Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

University of South Carolina tests First Amendment obligations with threats to punish Zoombombers – The College Fix

What policy did they violate? Administration refuses to say

The University of South Carolina is refusing to say how a so-called Zoombombing incident violated school policy, or how its threats to punish the perpetrators are compliant with the public institutions First Amendment obligations.

President Bob Caslen released a letter to the community last month, denouncing the cowardly perpetrators for hateful, offensive, despicable and terrible acts, but failing to list any policy violations.

Unknown users joined a Zoom conference hosted by the universitys Association for African American Students on April 24 and started posting offensive images and making racial comments, according to members tweets and video of the incident. One user can be seen in blackface, and another has a Nazi swastika behind him.

The person who posted the video speculated the unknown users were teenagers and asked white people to PLEASE check your kids.

While Caslen claimed the unknown users hacked into the conference, the AAAS Twitter account posted the meeting ID number hours before the meeting. Tune in tonight for our annual AAAS COOKOUT! the tweet read. Just because were social distancing doesnt mean we cant be social! Hope to see you there!

While Caslen told the community that the Division of Information Technology asked Zoom to investigate the incident, and that UofSCs Office of Equal Opportunity Programs was prepared to investigate if students were involved, the university did not specify what exactly it wants to know from Zoom or what its investigating.

Asked if the conference really suffered hacking, a Zoom spokesperson gave The College Fix the same response it has given to other media, saying it has updated several features to help our users more easily protect their meetings, such as meeting passwords and virtual waiting rooms by default.

The Office of Equal Opportunity Programs did not respond to Fix questions about the current status of the investigation, and university spokespeople either referred The Fix to others or declined to answer questions.

The student government also issued a statement condemning the Zoombombing: Discrimination of any form will not be tolerated within our university and those responsible for this hateful act will be held accountable. Asked what punishments it would like to see enacted and whether they could violate the First Amendment, Student Body President Issy Rushton directed questions to a university spokesperson.

MORE: UT rationale for threatening Zoombombers may be unconstitutional

Implies university punishes speech contrary to the values we hold as Gamecocks

Several Zoombombings have occurred in the weeks since online learning and online socializing largely replaced on-campus instruction and social activities, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

UofSCs response mirrors that of the University of Texas, which also promised to punish any students found to have participated in the Zoombombing of a black campus organization. President Greg Fenves used similar language as Caslens, condemning the racial content of the intrusion rather than the violation of a content-neutral university policy. (The UT incident also did not appear to be a hacking but the public sharing of a meeting login.)

As public universities, UT and UofSC cannot punish students based on the content of their speech without running afoul of the First Amendment. After The Fix inquired about the basis for the threatened punishment, UT provided a content-neutral rationale for the first time.

In an April 24 statement on the incident earlier that evening, AAAS tweeted that unknown persons entered its virtual cookout and proceeded to post a plethora of images, videos and messages containing racist slurs and derogatory terms.

Twenty minutes earlier, President Caslen had tweeted that the Zoombombing was absolutely unacceptable & disgusting. He said the intrusion was marked by ignorance but didnt state a policy basis for the investigation he ordered.

AAAS also made clear it was seeking punishment for those users who logged into its meeting using the link it made public. We are working as hard as we can to advocate for the rights of our students and ensure these individuals receive the consequences they deserve, its statement read.

MORE:University of California cant legally ban phrase Chinese virus

Caslens April 25 statement, which is still his most recent as of Monday night, explained the steps the school will take to hold the Zoombombers accountable. Like the other statements in response to the Zoombombing, Caslen failed to allege what policy if any the perpetrators violated.

Instead, he repeatedly denounced the content of the reprehensible intrusion and implied that the taxpayer-funded university will punish speech that runs contrary to the values we hold as Gamecocks.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education gives the university its lowest speech-code rating, a red light, meaning it has at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech.

One of those policies is the Carolinian Creed, cited by Caslen, which requires members of the university community to agree to several restrictions on their constitutionally protected speech. For example, members must pledge to avoid ridiculing and insulting others, affirm that others need conditions which support their work and development, and refrain from behaviors that are insensitive or unjustly or arbitrarily inhibit others ability to feel safe or welcomed in their pursuit of appropriate academic goals.

The creed appears to undermine the universitys non-discrimination policy, which states: The University vigorously embraces students rights to the legitimate freedom of expression, speech, and association. Nothing in this policy is intended to impede the exercise of those rights protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Caslens statement didnt explicitly say the university will punish the perpetrators if any is found to be a student. We will be vigilant in responding to this incident was as far as he would go.

Several staff members declined to comment, including Peggy Binette, the schools communication director. She directed The Fix to Jeff Stensland, director of public relations, to answer questions about the universitys response and evidence for Caslens hacked accusation.

After many emails and calls from The Fix seeking the current status of the investigation and the universitys explanation of how its response comports with its First Amendment obligations, Stensland avoided a direct answer.

The incident is still under investigation so its not possible to share additional details at this time, Stensland said. AAAS did not reply to questions regarding if it screened potential attendees after they entered the meeting code it had made public hours before the virtual cookout.

MORE: UofSC invites students to sign their own expulsion papers

IMAGE: Mike Focus/Shutterstock

Read More

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

Read the original here:
University of South Carolina tests First Amendment obligations with threats to punish Zoombombers - The College Fix

Are symbols of hate on face masks a hate crime or are they protected by the first amendment? – – KUSI

SAN DIEGO (KUSI) Authorities announced today that they have no grounds on which to seek criminal charges against a grocery shopper who said he donned a Ku Klux Klan-style hood at a Santee supermarket out of frustration over having to wear a facial covering in public during the coronavirus crisis.

The man, whose name has not been publicly released, concealed his head with the pointed white hood during a May 2 visit to a Vons store in the 9600 block of Mission Gorge Road.

Other patrons took photos of the masked man and posted them online, drawing outrage from local leaders and civil rights organizations that condemned the display of a key symbol of a racist hate group.

When questioned by detectives, the man expressed frustration with having people tell him what he can and cannot do during the pandemic, according to a statement from the San Diego County Sheriffs Department.

He said that wearing the hood was not intended to be a racial statement, the agencys statement says. In summary, he said, It was a mask, and it was stupid.'

After interviewing witnesses and reviewing video evidence, investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to charge the man with any crime, according to the department.

That said, this incident should serve as a reminder for anyone contemplating wearing or displaying items so closely associated with hate and human suffering that our society does not hold in high regard those who do so, the agency stated. Santee is a city of families, and the community is rightfully disgusted at this mans despicable behavior.

Less than a week after the episode, a similar incident took place at another grocery outlet in the same eastern San Diego County city. Deputies responding to a reported disturbance at a Food 4 Less in the 9400 block of Cuyamaca Street in Santee on Thursday evening arrived to find a shopper wearing a mask decorated with a rectangular swastika sign.

When deputies asked for the symbol to be removed, the man complied, according to a sheriffs statement. Sheriffs investigators will continue to look into the matter. The Sheriffs Department does not condone hate or acts of intolerance. We are a county that is welcoming of people from all backgrounds.

The mans name was not released.

The episode prompted expressions of shock and dismay online, including one from county Supervisor Dianne Jacob, who represents Santee and other East County neighborhoods.

Sad, vile acts like this must not be tolerated here or anywhere else, she tweeted Friday afternoon. Its deeply offensive to the community and our entire region.

Legal Analyst Dan Eaton joined KUSI to talk about these grocery store incidents.

More here:
Are symbols of hate on face masks a hate crime or are they protected by the first amendment? - - KUSI

Guest Op-Ed – Constitution Above Their Pay Grade – courierjournal

Afew days ago two Michigan police officers visited a mother who had allowed her daughter to play with the child next door in their backyard. They demanded her name which she refused to give as she had done nothing wrong. For this she was cited as being uncooperative. The video of the incident showed them treating her with pure contempt (Tucker Carlson Tonight, May 1, 2020).

This should never happen in America. The Constitution gives government agents no such power.

Given the draconian measures used by Democrat governors denying civil liberties in their states, many Americans wonder why the Constitution isnt protecting them as before. However, today elected officials are largely constitutional illiterates as are their constituents. Virtually no one has read fully and recently the less than 10 page document. For years I had to tell students that Democrats overwhelmingly ignore the Constitution and Republicans carry it with them but seldom read itneither defending it against actions of their own political party.

Hence, some governors have turned into tyrants respecting the 1st Amendment. When Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey was asked if his actions were not violating the Constitution, he answered, Thats above my pay grade. But it shouldnt be! It is Government 101 and all governors took an oath to preserve it. The Constitution required it.

The Senators and Representative before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath to support this Constitution (Article 6, Clause 3 ). All elected leaders and all military personnel swear an oath to preserve the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.

The First Amendment that Democrat governors and some mayors are threatening reads,

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. The 14th Amendment made it applicable to all states offices as well.

Simply put, for those with tyrannical tendencies, no governor, legislature (including city and county), congress or president shall make or enforce any law or decree respecting religion, speech, press, or peaceable assembly. Nor may they deny citizens petitioning government for redress of grievances when civil liberties are offended.

We will walk on public places, including beaches, when and where we please. We will attend any church where, when, and in any size allowed by the pastor of the attended congregation as we please. You may not regulate the distance between walking or communicating people. We will wear face coverings at the request of the owner of buildings we visit, but not at your order, as you do not own us. You may not require us to stay in our homes or yards. You may not collectively shut down our work places without individual due process. You may not use drones above our heads taking photos and shouting instructions monitoring and enforcing a collective behavior. We are a free people. These rights are not negotiable and do not disappear in times of national emergencies. These rights come from Godnot from you. Yes, the Constitution also gives us due process on the parts of the above where contested.

The remainder of Tucker

Carlsons interview with Governor Phil Murphy follows:

Tucker: Fifteen congregants at a synagogue in New Jersey were arrested and charged for being in a synagogue together. Now the Bill of Rights, as you well know, protects Americans . right to practice their religion as they see fit and to congregate together to assemble peacefully. By what authority did you nullify the Bill of Rights in issuing this order? How do you have the power to do that?

Governor: Thats above my pay grade, Tucker. I wasnt thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this.

Tucker: Since you are an elected official, a leader in the government, an executive, how do you have the authority to order something that so clearly contravenes the Bill of Rights of the United States, the Constitution? Where do you get the authority to do that?

Governor: Well heres the thing. We know we need to stay away from each other, number one. Number two, we do have broad authority within the state. Number three we would never do that without coordinating, discussing and hashing it out with the variety of the leaders of the faiths in New Jersey.

Tucker: You cant just, as the governor of a state, tell people who they can talk to, when and where, because the Constitution of the United States, upon which all this is based, prohibits you from doing this; so you clearly decided that you could do it.

Governor: We have to find a different way to worship.

Tucker: Government is not allowed to tell people how to worship (Tucker Carlson Tonight, April 15, 2020).

Unfortunately, the same conversation could have been with almost any of the other 1st Amendment violating governors, or worse, 3rd world dictators.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College.

To read more of his weekly articles, please visit http://www.LibertyUnderFire.org

Go here to read the rest:
Guest Op-Ed - Constitution Above Their Pay Grade - courierjournal

Letter: All amendments matter, not just the 2nd Amendment – Northwest Herald

To the Editor:

During this prolonged period of social distancing, I find myself spending far too much time mulling over questions of which I have yet to provide answers.Like a pesky mosquito, my pondering persists.

Perhaps someone much wiser might provide answers that could ease my angst:

Why do I read in our local paper frequent rants against a womans right to choose, but fail to see any outrage over the bombings of Yemen (or Syria, or Afghanistan, or) fueled by our tax dollars? Unborn, newborn, moms, dads, brothers being slaughtered every single day but not a word? Pleading for an answer!

Why is the Second Amendment the single go-to amendment for the assault weapon-toting people concerned that gun regulations take away their constitutional rights? Why not take a moment to read a bit from the Ninth Amendment advocating for my constitutional right provided by our government for obtaining happiness and safety? I am finding it difficult to feel any sense of safety knowing someone could be packing heat at my grocery store, movie theater or local bars. Any answer for me?

How often do those who frequently attack journalism with what has now become the pejorative mainstream media read the First Amendment advocating for free press? My only question here is, What is your go-to source for information? If not mainstream, then what? Would love to know.

Only three of some of my bothersome shelter-in-place queries that have been with me pre-pandemic, but Im quite certain they will be festering post-pandemic. Certain there are answers to my questions but not so certain there will be any change.

Joan Skiba

McHenry

Read the original:
Letter: All amendments matter, not just the 2nd Amendment - Northwest Herald

Societe Generale: Availability of the first amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document – Yahoo Finance

PRESS RELEASEREGULATED INFORMATION

Paris, 7th May 2020

Availability of the first amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document

Societe Generale informs the public that the first amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document filed on 12th March 2020 under number D-20-0122, has been filed with the French Financial Markets Authority (AMF) on 7th May 2020 under number D-20-0122-A01.

This document is made available to the public, free of charge, in accordance with the conditions provided for by the regulations in force and may be consulted in the Regulated information section of the Companys website (http://www.societegenerale.com/en/measuring-our-performance/information-and-publications/regulated_information) and on the AMFs website.

Press contact:

Corentin Henry _ +33(0)1 58 98 01 75_ corentin.henry@socgen.com

Societe Generale

Societe Generale is one of the leading European financial services groups. Based on a diversified and integrated banking model, the Group combines financial strength and proven expertise in innovation with a strategy of sustainable growth. Committed to the positive transformations of the worlds societies and economies, Societe Generale and its teams seek to build, day after day, together with its clients, a better and sustainable future through responsible and innovative financial solutions.

Active in the real economy for over 150 years, with a solid position in Europe and connected to the rest of the world, Societe Generale has over 138,000 members of staff in 62 countries and supports on a daily basis 29 million individual clients, businesses and institutional investors around the world by offering a wide range of advisory services and tailored financial solutions. The Group is built on three complementary core businesses:

Societe Generale is included in the principal socially responsible investment indices: DJSI (World and Europe), FTSE4Good (Global and Europe), Euronext Vigeo (World, Europe and Eurozone), four of the STOXX ESG Leaders indices, and the MSCI Low Carbon Leaders Index. For more information, you can follow us on Twitter @societegenerale or visit our website http://www.societegenerale.com

Attachment

Link:
Societe Generale: Availability of the first amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document - Yahoo Finance