Mediaboss Marketing

The widespread attacks by law enforcement against peaceful First Amendment demonstrators in the wake of George Floyds murder are deeply concerning as a matter of core constitutional law principles. But the fact that many officers spread across Washington, D.C., and other places lacked legibleinsigniaindicating who they were and whom they work for borders on the bizarre.

Attorney General William BarrBill BarrDemocracy under threat this is how it happens Anonymous police threaten people's freedom to assemble Milley discussed resigning from post after Trump photo-op: report MOREexplained,In the federal system, we dont wear badges with our name I mean the agents dont wear badges and their names and stuff like that, which many civilian police ... agencies do. Like all of Trumps closest cadre, recent history has shown that Barrs words cannot always be trusted as accurate. So, arefederal officers legally required to wear badges and, if not, should they be?

Somewhat astonishingly, there is no federal law requiring federal law enforcement to identify themselves to the public when they are conspicuously acting in their official law enforcement capacities. Weve all heard ofplain-clothes or undercover copswho routinely pose as private citizens for crime prevention and detection. The practice is legal, so long as the officer does not induce a person to commit a crime that the person wouldnt have otherwise committed. That would be entrapment, which is illegal.

But thedisplayof brute force in riot gear and no badges for purposes of intimidating First Amendment demonstrations is a different matter. The very presence of police officers dressed as police officers in the public square hinders the full exercise of certain constitutional rights such as the right to free speech, free assembly and freedom of movement. People might alter legal behavior to conform to the police presence.

To take a simple example, a family visiting Washington, D.C., will likely stop in its tracks if it sees armed men blocking the steps to the Lincoln Memorial. If the family walks to the White House and finds droves of black-clothed officers with large, military-grade weapons slung over their shoulders, the same family might leave the city altogether foregoing their rights to speech, assembly and freedom of movement in downtown Washington, D.C. The familys reaction would be particularly swift if as was the case with the George Floyd protests they know that the government recentlyemployedtear gas, batons, low-flying helicopters and rubber bullets on innocent civilians and members of the press who happened to be in an area that President TrumpDonald John TrumpMelania Trump is 'behind-the-scenes' but 'unbelievably influential': book Police unions face lobbying fights at all levels of government Ernst challenger leads by three points in tight Iowa Senate race MORE wanted cleared to enable hisphoto-opin front of a nearby church.

The D.C. coderequiresthat local police display enhanced identification when policing First Amendment assemblies, but federal officers arent bound by it. Federalregulationsdo allow Barr to deputize people to perform the functions of a Deputy U.S. Marshal, including [s]elected officers or employees of the Department of Justice and [o]ther persons he designates. The officialwebsiteof the U.S. Marshal Service explains the importance of badge credentials as representing official notice of agency powers and true authorization to perform assigned duties.

Although Barr is not legally bound to publicly identify each member of his riot forces, he is ethically and normatively bound. Thestandardsfor the police published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights include wear[ing] clearly visible identity badges to facilitate accurate reporting of human rights violations by the government. It doesnt take a policing expert to understand why.

America is a representative democracy in which people exercise self-governance. We do this by holding elected officials accountable at the polls and in the courts. Unlike private individuals, law enforcement officials have tremendous power over life, liberty and property. Regular people cant put their adversaries in jail that would be kidnapping.

Because itshuman natureto abuse power, we have courts that hear cases of police brutality and elections that properly place responsibility in the hands of elected officials ultimately charged with policing the police. But if we do not know the identity or employer of someone who is exercising police power, it becomes exceedingly difficult to hold that person and their elected bosses accountable.

Even worse, anonymous gun-wielding police invite vigilante copycats. Prior to the George Floyd murder, the nation was transfixed on the mounting deaths due to COVID-19 and the satellite protests over state stay-at-home orders, some byarmed private militiamembers. Barr and President Trump irresponsibly pointed the finger at amoebicanti-fascist groupsfor the unrest, but the Department of Justice, thus far, has brought no cases against linked defendants. But more to the point, by threatening protesters with badgeless, federal-looking bullies, Barr is stoking the militant flame not quelling it.

Keep in mind that the First Amendment binds all holders of government power from the president down to a local town official. Under theSupreme Courts constructionof the Constitution, the state cannot punish speech in connection with public demonstrations unless the speech has gotten so out of control that it is about to cause injury. Strong emotions, political protest and the risk of violence are not enough.

History will not look kindly at the response by Trump and Barr to the First Amendment demonstrations in Lafayette Square; the efforts turned violent at their direction and with no documented escalation by the people both men swore to serve. The fact that Congress has never passed legislation requiring that the injured know who is at the other end of a federal gun barrel merely suggests that Trump once again has gone beyond where any White House occupant has gone before.

Congress needs to enactpending legislationthats aimed at remedying this true blind spot in federal law enforcement standards. It should do it immediately so that the next time Trump jousts with the First Amendment through police violence, the people are better protected.

Kimberly Wehle is a visiting professor of Law at American Universitys Washington College of Law, and author of the book "How to Read the Constitutionand Why." Follow her on Twitter @kim_wehle.

Read the original post:
Anonymous police threaten people's freedom to assemble | TheHill - The Hill

And those arrested could be hanged.

When the new American government was formed, the Second Congress enacted the Militia Act, a more limited law governing unlawful assembly. Federal authorities could use force to break up assemblies only if they amounted to insurrectionsand the act had to be invoked by the president himself, not by his appointees.

The right of assembly had a rough go for the first century and a half of the Constitution. By the end of the 19th century, no less an authority than Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (the son of a founder of this magazine, and then a state judge) briskly dismissed the idea of expressive rights on public property. Public property belonged to the government, Holmes said, not to the people at all. For the legislature absolutely or conditionally to forbid public speaking in a highway or public park is no more an infringement of the rights of a member of the public than for the owner of a private home to forbid it in his house. The U.S. Supreme Court tersely affirmed Holmess opinion. Peaceful assembly be damned. The people were not to come out of doors without the permission of their rulers.

Nora Benavidez: First Amendment rightsif you agree with the President

Only half a century later, in a case about the rights of labor organizers, did Justice Owen Roberts, writing for a plurality, cleanse the law of Holmess view of government as the owner and citizens as guests. Roberts wrote:

Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they 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. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all . . . but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.

The people own the streetsnot the police, not the military, and not Donald Trump. And regulation of their use of the streets must be conducted with the greatest care, recognizing that occasional inconvenience caused by demonstrations is the price America pays for free government. The fact that some demonstrations are violent cannot be used to strip all Americans of their right to assemble.

That right has been under assault since the day Trump took office. As outlined in a new report by PEN America, red-state legislatures have been indefatigable in debating and passing laws designed to penalize protesters for disfavored causes. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last year approved a grotesque opinion holding that anyone who organizes a protest can be suedand thus possibly bankruptedif someone else present commits an illegal act.

Read the original here:
Trumps Grotesque Violation of the First Amendment - The Atlantic

We checked and there is no permission given to the government to shoot members of the press with rubber bullets under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Yet, thats been happening.

Two Los Angeles Times journalists covering the protests in Minneapolis recently Molly Hennessy-Fiske and photographer Carolyn Cole were targeted along with colleagues from other outlets. The two Times journalists were fired upon with rubber bullets and tear gas, then pursued when they sought shelter.

In an editorial, the LA Times reported, The medias job is complicated by a president who routinely refers to the media as the enemy of the people, a freighted designation that historically has come with official crackdowns and persecutions.

Here are some of the incidents listed in the Times:

The Nieman Lab, which covers trends in journalism, reported Monday that journalists had been attacked by police officers more than 110 times since May 28.

Nick Waters, who reports for the online investigative news site Bellingcat, has been keeping a running compilation of reports on Twitter of journalists attacked as they cover protests around the nation.

A photographer in Indianapolis was threatened by a police officer brandishing a rifle that fires less than lethal ammunition. A TV crew was targeted with rubber bullets while broadcasting live in Louisville.

Adding an international dimension, the Australian government has launched an investigation into the police tear gas assault on an Australian TV crew airing live from outside the White House.

CNN reporter Omar Jimenez and his crew were arrested, also live on the air, in Minneapolis, as was a local TV crew two among a series of abuses there.

African American journalists have reported being singled out, including a reporter for the Detroit Free Press approached by a police officer as he stood amid a small group of white journalists.

Protesters, themselves, have targeted the media. A throng vandalized CNN headquarters in Atlanta. Protesters battled a Fox TV crew outside the White House.

A mob assaulted a photographer in Fayetteville, N.C. as he took video of them looting a store.

As dispiriting as it is for journalists to be attacked by members of the public, it is even more problematic and dangerous for democracy when the attackers are sanctioned by the government.

Its not paranoid to think that attacks in those and scores of them nationwide are acts of government intimidation intended to dissuade those who would bear witness.

America is a far better place when media employees can do their jobs protected by the First Amendment without facing the personal dangers from government officials, law enforcement workers and overreacting individuals.

The democratic foundation established for the people who live in the United States should be powerful enough to protect all its citizens.

Go here to see the original:
First Amendment to the US Constitution | Editorial | avpress.com - Antelope Valley Press

Like the president, state legislators who advance these bills arent doing so out of any genuine concern for protecting speech or public safety, as they sometimes claim. In fact, our analysis finds that legislators often explicitly introduce proposals to limit the rights of people whose positions they dislike. Thats not adherence to the First Amendment, which protects the rights of those we disagree withits adherence to self-interest. Specifically, we find a direct correlation between recent years astonishing rise in collective action, particularly by Black Lives Matter and Standing Rock activists, and a rise in attempts to delegitimize and criminalize those very demonstrations.

Lawrence Glickman: How white backlash controls American progress

From session to session and state to state, these bills look remarkably similar. Thats no coincidence. In January 2018, the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, published a model Critical Infrastructure Protection Act, which drew heavily from two Oklahoma anti-trespass bills, H.B. 1123 and H.B. 2128. This bill defined critical infrastructure to include oil pipelines and dramatically raised the penalties for trespass upon such property. Since then, more than 20 bills modeled on it have also passed. Activists are challenging one law in Louisiana that targets protests near gas and oil pipelines. House Bill 727 passed in 2018 and allows for felony charges of up to five years imprisonment for protesters. This, and bills like it, clearly aim to criminalize mass-protest actions such as those against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The similarities are also not coincidental because quite literally the same legislators keep trying the same tactics, even after courts swat away their misguided bills. These zombie bills refuse to die at the end of the legislative session, and keep returning to haunt our constitutional rights. Legislatorss doggedness is appalling: In South Dakota, a bill was rushed through the legislature and signed quickly into law last year, establishing a civil action to sue riot boosters, defined as anyone who directs, advises, encourages, or solicits others toward acts of force or violence. This left the door open for police to arrest people for encouraging violence through First Amendmentprotected expression, such as chanting common protest slogans like No justice, no peace or even leading trainings of prospective protesters about their rights. A federal court struck the law down as unconstitutional, but state legislators were quick to introduce a redrafted bill just months later, tweaked to extend the crime of trespass to critical-infrastructure facilities. That bill has already passed and been signed into law by the governor.

All told, 116 bills to limit protest rights have been introduced since 2015, and 15 states have passed some form of anti-protest proposal, some passing several. And already this legislative session, were tracking 16 similar bills that are working their way through state capitolsdespite the obviously more pressing public-health and public-policy concerns.

See the article here:
First Amendment RightsIf You Agree With the President - The Atlantic

In response to the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police, people across the US and throughout the world have taken to the streets to demand racial justice and an end to police brutality and systematic racism against Black people. Some of the responses of our federal, state, and local governments in the past 72 hours are raising red flags and calling into question the police response to the protests and the curfews that have been imposed.

The right to protest is fundamental to our democracy and sacrosanct. The Founding Fathers thought that the right was so important that they wrote it into the first 45 words of the Bill of Rights and labeled it the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As the Supreme Court observed in 1958, It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the liberty assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech.

In an eerie coincidence of numerical proportions, the 45th President is aiming to thwart, limit, or outright eviscerate the fundamental right to protest and have grievances heard. On Monday, President Trump left the White House, walked across Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C. and posed in front of St. Johns Episcopal Church while holding a Bible. The path to this photo op was cleared by the U.S. Park Police, Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies. The overwhelmingly peaceful protesters and members of the media then on the streets near the church were driven from the area using aggressive and violent crowd control tactics, which included tear gas, rubber bullets, smoke canisters, pepper spray pellets, and brute force.

The debate as to whether tear gas or smoke were really used on the protesters is hollow. It was a crowd of American citizens engaged in constitutionally protected protests against police violence. It doesnt matter what was used to clear the demonstration, because the gathered crowd was simply exercising their rights to be heard as they spoke out against the very sort of injustice that was suddenly used to disperse them. Imagine the heartbreaking absurdity of sanctioning police brutality at a protest against police brutality.

The simple reality cannot be brushed aside by rhetoric or partisan sound-bites. The clear and undeniable fact remains that law enforcement officers who harass peaceably assembled citizens are violating the First Amendment, no matter the tactic used. It is unlawful and those rights must be protected.

Even though the incident on Monday in Washington, D.C. occurred before the curfew set by the mayor, curfews in and of themselves violate civil liberties. Public officials at every level of government are making arbitrary decisions about when, where, and what time citizens are allowed to have their voices heard. Just like it is wrong to forcefully disperse protesters before curfew, it is just as wrong to disperse them after curfew.

Under state law, cities and counties can impose curfews during a state of emergency to provide for the protection of life and property. However, there must be actual or imminent violence beyond the means of the government to address the issue. But curfews are enforced in very arbitrary and discriminatory ways. Historically, curfews have been used to suppress the voices of the people.

Even if curfews are being enacted for a legitimate purpose, there is an added danger for continued police misconduct. This is not an irrational fear but a stark reality that has been broadcast not only on the television news but throughout social media. The chilling scenes have played out daily since the imposition of curfews where law enforcement rush crowds of peaceful protesters the minute curfew begins like a ticking time-bomb that explodes as soon as the clock strikes. Many of the violent confrontations have occurred under the cover of curfew enforcement. Unfortunately, depending on the particular agency enforcing the curfew, a crowd could encounter a warning to go home, a ticket, mass arrests, or even rubber bullets.

The government and law enforcement have a goal of curtailing the rioting, looting, and destruction of property. But those interests must be weighed against a sweeping infringement of a fundamental right. The use of force, such as arrests, or the use of less-lethal weapons, should not be imposed against protesters unless strictly unavoidable. Otherwise the intended effect would constitute a muzzling of voices and censorship.

We will gladly represent anyone whose rights have been infringed.

We serve clients across the San Francisco Bay Area and California from our offices in San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles. Our work is contingency-based. That means we collect no fee unless we obtain money for your damages and injuries.

Read the original post:
The First Amendment Is Sacrosanct - SF Weekly