare cases."

Musk's court filing defended his comments at the TED conference:

Mr. Musk is in the middle of a public offer to take Twitter private, an undertaking which has led to a debate concerning the improper censorship of speech. In that context, the media has made comparisons with Musk's previous consideration of taking Tesla private. The recent conference Musk attended is a prime example. Chris Anderson of TED asked Mr. Musk if funding was secured for the Twitter deal, an obvious allusion to the events underlying this case. Mr. Musk should be permitted to respond meaningfully and truthfully to inquiries such as this, and not be compelled to remain silent about false insinuations in questions posed to him by the media. Plaintiff's request for a gag order is not designed to limit certain narrow forms of speech to ensure a fair trial; it is instead designed to silence Mr. Musk's statements outside the context of this litigation.

Musk's filing also noted that he is trying to get out of the SEC settlement in a separate court case. Musk claims he was "coerced into signing" the deal with the SEC.

"That agreement involved the same allegations at issue in this case, and Mr. Musk undoubtedly will be called upon by the media and by his shareholders to speak about that ongoing dispute. Imposing a broad and unwarranted gag order in this case would prejudice Musk's rights in connection with that proceeding as well," Musk's filing said.

No hearing has been scheduled on the motion for a restraining order, and it's not clear when the judge will rule.

Continued here:
Musk tells judge that gag order would trample on his First Amendment rights - Ars Technica

An activist group is suing the city of Florence for violating members' freedom of speech and assembly.

"I'm hoping that Florence is a safe space for people to exercise their first amendment rights," said Camille Bennett, the founder of Project Say Something.

PSS is a local nonprofit aimed at fighting racial injustice. The group is suing the city of Florence over the city's response to more than 160 protests that took place in 2020, protesting the death of George Floyd and the Confederate monument in front of the Lauderdale County Courthouse.

"I think our leadership has struggled to accept change and to accept revolution," said Bennett.

In a 30-page lawsuit, PSS claims the city and its police department inconsistently enforced city ordinances, effectively violating the constitutional rights of protestors.

Namely, "a noise ordinance that says whatever is unreasonable you can't do, and then a parade ordinance that requires a permit for parades," explained David Gespass, an attorney representing PSS from the Alabama chapter of the National Lawyers Guild.

The lawsuit argues that the unamplified human voice cannot be regulated with a noise ordinance.

"Particularly for people engaging in First Amendment activity, they want to be heard! And they have a right to be heard," said Gespass.

The lawsuit also states stationary protests shouldn't fall under parade guidelines.

"When the chief says, you know, you're gonna have to pay $360 a day for police protection for a permit, people should not have to pay for protection because they're exercising their rights," said Gespass.

The lawsuit argues both the parade permit and noise ordinance are unconstitutionally vague as written, allowing for the city to subjectively enforce guidelines as they see fit.

"We're asking that we have clear boundaries and that any- and everyone who wants to protest especially if you want to protest for racial justice that you're able to do so peacefully," said Bennett.

WAAY 31 reached out to Florence city officials for comment and received this statement late Tuesday from the office of Mayor Andy Betterton: "With regard to your request for a statement, the city has not been served with a lawsuit like the one you described but typically doesnt discuss pending litigation anyway."

Go here to see the original:
City of Florence sued over First Amendment violation - WAAY

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange supporters hold placards as they gather outside Westminster Magistrates court in London on Wednesday. Alastair Grant/AP hide caption

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange supporters hold placards as they gather outside Westminster Magistrates court in London on Wednesday.

LONDON A British judge on Wednesday formally approved the extradition of Julian Assange to the United States to face spying charges. The case will now go to Britain's interior minister for a decision, though the WikiLeaks founder still has legal avenues of appeal.

The order, which brings and end to the years'-long extradition battle closer, comes after the U.K. Supreme Court last month refused Assange permission to appeal against a lower court's ruling that he could be extradited.

District Judge Paul Goldspring issued the order in a brief hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court, as Assange watched by video link from Belmarsh Prison and his supporters rallied outside the courthouse, demanding he be freed.

Home Secretary Priti Patel will now decide whether to grant the extradition.

The move doesn't exhaust the legal options for Assange, who has sought for years to avoid a trial in the U.S. on charges related to WikiLeaks' publication of a huge trove of classified documents more than a decade ago.

His lawyers have four weeks to make submissions to Patel, and can also seek to appeal to the High Court.

Assange lawyer Mark Summers told the court that the legal team had "serious submissions" to make.

The U.S. has asked British authorities to extradite Assange so he can stand trial on 17 charges of espionage and one charge of computer misuse. American prosecutors say Assange unlawfully helped U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning steal classified diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks later published, putting lives at risk.

Supporters and lawyers for Assange, 50, argue that he was acting as a journalist and is entitled to First Amendment protections of freedom of speech for publishing documents that exposed U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. They argue that his case is politically motivated.

A British district court judge had initially rejected a U.S. extradition request on the grounds that Assange was likely to kill himself if held under harsh U.S. prison conditions. U.S. authorities later provided assurances that the WikiLeaks founder wouldn't face the severe treatment that his lawyers said would put his physical and mental health at risk.

In December, the High Court overturned the lower court's decision, saying that the U.S. promises were enough to guarantee that Assange would be treated humanely. The Supreme Court in March rejected Assange's attempt to challenge that ruling.

Assange's lawyers say he could face up to 175 years in jail if he is convicted in the U.S., though American authorities have said the sentence was likely to be much lower than that.

Assange has been held at Britain's high-security Belmarsh Prison in London since 2019, when he was arrested for skipping bail during a separate legal battle. Before that, he spent seven years inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.

Sweden dropped the sex crimes investigations in November 2019 because so much time had elapsed.

Last month, Assange and his partner Stella Moris married in a prison ceremony.

Original post:
Julian Assange is one major step closer to extradition to the U.S. - NPR

Big Walnut Local Schools and a parent suing the district for allegedly violating her First Amendment rights filed a joint motion in U.S. District Court asking a judge to stay upcoming deadlines as they may be close to a resolution in the case.

The lawsuit was filed on March 7 by Big Walnut parent Ashley Ryder after she was told to zip it at a meeting by Board President Doug Crowl on Feb. 17. Ryder claimed in her lawsuit that her First Amendment right to free speech was violated when she was told to stop talking and when her public participation was cut short by Crowl, who was presiding over the meeting.

(Crowl) retaliated against Ryder when (Crowl) silenced her criticisms, would not let her finish her statements, and ordered her to leave the lectern, the complaint said. Defendant further intended to chill Ryders future speech and others speech when President Crowl told the audience that he would not permit further criticisms of Defendants Board members. Thus, the Defendant has threatened and intimidated Plaintiff and other members of the public from exercising their First Amendment rights.

The first hearing in the case was scheduled for 9 a.m. May 4, but on April 5, the parties filed a joint motion asking for the hearing to be stayed because a resolution to the case may be near.

The parties have reached a tentative resolution and are working on finalizing the details of the resolution, the joint motion said. To give the parties time to finalize the resolution, the parties seek a 30-day stay of these current deadlines and dates, such that the parties will file their stipulated injunction and dismissal entry by May 20, 2022, or will provide the Court with an update by that date.

The motion was granted the next day by Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley, who ordered that a stipulated injunction, a dismissal entry or a joint status report be filed by May 20.

There have been no filings in the case since the motion was approved.

At a special board meeting on March 15, the Big Walnut Board of Education reviewed its meeting policy and suspended enforcement of part of the policy that restricts abusive, personally directed or antagonistic speech until such time that the policy can be reviewed and amended and for no less than 60 days.

The board meets next at 6:30 p.m. April 21.

Glenn Battishill can be reached at 740-413-0903 or on Twitter @BattishillDG.

See the rest here:
Ryder, Big Walnut reach 'tentative resolution' - Delaware Gazette