Mediaboss Marketing

Like the president, state legislators who advance these bills arent doing so out of any genuine concern for protecting speech or public safety, as they sometimes claim. In fact, our analysis finds that legislators often explicitly introduce proposals to limit the rights of people whose positions they dislike. Thats not adherence to the First Amendment, which protects the rights of those we disagree withits adherence to self-interest. Specifically, we find a direct correlation between recent years astonishing rise in collective action, particularly by Black Lives Matter and Standing Rock activists, and a rise in attempts to delegitimize and criminalize those very demonstrations.

Lawrence Glickman: How white backlash controls American progress

From session to session and state to state, these bills look remarkably similar. Thats no coincidence. In January 2018, the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, published a model Critical Infrastructure Protection Act, which drew heavily from two Oklahoma anti-trespass bills, H.B. 1123 and H.B. 2128. This bill defined critical infrastructure to include oil pipelines and dramatically raised the penalties for trespass upon such property. Since then, more than 20 bills modeled on it have also passed. Activists are challenging one law in Louisiana that targets protests near gas and oil pipelines. House Bill 727 passed in 2018 and allows for felony charges of up to five years imprisonment for protesters. This, and bills like it, clearly aim to criminalize mass-protest actions such as those against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The similarities are also not coincidental because quite literally the same legislators keep trying the same tactics, even after courts swat away their misguided bills. These zombie bills refuse to die at the end of the legislative session, and keep returning to haunt our constitutional rights. Legislatorss doggedness is appalling: In South Dakota, a bill was rushed through the legislature and signed quickly into law last year, establishing a civil action to sue riot boosters, defined as anyone who directs, advises, encourages, or solicits others toward acts of force or violence. This left the door open for police to arrest people for encouraging violence through First Amendmentprotected expression, such as chanting common protest slogans like No justice, no peace or even leading trainings of prospective protesters about their rights. A federal court struck the law down as unconstitutional, but state legislators were quick to introduce a redrafted bill just months later, tweaked to extend the crime of trespass to critical-infrastructure facilities. That bill has already passed and been signed into law by the governor.

All told, 116 bills to limit protest rights have been introduced since 2015, and 15 states have passed some form of anti-protest proposal, some passing several. And already this legislative session, were tracking 16 similar bills that are working their way through state capitolsdespite the obviously more pressing public-health and public-policy concerns.

See the article here:
First Amendment RightsIf You Agree With the President - The Atlantic

In response to the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police, people across the US and throughout the world have taken to the streets to demand racial justice and an end to police brutality and systematic racism against Black people. Some of the responses of our federal, state, and local governments in the past 72 hours are raising red flags and calling into question the police response to the protests and the curfews that have been imposed.

The right to protest is fundamental to our democracy and sacrosanct. The Founding Fathers thought that the right was so important that they wrote it into the first 45 words of the Bill of Rights and labeled it the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As the Supreme Court observed in 1958, It is beyond debate that 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 an eerie coincidence of numerical proportions, the 45th President is aiming to thwart, limit, or outright eviscerate the fundamental right to protest and have grievances heard. On Monday, President Trump left the White House, walked across Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C. and posed in front of St. Johns Episcopal Church while holding a Bible. The path to this photo op was cleared by the U.S. Park Police, Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies. The overwhelmingly peaceful protesters and members of the media then on the streets near the church were driven from the area using aggressive and violent crowd control tactics, which included tear gas, rubber bullets, smoke canisters, pepper spray pellets, and brute force.

The debate as to whether tear gas or smoke were really used on the protesters is hollow. It was a crowd of American citizens engaged in constitutionally protected protests against police violence. It doesnt matter what was used to clear the demonstration, because the gathered crowd was simply exercising their rights to be heard as they spoke out against the very sort of injustice that was suddenly used to disperse them. Imagine the heartbreaking absurdity of sanctioning police brutality at a protest against police brutality.

The simple reality cannot be brushed aside by rhetoric or partisan sound-bites. The clear and undeniable fact remains that law enforcement officers who harass peaceably assembled citizens are violating the First Amendment, no matter the tactic used. It is unlawful and those rights must be protected.

Even though the incident on Monday in Washington, D.C. occurred before the curfew set by the mayor, curfews in and of themselves violate civil liberties. Public officials at every level of government are making arbitrary decisions about when, where, and what time citizens are allowed to have their voices heard. Just like it is wrong to forcefully disperse protesters before curfew, it is just as wrong to disperse them after curfew.

Under state law, cities and counties can impose curfews during a state of emergency to provide for the protection of life and property. However, there must be actual or imminent violence beyond the means of the government to address the issue. But curfews are enforced in very arbitrary and discriminatory ways. Historically, curfews have been used to suppress the voices of the people.

Even if curfews are being enacted for a legitimate purpose, there is an added danger for continued police misconduct. This is not an irrational fear but a stark reality that has been broadcast not only on the television news but throughout social media. The chilling scenes have played out daily since the imposition of curfews where law enforcement rush crowds of peaceful protesters the minute curfew begins like a ticking time-bomb that explodes as soon as the clock strikes. Many of the violent confrontations have occurred under the cover of curfew enforcement. Unfortunately, depending on the particular agency enforcing the curfew, a crowd could encounter a warning to go home, a ticket, mass arrests, or even rubber bullets.

The government and law enforcement have a goal of curtailing the rioting, looting, and destruction of property. But those interests must be weighed against a sweeping infringement of a fundamental right. The use of force, such as arrests, or the use of less-lethal weapons, should not be imposed against protesters unless strictly unavoidable. Otherwise the intended effect would constitute a muzzling of voices and censorship.

We will gladly represent anyone whose rights have been infringed.

We serve clients across the San Francisco Bay Area and California from our offices in San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles. Our work is contingency-based. That means we collect no fee unless we obtain money for your damages and injuries.

Read the original post:
The First Amendment Is Sacrosanct - SF Weekly

Nothing more vividly illustrates the threat this moment poses to democratic freedoms than the violence that has been leveled against peaceful protesters and the assaults and arrests of members of the media covering the demonstrations. On Monday, citing the events of the past week, we at the Knight First Amendment Institutecalledon public officials at all levels to reaffirm their commitment to these freedoms of speech and the press, and to take responsibility for safeguarding and promoting those freedoms. History will judge the president harshly, we wrote, but it will also judge every elected and law enforcement official around the country for the actions they takeor refuse to takeat this critical moment.

But the right tofree expression was being tested even before the police killing of George Floyd. The pandemic exposed not only serious weaknesses in the country'spublic health and social welfare systems, but it also revealed deep problems in thelaws and norms that shapethe public'scapacity to gather and access information, distinguish facts, think creatively, participate in debates and collective decision making, evaluate resultsand navigate novel questions surrounding data collection and sharing, surveillanceand privacy.

Over the last few months, the Knight Institute has challenged rules that restrict public health officials from speaking out, in their private capacities, about the pandemic and the governments response to it. We have called attention to the implications of some contact-tracing proposals for privacy and freedom of association, and we have explored proposals that would give the public greater access to public health data in private hands.

The dangerous assaults on First Amendment freedoms that we are seeing in the street need to end immediately. But once the countrypulls back from the precipice, all of us who are committed to a First Amendment that serves democracy will still have a great deal of work to do.

Read more:
Protest, the Press and the First Amendment Imperiled | Columbia News - Columbia University

The FBI respects the rights of individuals to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights. Our mission of protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution is dual and simultaneous, not contradictory.

Accordingly, we are committed to apprehending and charging violent instigators who are exploiting legitimate, peaceful protests and engaging in violations of federal law. The continued violence, potential threat to life, and destruction of property across the United States interferes with the rights and safety of First Amendment-protected peaceful demonstrators, as well as all other citizens.

To help us identify actors who are actively instigating violence in the wake of Mr. George Floyds death, the FBI is accepting tips and digital media depicting violent encounters surrounding the civil unrest that is happening throughout the country.

If you witness or have witnessed unlawful violent actions, we urge you to submit any information, photos, or videos that could be relevant to the case at fbi.gov/violence.

You may also call 1-800-CALL-FBI (800-225-5324) to verbally report tips and/or information related to this investigation.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the article here:
Seeking information on individuals inciting violence during First Amendment-protected peaceful demonstrations | News, Sports, Jobs - Daily Mining...

WASHINGTON D.C. (KSNW) The FBI issued a release Monday stating they respect the rights of individuals to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights, and that their mission of protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution is dual and simultaneous, not contradictory.Accordingly, the FBI said they are committed to apprehending and charging violent instigators who are exploiting legitimate, peaceful protests and engaging in violations of federal law. The continued violence, potential threat to life, and destruction of property across the United States interferes with the rights and safety of First Amendment-protected peaceful demonstrators, as well as all other citizens.To help the FBI identify actors who are actively instigating violence in the wake of Mr. George Floyds death, they are accepting tips and digital media depicting violent encounters surrounding the civil unrest that is happening throughout the country.

The FBI is urging anyone who witnesses or has witnessed unlawful violent actions to submit any information, photos, or videos that could be relevant to the case atfbi.gov/violence. Information may also be submitted by calling 1-800-CALL-FBI (800-225-5324) and verbally reporting tips and/or information related to this investigation.

LATEST STORIES:

Excerpt from:
FBI seeking information on individuals inciting violence during First Amendment-protected peaceful demonstrations - KSN-TV