Mediaboss Marketing

In the midst of COVID-19, our national turmoil and the positive Black Lives Matter movement, Palo Alto has become embroiled in the issue of access to our beloved Foothills Park. As two City Council members who have been immersed in the details, we wanted to share what we've learned on the issue so that people are informed about what is actually at stake when asked to sign the petition that is now circulating for a referendum.

Some view Foothills Park through a racial lens, and indeed some of Palo Alto's history is similar to that of cities around us and across the country with the unconscionable race-based discrimination of those times. But in other important ways Palo Alto has been racially progressive over the decades, including being one of the very few Bay Area cities to oppose the rent discrimination of CA 1964 Prop 14; forming Midpen Citizens for Fair Housing, the first fair housing agency in the country; and honoring Joseph Eichler, who required explicit inclusionary agreements at a time when few others did.

Yet while the historical perspective is important, the legal arguments raised with Foothills Park in a lawsuit brought by ACLU and NAACP are based not on racial equity, but instead on the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

The decision of the ACLU and NAACP to emphasize a racial storyline, which obscures the actual substance of their suit, has triggered two unfortunate reactions:

First, while it rallied their supporters, the campaign also rallied many other people who simply don't see Foothills Park as a segregationist issue and who feel insulted at being told they are racist. As we've seen across our nation, this kind of it-rallies-both-sides polarization hurts our capacity for principled and thoughtful discourse, even among reasonable people.

Second, the Palo Alto community among the most educated in the nation is astute enough to doubt that a race-based legal case for Foothills Park admission would stick. Because the plaintiffs aggressively marketed their case on this basis, and not on the more substantial First Amendment constitutional aspect, many Palo Altans wrongly view the lawsuit as frivolous.

Both these things have helped spur the petition.

Let us therefore try to clarify the substance of the lawsuit.

The legal claim is that Foothills Park is subject to our federal First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly, overriding any Palo Alto ordinance. The argument is that even though the city owns the land, public parks, like public sidewalks, are special common areas; and unlike private citizens' property or even many other public facilities, we can't ban nonresidents from gathering there.

Although we have the right to manage the park, limit the number of visitors, charge fees and so forth, the suit asserts we can not discriminate on the basis of residence in allowing access. So while each case is unique, this issue would be the deciding factor; not race or other social-justice concerns.

The council discusses the details of lawsuits in closed session with legal counsel, including outside specialist counsel, in order to protect our ability to litigate without disclosing strategy to the opposing side. This is an important protection for residents, but is understandably frustrating to all involved.

We both initially voted for the pilot program and for placing the long-term question on the 2022 ballot for voters to decide. After we understood the First Amendment nature of the lawsuit, we both changed our view and voted for the settlement.

If the petition organizers collect the 2,581 signatures needed, the settlement will be voided and the lawsuit proceeds. If the city wins the litigation, then we can do what we want.

If the city loses the litigation, then Palo Alto's "residents-only" policy, including the pilot project, is struck down. A referendum becomes meaningless; the park will be opened on terms determined in a federal court. The current settlement, which waives us paying the ACLU's legal fees and allows a few things like residents' priority access to facilities like campgrounds, would not apply.

In this outcome, the city may also be required to pay high plaintiffs' attorneys' costs. The ACLU and its private firm partner are currently working pro bono, but if they win the lawsuit, they will seek to recover their full legal expenses from Palo Alto. Those expenses would divert funds from already pandemic-challenged programs like the Children's Theater, Youth Community Services, public safety, and ironically, parks.

Those considering signing the petition should consider two important factors:

First, the petition does NOT actually give residents control over Foothills Park access via a referendum; instead it revives the First Amendment lawsuit, which the city must first win before any referendum means anything. The petition is a high-stakes bet on that lawsuit, whose odds depend not on social justice or transparency, but on details of Constitutional First Amendment law.

Second, the decision to place this bet will be made not by majority vote but by the 4% of residents (2,500 out of 67,000) who sign the petition. Those 4% will irreversibly commit the other 96% of Palo Altans to this course. This places a significant responsibility on the 4%, and signers should understand the financial risk here.

The city has posted a sizable FAQ on its web site with answers to a number of questions, and the full terms of the settlement agreement are here.

Finally, let us end with a plea on a different but urgent matter. The COVID-19 situation is at a critical juncture. While we've all grown weary of it, we must renew our efforts to isolate in order to slow the transmission rate. Our health care system is at risk of being overwhelmed. Please do all you can to support the county and state directives now in effect.

Go here to see the original:
Opinion: What you need to know about the Foothills Park referendum - Palo Alto Online

Murdock, a town of fewer than 300 people, passed a conditional permit Wednesday to allow use of a church building bought by the Asatru Folk Assembly.

The Asatru Folk Assembly describes Asatru as "the religion by which the Ethnic European Folk have traditionally related to the Divine and to the world around them." The website says that it is part of the "great Aryan religiosity."

City leaders said the passage of the permit was due to First Amendment rights.

"We as the leaders of the City of Murdock want it to be known that the City of Murdock condemns racism in all of its forms: Conscious, Unconscious, any place, any time, now and in the future," Mayor Craig Kavanagh said during Wednesday's meeting. "We are committed to building a community that promotes equal justice and opportunity to every single person regardless of their race."

"The Conditional Use Permit for the AFA is very controversial if you want to make it about religious beliefs, but what is failing to get mentioned is this vote was not about beliefs," Kavanagh said in a statement sent to CNN.

"This vote was about a zoning permit to let an old abandoned church be used for exactly what it was built for "a church." Now I understand the beliefs of who will be using the church are much different from one another, but that is every person's 1st amendment right according to the Constitution."

"To the City Council of Murdock, thank you. We know there was a lot of pressure on you to deny us our permit and right to worship," the post said. "We appreciate your fairness and this opportunity."

Kavanagh's statement said the topic was a main topic of discussion at council meetings as well as in the community over the past few months. A public meeting was held in October and while the vote was originally scheduled in November, it was postponed so the mayor could bring in the city attorney and explain the legal ramifications, it said.

"I can assure you that nobody thought we would have to deal with a topic like this in our little town, but nothing is predictable in the year 2020, it seems," he said.

The AFA includes in its statement of ethics the following:

"We in Asatru support strong, healthy white family relationships. We want our children to grow up to be mothers and fathers to white children of their own. We believe that those activities and behaviors supportive of the white family should be encouraged while those activities and behaviors destructive of the white family are to be discouraged."

Kavanagh's statement went on to say that the city was advised to pass the permit, saying the circumstances could be a "substantial burden."

"This town is still the same town it was before this CUP approval took place," Kavanagh said. "The vote last night had nothing to do with beliefs or race, it was strictly a zoning issue the council felt like it needed to legally abide by or it would have caused a substantial burden to the town. We as a council still want what is best for the City of Murdock and will always do so."

See the article here:
City approves conditional permit to allow use of church building by a Whites-only group - CNN

The Supreme Court of the United States released a decision blocking Gov. Cuomo from imposing strict attendance limits on New York City churches and synagogues to contain the spread of the coronavirus on Nov. 25.

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America were the plaintiffs who sued Cuomo because they believed they were being unfairly and severely targeted by the limitations of the Cluster Action Initiative that placed them in red and orange zones. They said the orders violated their First Amendment rights of religious expression.

Gov. Cuomo released this initiative on Oct. 6, which introduced new restrictions and rules aimed towards reducing the COVID-19 infection rate by focusing on areas of NYC where cases had increased. The initiative categorized hotspots into three color zones: red, orange and yellow. In red zones, places of worship were limited to a maximum of 10 people and orange zones were limited to 25.

The court was split on the decision with a 5-4 vote. The three liberal Supreme Court justices Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, cast the dissenting votes, while most of the conservative justices: Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, voted to block the restrictions. However, Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, sided with the liberals.

Justice Barrett casted her first publicly discernable vote as a justice, The Guardian reported. This vote was pivotal, because her vote helped the court depart from past cases that deferred to state authorities on public-health measures, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The plaintiffs argued that their restrictions were harsher because businesses deemed essential by the state, like grocery stores, are not subject to the same level of restrictions. This may imply that churches and synagogues consider themselves to be essential businesses too.

However, New York argued that they are already being lenient with houses of worship. The state specifically said that churches and synagogues are treated more favorably than activities considered comparable, such as lectures, concerts, cinemas and sporting events, which are completely shut down in high-risk zones, the Wall Street Journal said.

Some of the justices released their opinions on the case and the reasoning behind their choices. The decisions reflect that the justices were split. Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area, but the restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendments guarantee of religious liberty, the decision said.

Some of the conservative justices disagreed with Cuomos restrictions because they felt New York has been extreme in their restrictions. New Yorks restrictions on houses of worship are much more severe than the California and Nevada restrictions, Justice Kavanaugh said.

Some of the conservative justices also believed that churches and synagogues have more importance than some of the other businesses that were allowed to stay open. In fact, There is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques, Justice Gorsuch said.

On the other hand, the liberal justices argued that the court should not interfere with public health authorities, the Wall Street Journal discusses. The nature of the epidemic, the spikes, the uncertainties, and the need for quick action, taken together, mean that the State has countervailing arguments based upon health, safety, and administrative considerations, Justice Breyer wrote.

Gov. Cuomo responded to the Supreme Court opinions and ruling by calling them irrelevant. Since the plaintiffs are no longer in areas of high risk, the zone that they were talking about has already been moot, Gov. Cuomo claimed.

Additionally, Cuomo saw this case as an opportunity for the now conservative-leaning Supreme Court to express its philosophy and politics, he said in a press conference on Nov. 26.

Cuomo also said the ruling had no effect on the states virus control efforts.

Since being in the yellow zone, the plaintiffs have not challenged the restrictions. This is an historic victory, Avi Schick, an attorney for Agudath Israel of America, said per The Guardian.

View original post here:
Supreme Court declares NYC houses of worship exempt from attendance limits The Ticker - The Ticker

Thanks to Kate for sending: Police have blocked off all traffic, including pedestrians, on H street from 17th to Vermont. Im thinking its to protect all of the artwork on the fence surrounding Lafayette Square. Could definitely be for something else though.

From MPD:

TRAFFIC ADVISORY: First Amendment Activity

From Friday, December 11, 2020 through Sunday, December 13, 2020, multiple First Amendment demonstrations are scheduled to occur in the District of Columbia. In conjunction with these demonstrations, there will be parking restriction and potential street closures that motorists should take into consideration:

The following streets will be posted as Emergency No Parking on Thursday, December 11, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. to Sunday, December 13, 2020 11:59 p.m:

H Street from 15th Street to 17th StreetI Street from 15th Street to 17th StreetConnecticut Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NWVermont Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NW15th Street from I Street to K Street, NW (west side of McPherson Square)17th Street from I Street to K Street, NW (east side of Franklin Square)

The following streets will be posted as Emergency No Parking for Saturday, December 12, 2020 at 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m:

Constitution Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to 23rd Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue from 3rd Street, NW to 18th Street, NWI Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWI Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWH Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWH Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWK Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWNew York Avenue from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NW17th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW

(west side of Farragut Square)

15th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW

(east side of McPherson Square)

16th Street from K Street to O Street14th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NW13th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to L Street, NW12th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW11th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW10th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW9th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW7th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to E Street, NW6th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW4th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW3rd Street from Independence Avenue, SW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NWNew York Avenue from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWC Street from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWD Street from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWMadison Drive from 3rd Street, NW to 15th Street, NWJefferson Drive from 3rd Street, SW to 15th Street, SW

Street Closures

On Saturday, December 12, 2020, the following streets will be restricted to vehicular traffic from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. The decision to restrict vehicles will be based upon public safety and if safe to do so, vehicles will be allowed to enter the restricted area if they are on essential business or traveling to-and-from their residence.

Constitution Avenue from Pennsylvania Avenue to 23rd Street, NWIndependence Avenue, SW from 14th Street to Ohio Drive, SWK Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWI Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWH Street from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWNew York Avenue from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWNew York Avenue from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWG Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWG Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWF Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWF Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWE Street from 9th Street, NW to 15th Street, NWE Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWD Street from 5th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWD Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWC Street from 3rd Street, NW to 6th Street, NWC Street from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue, NW from 3rd Street, NW to 15th Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue, NW from 17th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWIndiana Avenue from 3rd Street to 5th Street, NW3rd Street from Independence Avenue, SW to D Street, NW4th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW4th Street from Indiana Avenue, NW to E Street, NW5th Street from Indiana Avenue, NW to E Street, NW6th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW7th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to E Street, NW9th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to E Street, NW10th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW11th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to L Street, NW12th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW13th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to L Street, NW14th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NW15th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NW16th Street from H Street, NW to L Street, NWVermont Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NWConnecticut Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NW17th Street from Independence Avenue, SW to L Street, NWMadison Street from 3rd Street, NW to 15th Street, NWJefferson Street from 3rd Street, SW to 15th Street, SW12th Street Tunnel9th Street Tunnel

While the Metropolitan Police Department does not anticipate street closures on Friday, December 11, 2020 or Sunday, December 13, 2020, there is the potential for intermittent closures in the downtown area. Any decision to close a street will be based upon public safety. For timely traffic information, please visit twitter.com/DCPoliceTraffic,

The public should expect parking restrictions along the street and should be guided by the posted emergency no parking signage. All vehicles that are parked in violation of the emergency no parking signs will be ticketed and towed.

Motorists could encounter possible delays if operating in the vicinity of downtown area and may wish to consider alternative routes. The Metropolitan Police Department and the D.C. Department of Transportation also wishes to remind motorists in the vicinity of this event to proceed with caution as increased pedestrian traffic can be anticipated.

See the original post here:
"Police have blocked off all traffic, including pedestrians, on H street from 17th to Vermont." - PoPville

When do our First Amendment rights become wrongs?

Well, when it comes to exercising your rights of free speech, assembly and petition in Tennessee, be careful. Setting up a up a tent for an overnight stay during a protest could land you in prison for up to six years.

A new law signed quietly into effect on Nov. 5 by Gov. Bill Lee changes the crime of overnight camping on state property without a permit aimed at deterring protesters who have done that from a misdemeanor to the much more serious felony. It also provides for stricter penalties and minimum jail terms for such clear threats to the republic as drawing in chalk on state property or interrupting legislators or local officials who are in a meeting.

In recent years, police have resorted to sweeps during demonstrations that operate on the theory of arrest all and sort them out later, sometimes taking into custody non-protesters simply walking to lunch or shopping. The Volunteer States new anti-protest law advocates call it criminal justice reform requires a magistrates intervention to gain early release for anyone sooner than a mandatory 12-hour minimum stay behind bars.

A move in states to silence public protest began about a decade ago, around the time of the Occupy movement. The latest Tennessee statute was sparked by demonstrators who set up camp in Nashvilles War Memorial Plaza for nearly two months this year while seeking removal of a bust of Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, first leader the Ku Klux Klan, from the state Capitol building.

By some reports, as many as 40 states have considered or adopted direct or backdoor attempts modeled on a draft law prepared by a conservative alliance of legislators and corporations to restrain public protest. Some proposals include providing legal immunity for motorists who essentially absent a declaration of intent to injure or kill strike demonstrators standing in a public thoroughfare.

Some proposed laws have been deemed outright to be unconstitutional for targeting certain groups or simply for being too broad or too vague. But government officials can enact lawful restrictions on time, place and manner in how we protest. If upheld by the courts, such laws can reasonably limit the hours and locations of public demonstrations or individual protests, the size of signs or the number of people who can gather in public spaces or on sidewalks.

Such laws nonetheless can chill free speech in ways seemingly distant from the 45 words of the First Amendment. Being convicted of a felony also may mean forfeiting the rights to vote, carry a gun or obtain a professional license and negatively can affect your ability to get a job or obtain a mortgage.

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis recently proposed not only felony charges on protestors, but also penalties on cities and towns deemed not to be taking appropriate law and order measures in response to demonstrations. If enacted and if the provisions survive court challenge Florida would have the harshest anti-protest laws in the nation.

DeSantis proposal, to be considered when the legislature meets in March, includes felony charges for obstructing traffic during an unauthorized protest or for toppling a monument; an initial no bail provision for those arrested during a demonstration, and a mandatory six-month jail term for anyone who strikes a law enforcement officer during a protest. Anyone who organizes or donates money to protesters would risk penalties under the states racketeering laws.

Tennessees chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said that the new law in that state law requiring 12-hour holds upon arrest, putting in place mandatory minimums and enhancing petty crimes to felony-level offenses will send a message loud and clear that Tennessee is no place to exercise your constitutional rights if state or local government entities disagree with you. An op-ed writer in the Memphis Commercial Appeal noted in August about the then-proposal that In George Orwells novel 1984, the state transforms all manner of innocuous activities into the most serious crimes because in totalitarian societies, any deviation from even the smallest part of the system is perceived as a threat to the system as a whole.

U.S. Supreme Court decisions stretching back more than 140 years have upheld our rights to assemble and petition. In 1937, the US. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in De Jonge v. Oregon that that the right to peaceably assemble for lawful discussion, however unpopular the sponsorship, cannot be made a crime. And in 1939 the court held in Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization that streets and parks have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens and discussing public questions.

Ten years later, Justice William O. Douglas, in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, wrote that free speech is intended to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.

More recent court rulings echo Douglas in acknowledgement that protest is inherently disruptive, may well be offensive or cause anguish to some, but is protected because of a need for robust public discussion around public policy and practices.

Yes, democracy is messy and public demonstrations at times may well inconvenience, insult or infuriate you and me. But legislative acts designed to restrain, remove or chill our rights to protest are not just unconstitutional, but unpatriotic.

As James Madison, author of the First Amendment, once observed about the new nation: The censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people.

Gene Policinski is president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at gpolicinski@freedomforum.org, or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.

Get Unlimited Access

$3 for 3 Months

Subscribe Now

After the initial selected subscription period your subscription rate will auto renew at $8.00 per month.

Read more:
FIRST FIVE: We cannot allow our First Amendment rights to become 'wrongs' - The Decatur Daily