Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

Op-ed: Did the University forget about the first amendment? – The Michigan Daily

Legislators at every level have adopted an operational ethos of ignore all relevant laws and sign it." This is a deeply concerning trend, and one that will result in dystopian realizations as politics continue moving toward the extremes. However, my fragile hope for the future remains intact thanks to the courts consistent rejection of this ethos. The University of Michigan is only the latest subject of both this trend and justices ruling in a case concerning our most potent liberty: speech.

On May 2, 2018, the Universitywas sued by Speech First, an organization dedicated to upholding the First Amendment on college campuses. The subject of the legal dispute was the Universitys Bias Response Team (BRT), which, according to Speech First, stifled freedom of speech and was therefore unconstitutional. In September 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the BRT acts by way of implicit threat of punishment and intimidation to quell speech," and the Universityagreed to disband the BRT. This case is hugely symbolic, more so than it may appear.

The most basic freedom belonging to each person is life, defined by their freedom of conscience. Both life and free conscience are impossible to breach without direct action perpetrated by one unto another. Freedom of speech, therefore, is the concretization of our freedom of conscience. And fundamentally, this is why Speech First v. Schlissel is so symbolic: The courts defended our most basic right.

No student at the University should ever feel discriminated against. Yet, while the BRT held this same belief as its cornerstone, the metric used to determine if an offense had occurred the Universitys anti-harassment policy did not offer any objective definitions as to what constituted a violation. And here lies the unconstitutionality, as described by the Department of Justice: The University imposes a system of arbitrary censorship of, and punishment for, constitutionally protected speech.

This broader conflict is not unique to the University. Colleges across the country face similar challenges in trying to secure welcoming campus environments without infringing upon students First Amendment rights. In this, Im sympathetic with the universities. Were riding a 50-year wave of legal victories for equality in a number of areas; so, in keeping with the trend, lets try to fix campus speech, right? Sure, but not like this.

Todays political climate is one of friction and frustration on both sides. Any comment not perfectly impartial sets off a firestorm, regardless of the reasoning behind the statement, the context or the speaker. We are on a hair trigger. So, how, in this era so characterized by scrutinizing the most minute actions and verbiage, did the University fly right by the First Amendment?

Sadly, today, the legitimacy of actions taken in pursuit of something noble are largely ignored. Those in charge act impulsively without considering their actions. The University wanted to create a safer campus climate, so it created an agency capable of implicitly punishing students who voiced opinions that offended others. To me, this sounds like a paragon of this trend, a laudable end to be achieved by censorship. And the courts said no.

At last, herein lies my optimism for the fate of America: the judiciary. Currently, it seems the shared methodology to enact change, among both parties, is to act now and consider legality later. And yet, the courts have stood tall. The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of California for violating Article 1, Section 10; a federal judge blocked Alabamas abortion ban; and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Universitys Bias Response Team. This case was altogether important and worrying, but I find its conclusion reassuring for the future. The courts remain the protectors of our fundamental rights amidst brazen violations, and it looks like they might just continue holding the torch even if legislators at every level keep trying to blow it out.

David Lisbonne is a junior in the College of Engineering and can be reached at lisbonne@umich.edu.

See the rest here:
Op-ed: Did the University forget about the first amendment? - The Michigan Daily

Breaking down the first amendment lawsuit against Florida State Representative Spencer Roach – Fox 4

CAPE CORAL, Fla. Tonight we are learning more about the lawsuit against State Representative Spencer Roach who is being sued by a civilian for blocking him on Facebook.

Anyone can sue anybody for anything. Question is, whether or not they will win, said Pamella Seay, FGCU criminal justice professor.

Randy Scott believes he will. Scott is suing State Representative Spencer Roach for blocking him on his public Facebook page. Saying he sees Roach not wanting to engage in public discourse.

That is representative Roach having a disdain for public discourse that is critical of him and his other people in Lee County who want to just have a free ride at public discourse, said Scott.

However, FGCU criminal justice professor Pamella Seay says this is not a public figure's account, but one for a candidate for public office so the limitations are different.

The key when you're looking at one of these social media accounts is whether or not it is a public forum, as he is using this particular account it is not a public forum. So yes he does have the right to block someone from that account, said Seay.

State Representative Spencer Roach emphasizes this is not an official government page.

That page is a campaign page, it is a promotional page, its an advertisement page that is paid for with funds in my campaign account. It is not an official government page, said Roach.

Roach says he welcomes criticism but claims Scott has personally threatened him and he will not tolerate it.

You know we welcome criticism and defense and especially policy debate on my campaign Facebook page ,but once you make a threat to kill me I think that kind of crosses the line and thats not something I am going to tolerate on that page."

Roach says the fight is not over.

I look forward to vigorously defending any lawsuit this or any others that attempts to harass me or my staff, said Roach.

See the article here:
Breaking down the first amendment lawsuit against Florida State Representative Spencer Roach - Fox 4

Ask The Mayor: Bloomington’s Hamilton On First Amendment Rights, 4th Street Garage – Indiana Public Media

{ "banners": { "tv" : [ {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WTIUEOYBN&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=%2bMwnEwJL%2fJnDf6kAVxNJy61gzMC6uhq5nDjkJobrCdg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/12-21-19-wtiu2019cye_webbanner.jpg", "startingDate" : "1576904400000", "endingDate" : "1577509140000"} , {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WTIUEOYBN&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=%2bMwnEwJL%2fJnDf6kAVxNJy61gzMC6uhq5nDjkJobrCdg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/12-28-19-wtiu2019cye_webbanner.jpg", "startingDate" : "1577509200000", "endingDate" : "1577595540000"} , {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WTIUEOYBN&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=%2bMwnEwJL%2fJnDf6kAVxNJy61gzMC6uhq5nDjkJobrCdg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/12-29-19-wtiu2019cye_webbanner.jpg", "startingDate" : "1577595600000", "endingDate" : "1577768340000"} , {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WTIUEOYBN&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=%2bMwnEwJL%2fJnDf6kAVxNJy61gzMC6uhq5nDjkJobrCdg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/12-31-19-wtiu2019cye_webbanner.jpg", "startingDate" : "1577768400000", "endingDate" : "1577854740000"} , {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WTIUNYDBR&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=Gezygf8Udstxaqk1G%2fivQK1gzMC6uhq5nDjkJobrCdg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/1-1-20-wtiu-newyearnewyou_banner.jpg", "startingDate" : "1577854800000", "endingDate" : "1577941140000"} ], "radio" : [ {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WFIUEOYBN&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=4fud7%2fVDARfDf6kAVxNJy61gzMC6uhq5nDjkJobrCdg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/12-21-19_wfiu2019cye_webbanner.jpg", "startingDate" : "1576904400000", "endingDate" : "1577509140000"} , {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WFIUEOYBN&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=4fud7%2fVDARfDf6kAVxNJy61gzMC6uhq5nDjkJobrCdg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/12-28-19_wfiu2019cye_webbanner.jpg", "startingDate" : "1577509200000", "endingDate" : "1577595540000"} , {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WFIUEOYBN&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=4fud7%2fVDARfDf6kAVxNJy61gzMC6uhq5nDjkJobrCdg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/12-29-19_wfiu2019cye_webbanner.jpg", "startingDate" : "1577595600000", "endingDate" : "1577768340000"} , {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WFIUEOYBN&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=4fud7%2fVDARfDf6kAVxNJy61gzMC6uhq5nDjkJobrCdg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/12-31-19_wfiu2019cye_webbanner.jpg", "startingDate" : "1577768400000", "endingDate" : "1577854740000"} , {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WFIUEOYBN&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=4fud7%2fVDARfDf6kAVxNJy61gzMC6uhq5nDjkJobrCdg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/1-1-20-wfiu_newyear_banner20.jpg", "startingDate" : "1577854800000", "endingDate" : "1577941140000"} ] }}

{ "lightboxes": { "tv" : [ {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WTIUEOYLIG&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=%2bMwnEwJL%2fJnaDl%2bPRsmaGL1YhDw50SikSh2nq0qouhg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/12-21-19-wtiu2019cye_lightbox.jpg", "startingDate" : "1576904400000", "endingDate" : "1577509140000"} , {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WTIUEOYLIG&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=%2bMwnEwJL%2fJnaDl%2bPRsmaGL1YhDw50SikSh2nq0qouhg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/12-28-19-wtiu2019cye_lightbox.jpg", "startingDate" : "1577509200000", "endingDate" : "1577595540000"} , {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WTIUEOYLIG&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=%2bMwnEwJL%2fJnaDl%2bPRsmaGL1YhDw50SikSh2nq0qouhg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/12-29-19-wtiu2019cye_lightbox.jpg", "startingDate" : "1577595600000", "endingDate" : "1577768340000"} , {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WTIUEOYLIG&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=%2bMwnEwJL%2fJnaDl%2bPRsmaGL1YhDw50SikSh2nq0qouhg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/12-31-19-wtiu2019cye_lightbox.jpg", "startingDate" : "1577768400000", "endingDate" : "1577854740000"} , {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WTIUNYDLB&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=Gezygf8Udst7k1aS3ru9Dq1gzMC6uhq5nDjkJobrCdg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/1-1-20-wtiu-newyearnewyou_lightbox.jpg", "startingDate" : "1577854800000", "endingDate" : "1577941140000"} ], "radio" : [ {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WFIUEOYLB&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=4fud7%2fVDARe69ZJHnhXyPa1gzMC6uhq5nDjkJobrCdg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/12-21-19_wfiu2019cye_lightbox.jpg", "startingDate" : "1576904400000", "endingDate" : "1577465940000"} , {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WFIUEOYLB&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=4fud7%2fVDARe69ZJHnhXyPa1gzMC6uhq5nDjkJobrCdg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/12-28-19_wfiu2019cye_lightbox.jpg", "startingDate" : "1577509200000", "endingDate" : "1577595540000"} , {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WFIUEOYLB&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=4fud7%2fVDARe69ZJHnhXyPa1gzMC6uhq5nDjkJobrCdg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/12-29-19_wfiu2019cye_lightbox.jpg", "startingDate" : "1577595600000", "endingDate" : "1577768340000"} , {"url" : "https://support.indianapublicmedia.org/alleg/WebModule/Donate.aspx?P=WFIUEOYLB&PAGETYPE=PLG&CHECK=4fud7%2fVDARe69ZJHnhXyPa1gzMC6uhq5nDjkJobrCdg%3d", "img" : "https://indianapublicmedia.org/images/banner-images/12-31-19_wfiu2019cye_lightbox.jpg", "startingDate" : "1577768400000", "endingDate" : "1577854740000"} ] }}

{ "item" : [ {"label" : "t", "mp3" : "as", "startingDate" : "1568692800000", "endingDate" : "1569124800000"} , {"label" : "h", "mp3" : "k", "startingDate" : "1568001600000", "endingDate" : "1568433600000"} ] }

Read more from the original source:
Ask The Mayor: Bloomington's Hamilton On First Amendment Rights, 4th Street Garage - Indiana Public Media

$25K lawsuit over negative Yelp review refiled against Wilson Co. woman – NewsChannel5.com

MURFREESBORO, Tenn. (WTVF) The attorney for a Murfreesboro doctor has refiled a $25,000 lawsuit against a woman who left a negative Yelp review against him. This comes one week after the attorney voluntarily dropped a lawsuit against the Wilson County woman.

Kelly Beavers is accused of defamation and false light - invasion of privacy for a post she made about Dr. Kaveer Nandigam of Nandigam Neurology.

The post read, "This "Dr's" behavior today was totally unprofessional and unethical to put it mildly. I will be reporting him to the State of TN Medical Review Board and be filing a formal complaint. How this guy is in business is beyond me. Since when did they start allowing Doctors, to throw a complete temper tantrum in front of Patients and slam things when they get upset? He does not belong in the medical field at all."

Read more: Woman faces $25K lawsuit over Yelp review about Middle Tennessee doctor

It has since been hidden by Yelp and can only be found under a section that reads "Reviews for Nandigam Neurology that are not currently recommended."

Beavers told NewsChannel 5 in December that Nandigam threw a temper tantrum after he realized she was recording her father's appointment on her cell phone. She added that she has done with other doctor visits.

Bennett Hirschhorn, who is representing Nandigam, said recording video in a medical office is illegal.

"Not only did she put several patients privacy at risk by taking videos inside a doctors office, but then she posted a retaliatory review when she isnt even a patient, Hirschhorn said. Thats not what the First Amendment is supposed to protectshes doing it wrong."

Hirschhorn filed the original lawsuit against Beavers in November. He said after Beavers refused to take her post down, Nandigam had no choice but to file a defamation lawsuit against her so a court would compel her to take it down. Beavers' attorney Daniel Horwitz responded by filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, citing the newly enacted Tennessee Public Participation Act. The statute is known as anti-SLAPP, Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, legislation.

Horwitz, who has fought similar cases in the past, said the lawsuit had no merit and was nothing more than a scare tactic for leaving a negative review.

Two weeks after Horwitz filed the motion, Nandigam's attorney voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.

Read more: $25K lawsuit over bad Yelp review dismissed

Hirschhorn said this was done to adjust their strategy before refiling the lawsuit. Plaintiffs in Tennessee can do this twice during the early stages of a lawsuit.

"As Yogi Berra said, 'It aint over till its over.' We believe our client has been improperly defamed, and intend to take appropriate further legal action. The non-suit is just part of our legal strategy," Hischhorn told NewsChannel 5 after dropping the original lawsuit.

The lawsuit was refiled on Tuesday and is pending in the Wilson County General Sessions Court. It is asking Beavers to take down her post and pay Nandigam up for $25,000 in damages.

"Free speech is important, said Hirschhorn, but SLAPP isnt a get out of jail free card for defamation. The limit to constitutional free speech is that people are liable when they abuse it."

In General Sessions court, a judge will decide the case.

On Tuesday, Nandigam publicly addressed the Yelp review and lawsuit in a lengthy op-ed posted to Medium titled "Malicious review bomb could destroy my practice."

The post paints a different picture of Beavers visit to Nandigam's practice, stating it's standard for doctors' offices to have a policy against recording video.

It reads in part:

Later that day, my office learned that the daughter had left our practice a one-star-review on a social media website. She was not even a patient. How could she write a review? She accused me of being unprofessional and unethical. She referred to me as a Doctor, in quotes as an insult as if I am not a professionally trained and board certified physician. She accused me of having a temper tantrum. These things are certainly not true.

We understand she was angry when we found out she was recording video; maybe her false comments were in retaliation for her embarrassment.

You can read the whole statement here.

Continued here:
$25K lawsuit over negative Yelp review refiled against Wilson Co. woman - NewsChannel5.com

DeVos Announces Proposed Rule Regarding Equal Treatment of Faith-Based Education Institutions – All On Georgia

U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced that the Department of Education is taking several concrete actions to protect religious liberty and ensure the Department is acting in accordance with the First Amendment.

The Department announced aproposed ruleensuring the equal treatment and constitutional rights of religious organizations and faith-based institutions, as well as First Amendment freedoms owed to students on campus. As directed by Congress, the agency will also releaseupdated guidanceregarding constitutionally protected prayer in schools.

Our actions today will protect the constitutional rights of students, teachers, and faith-based institutions, said Secretary DeVos. The Departments efforts will level the playing field between religious and non-religious organizations competing for federal grants, as well as protect First Amendment freedoms on campus and the religious liberty of faith-based institutions. I proudly share President Trumps commitment to religious freedom and the First Amendment.

The Departments rule addresses five general areas of importance to religious organizations, faith-based institutions, and their students. First, along with several other agencies, the Departments proposed rule seeks to implement President Trumps Executive Order 13831,Executive Order on the Establishment of a White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative. The proposed rule would ensure that religious and non-religious organizations are treatedequallyby the federal government and that organizations are not discriminated against simply because they are religious in nature, removing unequal, burdensome regulatory requirements imposed by the Obama administration. The proposed rule would ensure that the Departments direct grant programs and state-administered formula grant programs are implemented in a manner consistent with religious liberty protections in federal law, including the First Amendment and theReligious Freedom Restoration Act.

Second, student organizations, including faith-based student organizations, play an important role at public institutions of higher education. Their First Amendment rights, including the freedom of association, must also be protected. Accordingly, the proposed regulations require that, as a material condition of a direct grant or a subgrant from a state-administered formula grant program, a public institution of higher education not deny to a faith-based student organization any of the rights, benefits, or privileges otherwise afforded to non-faith-based student organizations.

Third, the Department proposes to amend regulations governing the Strengthening Institutions Program, the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions Program, the Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program, and the Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions Program of the Higher Education Act. The proposed revisions address constitutional concerns about the prohibition to use development grants for activities or services if they merely relate to sectarian instruction and religious worship. The proposed regulations prohibit use of such grants for activities or services that constitute religious instruction, religious worship, or proselytization consistent with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and other federal laws. The Department also proposes to amend the definition of a school or department of divinity in a manner that is more consistent with the First Amendment and other federal laws.

Fourth, in its proposed rule, the Department also seeks to clarify how an educational institution may demonstrate that it is controlled by a religious organization for purposes of Title IX. Neither Title IX nor its regulations define what it means for a school to be controlled by a religious organization. Over the years, the Department of Educations Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has posted on its website several internal memoranda on this question. Because these OCR memoranda constitute only non-binding, non-regulatory guidance, the Department desires to engage in notice and comment rulemaking on this issue and to obtain the views of the public in crafting an appropriate final regulation.

Fifth, to implement Executive Order 13864,Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities, the Department also proposes regulations to ensurepublicinstitutions of higher education that receive federal research or education grants comply with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as a material condition of a direct grant or a subgrant from a state-administered formula grant program. The Department also proposes regulations to ensure thatprivateinstitutions of higher education that receive federal research or education grants comply with their stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech, including academic freedom. Because state and federal courts remain the best arbiters of alleged violations of First Amendment freedoms, the Department proposes to determine that a public institution has not complied with the First Amendment only if there is a final, non-default judgment by a state or federal court that the public institution or an employee of the public institution, acting in his or her official capacity, violated the First Amendment. Similarly, the Department proposes to determine that a private institution has not complied with its stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech only if there is a final, non-default judgment by a state or federal court that the private institution violated the institutional policy.

In a separate action, for the first time since 2003, the Department will also issue today updated guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in public elementary and secondary schools. The Department is required by theElementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965(ESEA), as amended by theEvery Student Succeeds Act, to update this guidance every two years. The guidance explains the ESEAs requirement that states report which local educational agencies have not certified that they do not have any policy that prevents, or otherwise denies participation in, constitutionally protected prayer. The ESEA also requires states to report complaints against a local educational agency that allegedly denies a person, including a student or employee, the right to engage in constitutionally protected prayer. The guidance clarifies that the ESEA requires states to provide a clear process for students, parents, and teachers to report violations of their right to pray. Under the ESEA, states must fulfill these reporting requirements by November 1 of each year.

This is a press release from the US Department of Education.

View post:
DeVos Announces Proposed Rule Regarding Equal Treatment of Faith-Based Education Institutions - All On Georgia