Mediaboss Marketing

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to a Kentucky law that requires doctors to show and describe ultrasound images and play the sounds of the fetuss heartbeat to women seeking abortions.

The organizations challenging the law, which included a Kentucky abortion clinic and the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that it was a breach of the First Amendment because it forced patients to see and hear content they didnt want to.

The law, which was previously upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, was blocked while the Supreme Court considered whether to hear the case. The courts refusal to hear it is not a ruling and will not have consequences for similar laws around the country, but it allows the law to go into effect in Kentucky.

In defending the law, Kentucky argued that the regulation was part of the medical informed-consent process and that the law "does nothing more than require that women who are considering an abortion be provided with information that is truthful, non-misleading and relevant to their decision of whether to have an abortion."

The appeals court agreed, writing in its ruling that there was nothing suspect about the state requiring a doctor to provide truthful information, even if those disclosures relate to unborn life and have the effect of persuading the patient not to have an abortion."

While the Supreme Courts rejection of the case is the last word on the challenge to Kentuckys law, the law can still be repealed by the states legislature, and abortion rights organizations are calling on legislators to take this action.

The physicians at Kentuckys last abortion clinic will be forced to subject every patient to their ultrasound images, a detailed description of those images, and the sounds of the fetal heart tones prior to an abortion, the ACLU wrote in a statement on the rejection, even if the patient objects or is covering their eyes and blocking their ears, and even if the physician believes that doing so will cause harm to the patient.

The Kentucky law is not the first of its kind. Texas, Louisiana, and Wisconsin already have similar laws in place, and ultrasound laws were previously struck down in Oklahoma and North Carolina. The courts rejection will not affect those laws, but it may give other states the confidence to pass similar laws without fear of their being blocked by the courts.

The rejection comes as Roe v. Wade faces multiple challenges in the lower courts and as the Supreme Court considers a law in Louisiana that requires abortion clinics and doctors to obtain admitting privileges from nearby hospitals.

The challenge to the Louisiana law will be the first abortion case argued before the Supreme Court since President Donald Trump appointed Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, solidifying a conservative majority on the court. The courts decision could greatly impact abortion rights across the country.

However, Mondays rejection of the Kentucky law has no bearing on the Louisiana case, Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, insisted to BuzzFeed News.

No, it is absolutely not a premonition of what the justices will decide next year, Kolbi-Molinas told BuzzFeed News.

This was a First Amendment claim. It mandates speech for the doctors; its a totally different legal question. Completely unrelated, Kolbi-Molinas said.

The Supreme Court will hear the Louisiana abortion case on March 4, 2020.

Continued here:
The Supreme Court Allowed A Kentucky Law Requiring A Woman To Listen To A Fetuss Heartbeat In Order To Get An Abortion - BuzzFeed News

President Donald Trump said that French President Emmanuel Macrons recent comments about NATO were very insulting. USA TODAY

A conference celebrating the 70th anniversary of NATO was canceled after the U.S. ambassador to Denmark, Carla Sands, objected to a speaker who has made statements critical of President Donald Trump, the Danish think tank co-sponsoring the event announced Sunday.

Stanley Sloan, a former CIA analyst and author of "Defense of the West,"had planned to deliver an address on the challenges facing the transatlantic alliance, and the West in general, at the conference, which was scheduled to take place Tuesday at the U.S. Embassy in Copenhagen.

A day before Sloan left for Denmark, he said he was informed by the Danish Atlantic Council thatthe U.S. Embassy "vetoed my participation due to my critical evaluation of Trump's impact on transatlantic relations."

"Stunned and concerned about my country," Sloan said in a tweet.

The next day, the Danish Atlantic Council announced the conference had been canceled altogether.

U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Carla Sands arrives for the New Year reception for the diplomacy at Christiansborg Castle, Denmark, Jan. 3, 2019.(Photo: Philip Davali, AP)

"We have all the time known that Mr. Sloan has a critical approach towards President Donald Trump. That is no secret especially when following his Twitter and Facebook profile," the Danish Atlantic Council Secretary-General Lars Bangert Struwe said in a statement.

But Struwe said they "never doubted" that Sloan "would deliver an unpolitical and objective lecture," as he promised he would.

When Sands objected to Sloan's appearance, Struwe said the council decided to pull the plug on the event because "the process has become too problematic."

In a series of tweets, the U.S. Embassy said it "supports freedom of speech as enshrined in the First Amendment" and that it was "unfortunate" the Danish Atlantic Council decided to cancel the conference.

"This event would have provided speakers and attendees an important opportunity to exchange views on security cooperation and strengthening #NATO for the future," the U.S. Embassy said.

The American officials objected to Sloan's "proposed last-minute inclusion in the program," which "did not follow the same deliberative process of joint decision-making and agreement that we followed when recruiting all other speakers."

But Struwe disputed that explanation and told The Washington Post that the U.S. Embassy, which was paying for the event, had not given any input on the other speakers.

"I'm sorry that you objected to my inclusion in the conference," Sloan tweeted in reply to the embassy. "I am an experienced public diplomacy lecturer who always represents his country well."

"I have given presentations during Republican and Democratic administrations that criticized to one degree or another administration policy," he said. "I have always praised the State Department for its willingness to display our freedoms to foreign audiences. I hope we can return to that."

Sloan posted the text of theaddress he had planned to give online. In the speech, he commendsSands for her "expression of support for the values on which the alliance is based as well as its strategic importance for both Demark and the United States."

And he planned to say the "current crisis" facing NATO "did not start with Donald Trump, even though he certainly has brought it to a head."

Sands is an entrepreneur,former chiropractor and former actress who appeared in the soap opera "The Bold and the Beautiful." She was appointed ambassador to Denmark by Trump and was approved by the Senate in November 2017.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/09/nato-event-canceled-after-us-ambassador-blocks-trump-critic/2631746001/

Original post:
NATO conference canceled after US ambassador Carla Sands blocks speaker critical of Trump - USA TODAY

But the photojournalists found it improbable that they were suspected of breaking any laws. Were they being targeted because they were members of the press? Was the government trying to obtain access to their source lists and the intelligence theyd gathered in the course of their reporting? Suspicions to that effect were bolstered when The Intercept reported on an apparent pattern: U.S. and Mexican authorities seemed to be coordinating harassment of the journalists. Then a leak from an anonymous source at the Department of Homeland Security added clarity. The [U.S.] government had listed their names in a secret database of targets, where agents collected information on them, an NBC affiliate in San Diego reported. Some had alerts placed on their passports, keeping at least two photojournalists and an attorney from entering Mexico to work.

Conor Friedersdorf: Look whos trying to seize private property

If accurate, that is a serious abuse of power: The government allegedly jeopardized the livelihood of these journalists, as well as their ability to relay useful information to Americans. A government spokesperson told CNN at the time that Customs and Border Protection does not target journalists for inspection based on their occupation or their reporting. But in one case, a Mexican border official who turned one of the photojournalists away told her he was doing so at the behest of the American government.

Now the photojournalists are suing three federal border agencies. Their complaint, filed this week in federal court, alleges several related violations of their civil rights. They were subject to questioning that substantially burdened Plaintiffs First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, association, and the press, the lawsuit asserts, requiring them to disclose confidential information about their observations, sources of information, and/or work product, including the identities of individuals with whom they may have interacted in the course of their work as journalists.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on their behalf, stated Wednesday that border officers at ports of entry may ask questions relating to immigration or customs, but they may not use border screening as a pretext to interrogate journalists about their work.

Journalists often possess information that would be valuable to competing ideological factions in the federal government and to various members of the federal bureaucracy. If they are forced to compromise sources or to turn over information every time they enter the United States from abroad, the task of news-gathering will become significantly more onerous, some activity protected by the First Amendment will be chilled, the public will get less information, and the free press that the Framers tried to protect will be weakened.

News-gathering is unusual among occupations in that its specifically protected by the Constitution. If even members of the press, with their ability to raise distinct First Amendment claims, are subject to harassment at the border, the abuse of power is unlikely to end there.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Continue reading here:
Does the First Amendment Hold at the Border? - The Atlantic

Taking First Amendment class increases support for free speech

General support for the First Amendment has modestly increased among high school students in the past 15 years, but not across all demographics, according to a report released last week by the Knight Foundation.

It found that opinions were linked to both race and gender. Boys and white students were more likely to unequivocally support the First Amendment, while girls and nonwhite students were more likely to agree with the statement: The first amendment goes too far in its rights and guarantees.

Yet nonwhite students are the only demographic to see a slight decrease in support since 2004: Girls, boys, and white students all saw increased support.

Notably, students who have taken classes involving the First Amendment were more likely than others to support its various rights and protections, according to Knight, a nonprofit that promotes journalism.

Around two-thirds of students reported taking classes that touched on the First Amendment. This number has remained relatively steady over time, even though the gap in support has narrowed over time between those taking these classes and those not.

The initial Knight survey in 2004 involved more than 100,000 students at hundreds of high schools, and subsequent surveys including the most recent have selected roughly 10,000 students at a time from a randomly drawn sample of 30 to 40 high schools, according to the report. (The pool of high schools stayed the same through 2016.)

The College Fix could not arrange an interview with report author Evette Alexander, Knight Foundation director for learning and impact, before this article was published.

Only strongly disagree answer is for flag desecration

Students have been asked about wider cultural issues surrounding the First Amendment since the surveys inception in 2004. They include offensive song lyrics, public offensive speech and the responsibilities of social media companies.

According to the report, students tend to mildly agree with support for First Amendment protection of these areas on average. The only topic in which average support for the First Amendment dips into strongly disagree is flag burning and desecration.

On this subject of the flag, views started to diverge by race in 2016, with students of color much more likely to be milder in their disagreement with flag desecration.

The report speculates this could be a result of growing support for movements such as Black Lives Matter and for professional athletes kneeling during the national anthem. Nonwhite students are significantly more likely than their white counterparts to support the First Amendment right of athletes to kneel.

More ambiguously, news consumption was not a reliable predictor of support for the First Amendment. This may be a result of the surveys apparent failure to ask respondents what type of news they consume.

While news consumption did not necessarily predict support, students who reported often using social media in the 2018 survey were significantly more supportive of specific First Amendment rights and protections, the survey found.

MORE: Most high schoolers support censorship of offensive opinions

The report concludes that the divide is growing between students of color and white students. Both the gender and race gaps on the survey did not begin to show growth until around 2011.

Interestingly, the average opinions of white students have remained relatively stable, with students of color becoming increasingly less supportive of the First Amendments rights and protections.

The report found a modest increase in average disagreement with the statement the first amendment goes too far in its rights and guarantees, except for an unexplained sharp decline around 2006.

Overall opinions were steady between 2004-2006 and then again from 2011-2018. Between 2006 and 2011, however, there was a sharp drop and then a quick buildup back to general support for the First Amendments protections.

The report suggests the racial divisions can be partially explained by a contentious 2016 election and associated anti-immigrant, misogynistic and ethnic nationalist rhetoric. It cited the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017 and mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, this summer as having likely effects.

What the Northeast and the South share in common

The Knight Foundations press release notes that this divide beginning in 2011 correlates with the widespread adoption of social media. In a previous survey from 2018, 82 percent of college students believed that social media has led to an increase in hate speech.

When it comes to bullying, hate speech and other uses of social media involving the First Amendment, girls are more likely than boys to support government or school intervention.

Overall, students generally disagree with schools getting involved in First Amendment issues outside of the bounds of school, but the same gender and race gaps exist. Minorities and girls tend to agree with schools punishing offensive behavior, while boys and white students tend to disagree.

There were notable differences in support based on the region of the country as well. The West and the Midwest were more likely to disagree with the statement the first amendment goes too far in its rights and guarantees, while the Northeast and the South were more likely to agree with it.

The Midwest has most consistently disagreed over time, while the Northeast has most consistently agreed with the statement. The geographical data has fluctuated somewhat and is not entirely consistent.

Since 2004, the Northeast and South have become more similar, as have the Midwest and West, in terms of attitudes towards the First Amendment, according to the report.

Opinions on the surveys statement tend to show a divide between the East Coast and West Coast, as opposed to North and South. The north vs. south political belief that the former is liberal and the latter is conservative does not play out in the results of the survey.

The South is perplexing in this survey because its largely red states with conservative values, but here they tend to agree that the First Amendment goes too far.

MORE: College women, blacks favor inclusivity over free speech

IMAGE: zimmytws / Shutterstock.com

Read More

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

See the original post here:
Nonwhites are the only high school students whose support for First Amendment has fallen: survey - The College Fix

By Linda Bryant

Many jails across the country, in an effort to reduce costs and offer inmates more opportunities for connection with loved ones and friends, increasingly rely on inmate video visitation. According to the American Bar Association, as of July 2018, over 600 correctional facilities across the country hadimplemented some form of video visitation. Jails invoke laudable justifications for incorporating video visitation into their offerings: to prevent the influx ofcontrabandinto their facility, to free up limited officer time, and to offer family and friends more opportunities to connect with their loved one.

However, there are three inmate video visitation landmines that can create legal challenges for jail administrators. If these landmines exist in your facility, you can expect lawsuits asserting your jail is violating the constitution by unreasonably restricting aninmates First Amendment rightto communicate and associate with others.

Often, a jail moves towardsupplanting in-person visitation with video visitation. This is the wrong approach unless you want to be an easy target for plaintiffs lawyers. Lawsuits challenging video visitation are increasing against jails that use the technology to justify a decrease in or to eliminate in-person visitation. These lawsuits are ending in settlements requiring in-person visitation, payment of large fees associated with civil litigation alleging a violation of constitutional rights, and state laws clarifying that in-person visitation may not be supplanted by video visitation.

The American Bar AssociationsCriminal Justice Sections Standards on the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the ABAs House of Delegates in 2010, warns about eliminating in-person visitation. Standard 23-8.5(e), the standard governing visitation, states:Correctional officials should develop and promote other forms of communication between prisoners and their families, including video visitation, provided that such options are not a replacement for opportunities for in-person contact.[1]

Jail leaders should also heed the 2016 American Correctional AssociationPublic Correctional Policy on Family-Friendly Communication and Visitation, which states:Correctional agencies should promote communication between offenders and their family and friends and adopt family-friendly policies that use emerging technologies as supplements to existing in-person visitation.[2]

The bottom line is to remember the key phrase: SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT!

A common business model for video visitation and large phone contracts between vendors and jails is for the vendor to charge for a call or video visitation session sometimes at an unreasonably high cost and provide some of the revenue earned back to the jail. The 2016 ACA Public Correctional Policy referenced earlier again provides the lodestar:Do not place unreasonable financial burdens upon the offender or their family and friends. The policy goes on to state:Establish rates and surcharges that are commensurate with those charged to the general public for like services any deviation from ordinary consumer rates should reflect actual costs associated with the provision of services within a correctional setting.[2]

Look, this has to be said: Anytime you have a jail profiting off the fundamental human need to communicate with family members and friends, or when exorbitant fees are charged to simply exercise this right, youre going to raise a lot of eyebrows. Its going to appear you are exploiting people and doing so knowingly and unconstitutionally. The incredible responsibility jail leaders have for the care, custody, and control of individuals, many of whom have not been convicted, does not include the ability to profit off of those same individuals, or to charge those same individuals for a lesser-quality form of visitation (where the constitutionally preferred in-person visitation is free).

While reasonable fees are defensible, exorbitant fees and kickback models are viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism by the courts. And no matter what, if you are charging fees for visitation in the absence of any opportunity for in-person visitation, you should talk to your lawyer quickly.

Weve all been frustrated by bad or lost reception during an important phone call or Facetime, Skype, Teams or Zoom session. Now imagine if your only means of communicating with the outside world was limited to a few minutes each week, and through a provider nowhere near as cutting-edge as some of the better-known telecommunications or social media giants. Through no fault of your own, your call (which your loved one paid for while also trying to pay other bills and put food on the table for your kids) is cut short. Or, the video freezes. Or the audio is out of sync with the video.

Any of these technological glitches lead to a horrible user experience. So you end up having to manage your frustrations and concentrate doubly hard to hear half the conversation. You wind up frustrated during the call. Its hard enough for an adult to cognitively piece together sentences and conversations in these instances; imagine if youre trying to communicate with your small child in this manner. That small child will soon lose patience and do something else, wasting the precious few minutes you receive to visit with family.

A study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections foundin-person visits decreased inmate recidivism by 13 percent. [3] Other research has shown thatin-person parent-child visits improve outcomes for children with incarcerated parents as well as for the inmates. [4] All jail professionals know the value of any program that reduces recidivism. Faulty inmate video visitation technology, or a faulty video visitation experience, swallows the visitation session itself and detracts from rather than enhances the purpose of visitation: maintaining strong bonds with loved ones and the community to ensure success upon release.

Jail leaders must remember that being able to connect with loved ones helps reaffirm ones humanity in an otherwise dehumanizing situation and serves to ease an inmates return to the community upon release. Against this backdrop, inmate video visitation is like any technology it can be beneficial or destructive. Avoiding the three landmines listed above will help ensure video visitation enhances your jails visitation offerings without endangering inmates constitutional rights or reducing their chances of successfully transitioning back into society.

References

1. American Bar Association. Standard 23-8.5: Visiting.Standards on Treatment of Prisoners.

2. American Correctional Association. Public Correctional Policy on Family-Friendly Communication and Visitation.Public Correctional Policies(see page 82).

3. Minnesota Department of Corrections.The Effects of Prison Visitation on Offender Recidivism.

4, Poehlmann J, Dallaire D, Booker Loper A, et al. Childrens contact with their incarcerated parents: Research findings and recommendations.American Psychologist. 2010 Sep; 65(6): 575598.

About the author

Linda Bryany, JD, CJM, was appointed by the Governor of Virginia to the Virginia Parole Board. Parachutist-qualified, she served as a Captain on active duty in the U.S. Army and a Major in the Army Reserves. For over 17 years, she prosecuted violent crime and homicides for the city of Norfolk, VA, rising through the ranks to become a Deputy Commonwealths Attorney. In 2013, Linda was appointed to serve as Deputy Attorney General for the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Division of the Virginia Office of the Attorney General, where she oversaw the litigation of all lawsuits against the Virginia Department of Corrections. She has also served as the assistant superintendent and compliance attorney for a mega-jail that houses special management inmates. Currently, Linda is a consultant for Lexipols Corrections solutions and a consultant and instructor for the American Jail Association.

See the rest here:
Inmate video visitation and the First Amendment: 3 landmines to avoid - CorrectionsOne