Mediaboss Marketing

Are statues that are offensive, reminding us of our racist history, protected under the First Amendment? As repugnant and politically incorrect as these statues may be, any attempt to force their removal would seem to constitute a violation of their First Amendment protections. Why, because these statues seem to be protected under what the courts have ruled to be protected symbolic speech.

Most forms of spoken or written speech are protected by the Constitutions First Amendment, particularly political expression. However, certain speech is not protected. For example, fighting words or speech aimed clearly at inciting violence; libel; obscenity; threats; false advertising in business (but allowed in political campaigns) are not protected speech.

Although the constitutional framers were silent on protecting symbolic speech, the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled to protect symbolic speech in Stromberg v. California in 1931 when the court ruled against a California law that forbade protesters from displaying a red flag as a symbol of opposition to organized government.

Since 1931, the concept of symbolic speech has been expanded by federal court rulings to cover a broader array of messaging considered a form of speech or expression. Protected symbolic speech may convey messages through sit-ins, protest signs, armbands, badges, flag burning, and all sorts of artistic expression such as dance, theater, paintings, photographs and statuary.

Today, our society is clashing over the removal of certain statuary that proponents of removal argue remind us of our racist past, even celebrating it. It is completely understandable why certain groups, especially African-Americans, would deem such statuary offensive and push for its removal. The problem is that the statue of, say, Robert E. Lee might be offensive, but being offensive, according to federal court decisions, is not reason enough to allow for the removal of such statues under the First Amendment.

The display of a Robert E. Lee statue by itself is unlikely to cause a riot any more than a gun by itself is likely to kill someone. Consequently, it seems that federal court decisions for the past 86 years would suggest that controversial Confederate statuary constitutes protected symbolic speech, regardless of the offensive messaging.

As a liberal, I am frustrated by my liberal friends who want it both ways. They want to use the First Amendment to protect their speech, writings and artistic expressions, but they oppose allowing the other side their right of freedom of expression.

For instance, last January, U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay defended a painting on a Capitol wall as constitutionally protected artistic expression. The artist was a local high school student who created rather negative, piglike images of police as they confronted Ferguson protesters. Some felt the painting was offensive because it denigrated police, including Republican U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, who decided to remove it from the wall. There was outrage over its removal with Clay and mostly other liberals, including myself, arguing that this young artist had a right to express his feelings through his painting under the First Amendment.

But where are these defenders of this artwork now? Lets face it, we are a bunch of hypocrites arguing that speech should be protected when we want our messages advanced, but quick to condemn freedom of expression when we do not like the message. This is a natural human inclination, but it does not pass the legal scrutiny of our federal courts.

In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Courts Justice William Brennan ruled that flag burning, as offensive as it may be, constitutes symbolic speech that is constitutionally protected, reasoning that the government may not prohibit expression simply because it disagrees with its message.

It should not be forgotten that the ACLU lost many of its members, especially Jewish members, after the ACLU successfully defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to march in Skokie, Ill., displaying very offensive Nazi images such as swastikas. However, the ACLU placed constitutional principle before their membership interests, and did the right thing. The ACLU acknowledged how repugnant to its organization this neo-Nazi march would be, but they argued that they had no choice, as advocates of civil liberties, but to support the constitutional right of these neo-Nazis to march.

President Jimmy Carter also said at the time: I must respect the decision of the Supreme Court allowing this group to express their views, even when those views are despicable and ugly.

Kenneth F. Warren is a professor of political science at St. Louis University.

View post:
Offensive statues should be protected under First Amendment - STLtoday.com

The NAACP's interim president Derrick Johnson has officially requested a formal meeting with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell to discuss NFL players and their ability to exercise their First Amendment rights.

According to a letter sent to the league by the NAACP, the meeting will specifically focus on Kaepernick's perceived "blackballing" by the league in light of his protests last season. It also questions the silencing of NFL players' platforms, citing Tommie Smith and John Carlos's black power salute at the 1968 Olympics, among other examples.

Kaepernick's lack of a job has raised many eyebrows throughout the offseason, particularly with the quarterbacks being signed ahead of him. Johnson penned a concern regarding Kaepernick's First Amendment rights and also strongly insinuated that his protest was the sole cause of him not being signed. An excerpt of the letter reads:

Last season, Mr. Kaepernick chose to exercise his First Amendment rights by protesting the inequitable treatment of people of color in America. By quietly taking a knee during the national anthem, he was able to shine a light on the many injustices, particularly, the disproportionate occurrences of police misconduct toward communities of color. As outlined in your office's public statement, this act of dissent is well within the National Football League's stated bylaws. Yet, as the NFL season quickly approaches, Mr. Kaepernick has spent an unprecedented amount of time as a free agent, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that this is no sheer coincidence.

"No player should be victimized and discriminated against because of his exercise of free speech -- to do so is in violation of his rights under the Constitution and the NFL's own regulations.

Obviously, invoking the Constitution is a powerful tool, and it raises questions about what's covered by free speech. The NAACP also stressed the important of free speech in the Civil Rights Movement, along with the importance that it's upheld moving forward.

The exercise of free speech has proven to be a vital tool in in bringing to the public's attention often ignored issues of social justice, particularly in the African-American community. The powerful act of utilizing one's platform to address issues of discrimination and inequality has long been employed by many of the world's greatest athletes.

Some teams may be a starting quarterback injury away from signing Kaepernick, but the Baltimore Ravens disproved that theory when rumors swirled after Joe Flacco's back injury. They ultimately chose to sign Thaddeus Lewis to spell Flacco. There have been protests in front of the NFL headquarters regarding Kaepernick, including one on Wednesday.

Since losing the starting job in San Francisco, Kaepernick has faced tremendous scrutiny. Other athletes have joined in on his protest, and depending on how the next few weeks go, these protests may start to pick up steam if Kaepernick remains unsigned -- whether it's fair or not.

Go here to see the original:
NAACP asks for meeting with Goodell over Colin Kaepernick's First Amendment rights - CBSSports.com

Bar Associations

Posted August 23, 2017, 4:00 pm CDT

By Debra Cassens Weiss

Shutterstock.com

A federal appeals court recently ruled against a North Dakota lawyer who alleged the mandatory state bar violated his First Amendment rights.

Arnold Fleck had claimed the bar should have given him the chance to affirmatively consent before using his money on activities that werent relevant to the practice of law. The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed in an Aug. 17 opinion (PDF).

The Goldwater Institute, which represented Fleck, said in a press release it plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. The Associated Press has a story.

Fleck had objected because a portion of his mandatory dues went to a PAC that opposed a 2014 ballot initiative known as Measure 6, which would establish a presumption that each parent is entitled to equal parental rights. The measure was rejected by voters.

The state bar dues notice, which was revised as a result of Flecks lawsuit, says bar members can deduct a certain amount from their dues in a Keller deduction for activities that arent germane to law practice. The reference is to the 1990 U.S. Supreme Court case Keller v. State Bar of California.

Keller held that mandatory bars can use members required dues to fund activities germane to regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services, but not to fund nongermane activities that a member opposes.

Fleck had argued the bar should have required him to opt in to use of his dues for nongermane activities, rather than requiring him to opt out. The 8th Circuit said the procedure satisfies Supreme Court precedent.

Continued here:
Lawyer who objected to mandatory bar's PAC contribution loses First Amendment appeal - ABA Journal

Splash News/Newscom"Words must do more than offend, cause indignation, or anger the addressee to lose the protection of the First Amendment," a municipal judge reminded us this week in a case involving social media, bow hunting, and a bear called "Pretty Mama."

On trial was Susan Kehoe, an animal rights activist in New Jersey who faced a harassment charge and a possible 30 days in jail.

Under New Jersey law, someone commits criminal harasssment by engaging in a "course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person."

Last October, Kehoe called out two men as the potential culprits in the death of Pretty Mama, based on a video someone had recorded of the bear being dragged from the woods. In a public Facebook post, Kehoe wrote that she "believed" Michael Bush and Nickey Pisco were the killers and linked to their Facebook profiles.

Bush and Pisco reported Kehoe to the Vernon Township Police for harassment, but the police declined to press charges. The men then filed a citizen's complaint, saying they had received death threats as a result of Kehoe's post and Bush had suffered a loss to his business.

Bush initially alleged that Kehoe had posted his home address, but this was later revealed as false. Kehoe had simply linked to his Facebook page, where Bush himself had publicly posted his address.

Still, prosecutor Lisa Thompson argued to the court that Kehoe's speech went beyond permittable free-speech parameters. "There is a not a First Amendment right to incite your followers to cause annoyance and alarm and death threats," she told the court in July.

Bush testified in court that he received threats through direct messages, public Facebook posts, and comments on his business' Facebook page. But none of the threats came from Kehoe directly, nor had she urged people to threaten Bush and Pisco.

On Monday, Mount Olive Municipal Court Judge Brian J. Levine found Kehoe not guilty, citing a 2016 case in which a state appellate court overturned a harassment conviction.

In that case, a former Union County corrections officer was convicted on two counts of harassment "based upon his creation of two 'flyers' that contained the wedding photo of a fellow Union County corrections officer (the Sergeant), which was altered to include vulgar handwritten comments in speech bubbles." But the appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that "the commentary defendant added to the Sergeant's wedding photograph was constitutionally protected speech."

Kehoe's attorney, Daniel Perez, said the judge's ruling in her case "shows that the First Amendment matters."

Read more from the original source:
The First Amendment Protects Social-Media Speculation About Bear Killers - Reason (blog)

First Amendment is a fundamental building block of our society

Editor:

In a letter recently published in your paper, a writer indicates that she wont lose sleep if a Christian must bake a cake or a church is denied participation in a government grant program. I disagree. Both examples are taken from court cases focused on religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms in this country. In addition to affirming the free exercise of religion, the rights outlined in the First Amendment serve as fundamental building blocks of our society and a protection against government censorship and punishment. Combined with other ideals contained in our countrys founding documents, such as the truth that we are all created equal, the rights contained in the First Amendment provide protections for minority groups and demand that we reject racial bigotry, anti-Semitism and hatred in all forms. In the current state of our country, I cant think of anything more important.

Jon Terry

Petoskey

See the article here:
Letter First Amendment is a fundamental building block of our society - Petoskey News-Review