Mediaboss Marketing

from the I-guess-a-law-is-good-if-it-makes-something-illegal dept

You can't always pick your fighter for Constitutional challenges. Sometimes you're handed an unsympathetic challenger, which makes defending everyone's rights a bit more difficult because a lot of people wouldn't mind too much if this particular person's rights are limited. But that's not how rights work.

A pretty lousy decision has been handed down by a Minnesota federal court. A challenge of two laws -- one city, one state -- has been met with a judicial shrug that says sometimes rights just aren't rights when there are children involved. (h/t Eric Goldman)

The plaintiff is Sally Ness, an "activist" who appears to be overly concerned with a local mosque and its attached school. Ness is discussed in this early reporting on her lawsuit, which shows her activism is pretty limited in scope. Her nemesis appears to be the Dar Al-Farooq Center and its school, Success Academy. Ness feels there's too much traffic and too much use of a local public park by the Center and the school.

Here's how she's fighting back against apparently city-approved use of Smith Park:

Ness has taken it upon herself to document activity at site. That includes maintaining a public blog and Facebook page all about the DAF/Success Academy controversy, complete with photos and video of street traffic, kids being dropped off at school, and people otherwise going about their business.

Her legal representation in this lawsuit isn't that sympathetic either.

The American Freedom Law Center, which claims that the battle for Americas soul is being waged in the courtrooms across America against secular progressives and Sharia-advocating Muslim Brotherhood interests, is co-counseling the case. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls that organizations co-founder David Yerushalmi an anti-Muslim activist and a leading proponent of the idea that the United States is threatened by the imposition of Muslim religious law, known as Shariah.

Her lawyer says this has nothing to do with the school's religious affiliation. Her co-counsel, David Yerushalmi, disagrees.

In a statement, he says Ness predicament is just another example of encroachment on our liberties when Islam is involved.

Ness became involved when the mosque opened its school and obtained a Conditional Use Permit for Smith Park that allowed students to use it during school days. Ness believes the permit is being violated on a daily basis by students' "excessive" use of park facilities that makes it "impossible" for nearby residents to use it at the same time.

To document these supposed violations, Ness has approached children in the park and parked across the street to take photographs/record DAF students using the park. She had two run-ins with local law enforcement before filing her lawsuit. After the most recent law enforcement encounter, Bloomington police attempted to charge Ness with felony harassment, but the Hennepin County Attorney's office declined to bring charges against her. Bloomington prosecutors also declined to prosecute Ness.

Ness sued, claiming the laws cited infringed on her Constitutional rights and that the ongoing threat of prosecution has resulted in her curtailing her documentation of park use by the school.

The problem is the laws. Ness' behavior is problematic but it shouldn't be criminally problematic. First, the state's harassment law -- as quoted in the court's opinion [PDF] -- does not require prosecutors to prove intent.

Subdivision 1. Definition. As used in this section, harass means to engage in conduct which the actor knows or has reason to know would cause the victim under the circumstances to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated, and causes this reaction on the part of the victim regardless of the relationship between the actor and victim.

Subd. 1a. No proof of specific intent required. In a prosecution under this section, the state is not required to prove that the actor intended to cause the victim to feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated, or except as otherwise provided in subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clause (4), or paragraph (b), that the actor intended to cause any other result.

Then there's an additional ordinance -- one put in place by the city of Bloomington after Ness' two run-ins with the local PD -- that criminalizes Ness' documentation of park activities.

(24) No person shall intentionally take a photograph or otherwise record a child without the consent of the child's parent or guardian.

This is amazingly broad. It criminalizes journalism and the recording of criminal acts by minors. This revision appears to have been crafted solely to target Ness and her activism. Ness was also a frequent commenter at Bloomington city council meetings until filing this lawsuit.

The court says Ness has no standing to challenge the laws. According to the judge, she does not face a credible threat of prosecution. The decision cites the two refusals to prosecute, as well as prosecutors' statements on the issue.

Ness claims she intends to monitor an issuethe non-compliant use of DAFs facilities and the use of Smith Parkby filming and photographing the activity in the physical vicinity of DAF, which may include filming and photographing people. Compl. 36, 47, 70, 71; Ness Decl. 6, 18, 28. Ness does not claim a desire to surveil individuals or track their location by filming or photographing them once they leave DAFs neighborhood. As Ness herself has stated, I try to make this as not about people . . . . Its not specifically about an individual. Its about the City collectively not doing their job. Jones Decl. Ex. 1 at 18:4918:53. Thus, as the County Attorney and the City both acknowledge, Ness intended conduct is not proscribed by the Harassment Statute because she is not tracking or monitoring a particular individual.

But then the court goes on to quote police officers' implicit threats of arrest as evidence Ness won't be subjected to further law enforcement scrutiny or prosecution.

Ness relies on the police report from the incident, which states that Officer Meyer asked [Ness] to stop filming, and that Ness was advised that she could be charged with harassment if the parents and principal felt intimidated by her actions. Compl. 54. However, the bodycam footage of the encounter establishes that Sgt. Roepke expressly told Ness this is a public place, . . . you have a right to . . . take pictures in a public place or video or, or anything like that. Theres not an issue with that. . . . [B]ut if youre doing it in a means to intimidate them or to harass them, then it becomes a problem. Jones Decl. Ex. 3 at 1:50. Sgt. Roepke also told Ness if you want to take some pictures, come and take some pictures and then move on. Id. at 7:50. When Ness described the August 2019 encounter to Detective Bloomer months later during her interview, Ness stated that Sgt. Roepke clarified Ness conduct was not harassing behavior, and told her to be careful and read the statute. Jones Decl. Ex. 5 at 36:2236:43. The police report of the August 2019 incident, particularly when viewed together with Sgt. Roepkes statements and Ness own recollection of the incident, does not rise to the level of a credible threat of prosecution. Ness decision to chill her speech, after being told by Sgt. Roepke that she had a right to take videos and that her conduct was not harassing behavior, was not based on an objectively reasonable fear of prosecution.

Unfortunately, this supposedly "unreasonable" fear of prosecution stems directly from the law, making it a lot more reasonable than the court says. Prosecutors do not have to prove intent. And, as the officer stated clearly, all it would take is for subjects of Ness' recordings to feel harassed. It doesn't matter whether or not Ness intended to harass anyone. That's pretty open-ended and that makes her fear of prosecution a lot more reasonable.

The court agrees Ness has standing to sue the city of Bloomington over its ban on filming children.

The City Defendants argue that [e]ven if Ness had standing to sue, her facial challenge to the ordinance under the first Amendment would fail. City Defs. Mem. Supp. Mot. Dism. [Docket No. 68] at 10 (emphasis added). However, the City Defendants briefing does not include an argument for why Ness might lack standing to challenge the City Ordinance. Ness intended conduct will include photographing and filming children in a City park without parental consent. This conduct is proscribed by the City Ordinance, and the City has not disavowed an intent to charge Ness with violating the City Ordinance if she were to engage in this conduct. Under these circumstances, Ness decision to chill her speech due to the existence of the City Ordinance is objectively reasonable. Ness has standing to challenge the City Ordinance.

But it says she has nothing to sue about because the ordinance does not affect her First Amendment rights.

Here, the City Ordinance makes no distinction based on who is the photographer or recorder, what use will be made of the photograph or recording, or what message will ultimately be conveyed. Because the limitation on its face does not draw distinctions based on a speakers message or viewpoint, it is content neutral.

Neutral, except as to the content of the recordings, which is what's targeted by the city's ban. But the court says the definition of "content" hinges on what the speech conveys, rather than what it contains.

Ness also points out the ordinance is unconstitutional because it fails to do what it purports to do: protect children from being recorded. The court disagrees, saying the ordinance is adequate enough to achieve its aims.

Ness argues that the City Ordinance is underinclusive because if a person takes a step outside a City park and films children from the street, the City Ordinance will not be violated. Ness contends this underinclusiveness undermines the Citys claimed interest in protecting childrens privacy and preventing them from being exploited or intimidated. However, requiring would-be recorders to collect images from a distance, rather from inside a City park, makes it less likely that a child in the park will feel frightened or that the childs identity will be ascertainable. Thus, the Citys important government interest in protecting children is not undermined by allowing a person to record children from just outside a City parks boundaries.

Finally, the judge says the ends justify the means. The judge appears to believe laws are "narrowly tailored" if they accomplish what they set out to do.

As discussed above, the City Ordinance promotes the important government interest in regulating the competing uses of City parks and protecting childrens privacy and sense of safety and freedom from intimidation while playing in a City park. This interest would be achieved less effectively without the City Ordinance. The City Ordinance is narrowly tailored.

Sure, and the city's attempts to achieve other interests would undoubtedly be more effective if the Constitution didn't exist. But it does. And the court is supposed to be a check against government overreach, not an enabler of government efficiency.

The lawsuit is dismissed. The court says Ness can film kids from outside of the park's boundaries without fear of prosecution. Of course, this is what Ness was doing when she was approached by officers who told her to "take her photos" and "move on." Even if Ness complies with the terms of the ordinance the city appears to have passed just to stop her from doing what she was doing, she still faces the possibility of being subjected to further police action. And even if prosecutors refuse to press charges, there's still the hassle of the arrest, and the loss of time and freedom during the detainment. These harms aren't imaginary. The law written to make it more difficult for one Bloomington resident to engage in documentation of perceived permit violations stays on the books.

Most people will probably be fine with this outcome. After all, it mainly affects someone whose interest in park usage seems to be primarily motivated by bigotry. This is all but confirmed by her choice (or acceptance) of the American Freedom Law Center's legal representation. But bad people can still raise legitimate Constitutional complaints. This isn't a victory for Bloomington. It's a loss for its residents who are subject to a badly written law. Even if they have no desire to violate the ordinance, the law can still be wielded against citizens engaged in legitimate activities (like news gathering), thanks to this court's support.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, activist, children, free speech, photography, privacy, sally ness

See original here:
Federal Court Can't See Any First Amendment Implications In Local Ordinance Blocking The Photography Of Children - Techdirt

The right to free speech in America needs to be protected, Princeton University jurisprudence professor Robert George stated Friday.

George's comments during an interview on "Fox News @ Night" came following a Michigan bed and breakfast's decision to remove their Norwegian flag after dozens wrongly accused the owners of flying a Confederate flag.

According to reporting from WLIX, when Greg and Kjersten Offbecker created the St. Johns inn -- named The Nordic Pineapple -- they installed the flag, hanging an American flag alongside it.

The pair then began to receive cruel emails and phone calls. Some were even convinced that the "B&B" was built by Confederate leaders when, in fact, union workers constructed the Civil War-era building for the daughter of the Saint Johns founder.

Kjersten Offbecker said the flag was hung as a way for her to represent her Scandinavian heritage. However, with the confusion, she took it down because she said it was not worth the frustration.

The Norwegian flag has the same colors as the Confederate flag, but the patterns and symbols are different. The Confederate flag is red with a blue X containing white stars.

"It's a combination of a very bad attitude and a great deal of ignorance," George remarked. "You would think that Americans would be able to tell what is and isn't a Confederate flag -- even if it's a flag that, in some ways, resembles a Confederate flag.

"But, look at how quickly people just turn to outrage and tried to shut these people down because they thought they had broken the rule against wrongthink..." he told host Shannon Bream. "So, the combination of malice and ignorance is really toxic."

George highlighted the importance of speaking up in defense of the free speech rights of those you strongly may disagree with.

"Temple University was under pressure to discipline [Professor] Marc Lamont Hill for some statements that I very strongly disagreed with. But I, nevertheless, threatened to myself lead a protest...in defense of the free speech rights of the very progressive Marc Lamont Hill," he explained. "Because he has every bit of [a right to] free speech as I have or as anybody else has.

"The First Amendment is for all of us," George pointed out.

"It's not the property of the left. It's not the property of the right. It's not the conservatives'; it's not the liberals' [property]. It's everybody's right..." he said.

"And so, we need to protect the free speech rights and stand up for the free speech rights of those we oppose," George urged.

Continued here:
Princeton professor pushes back on cancel culture on campuses: 'First Amendment is for all of us' - FOX 32 Chicago

Protesters gather in front of the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse in downtown Portland, where some demonstrators have been arrested and others released from jail on the condition that they not attend any more protests. Spencer Platt/Getty Images hide caption

Protesters gather in front of the Mark O. Hatfield federal courthouse in downtown Portland, where some demonstrators have been arrested and others released from jail on the condition that they not attend any more protests.

A number of people arrested at demonstrations in Portland, Ore., say the terms of their release prevent them from attending protests going forward, a stipulation First Amendment experts have called cause for concern.

ProPublica reported on Tuesday that at least a dozen protesters arrested in recent weeks are prohibited from attending demonstrations within city or state limits, or in general, while they await trials on federal misdemeanor charges. Protesters say this was one of several conditions including abiding by a curfew, avoiding the area surrounding the federal courthouse and appearing for court dates that they had to agree to in order to leave jail.

Bailey Dreibelbis, 23, is one such protester. He told NPR's Vanessa Romo that he was arrested on the evening of July 22 and released the following afternoon on certain conditions, including that he would not attend any more protests in Portland.

Of the terms of his release, Dreibelbis said his public defender was "pretty clear that if I wanted to be out of there that day, that I would have to take them."

"She kind of chuckled with me, because I didn't do anything illegal upon arrest," he added. "I did not assault an officer, I did not set anything on fire."

Dreibelbis said he entered an open fence outside the federal courthouse, noting he did not see signs or hear announcements about that area being off limits. A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office said Dreibelbis was charged with failing to comply with a lawful order, which is a class c misdemeanor.

Like Dreibelbis, other protesters are facing charges in connection with petty offenses that took place on federal grounds.

According to ProPublica, 18 of the 50 protesters charged in Portland are accused of only minor offenses under federal law that criminalizes certain actions when they happen on federal property or against people on that property. These behaviors include "failure to obey a lawful order" and "disorderly conduct."

Fourteen protesters were charged with "failing to obey a lawful order" between July 21 and July 24 alone, ProPublica found.

Orders setting conditions for release, reviewed by ProPublica, were signed by a federal magistrate in Portland. Kevin Sonoff of the U.S. Attorney's Office said in an email to NPR that the prosecutors didn't seek the "no protest" restriction, that it was added by the court. He said the office did ask for those released to be barred from a five-block limit around the federal courthouse.

"This morning, we joined the Federal Public Defender's Office in jointly recommending to the court that these additional release conditions be modified," Sonoff said.

Dreibelbis told NPR he hadn't initially planned to attend a protest that night he said he roller skates after work and ended up in that part of town and is now barred from attending any other protests.

Legal experts told NPR that such a stipulation almost certainly violates individuals' First Amendment rights to free assembly.

"These conditions are deeply troubling and likely unconstitutional," Ramya Krishnan, staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, wrote in an email. "A blanket ban on attending future protests in the city seriously infringes on the First Amendment right to free assembly, and isn't reasonably related to any legitimate goal of pretrial release."

Enrique Armijo, a law professor at Elon University, explained that it is not uncommon for criminal defendants to give up certain rights as a condition of their release, but those conditions are typically very narrow, in the interest of public safety and tightly connected to the basis of prosecution.

The agreements in Portland, he said, are overly broad in that they do not show a clear public safety connection between the right the person is being asked to give up and the harm that person is alleged to have committed.

"There's no way you can say that because of something you may have done with respect to federal property, a federal court is going to say you cannot engage in First Amendment-protected activity in the entire city in which that federal property is located," Armijo said. "That's just the definition of what First Amendment law considers overbreadth: What you're being asked to give up is much, much greater from a constitutional perspective than that which you are alleged to have done."

Elizabeth Goitein, who codirects the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty & National Security Program, said this kind of "blanket First Amendment restriction" violates one of the most core constitutional rights.

"The fact that these people may or may not have committed a misdemeanor is irrelevant, they certainly haven't been tried or convicted of any such offense and they are presumed innocent until proven guilty," she said. "Even after someone has been convicted of an offense, that does not mean that the government can require them to give up First Amendment freedoms going forward."

Goitein also noted that this practice raises red flags even beyond Portland because it could potentially happen in other cities.

"It's a problem if it happens once," she said. "And if it's happening systemically across a major city in this country, we need to be extremely concerned."

People have gathered for demonstrations against racism and police violence in Portland every night since the death of George Floyd in May, with tensions escalating after the Trump administration deployed federal agents to the city to protect the federal courthouse there earlier this month. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown said federal agents will begin a phased withdrawal on Thursday.

Read the original post:
For Some Arrested At Portland Protests, Release Is Conditional On Not Attending More - NPR

ANCHORAGE COULD BAN SOME FORMS OF THERAPY FOR GAY CLIENTS

On Tuesday, the Anchorage Assembly will take up an ordinance that would prohibit counselors and therapists from helping young clients who are struggling with unwanted homosexual thoughts, gender dysphoria, or other gender identity or sexual variations.

Offered by three gay members of the Anchorage Assembly, the ordinance would mandate that if a minor wants counseling for unwanted sexual urges or expressions, therapists would have to end the counseling session and show their client the door. Families could, of course, travel to Palmer or Wasilla for such counseling, but it would not be available in Anchorage.

Opponents of the measure say the ordinance would infringe on the First Amendment rights of both patients and therapists, and put a chill on therapists who believe a young person is experiencing a temporary identity problem and want to explore what may be going on in that young persons life.

The ordinance leans on the authority of a three-part story by the Anchorage Press that says persons who are homosexual are discriminated against. In the third part of the series, the Anchorage Press calls gender therapy Conversion, The real hell, focusing on two minors who had therapy forced on them by their parents.

The ordinance would not prevent pro-gay counseling and hormone therapies to assist a young person in presenting as the opposite sex or following romantic attractions with the same sex, but would prevent a counselor or therapist from any communication that would discourage that road for their patients.

In an Alaska Family Council workshop for pastors and others concerned that their religious freedoms or patient-therapist relationships are being infringed upon, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council warned that sexuality among minors can change as children grow in or out of experimentation phases.

He said that the ban on counseling is a form of viewpoint discrimination by a governing body, and that is a constitutional infringement on many levels.

Going to counseling is deeply personal experience that involves viewpoints, perceptions, and emotions, and if therapists think they are going to be sued because they ask questions of their patients, it will make therapists suppress their own viewpoints.

Sprigg added that parents are in charge of the health care and development of their children, something that has been upheld numerous times at the U.S. Supreme Court, and that there are minors who do want to undergo counseling for homosexual urges.

He also faulted the ordinance because it refers to licensed counselors, but doesnt say who the licensing authority is. In some cases, churches sanction or license counseling services through ordination.

[The entire ordinance in its current form is at this link.]

The meeting starts at 5 pm, but the public is not allowed to attend, per an order by Mayor Ethan Berkowitz. You can find the full agenda and watch the proceedings at this link.

Like Loading...

Go here to see the original:
Assembly to look at limiting First Amendment rights of therapists and clients - Must Read Alaska

A few weeks ago, the Texas Supreme Court made headlines by warning state officials that there was not, in fact, a pandemic exception to the United States Constitution. This past week, however, the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to create one. In an order that surprised even the liberals at Vox, the Supreme Court blessed a Nevada law that preferences casinos over churches. The decision has no basis in First Amendment law and establishes a worrisome precedent for government overreach in times of crisis.

Located in Dayton, Nevada, Calvary Chapel is a small, rural church that wishes to host worship services for about 90 congregants, which is 50% of its fire-code capacity. Calvary Chapels reopening plans are more than compliant with state and CDC requirements. A limited, 45-minute service (half the normal length), one-way entrance and exit footpaths, six-feet of separation between families, a prohibition on passing items, and sanitization between services are just some of the measures proposed by Calvary Chapel.

Yet Nevada forbade Calvary Chapel from opening its doors. In a breathtaking assertion of governmental power premised on COVID-19, Gov. Steve Sisolak (a Democrat) issued a directive that severely constrains church attendance. No church, synagogue, mosque, or other place of worship may admit more than 50 persons no matter the building capacity or safety measures employed.

The fact that these restrictions do not apply to casinos, gyms, bowling alleys, restaurants, or bars should have made Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak an easy case. It is blackletter law that strict scrutiny applies to government restrictions on religious exercise that are not neutral and of general applicability. If the Free Exercise Clause means anything, it means government may not single out the religious for disfavored treatment. Yet, that is precisely what Nevada has done. While limiting church attendance to 50 people, Nevada allows the casino down the street to admit thousands of people, up to 50% of their maximum capacity.

Further, casinos are not the only venues that are treated more favorably than churches. Other commercial interests, such as bars, gyms, and restaurants, may also operate at 50% capacity. In fact, tournament bowling alleys in Las Vegas seat hundreds of spectators, and like casinos, can admit up to 50% of capacity. State guidelines provide that groups of up to 50 people may sit together in bowling alley grandstands. Meanwhile, the synagogue down the street is limited to 50 total worshippers.

On Friday, in a one-sentence order that contains not a word of explanation, a sharply divided 5-4 Supreme Court denied Calvary Chapels application for an injunction restraining the state of Nevada from enforcing its 50-person limit on religious services.

Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch each authored a dissent arguing that Nevadas reopening plan discriminated against religious services in violation of the First Amendment.

As Alito explained, a public health emergency does not give public officials carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists. Rather, officials are required to craft policies that account for constitutional rights.

This principle is hardly new. In 1866, involving events at the height of the Civil War, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution may not be modified in times of crisis. Rather, our founding charter applies at all times and under all circumstances. Indeed, the court could not think of any other doctrine involving more pernicious consequencesthan that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.

If only the current Supreme Court would return to this view. As Gorsuch explained, the world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel.

All is not lost, however. Although Calvary Chapel will not receive its injunction, the courts still have a chance to consider the case on the merits and to ensure that the First Amendments protections apply at all times and in all circumstances.

Erin Hawley is a senior legal fellow at Independent Womens Law Center and a former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Read the original:
There are no exceptions to the First Amendment, even in a pandemic - Washington Examiner