Mediaboss Marketing

Neither in the plain wording of the First Amendment nor in numerous court decisions reaffirming and elaborating on it is there any license for violence or inciting it. Yet some of those who use free speech as a shield clearly are bent on doing harm to others.

A small group of bigots was successful in doing just that on Saturday in Charlottesville, Va. Ostensibly, they went to the college town, home of the University of Virginia, to protest plans by the city to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from a municipal park.

But the appearance of many of them made it clear they were primed for a fight. In addition to Ku Klux Klan robes, there were helmets, body armor and clubs.

Let it be noted the same equipment could be seen on and in the hands of some counter-protesters.

Fighting broke out quickly. Then, according to police, a man from Ohio drove his car into a crowd, killing one woman and injuring 19 other people.

Adding to the days tragedy, two Virginia State Police officers died when the helicopter they were using to monitor the demonstration crashed.

No doubt investigations of the tragedy will focus on the assault by car. But a more wide-ranging probe also is needed to learn just what happened in the wider riot, and why police were unable to prevent it.

One reason is clear: Law enforcement authorities bend over backward to avoid infringing upon First Amendment rights. Wearing combat equipment and carrying weapons such as clubs is not viewed as a legitimate reason to make an arrest or halt a demonstration. Neither is fiery rhetoric, as long as it does not cross the line to openly exhorting people to commit acts of violence.

As many demonstrations have shown, however, the line between whipping up a crowds emotions and saying things that make some of its members attack can be a very, very fine one.

Knowing exactly what happened in Charlottesville is important so police and other government authorities can learn whether the riot could have been prevented.

It is possible it could not have been forestalled without banning the protest entirely and that clearly would have been an infringement upon First Amendment rights.

So, how to prevent similar violence in other places and over other disagreements? It may not be possible. Again, remember that those who organize demonstrations usually stay within First Amendment limits and almost never begin the violence themselves. It is those in the crowds who are the danger.

It is important that what happened be studied carefully and objectively to learn whether the authorities could have done something differently to prevent the violence.

But it may well have been impossible for them to do that. Once that fine line was crossed, infuriating people on both sides, fighting may have been inevitable. Too often, we tend to blame the police for failing to contain violence. Realizing that is unrealistic may be unpleasant, but it is knowledge that could be useful in avoiding violence at similar confrontations in the future and, rest assured, such showdowns will occur.

President Donald Trump is right to be concerned about what is happening in Venezuela. He is wrong to consider use ...

If you have been waiting to nominate a friend or neighbor to be honored as a 2017 Community Star, here's a reminder ...

Cities that refuse to help the federal government enforce the laws, including those on illegal immigration, should ...

Former President Barack Obamas scuttling of the all-of-the-above energy policy our nation needs included a move ...

Homemade peach treats, but with some other savory fare thrown in, will be on the menu for Saturdays 54th-annual ...

It is a summer tradition for Weirton. The Marland Heights 5K Classic is both a competitive race and a community ...

Read the original post:
Crossing the fine line of the First Amendment - The Daily Times

SOUTHERN INDIANA With the recent events in Charlottesville, many Americans are asking themselves: Does the first amendment protect all forms of speech?

According to Ted Walton, lawyer and partner at Clay Daniel Walton Adams, a law firm in Louisville, the First Amendment protections for the freedom of speech are wide and do include speech that is distasteful, offensive and hateful.

There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment and in fact thats been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court very recently in an interesting case, Walton said.

That case, which was heard by the court earlier just this year, was Matal, Interim Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office vs. Tam, in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an Asian-American band The Slants was legally allowed to trademark its name despite its potentially offensive nature.

This Supreme Court has really championed First Amendment rights and youve seen that with things like the campaign finance rulings that theyve passed," said Rhonda Wrzenski, associate professor of political science at Indiana University Southeast. "Theres been other rulings too where theyve allowed groups that werent necessarily popular to have more speech rights. So typically they make exceptions to the speech rights, theyve banned obscenities, defamations, inciting violence. Basically, threats.

Walton explained that, legally speaking, the First Amendment doesnt protect verbal acts

If you are using words in such a way that its directed at a particular person and meant to incite someone and beat somebody up, that can be a criminal act, Walton said.

Yelling Fire! in a crowded theater is a verbal act and intentionally creates a hazardous situation and is not protected by the First Amendment, according to Walton

Thats the dichotomy," Walton said. "You have folks that are standing up and saying they hate these groups [of people]. Its going to be protected speech. But if people are saying lets go drive a car into this group and somebody drives a car into that group, that person is not going to have First Amendment protection."

Originally posted here:
FIRST AMENDMENT: How far does it go? - Evening News and Tribune

Although your less-than-friendly neighborhood alt-righter might want to pervert it into a license to say any bigoted thing they want, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America simply ensures the peoples right to express themselves without fear of government reprisal. So while KekiBro69 or whomever might think that people telling him hes a piece of shit for parroting Nazi slogans have violated his free speech, the fact of the matter is that, as long as the government doesnt get involved, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Twitter can kick him off its service, Google can deny his domain registration, a private university can decline to book him as a speaker, or a private company can fire him for violating their code of ethics, assuming said employer isnt violating contract law or the Civil Rights Act in the process.

So were clear on that? Yes? Okay, good. Because heres an example of the federal government actually attempting to interfere not only with the peoples right to free expression, but their right to peaceful assembly, as well as the Fourth Amendments ban on unlawful search and seizure. As reported by New York Magazine, this week web hosting service DreamHost revealed that it had received a search warrant from the Department of Justice requesting IP addresses and other potentially identifying metadata on visitors to DisruptJ20.org, which was used to organize protests against the inauguration of Donald Trump. The requested data includes information on dates and times the site was accessed, in addition to contact information, email content, and photos of thousands of people, according to DreamHost. The request, which applies to anyone who visited the site this past Januaryright when planning for the protest was at its heightwould affect more than 1.3 million people. What the DOJ wants with this information is unclear, but whatever it is, it probably isnt to mail protesters $20 bills.

DreamHost refused the request, and is scheduled to appear in court in Washington, D.C. this coming Friday, August 18. Thats according to the pro-online privacy organization Electronic Frontier Foundation, which calls the DOJs search warrant an unconstitutional action of staggering overbreadth. In the face of such a shameless attempt to violate a bedrock American right, were sure all our free-speech loving friends with whom we spend so much quality time in Facebook comment threads and Twitter mentions will rally together to defend this value that they clearlyand loudlyhold so dear. Right?

Submit your Newswire tips here.

See the rest here:
Today in actual First Amendment violations: DOJ issues warrant for info on protesters - A.V. Club

The ugly and tragic events in Charlottesville, Va., which resulted in the death of one 32-year-old woman who was hit by a car, have sparked rallies across the country and the firing of at least one white nationalist marcher.

Trending hashtags on Twitter #nazihunter and #goodnightaltright and accounts like @yesyoureracist are calling on the public to identify people who attended the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville so they can be brought to justice. At least one alt-right marcher has already been fired by his company for reportedly attending the march; he worked as a cook for the Berkeley, Calif., hot dog chain Top Dog. I think its really important as a statement to show thats not tolerated, one customer told NBC Bay Area.

Experts say employers like Top Dog, who dont agree with views their employees express, have every right to fire those employees without any notice. The white nationalist marchers in Charlottesville chanted anti-semitic and racist slogans such as Jew will not replace us and blood and soil, a phrase used by Nazis, as they carried tiki torches and weapons, as they made their way onto the University of Virginias campus. They were opposing the removal of a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee.

Employees are legally protected from being fired based on discrimination, for their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from interfering in the free exercise of speech and religion, does not protect employees who make statements or donations in favor of causes their employers disagree with from being fired, said Mark Tushnet, a professor of law at Harvard Law School.

But perhaps more surprising: Companies also have the right to terminate those who clashed with the white supremacist marchers. Attending a rally no matter what side youre on can get you fired. Private-sector employees are generally employed at the will of the employer, Tushnet said, and their employers can fire them as they see fit. That includes disagreement with what they say in public, he said. (One big caveat: The employer could open itself up to lawsuits if it fires someone in what turns out to be a case of mistaken identity.)

Who is at risk of getting fired all depends on the company. Journalists were warned not to attend the womens march in Washington, D.C. following Trumps inauguration. The editor of The Atlantic, for example, told employees they couldnt do anything that might be perceived as political, except vote. In 2011, two NPR journalists were fired for participating in Occupy Wall Street protests. But if you work for the American Civil Liberties Union? Taking time out to march for a social cause may even burnish your credentials.

Talking about sensitive politics at work, posting on social media, or making donations to a political cause can also be grounds for firing, said Paula Brantner, senior adviser at Workplace Fairness, an employment law nonprofit. Employees sometimes mistakenly think giving a donation to a candidate is private, but its public record, and can cost you your job if an employer says I dont want someone who supports this candidate working with me, she said.

There are exceptions to this rule. Some states including New York, California and the district Washington, D.C., have specific laws that protect employees from being disciplined for their political activities outside of work, said Merrick Rossein, a professor of law and former acting dean of CUNY Law School in New York, but even in those states, employers could argue that employees views or actions make them unable to do their job well.

And many employees dont even have to attend a rally to be terminated. The author of the now infamous Google memo about diversity was dismissed from his job for saying women are inherently unsuited for jobs in tech, in part because theyre prone to being neurotic. The employer is also perfectly fine to say we dont want people who have those opinions working for our company, Brantner said. The employee in question, software engineer James Damore, is reportedly exploring legal action against Google.

Im not going to be the one to tell people not to participate in rallies or support a candidate, Brantner added, but I want people to be aware there are potential consequences.

More:
Why the First Amendment won't protect Charlottesville white supremacists from being fired - MarketWatch

This article is part of a series on the Constitution of the United States of America Preamble and Articles of the Constitution

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and right to petition.

The Establishment Clause does not allow the government to support one religion more than any other religion. The government also can not say that a religion or a god is true. This is often described as "separation of church and state", where "state" means "the government". It also does not allow the government to establish a national religion. It allows people to debate religion freely without the federal government of the United States getting involved. The clause did not stop the various states from supporting a particular religion, and several states did.

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.

See the article here:
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Simple ...