Mediaboss Marketing

First Amendment Day, which will be celebrated at Iowa State on Thursday, is a time to appreciate some of the freedoms that Americans possess every day.

The First Amendment is one of the founding principles of the United States. It provides five essential freedoms: religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. College campuses provide settings where these freedoms, especially freedom of speech, can be exercised.

[Iowa State University] is a governmental agency, so we have to act within the bounds of both the federal and Iowa Constitution, meaning we arent allowed to put in place restrictions that would violate the First Amendment, said Michael Norton, Iowa States legal adviser who oversees the universitys counsel office.

Iowa States Facilities and Grounds Use policy states that ISU embraces the sharing of knowledge and ideas through public discourse and free speech.

And even though what someone says might be rude, disgusting or upsetting, it can still be said legally, according to the Constitution.

Hate speech is absolutely protected by the First Amendment, said Ken Paulson, dean of the College of Media and Entertainment at Middle Tennessee State University and president of the First Amendment Center.

Free speech is not entirely inclusive, however.

Over the years, the U.S. courts have found that obscene speech, speech that incites action to harm others, speech that promotes illegal drug use at school events and articles in student newspapers objecting the school administration are not allowed.

Iowa State has run into its own issues regarding free speech.

There have been two separate incidents at the university where posters were found on campus, each featuring messages that could be interpreted as hateful, yet that alone did not cause them to violate free-speech rules.

The content of the posters, while repugnant and personally reprehensible, are clearly protected speech, so if [the university] were to act on that speech based on content, that would violate First Amendment rights, Norton said.

The university does, however, have some right to place policies restricting the time, place and manner of any speech that happens on campus, Norton said.

[Iowa State] is allowed to restrict speech that interferes with the regular responsibilities of the university, not based on the content alone, such as speaking with a bullhorn outside of a classroom, Norton said. There are no restrictions on what you can say. It's only where, when and how you say it."

Natasha Oren, multicultural liaison officer for the Iowa State Police Department, said hate speech can still have real consequences.

In Iowa, you cannot threaten violence toward another legally, or you could be charged criminally, Orensaid.

Orenadded that harassment is illegal as well.

If what youre saying causes fear for someone else, and they believe you can carry out what youre saying, that isnt allowed, Oren said.

While what one says may be free speech, if what they're saying is considered assault, harassment or a discriminatory threat toward someone else, they could face criminal charges.

The Iowa State Police Department strives to help and protect people, Oren said, and even if something is said that is legally free speech, the department will try to make any party feel safe if need be.

Freedom of speech continues to play an integral role on campuses, and during the 2016 presidential election cycle, posters and messages could be spotted all across Iowa State.

Free speech needs to be protected above all else, Paulson said. Schools often need to act as an epicenter of free thought and expression. With the polarization of the country right now, it takes more and more effort to find the truth, because anyone can say what they believe."

One problem that surfaced during the last election cycle was fake news, which is an issue students must sift through to determine what is correct in the media.

Fake news is completely protected by free speech, but consumers of news have to think for themselves, Paulson said. I believe fake news is a product of intellectual laziness.

At Iowa State and other colleges, Paulson urges students to read the news and understand for themselves what is going on.

We cant have news portrayed through memes," Paulson said. "You have to put in effort and consume real news sources. It worries me when people say their main news source is social media."

Free speech extends to social media and internet platforms the same way it does anywhere else.

Iowa State doesnt constantly monitor social media use by students and staff, but it is still responsible for keeping an eye on any harm that may arise from what someone says online.

If free speech crosses lines that make it harassment or discrimination and social media is used as the tool for that harmful speech, [Iowa State] would investigate and respond if appropriate, Norton said.

Norton said police have a bigger role in monitoring any harmful speech that may happen online, and they report it to the proper offices for handling of the situation.

Oren said the main goal of the police, and certain policy restrictions by the university such as the time, place and manner rules, are ultimately in place to protect students.

There is a reason free speech is protected, and speaking out against anothers speech is the best way to disagree with it, but speech, both with criminal and civil repercussions, can affect the campus climate negatively, which isnt good for the community, Oren said.

The goal of the university, Norton said, is never to restrict speech, especially not to restrict speech based on the content of what is said.

We have to be able to run the school in a way that allows people to achieve their educational goals as well, Norton said.

View post:
Understanding the First Amendment and its role on campus | Politics ... - Iowa State Daily

Andrew Anglin Wiki Commons

ID: 10918809

The right to free speech protected under the U.S. Constitution gives Americans broad allowances to say extremely bigoted, mean-spirited and disgusting things online about other people. Perhaps nobody understood just how broad hose allowances were than leading neo-Nazi blogger Andrew Anglin who refers to Jewish people on his site as kikes, black people as niggers, gay people or those he perceives as gay as faggots, and has a whole section called The Jewish Problem.

Last last year, the self-proclaimed white supremacist decided to take his hateful rhetoric a step further. On December 16, Anglin authored a post on the Daily Stormer goading his readers to engage in a troll storm. The target: a Jewish realtor in Montana named Tanya Gersh, who Anglin was convinced was extorting Sherry Spencer, the mother of leading white supremacist Richard Spencer.

In the post, titled Jews Targeting Richard Spencers Mother for Harassment and Extortion TAKE ACTION!, Anglin writes, Lets Hit Em Up. Are yall ready for an old fashioned Troll Storm? Because AYO - its time, fam. The post contains a substantial amount of contact information for Gersh who he calls a whore her husband, and one of her sons, a 12-year-old who Anglin calls a scamming kike and creepy little faggot.

Anglin asks his readers to contact the Gershes and make your opinions known. He asks them to call them, email them, tweet them, or if youre in the area, maybe you should stop by and tell her in person what you think of her actions. He explicitly writes that no one should do anything violent, but adds, It is very important that we make them feel the kind of pressure they are making us feel.

And hit em up his followers did, which legal experts said could land Anglin in trouble in court.

In a lawsuit filed this week, Gersh alleges more than 700 instances of harassment directed at her and her family in connection with the troll storm orchestrated by Anglin. These include emails to her reading, Ratfaced criminals who play with fire tend to get thrown in the oven, and This is the goylash. You remember the last goylash, dont you Tanya? Merry Christmas, you Christ killing Jew, and one that simply reads Death to Tanya repeated in the message about 100 times.

In the months after Anglins call for harassment, Gersh also received phone calls at home. According to complaint, when she picked up one caller said, You should have died in the Holocaust with the rest of your people. Another call consisted only of the sounds of guns being fired.

And how did Daily Stormer readers respond to Anglins call to target her son? One person tweeted at him, psst kid, theres a free Xbox One inside the oven and included a photo of an oven.

On a call with reporters on Tuesday, Gersh said that the threats have caused her to gain weight, her hair to fall out, and said shes had to quit her job. At one point during the troll storm campaign, she said she came home to a dark house, her husband waiting inside with the bags packed. We really thought we had to run for safety in the middle of the night, Gersh said.

Since the first post on December 16, according to the lawsuit, he has published 30 posts calling for actions against Gersh. This was really terrorism, Gersh said Tuesday. We didnt get teased, we got terrorized.

According to court records, Anglin has not responded yet to the lawsuit. One of Gershs attorneys, Richard Cohen, the legal director at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told BuzzFeed News on Wednesday that they havent served Anglin with the suit yet. Anglin is a resident of Ohio, but reportedly could be residing in the Philippines or somewhere in Europe.

When he does respond, legal experts expect Anglin will raise some sort of First Amendment defense. However, in order to win in court, he will have to prove to a jury that the speech he engaged in was not intended to cause harm.

Speech that a reasonable person would construe as harm, thats not protected. In our system, you can hold discriminatory views, you cant act on them, David Schulz, a partner at Levine, Sullivan, Koch, Schulz, who has 35 years of First Amendment litigation experience.

If [Anglin] can say, Im just expressing an opinion and try to pull this into the sphere of free speech, it gets back to what a reasonable person would understand as protected speech Schulz says.

To prove that he was just expressing his opinion, Anglin might argue that he was merely republishing Sherry Spencers Medium blog post in which she accuses Gersh of attempting to extort her as part of a real estate deal to sell off a piece of property in Whitefish, Montana.

In November 2016, according to the lawsuit, Gersh reached out to Sherry Spencer about a planned protest outside a building that Spencer owns in downtown Whitefish. Gersh claims that she informed Sherry Spencer about the demonstrations, which were being planned in response to a viral video of her son, Richard, leading a Hail Trump! chant, and offered to help Spencer sell the building. According to the lawsuit, Gersh and Sherry Spencer began to discuss working together to sell the property. But then a month later, Sherry Spencer apparently had a change of heart, and published the Medium post accusing Gersh of extortion.

Montana Law School Professor Eduardo Capulong points out that if Anglin could prove that he was merely commenting on this purported feud between the Spencers and Gersh, he would be protected. But using it as basis to attack without verifying is reckless, he added.

Its one thing, if Anglin said: Oh, look at this blog post, and fuck them. Thats arguably protected by free speech, Capulong said. But then, you go beyond that and say: target this family.

Asked if Anglins calls for his readers not to be violent would protect him, Capulong said, I dont think so. Given everything that he was doing, and invoking Nazi ideology, images, I think any reasonable person would see that as a call to violence.

In this case, Anglin is accused of four charges invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, malice, and violation of Montanas Anti-Intimidation Act. All four carry the possibility of damages that Anglin may have to pay to Gersh if the case goes in her favor.

But in order to obtain punitive damages meant to punish Anglin in a substantial way that deters others Gersh will have to prove malice, which has a higher standard in court. However, Capulong believes that Gersh has a good case for malice. I was shocked to see those emails. Thats really malicious I think, he said.

Gershs attorneys have called for at least $75,000 in damages for each count the minimum amount necessary to file the case in federal court.

Cohen says that they have no idea how much money Anglin has which could factor into the judge or jurys final decision on how much he would have to pay out. However, if he loses and regardless of the award amount the law dictates two key things. One, Anglin will not be able to seek bankruptcy against a judgment against him. And two, a judge can enforce a judgment for 20 years essentially going after future money he makes off the Daily Stormer.

Well follow him wherever he goes, Cohen said.

Read the original post:
The First Amendment Gave This Neo-Nazi The Right To Be Vile But Then He Went Too Far - BuzzFeed News

The 15th annual First Amendment Dayswill take place Wednesday through Friday to celebrate what is arguably the most revered amendment enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.

The First Amendment guarantees five natural rights to the American citizen. It protects freedom of speech and expression, keeps the government from establishing religion and likewiseprotects the free practice of one's religious beliefs. It ensures a free and openpress, thefreedom of association and freedom to petition the government.

Each right is regarded as an integral part of a free Americansociety.

These rights are not onlyestablishedin law,forbidding government infringement, but arealso an ideal to strive toward in widersociety.First Amendment Days celebrate those rights and freedoms.

Events will begin Wednesday with "Depth and Dialog Sessions." Discussion topics will range from "Free Speech vs. Hate Speech," "Free Speech considerations for Faculty and Staff," "Diversity and Inclusion and the First Amendment" and "Think Like a Journalist."

The day will close with "Freedom Sings!" celebrating provocative music.

Festivities will continue Thursday with the "Democalypse March" and "Feast on the First."

Closing the night, keynote speaker Glenn Smith will speak on the importance of individual journalists and news outletsexposing falsehoods, speaking the truth and giving a voice to those who would otherwise wouldn't have one in a time when news is hard to trust and many feel unrepresented.

First Amendment Days 2017 will close with the First Amendment Teaching Workshop seminar on Friday, where faculty and staff ofuniversitiesand high schools will be shown new ways to better teach their students about the value and importance of the First Amendment.

Read more:
First Amendment Day arrives at Iowa State | News | iowastatedaily.com - Iowa State Daily

It is Easter Sunday, and I cannot sit here on this most holy of Christian holidays without talking about the separation of church and state. More specifically, the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer and actions taken by our governor in an attempt to sway the court in favor of Trinity Lutheran.

For those of you unfamiliar with the case, here is the short summary: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has a program that provides chopped-up used tire rubber to non-profits to help make playgrounds safer for the kids through a grant process. In 2012 Trinity Lutheran Church preschool made application for such a grant, and though "qualified," were denied based on Missouri constitutional law.

"That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship."

Trinity Lutheran is suing on First Amendment grounds. The guiding principle of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause has been made clear in case law and in the writings of those who helped draft the First Amendment to our Constitution that every person has the right to worship the way they feel is correct and the state will not interfere or support any established religion.

According to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, "While the preschool has an open admissions policy, it functions as a self-described 'ministry of Trinity Lutheran Church.'" The DNR believed that because Trinity Lutheran is a religious institution and they expound religious teachings as part of the daily instruction at the preschool, allowing the grant would be in violation of Article 1,Section 7.

Trinity Lutheran's position was that the position taken by the DNR is in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution more specifically, the Establishment Clause. They enlisted the Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious right-wing legal counsel, to represent them in this case.

The alliance claims that 14 other Missouri 501(c)(3) non-profits were awarded the grant for their playgrounds and that Trinity Lutheran, also a 501(c)(3) non-profit institution and otherwise qualified for the grant, was unfairly excluded from the program.

The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, Jeffrey Mittman,said of the case: "Its about settled constitutional law that protects individuals rights to practice their religion from government interference and ensures that tax payers are not forced to support any specific religion or religion over non religion."

Two federal courts have already ruled against the church. This week the case will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, including the newly confirmed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. It will be his first test as a justice to see if he will follow longstanding precedent established by the court or arrive at some other position.

We know that he sided with the religious institutions in two other high profile cases: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell.

Here's the rub. Last week, Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens issued a directive that allowed "religious organizations to apply for state Department of Natural Resources grants," and in turn the DNR is to consider such applications without prejudice. This appears to be an attempt to circumvent the state's long-established constitutional position and the First Amendment. In other words, it's an attempt to influence the court in its deliberations.

Former Missouri Supreme Court Justice Mike Wolff believes it does. He told St. Louis Public Radio that because of Greitens' directive, the court may have nothing to decide, seeing that the position of the state has been reversed.

Nothing can be further from the truth. The governor cannot change the state Constitution simply with a wave of his pen.

This is not a question of anti-Christian sentiment. I am sure that the DNR would have come to the same conclusion if the application came from a Muslim or Jewish preschool that includes the teaching of religious principles as part of the curriculum.

This is a question of state constitutional law concerning an amendment that is clear and direct: There is to be no action by the state to financially support a religious institution.

Original post:
DAVID ROSMAN: Supreme Court must uphold the First Amendment - Columbia Missourian

A bad review on Yelp is an anathema to a business. No one wants to get trashed online. But the First Amendment protects both the reviewers opinion and Yelps right to publish it. A California appeals court ran roughshod over the First Amendment when it ordered Yelp to comply with an injunction to take down speech without giving the website any opportunity to challenge the injunctions factual basis. The case is on appeal to the California Supreme Court, and EFF filed an amicus brief asking the court to overturn the lower courts dangerous holding.

The case, Hassell v. Bird, is procedurally complicated. A lawyer, Dawn Hassell, sued a former client, Ava Bird, for defamation in California state court over a negative Yelp review. Bird never responded to the lawsuit, so the trial court entered a default judgment against her. The courtat Hassells requestnot only ordered Bird to remove her own reviews, but also ordered Yelp to remove themeven though Yelp was never named as a party to the suit. (If this kind of abuse of a default judgment sounds familiar, thats not a coincidence; it seems to be increasingly commonand its a real threat to online speech.)

Yelp challenged the order, asserting that Hassell failed to prove that the post at issue was actually defamatory, that Yelp could not be held liable for the speech pursuant to the Communication Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. 230 (Section 230), and that Yelp could not be compelled to take down the post as a non-party to the suit. The trial court rejected Yelps arguments and refused to recognize Yelps free speech rights as a content provider. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial courts decision, holding that Yelp could be forced to remove the supposedly defamatory speech from its website without any opportunity to argue that the reviews were accurate or otherwise constitutionally protected.

This decision is frankly just wrongand for multiple reasons. Neither court seemed to understand that the First Amendment protects not only authors and speakers, but also those who publish or distribute their words. Both courts completely precluded Yelp, a publisher of online content, from challenging whether the speech it was being ordered to take down was defamatoryi.e., whether the injunction to take down the speech could be justified. And the court of appeals ignored its special obligation, pursuant to California law, to conduct an independent examination of the record in First Amendment cases.

Both courts also seemed to completely ignore the U.S. Supreme Courts clear holding that issuing an injunction against a non-party is a constitutionally-prohibited violation of due process.

EFFalong with the ACLU of Northern California and the Public Participation Projecturged the California Supreme Court to accept the case for review back in August 2016. The court agreed to review the case in September, and we just joined an amicus brief urging the court to overrule the problematic holding below.

Our briefdrafted by Jeremy Rosen of Horvitz & Levy and joined by a host of other organizations dedicated to free speechexplains to the California Supreme Court that the First Amendment places a very high bar on speech-restricting injunctions. A default judgment simply cannot provide a sufficient factual basis for meeting that bar, and the injunction issued against Yelp in this case was improper. We also explained that the injunction violated clear Supreme Court case law and Yelps due process rights, and that the injunction violates Section 230, which prohibits courts from holding websites liable for the speech of third parties.

As Santa Clara University law school professor Eric Goldman noted in a blog post about the case, the appeals courts decision opens up a host of opportunities for misuse and threatens to rip a hole in Section 230s protections for online speechprotections that already seem to be weakening. If not overturned, as the already pervasive misuse of default judgments teaches, this case will surely lead to similar injunctions that infringe on publishers free speech rights without giving them any notice or opportunity to be heard. The California Supreme Court cannot allow this.

See the original post here:
EFF to California Supreme Court: Website Owners Have a First Amendment Right to Defend Content on Their Platform - EFF