Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

FCC’s Jessica Rosenworcel On Trump Broadcast License Threats: First Amendment Guides Us. – Insideradio.com

An election year is hard to avoid in Washington, even at the Federal Communications Commission.

Chair Jessica Rosenworcel is playing down the prospect that former President Donald Trump could make good on his recent threats to go after some TV networks that he views as hostile to his candidacy. The First Amendment is something that we take seriously, Rosenworcel said Thursday. It stands for the proposition that we cannot prohibit speech. The thing that is clearest to me is that we have licensing authority over broadcast stations, and its something that needs to be understood more widely and certainly in some of our candidate circles.

When reporters put the same question to Commissioner Brendan Carr, he declined to comment. As we move into election season, I'm not going to be making comments on every statement from candidates as they're working through this process, he said.

It is not the first time Trump has blown off steam toward his adversaries by suggesting the FCC should yank their licenses. He made similar comments in 2017. It drew a critical response from the National Association of Broadcasters, the Radio Television Digital News Association, and some in Congress, but ultimately little came of it.

In other FCC news, Commissioner Anna Gmez has made some staff changes, including those who are advising her on media issues. Deena Shetler will serve as Chief of Staff and advise Gomez on media and international matters. And Harsha Mudaliar will serve as Policy Advisor, focusing on media and technology issues.

Shetler most recently worked on Capitol Hill where she served as a research assistant for the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband. Previously, she interned at the FCC in the Office of Legislative Affairs.

Mudaliar joins Gmezs staff from Rosenworcels office, where she served as Deputy Chief of Staff for Administration. She has held numerous leadership roles at the FCC since taking her first job at the agency in 1996, including Deputy Chief of the Office of Economics and Analytics, Deputy Managing Director, Associate Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau, and as a Legal Advisor to Commissioner Gloria Tristani. Mudaliar has also stepped away from the FCC on two occasions, to work at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) from 2010 to 2011 and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division from 2016-2017.

Gmez also announced Edyael Casaperalta will serve as Legal Advisor for Wireless, Public Safety and Consumer Protection. Hayley Steffen will serve as Legal Advisor for Wireline and Space. And Anna Holland will serve as Executive Assistant in her office.

I am pleased to announce that members of my acting staff have agreed to join my office long term Gmez said. They bring years of communications legal and policy experience along with a longstanding commitment to public service and a can-do attitude.

More here:
FCC's Jessica Rosenworcel On Trump Broadcast License Threats: First Amendment Guides Us. - Insideradio.com

Faith-based school chaplains would test First Amendment – Fort Wayne Journal Gazette

Indianas student-to-counselor ratio ranks worst in the nation, according to the 2023 State of the Indiana Girl Report published in September.

Two bills introduced in the General Assembly one in the House, the other in the Senate seek to fill the counselor void, but critics say their solution is unconstitutional and could end up further harming some childrens emotional and mental health.

House Bill 1192 and Senate Bill 50 would allow public and charter schools to employ chaplains, or approve them as volunteers, to counsel students and staff. Though school chaplains wouldnt be required to divulge privileged or confidential communications, the bills are written to invite skepticism as to the ultimate goal of allowing pastoral care.

The Senate version, authored by Sen. Stacey Donato, R-Logansport, says a chaplain may only provide secular assistance, unless the student (or their parent or guardian) gives consent for religious advice, guidance and support services. The House proposal of Rep. Doug Miller, R-Elkhart, does not include such language.

The primary role of chaplains is to provide pastoral or religious counseling to people in spiritual need, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana said in a statement. Allowing them to assume official positions whether paid or voluntary in public schools will create an environment ripe for religious coercion and indoctrination of students.

Without any oversight to prevent chaplains from imposing their own religious viewpoint on the children they counsel, HB 1192 and SB 50 could undermine the religious freedom of students of all faiths and no faith.

For a transgender student experiencing mental health concerns, especially in light of Senate Enrolled Act 480 that banned childrens gender-affirming care last year, having a chaplain provide counsel could be harmful.

The Indiana Youth Institute and Girl Coalition of Indiana examined mental health data and surveys completed by school-age children and found schools statewide employed just 1,494 counselors for more than 1 million students.

Proponents of HB 1192 and SB 50 likely will tout the proposals as remedies to the mental health needs of Hoosier students.

Chaplains are trained and certified to provide spiritual and emotional support. Lawmakers should leave mental health care services to the professional school counselors qualified to do that job.

Excerpt from:
Faith-based school chaplains would test First Amendment - Fort Wayne Journal Gazette

Florida House passes HB 1 to ban kids 16 and under from having social media accounts – NBC 6 South Florida

Pointing to childrens mental health and online sexual predators, the Florida House on Wednesday passed a bill that seeks to prevent children under age 16 from having social media accounts.

The House voted 106-13 to approve the measure (HB 1), a priority of House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast. The issue will go to the Senate, amid arguments from parts of the tech industry that the bill would be unconstitutional.

This is about protecting children from addictive technology and what we know harms them, Renner told House members after the vote. And what the social-media platforms know. For years, they have known this and they have failed to act. By your vote today, we have done so.

Lawmakers said children have suffered mental health problems because of such things as bullying on social media. They also said the technology makes children targets for sexual predators.

The truth is, people use these platforms to prey on our children, Rep. Kevin Chambliss, D-Homestead, said.

But opponents questioned the bills constitutionality and said it would take away the rights of parents to determine whether their children use social media. Thirteen Democrats voted against the bill, while 23 Democrats joined Republicans in supporting it.

Rep. Daryl Campbell, D-Fort Lauderdale, called the bill a complete governmental overreach.

Parents should have the ultimate decision-making ability for their child, Rep. Ashley Gantt, D-Miami, said. I 100 percent agree with the bill sponsors position of making sure that we protect children. I 100 percent agree. But it should not come at the cost of parents being able to make the ultimate decision in how they raise their child.

The bill would prevent minors under 16 from creating social media accounts and would require social media platforms to terminate existing accounts that are reasonably known by the platforms to be held by children younger than 16. It also would allow parents to request that minors accounts be terminated.

The bill would require platforms to use independent organizations to conduct age verifications when new accounts are created and would require denial of accounts for people who do not verify their ages. The organizations would be required to delete the data after ages are verified.

Meta, the parent company of platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, and NetChoice, a tech industry group, last week criticized the proposal and raised the possibility that it would be challenged in court.

NetChoice posted testimony on its website that said the bill has constitutional flaws. It said federal courts have blocked similar social-media restrictions in other states.

If passed, HB 1 would violate minors First Amendment rights by imposing a blanket restriction on access to constitutionally protected speech for anyone who is either under the age of 16 or refuses to comply with the laws age-verification requirements, the industry group said. The fact that HB 1 covers the internet rather than books, television programs, or video games, does not change the First Amendment issue.

But Renner, an attorney, told reporters that the bill doesnt violate the First Amendment. He said the bill is directed toward addictive technology, not content.

This is why weve narrowly defined it, because Its a situation in which kids cant stay off the platforms, and as a result of that, they have been trapped in an environment that is harming their mental health, Renner said.

The Senate version of the bill (SB 1788) has not started moving through committees as lawmakers near the end of the third week of the 60-day legislative session.

Also Wednesday, the House unanimously passed another Renner priority (HB 3) that would require age verification to try to prevent minors under age 18 from having access to online pornography.

The bill would set a series of standards for determining whether online material would be harmful, such as whether it appeals to the prurient interest and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Here is the original post:
Florida House passes HB 1 to ban kids 16 and under from having social media accounts - NBC 6 South Florida

Lizzo Accusers Say First Amendment Is No Reason To Throw Out Assault, Sexual Harassment & Discrimination Suit Against Grammy Winner – Yahoo…

(Updated with Lizzo spokesperson statement) The legal battle over assault, harassment and discrimination claims between Lizzo anda trio of former tour dancers and reality show contestants has turned into a constitutional squabble, at least for now.

Can a global celebrity be forever insulated from civil liability because all their conduct is protected as free speech under the anti-SLAPP statute? rhetorically ask lawyers for Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguezin an opposition filing this week to the Grammy winners attempt to have the matter tossed out of court. Defendant Lizzo asks this Court to rule in exactly that fashion. Fortunately for all victims of celebrity malfeasance, the law says otherwise.

More from Deadline

(Read the opposition memo to Lizzos anti-SLAPP filing here)

The recipient of the Record of the Year at the 65th Grammys, Lizzo plus her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc and dance team head Shirlene Quigley have been accused by formerLizzos Watch Out for the Big Grrrlscontestants Davis and Williams, along with Rodriguez, of body-shaming and being put through what the trio call an excruciating audition for their jobs.

Placed in the docket at LA Superior Court on August 1, the suit also alleges that the dancers were forced to attend and participate in sex shows at venues like Paris Crazy Horse cabaret while on tour, had their virginity made fun of, suffered false imprisonment and were subjected to religious tirades. The suit goes on to claim racial discrimination from the all-white management team against Davis, Williams and other non-African American dancers.

Followed in short order by another suit from Asha Daniels, a wardrobe designer who worked on Lizzos 2023 tour and claims of disrespect by Lizzos camp from Oscar nominated filmmaker Sophia Nahli Allison, the nine-claim complaint from Davis, Williams and Rodriguez seeks unspecified damages.

In addition to denials by Lizzos reps, declarations from staffers and other dancers to her good character, and the October 27 anti-SLAPP motion theJuicesinger herself (real name Melissa Jefferson), Lizzo has pushed back against the claims. She went online in early August to deride the allegations as sensationalized and coming from former employees who have already publicly admitted that they were told their behavior on tour was inappropriate and unprofessional.

This week, it is Team Lizzo thats essentially accused of being unprofessional or at least strategically selective.

In an apparent effort to dupe this Court, Defendants either cherry-pick allegations or out-right omit allegations inconvenient to their position, instead sanitizing them with euphemisms, the November 8 filing from the plaintiffs lawyers continues with an implied swipe at Lizzos heavyweight lawyer Marty Singer and his team at Lavely Singer.

None of Plaintiffs claims arise from conduct implicating a public issue or interest, the memorandum from attorneys at West Coast Lawyers APLC goes on to state. The document continues, How exactly does Quigley relaying how she masturbates or performing oral sex on bananas implicate public interest? Or when Lizzo attempted to strike Plaintiff Rodriguez? Or when Plaintiff Davis was deprived of her phone and confined to a room? These acts, which give rise to the claims at issue here, do not implicate public issues, and thus cannot be protected.

In closing, the 19-page filing insists Lizzos Special Motion to Strike should be denied in its entirety as Plaintiffs claims do not rise from conduct that is protected under Code of Civil Procedure.

The celebrity-can-do-what-they-want argument was shut down previously by the Court of Appeal in a case [in which] Marty Singers firm represented Shia LaBeouf, plaintiffs lawyer Ron Zambrano told Deadline today. They should know better.

Last month, 18 independent witnesses stood by Lizzos work ethic and character, a spokesperson for the performer said Friday. It is clear since then, these plaintiff lawyers have come up with exactly zero to refute these facts.

Lizzos Special Tour started on September 23, 2022, and ended on July 30 in Japan. With the exception of receiving the Quincy Jones Humanitarian Award in LA in September, Lizzo has kept a pretty low profile of late.

The anti-SLAPP battle in this case is set for a November 22 court hearing in downtown LA.

Best of Deadline

Sign up for Deadline's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Go here to read the rest:
Lizzo Accusers Say First Amendment Is No Reason To Throw Out Assault, Sexual Harassment & Discrimination Suit Against Grammy Winner - Yahoo...

Trump Appeals Gag To Protect First Amendment Right To Intimidate … – Above the Law

(Photo by Brendan McDermid-Pool/Getty Images)

In 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that it is a legitimate exercise of state power to ban trial participants from speech which poses a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a judicial proceeding. That case,Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, involved a ban on attorneys commenting on pending trials. But for 30 years,Gentile has been understood to set the standard for imposing gag orders on all parties to a case, not just the attorneys.

What Donald Trumps appeal of his gag order in the election interference prosecution presupposes is maybe it didnt?

MaybeGentile only applies to lawyers. Maybe the proper test is theBrandenberg incitement standard. Maybe under Supreme Court decisions from 1976 and1978, Trump has the same rights as any member of the press to discuss a pending case. Maybe his status as a presidential candidate allows him to intimidate witnesses at will.

Or maybe not.

These are arguments which Trumps lawyers made at the trial level with Judge Tanya Chutkan. Quite frankly, they sucked then, and they continue to suck now. The only difference is that Trump has became even more brazen in his insistence that prosecutors did not include any evidence that any witness, prosecutor, or court staff had experienced any threats or harassment from third parties after President Trumps statements.

Trump repeats this claim several times, carefully stepping around the fact that a woman named Abigail Shry is under indictment after leaving a voicemail for Judge Chutkan saying Hey you stupid slave n You are in our sights, we want to kill you. Yes,technically, thats not a threat to any witness, prosecutor, or court staff. But its not speculative, as Trump argues repeatedly.

In fact, prosecutors and the trial court both noted that Trumps social media posts provoked waves of harassment for election officials and poll workers in the wake of the 2020 election as he sought to sow the claims of vote fraud which formed the basis of the election interference charged in this case. Trumps lawyers scoff that this was almost three years ago, and long before this case was brought, which is basically like a sealed juvenile record, if you think about it. (But not too hard.)

Trump continues to mischaracterize the hecklers veto, claiming that his free speech rights cannot be abridged just because his goons might hear him say that Gen. Mark Milley ought to be executed and then take it upon themselves to make it happen. Which is wildly offensive, but perhaps less so than Trump likening himself to civil rights protestors wrongly arrested for disturbing the peace by exercising their First Amendment rights. After all, this is a case which charges Trump with violating a Reconstruction Era statute by seeking to toss out 20 million votes on an inchoate theory that there must have been vote fraud in majority-Black cities.

Trump also argues that Judge Chutkans order violates the sacred right of 100 million Americans to hear Trump call Bill Barr a sluggish loser:

The Gag Order violates President Trumps most fundamental First Amendment rights. Even worse, it gives no consideration to the First Amendment rights of President Trumps audience, the American public, to receive and listen to his speech.

Never mind that that statistic includes the 94 million bots and actual users from platforms Trump got booted off of in January of 2021.

These are profoundly unserious arguments, all of which failed at the trial court. Although, to be fair to Lauro, once your client has forced you to defend his right to attack the prosecutors wife on social media, youre a little bit boxed in when you try to argue that he has a fundamental First Amendment right to call Special Counsel Jack Smith Deranged.

Theres also the bad fact that the second Judge Chutkan administratively stayed the gag order, Trump took to Truth Social to complain that cooperative witnesses are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation. I dont think that Mark Meadows is one of them, but who really knows?

And Trumps vicious attacks on Michael Cohen, who testified against him in New York, are a pretty fair indicator of how hell behave in this case if allowed to persist unmuzzled.

The gag order remains stayed through oral argument on November 20. Whether Judges Millet, Pillard, and Garcia will be swayed by the same arguments which failed to convince Judge Chutkan is unclear. But perhaps this brief is aimed a little further down First Street after all.

US v. Trump[Circuit Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

More here:
Trump Appeals Gag To Protect First Amendment Right To Intimidate ... - Above the Law