Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON (Sinclair Broadcast Group)

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing individuals in Kentucky, Maine and Maryland who argue that the governors in those states have violated the First Amendment by deleting comments and blocking users on the governors' Facebook and Twitter pages.

The plaintiffs in each case argue that they were shut out of a public political forum because they had been critical of the governors' policies or expressed views were at odds with their state's chief executive. By blocking comments and users, the plaintiffs say their governor has violated their right to free speech and their right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

One of the issues at stake is whether public figures can use their social media accounts to sanction other users based private preferences. More fundamentally the cases could determine whether political speech is protected in the social media age.

"In this new world of social media, government officials and constituents are using these platforms as a powerful tool to connect with each other," said Meagan Sway, Justice Fellow with the Maine ACLU chapter. "But when that happens, the First Amendment applies."

Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) has been accused of using his Facebook account in an official government capacity to conduct official government business. He has also taken advantage of the platform's features to block certain constituents. According to the ACLU, "that's unconstitutional censorship."

The arguments are similar in Kentucky and Maryland, where numerous constituents have come forward to challenge the 21st century version of being banished from the public commons. In Utah, the ACLU has put the state's federal congressional delegation on notice after similar complaints from constituents.

Already, experts anticipate the cases in Kentucky, Maine and Maryland will shape the environment for the high-profile case involving President Donald Trump blocking Twitter users.

The Knight First Amendment Institute filed suit against the president in June arguing it is unconstitutional for an elected public official using a "designated public forum," like Twitter, to block speech just because it is critical or disagreeable.

"It's a new area of law," Sway said in an interview with WGME News. "We think courts will agree with us ... that this is an open platform, that the government cannot kick people off just because [they] dont agree with them."

Roy Gutterman, director of the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, said the pending social media cases beg for a "firm declaration" from the courts that blocking political speech on social media a violation of the First Amendment.

"If you're a government official, your social media is an extension of your office and you cant block people for innocuous reasons, or for political reasons" he emphasized. "If you're a government official, especially a governor, I don't think you can bifurcate your personal speech from your official speech."

In Maine, LePage has worked to do just that and distance his official position from his official social media accounts.

A few weeks ago, the governor's "about" page on Facebook was updated. It now states that the page is "official-but not managed by gov't officials," was a fan page but is now home to LePage supporters. However, the page was verified on behalf of the governor and LePage even opted into Facebook's "Town Hall" feature, which helps connect constituents and their government representatives.

Shortly after taking office in 2015, Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland set up Facebook and Twitter accounts and by January 2017, Hogan had reportedly blocked 450 people.

"He didnt like [the posts], but thats not enough," Legal Director for ACLU Maryland Deborah Jeon told WBFF earlier this month. "People have a First-Amendment right to their own opinions. And when the governor establishes a forum for speech between constituents and the government, then he has to listen to what they have to say, whether or not he likes it."

The governor never responded to the ACLU's letter asking him to reinstate the seven individuals banned.

Hogan reacted to the lawsuit saying it was "frivolous" and motivated by partisan politics.

"Its silly, its ridiculous," Hogan told reporters last week. "We have about a million people a week on our Facebook page. Four of them were blocked for violating our Facebook policy and now the Maryland Democratic party got them to file suit with the ACLU."

The governor has defended blocking constituents on the basis of his office's "social media policy," which ACLU claims violates the state's social media policy. Under Hogan's personal policy, comments and users can be blocked if they are deemed irrelevant to the governor's announcements or initiatives, and if the users engage in a "Coordinated Effort" to petition the office. The office claims the right to block users and comments "at any time without prior notice or without providing justification."

"I don't buy that argument," he noted, adding that such arguments get into "untested" legal areas. "This is public business. This is clearly a first amendment issue with political speech implications and the right to petition government."

In Kentucky, Gov. Matt Bevin has argued that the only comments or users being blocked are "abusive trolls" and others who are posting obscene or inappropriate content.

"Gov. Bevin is a strong advocate of constructive dialogue," his communications directed said responding to the ACLU suit. "Blocking individuals from engaging in ... inappropriate conduct on social media in no way violates their free speech right under the U.S. or Kentucky constitutions, nor does it prohibit them from expressing their opinion in an open forum."

According to the plaintiffs, there are "hundreds" of users who have been permanently blocked by Bevin, including "Kentuckians Against Matt Bevin," a public Facebook group with over 1,900 followers.

One of the plaintiffs in the case, Mary Hargis, noted that while she has been critical of the governor on certain issues she was "shocked" to discover he had blocked her. "I may not have voted for Governor Bevin, but I'm one of his constituents," she said. "He shouldn't be permanently dismissing my views and concerns with a click."

As these suits are litigated and President Trump squares off against his blocked Twitter followers, it is unclear how the courts will rule, though U.S. courts tend to rule firmly in favor of protecting political speech.

"If these cases keep getting litigated and appealed ... I can actually see the Supreme Court weighing in on this a year or two down the road," Gutterman suggested. "I think it would be a soft ball."highest level of first amendment activity t

Just recently the Court handed down its first major decision on a social media case in June, ruling unanimously that the First Amendment protected an individual from being refused access to social media. The question before the court was whether a convicted sex offender could be blocked from Facebook , Twitter and other popular social media sites.

The Supreme Court ruling is likely to provide a strong argument for the plaintiffs as the Facebook blocking cases move forward.

"Political speech ... has always been the highest level of First Amendment activity," Gutterman stated. "There's clear First Amendment action here. You've got government activity, government action and citizen expression."

See the rest here:
First Amendment lawsuits pile up against governors who block Facebook, Twitter users - WJLA

Hours after he tweeted out Sieg Heil! during a Twitter fight with Media Matters president Angelo Carusone, political commentator Jeffrey Lord found himself fired by CNN. Commenting on the network severing ties with the pro-Trump pundit, a CNN spokesperson stated that Nazi salutes are indefensible.

Following CNNs announcement of his termination, Lord spoke with the Associated Press. While he expressed his affection and love for CNN, noting that theyre terrific people and serious people, he said he felt the outlet was doing a disservice to free speech.

He called himself a First Amendment fundamentalist and called CNNs decision disappointing. From my perspective CNN caved on the First Amendment of all things. I disagree. I respectfully disagree.

Those remarks somewhat echo what he said to CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter shortly after he was canned, as he claimed in that conversation that CNN was caving to bullies.

Lord further told the AP that he had received a tidal wave of support from conservatives following his firing. One of those conservatives is White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, who called the American Spectator columnist last night to encourage him to keep fighting.

[image via screengrab]

Follow Justin Baragona on Twitter: @justinbaragona

Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com

See the rest here:
Jeffrey Lord Speaks Out on Firing: 'CNN Caved on the First Amendment' - Mediaite

Now, more than ever, D.C.s Newseum serves as a hub for the history and importance of journalism.

The mission of the Newseum is to champion the five freedoms of the first amendment, and we do that through exhibits, through programs, and through education, said Scott Williams, Newseums chief operating officer.

Annually, the museum receives over 800,000 visitors, half of them students.

Sponsored Content: How is your agency managing and maximizing its data? Share your opinions in a Federal News Radio survey.

Its a museum that really celebrates all of our freedoms more than anything, it surprises people by just how much we have in the Newseum, and how long it actually takes to tour, Williams told Whats Working in Washington.

The Newseum is different from Smithsonian museums. [Visitors] cannot imagine that another museum thats not a Smithsonian could compete on such a level we have a lot of stuff as well, so were not Americas attic, were Americas soul, he said.

When it comes to first amendments protections, Williams said the Newseum was important because one thing thats happening now, to our society, is that people are thinking about these things more.

Take fake news for example. That only entered our lexicon recently. Now, when people think about news, they understand that it not being fake is super important we just have a tiny role in making that known, he said.

To illustate the value of the first amendment and its protections, the Newseum takes advantage of all the best practices that museums have so we have storytelling, we rely on to some degree entertainment, said Williams.

House minibus sets stage for fight over sequestration, civilian-defense parity

More here:
Newseum provides first amendment perspective - FederalNewsRadio.com

The ACLU and three other plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, alleging its advertising guidelines are unconstitutional. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP hide caption

The ACLU and three other plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, alleging its advertising guidelines are unconstitutional.

The four plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority are from across the political spectrum: the American Civil Liberties Union, a health care group called Carafem that provides abortions, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.

What they have in common is that the transit agency known as WMATA has rejected their advertisements, saying the ads ran counter to its guidelines. They have now banded together, saying the guidelines introduced in 2015 violate their First Amendment right to free speech.

In fact, the ACLU's rejected advertisement displays the text of the First Amendment in English, Arabic and Spanish, with the ACLU's logo and the slogan "We the People."

The ACLU says WMATA has violated its right to free speech by rejecting an advertisement showing the text of the First Amendment in three languages. ACLU hide caption

WMATA did not explain in writing why it rejected the ACLU's ad, according to the complaint. Outfront Media, which manages the system's advertising, initially told the ACLU that it was rejected because it "does not take any issue oriented advertising." Outfront later stated that "you'll need to dramatically change your creative in order to resubmit," the complaint says.

"In its zeal to avoid hosting offensive and hateful speech, the government has eliminated speech that makes us think, including the text of the First Amendment itself," said ACLU senior staff attorney Lee Rowland. "The ACLU could not more strongly disagree with the values that Milo Yiannopoulos espouses, but we can't allow the government to pick and choose which viewpoints are acceptable."

The D.C. metro system changed its advertising policy in 2015. According to the ACLU, it happened "following controversy surrounding a set of anti-Muslim advertisement." The ACLU, Carafem and PETA had previously advertised with Metro.

The guidelines on commercial advertising, which are published on WMATA's website, say medical messages are allowed "only from government health organizations, or if the substance of the message is currently accepted by the American Medical Associated and/or the Food and Drug Administration."

It also blocks ads "intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions," those "that support or oppose an industry position or industry goal without any commercial benefit to the advertiser" and those "that are intended to influence public policy."

In a statement about the lawsuit to NPR, WMATA pointed to its change in policy and said it "intends to vigorously defend its commercial advertising guidelines, which are reasonable and viewpoint neutral."

The lawsuit says WMATA rejected advertisements from PETA (counterclockwise from top), Carafem, Milo Yiannoloulos and the ACLU. ACLU hide caption

The Carafem advertisement says it sells the FDA-approved mifeprex/misoprostol regimen used to end pregnancy at up to 10 weeks. The "10-week-after pill," it reads, "for abortion up to 10 weeks."

WMATA rejected multiple PETA ads, including one saying "I'm ME, not MEAT. See the Individual. Go Vegan," next to a photo of a pig. The plaintiffs argue that "WMATA has accepted and displayed many advertisements that are intended to influence riders to buy, do and believe things that are at odds with PETA's viewpoint on humans' proper relationship with animals."

WMATA initially accepted advertisements for a book by conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos but took them down after receiving complaints, saying they violate the guidelines, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit claims that WMATA's rejection of the ads from the ACLU, Carafem and Milo Yiannopoulos was not because the ads themselves violated the guidelines. Instead, it says the ads were rejected for reasons outside of their content "such as the identity of the advertiser, the advertiser's known or presumed viewpoints, or the advertiser's line of business."

View post:
ACLU Sues DC Metro After It Rejects Ad With Text Of 1st Amendment - NPR

Daniel P. Tokaji is the Charles W. Ebersold and Florence Whitcomb Ebersold Professor of Constitutional Law at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law.

A constitutional standard for partisan gerrymandering is the holy grail of election law. For decades, scholars and jurists have struggled to find a manageable standard for claims of excessive partisanship in drawing district lines. Most of these efforts have focused on the equal protection clause. But as Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested in Vieth v. Jubelirer, the First Amendment provides a firmer doctrinal basis for challenging partisan gerrymandering. An established line of precedent understands voting as a form of expressive association protected by the First Amendment. These cases offer a nuanced standard that would avoid the undesirable result of rendering any consideration of partisan consequences unconstitutional.

The right of expressive association

There is an obvious difficulty in relying on the First Amendment in partisan-gerrymandering cases: The Supreme Court has never considered voting a form of protected speech. It has, however, long recognized that voting is a form of protected association, at least in certain contexts. Before getting to those cases, its helpful to examine the roots of the right of expressive association.

The original associational-rights cases involved groups like the NAACP and the Communist Party that were extremely unpopular one might even say persecuted in many parts of the country. In NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, for example, the Supreme Court invalidated a requirement that the NAACP disclose its membership list. Justice John Marshall Harlan IIs opinion for the court remarked that the freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the liberty assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. In other words, expressive association is a necessary corollary of free speech.

The right of expressive association is closely linked to the First Amendments prohibition on content and viewpoint discrimination. As Justice Antonin Scalia put it in one of his last dissenting opinions, the First Amendment is a kind of Equal Protection Clause for ideas. It prohibits the government from abusing its authority to suppress disfavored points of view. Most importantly, it restricts the dominant political groups authority to diminish the voices of those who might challenge their grip on power.

Thus, in the first generation of association cases, disfavored groups like the NAACP and the Communist Party relied on the First Amendment to prohibit the government from taking adverse action against them and their members. These cases rest partly on the individual liberty interest identified in NAACP v. Alabama. But theyre also grounded in a larger vision of how democracy should function.

A leading example is the line of patronage cases that began with Elrod v. Burns, in which the Supreme Court struck down the practice of firing public employees who werent members of the Democratic Party, which controlled Cook County, Illinois. After describing the harm to individual employees, the plurality turned to systemic concerns arising from this practice: It is not only belief and association which are restricted where political patronage is the practice, wrote Justice William Brennan. The free functioning of the electoral process also suffers. Discrimination against non-party members tended to starve political opposition, thus tip[ping] the electoral process in favor of the incumbent party. In other words, party-based discrimination distorts the political process, entrenching the dominant party in power while subordinating its chief rival.

Voting as association

Partisan gerrymandering effects a comparable systemic harm, albeit through a different mechanism. By manipulating district lines, the dominant party can entrench itself in power even when the political winds shift. The increasingly sophisticated technology that line-drawers have at their disposal exacerbates the problem. It allows the dominant party to capture a large percentage of seats while ensuring that its majority will hold in both bad times and good.

Thats true not only in Wisconsin, from which Gill v. Whitford emerges, but in other states that would be competitive but for gerrymandering. Take my own state of Ohio. Although Ohio is a consummate purple state in presidential elections, Republican mapmakers drew lines there in 2011 that give their party a supermajority of districts three-quarters of the states congressional delegation and roughly two-thirds of its state legislative districts. These districts were drawn with the goal of creating a firewall that would ensure Republican control even in a strong Democratic year. And theyve been a spectacular success, ensuring Republican control of the Ohio state legislature throughout the current decade. Because they diminish the power of the non-dominant party in a manner thats both substantial and enduring, excessive partisan gerrymanders violate the right of expressive association.

Still, one might argue that compelled disclosure and patronage are very different from redistricting. In the original association cases, particular individuals were harmed discouraged from or punished for affiliating with disfavored groups. Moreover, those cases dont directly involve voting. Its a leap, one might argue, to hold that the right of association is implicated when voters, candidates and parties associate through the electoral process.

As it turns out, the Supreme Court made this leap long ago. For almost a half-century, the court has recognized that voting is a form of association protected by the First Amendment. The first voting-as-association case was Williams v. Rhodes, which challenged Ohios ballot-access requirements for new political parties like George Wallaces American Independent Party. Justice Hugo Blacks opinion for the court relied on both the First Amendment right of association and equal protection to strike down this requirement. Ohios onerous rules for adding new parties to the ballot gave the two old, established parties a decided advantage plac[ing] substantially unequal burdens on both the right to vote and the right to associate. In Williams, the Supreme Court thus stressed the risk of dominant parties using voting rules to entrench themselves in power, thereby harming non-dominant parties and their supporters.

Several years later, in Anderson v. Celebrezze, the Supreme Court again relied on the right of association to invalidate another ballot-access rule in Ohio, this time one that would have kept John Anderson from running as an independent presidential candidate in 1980. Justice John Paul Stevens opinion for the majority recognized that theres no litmus-paper test to separate valid and invalid restrictions on voting and association. Rather, the court should weigh the character and magnitude of the burden on voting and association against the states asserted interests. Although reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions can usually be justified by important regulatory interests, a stronger justification is required for more serious burdens, including ones that discriminate against outsider candidates and their supporters.

A subsequent case involving write-in voting in Hawaii, Burdick v. Takushi, reaffirmed Andersons flexible standard while clarifying that strict scrutiny applies only if the burden on voting and association is severe. Other cases like Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut and Washington State Grange v. Washington Republican Party apply this standard to electoral rules that burden the associational rights of major parties and their adherents. The Anderson-Burdick balancing test is now used in constitutional challenges to a wide variety of election laws, including ballot access, blanket primaries and even voter ID. Whats not commonly recognized is that this legal standard originated in voting-as-association cases.

Applying the voting-as-association standard

Its true that the Supreme Court hasnt yet applied the Anderson-Burdick standard to partisan gerrymandering. In fact, the court has been maddeningly unclear about what legal standard should apply in these cases. But for several reasons, the standard emerging from the voting-as-association cases provides the best fit for evaluating partisan gerrymandering claims.

The first is that the First Amendment right of association best captures the type of injury alleged, specifically the lasting harm to non-dominant political parties and their adherents arising from the dominant partys self-entrenchment. Expressive-association cases have long focused on such harms, not only to the non-dominant party but to our political system. By contrast, equal protection law doesnt accord any special status to political party affiliation. Unlike race or sex, party affiliation isnt a protected class under the equal protection clause.

The second advantage of relying on the established voting-as-association standard is that it focuses on effects rather than intent. Recall that the Anderson-Burdick standard requires courts to weigh the character and magnitude of the burden on voting and association against the states asserted interests. An intent to harm the non-dominant party may be relevant, but it isnt required. Thats a good thing, because intent is notoriously hard to prove or disprove, especially in redistricting cases. The Shaw v. Reno line of racial-gerrymandering cases exemplifies this difficulty. Under those cases, the pivotal question is whether race was the predominant factor in drawing a particular district. Twenty-four years after Shaw, the Supreme Court is still struggling to explain what this means. An effect-based test is preferable. Though Anderson-Burdick is hardly a bright-line rule, its balancing standard has proven manageable in other voting contexts and can be adapted to partisan-gerrymandering claims.

This brings me to a third advantage of relying on the voting-as-association cases to assess partisan gerrymandering claims: It provides a nuanced legal standard. The Anderson-Burdick balancing approach would allow lower courts to sort through the evidence, striking down the most egregious and unjustified partisan gerrymanders without categorically prohibiting any consideration of party affiliation when drawing districts. Of course, partisan-gerrymandering claims demand hard judgments. There are no bright lines here. But the legal standard that the Supreme Court has long used in voting-as-association cases provides the best fit for partisan-gerrymandering cases like Gill v. Whitford.

Posted in Gill v. Whitford, Summer symposium on Gill v. Whitford, Featured, Merits Cases

Recommended Citation: Daniel Tokaji, Symposium: A path through the thicket the First Amendment right of association, SCOTUSblog (Aug. 10, 2017, 2:12 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/08/symposium-path-thicket-first-amendment-right-association/

See the rest here:
Symposium: A path through the thicket the First Amendment right of association - SCOTUSblog (blog)