Mediaboss Marketing

Everyone should have the First Amendment right

Recently The Marietta Times in the Our Opinion column ran the following Fight for free speech is always appropriate. Therefore, shouldnt everyone have the right to fight for their opportunity to express their opinion regardless of ones viewpoint, regardless of the subject matter, with the exceptions of salacious views and/or defamatory comments? The First Amendment gives every individual that given right! Sadly, many in the vast media army are choosing the topics they consider appropriate for freedom of speech. Apparently, Christianity is not one of those subjects. Shouldnt all people, including Christians, be given the opportunity to exercise the right of Freedom of Speech?

Deciding what should be said or not said is restricting the First Amendments freedom. Attempting to appease those who disagree with other beliefs or viewpoints is not a function for the First Amendment. Deciding to restrict thought and free speech on a specific subject is considered the task of media and it is blatantly wrong. Regrettably, many people think otherwise. Shouldnt everyone have the use of the First Amendment Right including Christians? Yet many of those who share the Gospel of Jesus Christ through various media modes are stifled yes, even censored.

William O. Douglas, the longest-serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court, said, Restrictions of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.

Indeed, the freedom of speech on different subjects religion, politics, God, etc. can upset, infuriate, and make people uncomfortable. Nevertheless, we, being citizens of America, having been granted the right to exercise our Freedom of Speech, should be given the opportunity and liberty to freely exercise the First Amendment regardless of the subject matter, Christianity included! After all, doesnt the article in Our Opinion column say that to fight for free speech is always appropriate? Indeed, it is!

Nancy Hamilton

Marietta

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the original post:
Everyone should have the First Amendment right | News, Sports, Jobs - Marietta Times

Protests of racial injustice and police brutality continued this weekend in Charlotte. As usual, Charlotte Mecklenburg police were on the scene, but they were operating under a temporary restraining order. A superior court judge on Friday signed the order halting the department's use of riot control agents like tear gas and flash bang grenades against peaceful protesters. That was a response to a lawsuit filed by groups including the local chapter of the NAACP, the ACLU of North Carolina and Charlotte Uprising. Alex Heroy helped to argue their case in court. He joins Morning Edition host Lisa Worf.

Worf: Good morning, Mr. Heroy.

Heroy: Good morning.

Worf: So how much does this restraining order change CMPD tactics? After all, CMPD says it has only used riot control agents like tear gas once people began throwing rocks and frozen water bottles at officers.

Heroy: I think it requires stricter adherence to their policy and puts limits on the policies. There's CMPD directives are, they're not always to set specific on the use of force continuum and sort of what's allowed and what's not allowed. So this is put in place. We filed a lawsuit to really protect the peaceful protesters that have been victims of, what we thought of as sort of a gross assault on their First Amendment rights, at least in particular on June 2.

Worf: So when you say it puts limits on some of their tactics, are you saying because it adds a certain level of scrutiny that wasn't there before, even though CMPD says this doesn't change that much?

Heroy: Yes. Yes. I mean, so on June 2, when you had three to four hundred protesters who are all largely acting very peaceful, marching with their hands up. No real issues that we've seen in the videos. And then the police boxed them in and gassed them and shot at them. That's not OK. That's across the line. That's way over the line. Even if CMPD says that there were some outliers throwing a water bottle or even a rock would justify that kind of use of force. And it doesn't justify that use of force indiscriminately against a large crowd of peaceful protesters exercising their First Amendment rights. That's just not allowed. It's not OK. And we had to put a stop to it and not let it, risk it happening again. That's what we had to move for this emergency restraining order to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Worf: No CMPD Deputy Chief Jeff Estes said Friday that the one difference it makes for the department is that it prohibits officers from using riot control agents like tear gas again against people who are destroying property. So officers would have to intervene physically to remove those people. Do you have concerns this could further escalate a situation?

Heroy: Well, I don't think this CMPD's communication was an accurate summary of the order. The restraining order restricts actions against peaceful protesters. If there is an individual who is causing a destruction during a peaceful protest, CMPD is supposed to go in and remove that that individual, if they're destroying property there's a use of force continuum that CMPD is allowed to use. It is not a, this is not a, an order that allows or forces CMPD to just simply let people go commit criminal activity. That is not it at all. It is a restriction on what use of force can be used against peaceful protesters gathering.

Worf: Now, this is a temporary restraining order until the lawsuit can be heard. What does the lawsuit itself seek?

Heroy: So the lawsuit itself seeks a permanent restraining order that the same thing. We're also asking for what's called a declaratory judgment against which would find that the dispersal order allegedly announced on June 2 was ineffective and did not comply with CMPD policy.

Worf: And beyond the use of tear gas and other riot control agents, how did the groups you represent want to change police tactics when it comes to handling protests?

Heroy: I say that, you know, there's a lot of groups that are plaintiffs in the lawsuitm it's a lot of different opinions. So I don't want to speak for the entire group because it's a range with a lot of things that need to be changed with police. But I think the overarching issue is the respect and lack of respect and improving that, greatly improving that and community relations with the police.

Worf: That's Alex Heroy, who helped argue the case in court on behalf of groups, including the local chapter of the NAACP, the ACLU of North Carolina and Charlotte Uprising.

Originally posted here:
Lawyer On How Restraining Order On CMPD Will Protect Protesters' First Amendment Rights - WFAE

The leader of the Sons of Confederate Veterans needs to reread the Bill of Rights.

The group is claiming responsibility for hiring a plane to fly a Confederate flag and a banner that said Defund NASCAR over Talladega on Sunday. It was the first race at the Alabama track since NASCAR banned fans from flying the Confederate flag at track properties.

NASCAR is a private company. It has the absolute right to prohibit certain items at its tracks. Yet Paul Gramling tried to tell the Columbia Daily Herald that NASCAR was infringing on the First Amendment rights of fans by banning the flag.

Who wants to tell Gramling that the First Amendment doesnt apply to private company prohibitions? From the Daily Herald:

NASCARs banning the display of the Confederate battle flag by its fans is nothing less than trampling upon Southerners First Amendment Right of free expression, Sons of Confederate Veterans Commander in Chief Paul C. Gramling Jr. said. This un-American act shall not go unchallenged. [On Sunday], members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans Confederate Air Force displayed its disapproval of NASCARs trampling upon the First Amendment Rights of Southerners. During and before the start of the NASCAR race in Talladega, Alabama, our plane flew a banner announcing a drive to defund NASCAR.

It is the hope of the Sons of Confederate Veterans that NASCAR fans will be allowed the fundamental American right of displaying pride in their family and heritage. The Sons of Confederate Veterans is proud of the diversity of the Confederate military and our modern Southland. We believe NASCARs slandering of our Southern heritage only further divides our nation. The Sons of Confederate Veterans will continue to defend not only our right but the Right of all Americans to celebrate their heritage. We trust NASCAR will do the same.

Theres something hilariously bizarre about the leader of a group honoring the heritage of those who fought against the United States saying that something clearly allowed by law and the U.S. Constitution is un-American. Even the mayor of Columbia, Tennessee, Chaz Molder, made sure to point out how NASCAR was not violating the groups constitutional rights and that the group does not represent Columbia. Period.

Its also unclear how, exactly, NASCAR could be defunded. Since its, you know, a private company and not a public entity. The only way that defunding NASCAR could happen is if its television contracts were canceled by Fox and NBC, and sponsors started pulling out of the series. Thats not going to happen. Hell, NASCAR wouldnt have taken the steps to ban the Confederate flag if it didnt think that the move would be a net positive to attract new viewers and corporate sponsors.

The group has tried to sponsor a NASCAR car in the past, but NASCAR said no. NASCAR has not allowed the use of the Confederate flag in official capacities for decades and this months ban comes five years after the sanctioning body simply requested fans not to fly the flag at tracks. That request happened after a white supremacist killed nine parishioners at a Black church in Charleston, South Carolina.

Nick Brombergis a writer for Yahoo Sports.

More from Yahoo Sports:

View original post here:
Leader of group that flew Confederate flag over Talladega wrongly says NASCAR infringed on the First Amendment - Yahoo Sports

On June 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark Janus v. AFSCME decision determining that all public employees are entitled to work without having to pay union dues or agency fees. As the two-year anniversary of the Janus decision approaches, it is worth examining the practical effects that decision has had on workers throughout the country.

The Janus case examined an Illinois law under which public sector employees were required to financially support a union, regardless of whether they agreed with the unions policy positions. Mark Janus, the plaintiff, argued that such an arrangement violated the First Amendment by forcing him to subsidize speech that was contrary to his personal beliefs. The court agreed, determining that even the bargaining activities conducted by public sector unions constitutes political speech. As a result, the court ruled that public sector workers could not be compelled to financially support a union, and that a waiver of the right to not support a union was required to meet strict constitutional standards.

Given the importance of protecting employees First Amendment rights, the court established an exacting standard to ensure that any waiver of those rights is constitutionally adequate. The court determined that, to be effective, an employees waiver must be freely given and shown by clear and compelling evidence. To satisfy that standard, an employee must clearly and affirmatively consent before any money is taken from them.

Although the Janus decision reaffirmed the First Amendment rights of public sector employees, it was far from self-executing. Anticipating a significant reduction in membership and revenue, unions throughout the country reacted by attempting to restrict the rulings effects. Lawmakers introduced bills to weaken Janus; California passed multiple laws to protect union special interests before Janus even was decided. Washington, Illinois, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Oregon all followed suit with laws of their own. Connecticut considered legislation, which was not adopted, but which has been reintroduced this year.

The particular effects of these bills differ from each other. But the overall goal is clear: Make it easier for unions to acquire members, empower unions to restrict dues cancellations, and protect unions from lawsuits for unconstitutional fees that were charged in the past. In short, unions nationwide pushed for legislation that would preserve their control, and finances, regardless of whether that legislation promoted worker freedom and employee rights. And if a court found them in the wrong, it was the taxpayers who were on the hook.

Some states have gone in the other direction, standing up for union workers by implementing the full decision. Kevin Clarkson, Alaskas attorney general, recently issued an opinion requiring workers to annually opt-in to the deduction of union dues. This also requires that employees be advised of their labor rights before opting in. Gov. Michael Dunleavy later made that opinion effective through an executive order.

Alaska is not alone in this regard. The attorneys general of Texas and Indiana have issued opinions containing these requirements. Michigan, too, has taken steps toward protecting workers First Amendment rights. The states Civil Service Commission proposed rules that, if adopted, would implement these requirements for many of Michigans state employees.

Janus has had a profound effect on public sector union management. Since the decision, workers throughout the country have embraced their newly affirmed freedom to avoid financially supporting union positions they personally oppose.

In 2018 alone, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) lost 98 percent of its agency fee payers and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) lost 94 percent. The National Education Association, which represents teachers, lost 2.8 percent of its members and agency fee payers, and AFSCME lost 8 percent of its membership.

The overall impact of Janus is hard to measure, because public sector unions are not legally required to disclose membership numbers. But the available evidence shows that, despite unions ongoing efforts to limit the impact of Janus, the case was a boon to those public sector workers unhappy with their unions. The past two years have brought sweeping reform, the liberation of hundreds of thousands of agency fee payers, and the restoration of workers First Amendment rights. If the next two years are equally successful, Americas workers can look forward to even greater freedom and prosperity.

Steve Delie is the director of labor policy and Workers for Opportunity at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Mich.

Here is the original post:
How the Janus decision changed America | TheHill - The Hill

The full 4th District Court of Appeal, in an 8-3 ruling, said a Broward County circuit judge improperly granted an injunction that, in part, was designed to prevent Derek Warren Logue from having contact with Book and from publishing any statement threatening her.

TALLAHASSEE Citing First Amendment rights, an appeals court Wednesday overturned an injunction that state Sen. Lauren Book obtained because of alleged cyberstalking and harassment by an activist who opposes laws dealing with sex-offender registries.

The full 4th District Court of Appeal, in an 8-3 ruling, said a Broward County circuit judge improperly granted an injunction that, in part, was designed to prevent Derek Warren Logue from having contact with Book and from publishing any statement threatening her.

Book, who was sexually abused as a child by a nanny and is a prominent advocate for victims rights, pointed to actions by Logue at events in Tallahassee and New York and online posts in seeking the injunction. But the appeals-court majority, while describing Logues posts as "vulgar and insulting," said Logue did not violate a state stalking law and that his actions were protected by the First Amendment.

"As tempting as it might be to force some civility into the matter by stanching respondents (Logues) speech against petitioner (Book) with a court order, to do so would ignore the protections of the First Amendment and the wording of the stalking statute," said the 19-page majority opinion, written by Judge Mark Klingensmith. "There was no evidence presented to the trial court that respondent incited action by urging people to threaten harm to petitioner or her family. Claims of threatening speech or harassing action are actionable if the speaker threatens, harasses or intimidates, and intended targets would reasonably perceive that intent. Merely posting public information, or potentially embarrassing and annoying content, without more, is not conduct within the stalking statute and does not entitle petitioner to an injunction."

The opinion also cited Books status as a public figure.

"Respondents offensive vulgar and insulting posts are part of that friction and grist of public discourse intended by our Founders when forming this nation," wrote Klingensmith, who was joined in the opinion by Chief Judge Spencer Levine and judges Robert Gross, Dorian Damoorgian, Jonathan Gerber, Burton Conner, Alan Forst and Jeffrey Kuntz. "Petitioner may feel discomfort by respondents anger as expressed in his postings, but discomfort is not tantamount to being threatened or harassed. His speech advocates for citizen-led political change and seeks to influence the legislative process. Though his words may be base and insulting at times, it is also pure, political, and protected protest deserving of the broadest possible First Amendment protections."

But in a dissent, Judge Melanie May wrote that she agreed with the circuit judge that Logue "willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly harassed the petitioner through a course of conduct which caused her substantial emotional distress and served no legitimate purpose."

"Must we wait until someone commits some violent act before our system can protect its citizens? Havent we witnessed enough tragedies to know that our failure to address precursors of violence often leads to a more egregious tragedy?" wrote May, who was joined in the dissent by judges Martha Warner and Cory Ciklin. "Today we live in a culture where social media postings, like those involved here, have led people to lash out and wreak havoc on our children, families, friends, and communities. Social media posts, which direct attention and can motivate others to act, are threatening and dangerous. In fact, perhaps more so as the subject of the postings has no way of knowing who reads or may act upon them."

A three-judge panel of the South Florida appeals court also ruled against the injunction in August, but the full court agreed to take up the case.

Book, D-Plantation, heads the nonprofit group Laurens Kids, which works on issues related to preventing sexual abuse of children. Wednesdays majority opinion said Logue is a co-founder of what is described as the "anti-registry movement," which opposes sex-offender laws. A footnote in the opinion said Logue was convicted in 2001 in Alabama of improper relations with a minor.

Part of the lawsuit involved Logues actions protesting a childrens march in Tallahassee and at a film festival in New York. The film festival included the screening of a documentary about sex offenders. Book answered audience questions after the documentary, and Logue took the microphone and asked a question that a law-enforcement officer testified was in a loud, aggressive manner, according to court documents.

All of the judges on the appeals court agreed that Logues conduct at the Tallahassee and New York events was protected by the First Amendment. But the judges focused on online posts by Logue that included Books address and a picture of her home, a video of a song with vulgar lyrics and a cartoon depicting a headstone, May wrote.

"The majority suggests the respondents rants were simply vulgar expressions that he is entitled to make under the First Amendment," May wrote in the dissent. "We disagree. When such rants are posted on social media, they take on a more global reach. In short, the petitioner proved the respondent willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly harassed her."

But member of the majority focused on free-speech rights.

"While the drafters of the First Amendment did not conceive of the internet, they know the paramount importance of freedom of speech," Gross wrote in a concurring opinion with the majority. "Since the dawn of the Republic, it has been the responsibility of voters to exercise political judgment, to examine political speech and to separate truth from fiction in casting a vote. If the First Amendment stands for anything, it is that courts should rarely, if ever, interfere with the political process by punishing or penalizing political speech."

Read the rest here:
Injunction overturned in Florida lawmaker stalking case - The Northwest Florida Daily News