Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

Post and Courier wins prestigious APME First Amendment award for series on police tracking methods – Charleston Post Courier

The Post and Courier's "Watched" series chronicling police surveillance tactics has won the grand prize for work advancing the principles of the First Amendment in thethe 2017 Associated Press Media Editors Awards.

The three-part series by reporters Glenn Smith and Andrew Knapp was among the top honorees in the annual APME Awards, which recognizes watchdog journalism that saved lives, exposed bias, held government officials accountable and shed light on hidden practices. Winners will be recognized at an October conference in Washington, D.C.

"Watched" detailed how police forces across the United States are stockpiling massive databases with personal information from millions of Americans who simply crossed paths with officers. The series explored the pervasive but little-known police practice of gathering data from "suspicious" citizens in the absence of an arrest. That data can be stored indefinitely and used to track a persons movements and habits over time.

Critics contend the practice can intrude on privacy and keep innocent people under a permanent cloud of suspicion.

APME judges noted the series "produced results in Charleston, where the police chief announced an initiative to purge innocent people from the departments database, and won praise from civil libertarians and police alike for shedding light on surveillance techniques often hidden from public view."

"Watched" had previously won a National Headliner Award and took first-place honors for investigative and public service reporting in the South Carolina Press Association Awards.

Reach Glenn Smith at 843-937-5556 or follow him on Twitter @glennsmith5.

Go here to read the rest:
Post and Courier wins prestigious APME First Amendment award for series on police tracking methods - Charleston Post Courier

First Amendment protects us all by sticking up for the despicable – Knoxville News Sentinel

Although Milo Yiannopoulos has resigned from Breitbart, the British-born journalist has found a way to remain in the U.S. Veuer's Amanda Kabbabe (@kabbaber) has more. Buzz60

News Sentinel Editor Jack McElroy(Photo: Paul Efird)

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

This past legislative session, state Rep. Martin Daniel introduced a bill he dubbed the Milo Bill" for Milo Yiannopoulos, the controversialex-Breitbart writer whose plans to speak at the University of California atBerkeleysparked rioting that caused the cancellation ofhis appearance.

The bill was supposed to protect freedom of speech on Tennessee campuses, a measure opponents considered unnecessary.

Rep. Mike Stewart, D-Nashville, also complained about naming bills after people that promote racism, pedophilia and hatred.

Daniel rethought the name, too, after Yiannopoulos was caught on video condoning sex between men and boys. The Knoxville Republican tweeted:"It will also be known as the Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, & the MLK JR. bill.

Too bad.

The First Amendment doesnt need help from the Tennessee legislature. But if it did, a law named after Yiannopoulos would be appropriate. The man makes a living being offensive. Thats exactly what the First Amendment must protect.

A related issue arose last week when the mayor of Portland, Ore., called on the feds to block demonstrators supporting the white supremacist who screamed slurs at women on a light-rail train then stabbed to death two men who came to their defense.

Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment, the mayor declared.

Actually, it is.The Supreme Court has made that clear in cases ranging from a 1969 rulingin favor of a KKK leader who called for "revengeance" against African Americans and Jews to a 2010 decision supporting the Westboro Baptist Church's right to picket a soldiers funeral with signs saying, "Thank God for dead soldiers."

There's a reasonvile speech must be protected. That'swhere tolerance is put to the test.

There's no need to protect speech with which everyone agrees. If Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine or Martin Luther King Jr. spoke at the University of Tennessee today, the cheers would be heard in Chattanooga.

Milo? Not so much.

Unfortunately, Americans forget this concept from time to time..

The past year has seen several instances of students trying to stop controversial speakers from appearing on campuses or shouting them down when they did: Bell Curve author Charles Murray at Middlebury College; DailyWire editor Ben Shapiro at University of Wisconsin-Madison; actor Gavin McInnes at New York University; white nationalist Richard Spencer at Texas A&M; andprovocateur Ann Coulter at Berkeley.

This reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of how the First Amendment functions.

The only effective answer to a bad idea is a good idea. Responding to speech with speech works. Protest is entirely appropriate, ifpeaceful.

But trying to silence words with which we disagree even if we find them despicable will backfire.

Jack McElroy is executive editor of the News Sentinel and can be reached at editor@knoxnews.com.

Read or Share this story: http://knoxne.ws/2rMLfXJ

See the article here:
First Amendment protects us all by sticking up for the despicable - Knoxville News Sentinel

Red Alert: The First Amendment is already in danger and here’s why – Raw Story

President Donald Trump takes a moment before taking the stage during a Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Va., May 29, 2017. (DOD photo by U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Brigitte N. Brantley)

Of all the incredible statements issuing from the fantasy factory that is the imagination of Donald Trump, the one he recently made in a speech to graduates of the Coast Guard academy, that no politician in history and I say this with great surety has been treated worse or so unfairly sets an unenviable record for brazen ignorance plus a toxic mix of self-aggrandizement and self-pity. In his eyes, the most villainous persecutors are the mainstream fake news organizations that dare to oppose his actions and expose his lies.

So, having already banned nosy reporters from news corporations that he doesnt like, branded their employers as enemies of the nation and expressed a wish to departed FBI Director James Comey that those in the White House who leak his secrets should be jailed, why should there be any doubt that he would, if he could, clap behind bars reporters whom, in his own cockeyed vision, he saw as hostile? His fingers itch to sign an order or even better a law that would give him that power. Could he possibly extract such legislation from Congress?

Such a bill might accuse the press of seditious libel, meaning the circulation of an opinion tending to induce a belief that an action of the government was hostile to the liberties and happiness of the people. It also could be prohibited to defame the president by declarations directly or indirectly to criminate his motives in conducting official business.

With a net that wide, practically anything that carried even the slightest whiff of criticism could incur a penalty of as much as five years in jail and a fine of $5,000. Just for good measure, couple it with an Act Concerning Aliens, giving the president the right to expel any foreign-born resident not yet naturalized whom he considers dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States without a charge or a hearing.

How Trump would relish that kind of imaginary power over his enemies!

I didnt make up those words. They are part of actual laws the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in the summer of 1798 and signed by John Adams, our second president and titular leader of the conservative Federalist Party. Men were actually tried, imprisoned and fined for such sedition. If anyone believes that under the First Amendment gagging the media cant happen here, the answer is that it already has.

How did it happen? Just as it could happen again today in the midst of a national emergency. In Adams day, it was a war scare with France that produced a flurry of stand behind the president resolutions, a hugely expanded military budget (including the beginnings of the US Navy), demonstrations of approval in front of Adams residence and a conviction among the Federalists that members of Congress who talked of peace namely the Republicans, the pro-French opposition party who at that time were the more liberal of the two parties, [held] their countrys honor and safety too cheap.

In other words, just the kind of emergency that could be produced at any time in our present climate by a terrorist attack here at home genuine, exaggerated or contrived and pounced upon by the man in the White House.

Do I exaggerate? Read the chilling report of the April 30 interview between Jon Karl of ABC News and Trump chief of staff Reince Priebus, who said the president might change libel laws so he could sue publishers. When Karl suggested that this might require amending the Constitution, Priebus replied, I think its something that weve looked at, and how that gets executed or whether that goes anywhere is a different story.

This is reality. A lying president aspiring to become a tinpot dictator is making his move. Its time to be afraid, but not too afraid to be prepared.

Lets briefly flash back to 1798. In the bitter contest between Federalists and Republicans, their weapons were the rambunctious, robust and nose-thumbing newspapers of the time, run by owner-editors and publishers who simply called themselves printers. They werent above dirtying their own hands with smears of ink, nor was there any tradition of objectivity. A British traveler of a slightly later time wrote that defamation exists all over the world, but it is incredible to what extent this vice is carried in America.

Nobody escaped calumny, not even the esteemed father of his country. Benjamin Franklin Bache, Republican editor of the Philadelphia Aurora, commented as George Washington departed office that his administration had been tainted with dishonor, injustice, treachery, meanness and perfidy if ever a nation was debauched by a man, the American nation has been debauched by WASHINGTON.

Bache also had had harsh words for old, bald, blind, querulous, toothless, crippled John Adams, sounding very much like a pre-dawn Trump tweet aimed at some critic of His Mightiness. You might not find that kind of personal invective now in The New York Times or The Washington Post, but its familiar on right-wing talk radio and would sound at home coming from the mouths of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter. The mode of dissemination changes; the ugliness at the core is unchanged.

Stung and furious, Adams and his Federalist supporters in Congress pushed the Sedition Act through Congress, though by a narrow majority. But could it survive a legal challenge from the Republican minority under the First Amendments guarantee of press freedom? The Federalists answered with a legal interpretation that the guarantee only covered prior restraint, which meant that a license from a government censor was required before publication of any opinion. Once it actually emerged in print, however, it had to take its chances with libel and defamation suits, even by public officials. Today,prior restraint is judicially dead, but the question of who is a public official and can be criticized without fear of retaliation in the courts continues to produce litigation.

But in 1787 argument made little difference. With the trumpets and drums of war blaring and thundering, the Constitution, as usually happens in such times, was little more than a paper barrier. Some provisions were added that would help the defense in a prosecution under its provisions. Moreover, the act was ticketed to expire automatically on March 3, 1801, the day before a new president and Congress would take office and either renew the law or leave it in its grave which is precisely what happened when Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans eventually won the 1800 election.

Nevertheless, during its slightly more than two years in force that produced only a handful of indictments, the Sedition Act did some meaningful damage. It produced what Jefferson called a reign of witches harmful enough to prove it was a travesty of justice, but not enough to become a full-blown reign of terror like the disappearances and executions of modern tyrannies.

The act never succeeded in its purpose of muzzling all criticism of the government, and in fact worked to the contrary. The toughest sentence 18 months in jail and a fine of $450 a huge sum in those days when whole families never saw as much as $100 in cash was imposed on a Massachusetts eccentric who put up a Liberty Pole in Dedham denouncing the acts and cheering for Jefferson and the Republicans. Other convictions for equally innocuous crimes defined by zealous prosecutors as sedition inflicted undeserved punishment by any standard of fairness. But two were especially consequential thanks to the backlash they produced.

One involved Matthew Lyon, a hot-tempered Vermont congressman, who ran a newspaper in which he accused Adams of a continual grasp for power and a thirst for ridiculous pomp that should have put him in a madhouse. For that he got a $1,000 fine and four months of jail time in an unheated felons cell in midwinter. But numerous Republican admirers raised the cash to pay his fine. While still behind bars, he handily won re-election to Congress, and the senator from Virginia personally rode north to deliver saddlebags full of collected cash. In addition, Lyon ran for re-election from jail in December and swamped his opponent by 2,000 votes. His return to Philadelphia and his seat in the House was celebrated joyfully by Republican crowds.

Jedidiah Peck from upstate New York was also indicted for his heinous offense of circulating a petition for the repeal of both the Alien and Sedition Acts. At each stop in his five-day trip to New York City for trial, the sight of him in manacles, watched over by a federal marshal, provoked anti-Federalist demonstrations. His case was dropped in 1800, and he was also easily re-elected to his seat in the New York assembly.

In fact, the entire Republican triumph in that years election was in good part a backlash to the censorship power grab of the Federalists. Literate voters of 1800, kept informed by a vigorous press, were not going to put padlocks on their tongues or take Federalist overreach lying down. Maybe it was from ingrained love of liberty or plain orneriness, or maybe because they were tougher to distract than we their heirs, beset by a constant barrage of entertainment, advertisements and other forms of trivial amusements.

Because that stream of noise is constant and virtually unavoidable by anyone not living in a cave, we are vulnerable to the tactic of the unapologetic Big Lie. If Trump keeps repeating fake news over and over at every exposure of some misdemeanor, eventually the number of believers in that falsehood will swell.

Genuine trouble is at our doorstep. If that statement from Reince Priebus is taken at face value, our bully-in-chief is looking for nothing less than control of the court of public opinion through management of the media by criminalizing criticism all behind a manufactured faade of governing in the name of the people.

With the example of 1798 before us, we need to resolve that any such effort can and must be met with the same kind of opposition mounted by that first generation of Americans living under the Constitution. If we want to be worthy of them, we need to use all our strength and resolution in deploying tactics of resistance. We need to fill the streets, overwhelm our lawmakers with calls and letters, reward them with our votes when they check the arrogance of power and strengthen their backbones when they waver. Any of us who gets a chance to speak at public gatherings and ceremonies should grab it to remind the audience that without freedom of speech, assembly and protest there is no real freedom. If the First Amendment vanishes, the rest of the Bill of Rights goes with it. And were dangerously close.

See original here:
Red Alert: The First Amendment is already in danger and here's why - Raw Story

First Amendment case against Burlington can proceed – BurlingtonFreePress.com

A judge ruled on Thursday, June 1, 2017 that a case challenging a Burlington housing policy can proceed. JESS ALOE/FREE PRESS

184 Church Street in Burlington on Wednesday, April 6, 2016.(Photo: GLENN RUSSELL/FREE PRESS)Buy Photo

A federal judge ruled a Burlington man's lawsuit charging the city with violating his First Amendment rights can proceed.

Joseph Montagno filed the lawsuit last fall claiming the city violated his rights by pressuring his landlord to evict him for calling 911 too many times.

The ruling, issued on Thursday by Judge Christina Reiss, mostly denied the city's request to dismiss the case.

In the original complaint, Montagno's American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, Jay Diaz, argued that his client's right to free speech had been "chilled" by the city's actions.

More: Lawsuit: Man evicted for calling BPD 'too frequently'

If his factual allegations are true, Reisswrote, "he has plausibly alleged a retaliation claim."

The judge dismissed several other parts of the lawsuit. Eileen Blackwood, Burlington's City Attorney, said she was pleased that the court had narrowed the issues.

She also said it was early in the proceeding.

"Motions to dismiss are often not granted because the court has to give the benefit of the doubt to the plaintiff," she said.

Burlington city attorney Eileen Blackwood.(Photo: KEVIN HURLEY/for the FREE PRESS, FILE)

Montagno claimed in the lawsuitthat the Burlington Police Department and Code Enforcement office kept track of his calls to the police department, and then pressured his landlord into evicting him.

"We're very pleased with the ruling," said Jay Diaz, Montagno's American Civil Liberties Union lawyer. "Mr. Montagno is looking forward to pressing his case against the city."

Jay Diaz, staff attorney with the Vermont ACLU, in February 2015.(Photo: KEVIN HURLEY/for the Free Press)

Diaz said his client was able to eventually secure housing in Burlington after being evicted from his Church Street apartment, with the help of several local nonprofits such as Vermont Legal Aid and Champlain Housing Trust.

He said one goal of the lawsuit was to end the alleged policy, as well as to encourage the city to focus more on supporting people who need help.

"They were among the most vulnerable Burlington residents," he said about the residents of the Church Street building where Montagno lived. "They were low-income, many of them had disabilities."

Blackwood said she does not believe that Burlington hasa "caller retaliation policy."

"We don't think there was any attempt to chill First Amendment rights," she said.

Contact Jess Aloe at 802-660-1874 or jaloe@freepressmedia.com. Follow her on Twitter @jess_aloe

Read or Share this story: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2017/06/02/first-amendment-case-against-burlington-can-proceed/365698001/

Read this article:
First Amendment case against Burlington can proceed - BurlingtonFreePress.com

First Amendment must remain as a pillar of country – The Bozeman Daily Chronicle

The essence of journalism is supposed to be rooted in fact based objectivity. The Missoulian and Gazettes' 24th-hour reversal of their Gianforte endorsement is the equivalent of Dick Cheney removing himself from the tip of the spear that was meant to kill LGBT rights only after his daughter came out.

Now, more than ever, the First Amendment must be utilized as of one of the pillars this country was built upon in order for our democracy to endure the whims of awfulness humanity is frequently compelled to act upon. Now is not the time to use the The First Amendment, and the journalistic integrity heavily implied therein, as a crutch used to limp into our common future.

If all it takes for an entity like The Missoulian to find their moral compass is to have their agenda, or in this case their endorsement, come back bite them in the butt, and hurt one of their own, only serves to highlight their bias, and make it more transparent to how far removed they are from objectivity and truth.

Journalists are supposed to not only weather, but be at home in the eye of the storm.

Read more:
First Amendment must remain as a pillar of country - The Bozeman Daily Chronicle