Mediaboss Marketing

Is atheism protected under the First Amendment?

Yes. The First Amendment prohibits the government from punishing citizens for professing and exercising their religious beliefsincluding a lack of religious belief. So how are atheists, who by definition do not have religious beliefs or exercise a religion, protected by the First Amendment?

First, atheists are protected by the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing a government-sponsored house of worship or showing preference to one or all religions by passing laws to favor religion, or by forcing citizens to profess belief in religion or attend religious services.1This protects atheists from being forced to participate in government-sponsored religion and from government reprisal if atheists did not participate.

Second, the Supreme Court has held the Free Exercise Clause to mean that government may not express a preference for religion over irreligion.2In 2005, Justice OConnor, concurring with the majoritys conclusions in McCreary County v. ACLU, was more explicit:

The Religion Clauses . . . protect adherents of all religions, as well as those who believe in no religion at all.3

The statements in McCreary County were not the first time the Supreme Court had noted the First Amendments protections extend to atheists. In 1961, the Court referred to Secular Humanism as a form of atheism that is nonetheless protected by the First Amendment.4In yet another decision, the Court unambiguously concluded that the First Amendment requires equal respect for the conscience of the infidel [and] the atheist as it does to those who profess belief in God.5

Atheism is not a religion, but it does take[] a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics.6For that reason, it qualifies as a religion for the purpose of First Amendment protection, despite the fact that in common usage atheism would be considered the absence, rejection, or opposite of religion. Put another way, discrimination on the basis of religious belief extends to all beliefs about religion.

The reach of courts characterization of atheism as a religion, or religion-like, is unclear. For instance, would atheists be able to utilize the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to seek exemption from generally applicable laws, as Hobby Lobby was able to do in the crushing Supreme Court decision Burwell v. Hobby Lobby?7At this time, the only court to have addressed this question is the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.8A group of atheists and secular humanists alleged the inclusion of In God We Trust on U.S. currency violated RFRA by requiring them to bear a statement that violated the central tenets of their beliefs.9The Second Circuit affirmed a lower courts dismissal of the case, finding that the appellants system of beliefs is not substantially burdened by the placement of the motto on currency.10

Though the Second Circuit ruled against the atheists RFRA claim, it is notable that the court was willing to entertain the challenge at all. Neither the Second Circuit nor the lower court which first dismissed the case questioned the ability of atheists to make a claim under RFRA.11If this posture is followed by other courts, it would appear that atheism/secularism may be treated as the equivalent of religion in most legal disputes.

1Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947). 2McCreary Cnty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 875 (2005). 3McCreary Cnty. v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 884 (2005). 4Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n.11 (1961). 5Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52-53 (1985). 6Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678, 682 (2005). 7Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014). 8Newdow v. Peterson, 753 F.3d 105 (2nd Cir. 2014). 9Newdow v. Peterson, 753 F.3d 105 (2nd Cir. 2014). 10Newdow v. Peterson, 753 F.3d 105 (2nd Cir. 2014). 11Newdow v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128367 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2013).

Read the rest here:
First Amendment | American Atheists

The television industry has always wrapped itself in the First Amendment to protect its right to entertain and report the news. But networks are also increasingly usingthe Constitution to argue that it can hire whomever they want.

When ABCs The Bachelor wrapped its twenty-first season this week, it also wrapped a long, much-criticized practice of not letting an African-American star in thefranchise: An African-American woman, Rachel Lindsay, will be front and center when the spin-off The Bachelorette airs in May. But that casting comes after a legal fight that is just one clash between the First Amendment and laws aimed at preventing race, age and genderdiscrimination in the workplace.

The latest lawsuit brought into question whether local newscasts have a right to hire attractive, young, female weather reporters instead of olderweathermen. No, seriously.

Also Read: Lawyer Posts Free Porn Online, Blackmails Viewers for $6 Million

Wherever you live, you may have noticed that your local weather reporter has become younger and better-looking, as ratings-hungry news shows have gone from onecliche the wacky weatherman to another:the youthful, pretty weather woman. (Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia has made fun of this phenomenonwith thecharacter of model-beautiful weather woman Jacki Denardo.)

Theres nothing funny about the trend to middle-aged Los Angeles weather forecaster Kyle Hunter, who last year accused Los Angeles CBS stations KCAL and KCBS of passing him over for weatherforecasters Evelyn Taft and Jackie Johnson young women his lawsuit described as cut from the same blond, attractive, buxom mold.

Hunter said he wanted to follow in the mold of now-retired KCBS weatherman Johnny Mountain, but was told by KCALs station manager that KCAL catered to maleviewers and Hunter wouldnt be the type [that] men would want to look at.

Also Read: Too Many Liberal Profs? Lawmakers Want Equal Split of Democratic and Republican Professors

CBS retorted that it had a First Amendment right to hire whomever it wanted, because the Constitution protects its right to choose the content of the news and how thenews is delivered.Besides, the network said, it was allowed to hire weather anchors who were local celebrities to boost ratings.

But Hunters case wont decide the question of whether networks have a Constitutional right to hire weather reporters in the blond, attractive, buxom mold because theCalifornia Court of Appeal dismissed Hunters discrimination case last year based on a separate argument from CBS.

Last year, the court agreed with the networks contentionthat itemployed other middle-aged male weather anchors, not just young women leaving open the question of whether CBS would have had a legal right to hire only young, attractive women.

Also Read: Middlebury Professor Speaks Out About Mob That 'Gave Me a Concussion'

Outside of the news and entertainment industry, employers arerarely successful when they argue that they need to hire attractive young women to please their male customers.

Southwest Airlines, Pan American and other airlines were laughed out of court when they tried to make the argument in the1970s and 80s. Southwest argued that it needed to hire only women as flight attendants and ticket agents and dress themin in high boots and hot pants to attract the airlines predominately male Texan passengers. A Texas federal judge shot thatargument down, saying that the primary functions of ticket agents and flight attendants are to book flights, sell tickets,maintain cabin safety, and serve food and drinks and that all of those tasks could be done by men.

Congress gave employers permission to discriminate based on sex but not on race but only when gender is essential to the primary function of the job. Playboy was allowed to hire only female Bunnies, for example, because their dominant function is to sexually entice heterosexual male customers. Hooters has been hit with class-action lawsuits for hiring only Hooters Girls as servers, and settled by agreeing to hire men asbartenders and hosts, but has stuck to its all-women server policy.As the Hooters website says of its idealized Hooters Girl:a waitress she is not.

ABC is no Hooters. But its Bachelor case also forced it to defend its decisions about who to hire. And itwon a resounding courtroom victory when it used the First Amendment to defend itself against a race discrimination lawsuit claiming it intentionally hired only white Bachelors and Bachelorettes.(Age and looks werent an issue in this case, given that everyone involved in the dating franchise is young and almost universally regarded asattractive.)

Nathaniel Claybrooks and Christopher Johnson, two African Americans, sued ABC after being rejected as applicants to be the Bachelor in 2011.They said in theirNashville, Tennessee lawsuit that the complete lack of people of color in the two shows is no accident.

ABC responded by saying that the network shares the mens goals of reducing racial bias and prejudice and fostering diversity, and that it never discriminated based onrace in connection with the casting process for the Bachelor and Bachelorette shows.

But ABC said that the First Amendment gives the network carte blanche to make casting decisions based on race,listing numerous shows where race-based castingdecisions were made and should be allowed to continue under the First Amendment. It cited programs including The Cosby Show and the Shahs of Beverly Hills.

A federal judge in Tennessee agreed with ABC, dismissing the lawsuit in 2012. The judge praised the lawsuit for its laudable goals, but ruled that the First Amendmentprevented Claybrooks and Johnson from forcing ABC to deviate from its all-white casting.

Eventually, diversity won the day as Lindsays casting as the next Bachelorette shows. But the ruling was based on ABCs decision that she would be the bestBachelorette, not a judges order.

ABC has made a bigger commitment to diversity in recent years, as the country evolves and networks increasingly recognize the value of courting non-white viewers.Two of televisions biggest recent hits are ABCs Black-ish and Foxs Empire, both of which have majority African-American casts.

The bottom line? The legal forecast isnt clear when it comes to who networks can hire. But the demographic patterns and business decisions point toward a greatercommitment to on-air diversity.

Never in the history of television has your local weather person been so unlikely to be a weatherman especially an older white man.

As the end of "The Bachelor" Season 21 nears, let's take a look back at the long-running ABC reality show'sinfamous troublemakers. Here is our ranking of both "Bachelor" and "Bachelorette" villains, from bad to worst:

Nick Viall, "The Bachelorette," Season 10, Season 11; "The Bachelor," Season 21

This season's current bachelor didhis time as a bad boy in two past seasons of "The Bachelorette." He isolated himself from all other contestantsand also madea surprise, unwelcomed appearanceon a season in which he wasn't even cast.

Tierra LiCausi, "The Bachelor," Season 17

From several meltdowns to a hospital trip, LiCausi (left) fit the bill of nemesisperfectly, complete with her own evil laughter.

Olivia Caridi, "The Bachelor," Season 20

Olivias mouth, toes and aggression left viewers both cringing and laughing. Her transition from fan favorite to villain was rapid, and her legacy on the internet will remain for years to come. (And if you don't know what we're talking about, look up the nowinfamous meme.)

Chad Johnson, "The Bachelorette," Season 12

Chads obsession with working out and threatening fellow contestants made him a foe to remember. While many disliked him for his brash nature, his insults were wittier than most villains before him.

Corrine Olympios, "The Bachelor," Season 21

In the short span of the last two months, Corinne has established her legacy as one of the most entertaining villains in "Bachelor" history. From her dependence on her nanny Raquel, to napping through several events, fans were both relieved and sad to see her ousted toward the end of the 2017 season.

Kelsey Poe, "The Bachelor," Season 19

Sheused her story of being a widow to garner sympathy and screen time, and openly admitted to manipulating her season'sBachelor with her husbands death. She is also remembered for having a panic attack before a rose ceremony, and then immediately joking about how host Chris Harrison couldnt eliminate her.

Bentley Williams, "The Bachelorette," Season 7

This contestant was dubbed one of Chris Harrisons least favorite suitors of all time. Williams purposely set out to make his Bachelorette cry and faked many of his interactions with her.

Courtney Robertson, "The Bachelor," Season 16

With her own book I Didnt Come Here To Make Friends, Robertson clearly prides herself on achieving supervillain status. Mocking other contestants, lying to the Bachelor and sabotaging dates, Robertson cemented herself as one of the most hated of the entire series.

Juan Pablo Galavis, "The Bachelorette," Season 9; "The Bachelor," Season 18

Between making crude comments to his contestants, to being openly homophobic, Galavis tops this list of ultimate villains from the reality series.

Also Read: The Bachelor': 9 Most Awkward Hometown Dates (Photos)

Here are the baddies who have kept viewers hooked over the years

As the end of "The Bachelor" Season 21 nears, let's take a look back at the long-running ABC reality show'sinfamous troublemakers. Here is our ranking of both "Bachelor" and "Bachelorette" villains, from bad to worst:

Read more from the original source:
Is There a First Amendment Right to Hire 'Buxom' Weather ...

San Francisco The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) will urge an appeals court Wednesday to find that the FBI violates the First Amendment when it unilaterally gags recipients of national security letters (NSLs), and the law should therefore be found unconstitutional. The hearing is set for Wednesday, March 22, at 1:30pm in San Francisco.

EFF represents two communications service providersCREDO Mobile and Cloudflarethat were restrained for years from speaking about the NSLs they received, including even acknowledging that they had received any NSLs. Early Monday, just days before the hearing, the FBI finally conceded that EFF could reveal that these two companies were fighting a total of five NSLs.

CREDO and Cloudflare have fought for years to publicly disclose their roles in battling NSL gag orders. Both companies won the ability to talk about some of the NSLs they had received several months ago, but Mondays decision by the FBI allows them to acknowledge all the NSLs at issue in this case.

On Wednesday, EFF Staff Attorney Andrew Crocker will tell the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that these gags are unconstitutional restrictions on CREDO and Cloudflares free speech and that the FBIs belated decision to lift some of the gags only underscores why judicial oversight is needed in every case. The gag orders barred these companies from participating in discussion and debate about government use of NSLseven as Congress was debating changes to the NSL statute in 2015.

What: In re National Security Letters

Who: EFF Staff Attorney Andrew Crocker

Date: March 22 1:30 pm

Where: Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor Room 307 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse 95 Seventh Street San Francisco, CA 94103

For the FBI notice allowing the companies to identify themselves: https://www.eff.org/document/notice-regarding-public-identification-nsl-recipients

For more on this case: https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters

See the rest here:
Hearing Wednesday: National Security Letters Violate the First Amendment - EFF

This editorial cartoon provided by Jack Ohman of The Sacramento Bee in March 2017 shows his editorial cartoon made for 2017's Sunshine Week. In 2005, the American Society of Newspaper Editors launched the first national Sunshine Week, a celebration of access to public information that has been held every year since to coincide with the March 16 birthday of James Madison, father of the U.S. Constitution and a key advocate of the Bill of Rights.(Photo: Jack Ohman, AP)

Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -William O. Douglas

We couldnt agree more.

On April 13 well share the tools and strategies we use to request public information both in Colorado and from federal agencies. Well open up our reporting processes, including how to obtain documents using the Colorado Open Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act.

Well let you know what you can expect and in what time frame. And well coach you on how to find data that others have already requested.

We believe our government should remain as close to the people as possible. Access tomeeting minutes, agendas, budgets or your school boards growth plan helps to provide accountability. And for you to provide feedback to elected officials about whats important to you.

It is not just the press that should seek to monitor government. You too can work for accountability and transparency, be it in sharing a tip or knowing where to go to find public data.

We are living at a critical time. Our access is being limited, whether its in data disappearing from federal websites or in agencies being curtailed on social media.

First Amendment rights are not given. They are inherent. Learn more about how to exercise them. Join us April 13.

When: April 13. 6:30-8 p.m.

Where: Coloradoan community room

What: As the term alternative facts has entered our lexicon, its important you know what goes on in local and national government. And how to find information that belongs to you.

Tickets: $10, includes beer/soft drink of your choice and snacks. Register here.

Read or Share this story: http://noconow.co/2mIbibz

Here is the original post:
April Brews & News: The First Amendment & You - The Coloradoan

Judge Alex Kozinski, of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, looks on during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday in Washington.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

LateFridayafternoon, when few were paying attention, one of the smartest judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals went out of his way to throw Donald Trump a lifeline. In a surprising and late dissent to the 9th Circuits ruling on Trumps first travel ban, Alex Kozinski argued that it would violate the First Amendment to take Trumps campaign statements evincing anti-Muslim animus seriously (or literally). That claim may help save the administrations new executive order banning travel from six predominantly Muslim countries. Its an argument that just might attract the courts conservatives, including the soon-to-be-confirmed Neil Gorsuch, and lead them to reject constitutional challenges to the new executive order. And that would be a shame, not just for this case, but for all cases raising claims of government bias.

Trump is the rare candidate who speaks his mind, and he told us why he wanted to keep Muslims out of the U.S.

The history here is a bit tortured, but it is important to recount because it shows how unusual Kozinskis actions were in reaching out to offer his opinion on the constitutionality of the second travel executive order.

In January, Trump introduced the first executive order banning travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Washington state, Minnesota, and others brought challenges, arguing that the ban violated the due process rights of certain people who wished to enter the country and that it violated the First Amendments Establishment Clause, as it was based on anti-Muslim bias. Trump lost to Washington state in a federal district court,which issued an order putting the first executive order on hold. A three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit refused to stay the trial courts order. The appeals court agreed unanimously that Trump was likely to lose on the due process argument, and it declined to decide the Establishment Clause claim.

The entire 9th Circuit was in the process of considering whether or not to hear the case when the Trump administration withdrew its appeal in conjunction with withdrawing the first executive order andissuing the second one. A 9th Circuit judge had requested that the entire circuit nonetheless vote on whether to vacate the three-judge panels earlier decision finding a due process violation.Vacating the opinion would erase it as precedent for other courts to rely on. On Wednesday, the entire 9th Circuit voted not to vacate the earlier decision; Judge Jay Bybee and four other conservative judges (including Kozinski) dissented. Bybees main point was that the trial court likely got the due process claim wrong. That order said that more opinions from 9th Circuit judges might follow.

Alsoon Wednesday, a federal district court in Hawaii issued an order holding that the second travel ban could not be enforced because it violated the Establishment Clause. The trial judge recognized that in figuring out whether the government had engaged in religious animus, it could not engage in psychoanalysis of government officials. But the court said the government need not fear the difficultly of uncovering motive, because Trump had made plenty of anti-Muslim statements on the campaign trail and elsewhere. The court wrote: For instance, there is nothing veiled about this press release: Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. A federal court in Maryland soon issued a similar order citing similar statements.

Two days after all this activity, as everyone focused on new cases out of Hawaii and Maryland, Judge Kozinski added a new dissent to the earlier 9th Circuit order, addressed primarily to the Establishment Clause issuethe issue that the first 9th Circuit opinion had declined to address. This was highly unusual, and two other judges wrote that it was inappropriate for Kozinski to do so because the matter was not before the court. In response, Kozinski wrote that his colleagues effort to muzzle criticism of an egregiously wrong panel opinion betrays their insecurity about the opinions legal analysis. He said the Hawaii court relied on the first 9th Circuit order, and that made it fair game for him to weigh in.

In a kind of prebuttal to any eventual appeal of the Hawaii decision, Kozinski argued it was inappropriate for courts deciding Establishment Clause claims to look at the campaign statements of those who would become elected officials and enforce the laws. He claimed reliance on such statements to prove discrimination was folly because they are unreliable: Candidates say many things on the campaign trail; they are often contradictory or inflammatory. No shortage of dark purpose can be found by sifting through the daily promises of a drowning candidate, when in truth the poor shlubs only intention is to get elected.

Kozinski went still further, suggesting such reliance to prove discriminatory motive runs afoul of the First Amendment rights of candidates to engage in political speech. Quoting from the 2014 Supreme Court opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts in McCutcheon v. FEC that struck down some federal campaign contribution limits, Kozinski said the reliance on campaign statements will chill campaign speech, despite the fact that our most basic free speech principles have their fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office. He imagined eager research assistants mining the archives of campaign statements, engaged in a kind of evidentiary snark hunt.

This is just the kind of argument that the Supreme Courts conservatives like. Kozinski, who clerked for Justice Anthony Kennedy many decades ago, knows this argument could resonate with the jurist who wrote the controversial 2010 opinion in Citizens United v. FEC that freed corporate money in candidate elections and extolled the value of free speech. If a case raising these issues gets to the Supreme Court after Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed, it will likely resonate with him, too.Theres every reason to believe he will be in the same First Amendment camp as Kennedy and the other conservatives.

But Kozinskis argument is a bad one on the merits, and it is likely to have negative consequences. Imagine a candidate for local prosecutor who promises to keep black people off juries. Should we not be allowed to consider such statements as proof of racial bias in jury selection out of fear of chilling campaign speech?

Top Comment

So the logic here is essentially, correct me if I'm wrong . . . 1) Trump announced his intention to discriminate against Muslims as a candidate -- but this was only to get elected, he actually loves Muslims. More...

Its difficult to win cases requiring proof of discriminatory intent precisely because politicians are usually circumspect when they have discriminatory views. Trump is the rare candidate who speaks his mind, and he told us why he wanted to keep Muslims out of the U.S.

Candidates tend to keep their promises. If voters can rely on discriminatory statements in deciding who to vote for, so should those who later challenge the discrimination that flows after the season of campaign promises. Candidates who make these statements are not poor shlubs. They are being held to account for what they say.

See more here:
Does the First Amendment Protect Trump's Travel Ban? - Slate Magazine