Mediaboss Marketing

An overview of the goals of reforming the Colorado Open Records Act. Nick Coltrain

Lauren Gustus is Executive Editor of the Coloradoan.(Photo: File photo)

About a year ago, a bill withFort Collins origins failed in the Colorado Legislature.

You might be thinking, well, thats nothing new. This session will see more than 700 bills introduced at the Capitol. A fraction of them will become law.

It's what happened after this specific bills failure that was unusual.

The Secretary of States Office committed to helping reframe the bill for 2017 so it worked better for those who made public records requests and those in receipt of them.

The idea: If a record is available in digital form, it should be given to a requestor in a native format, i.e., some sort of searchable digital format. Today the standard is that it be made available in printed form (and that could be somewhere far from where you live).

The prospect of open records modernization is understandably concerning to government employeesworking in an office that doesnt receive requests often or if your office isnt familiar with excel or other digital formats.

So the Secretary of State created a working group to determine how to create a piece of legislation that updated todays Colorado Open Records Act known as CORA, which hasnt been updated since 1996 without creating potential for unintentional release of data that is not public (such employees Social Security numbers, gender, etc).

I served on the 16-person working group as the representative for the Colorado Press Association, which started to discuss the issue in early summer and wrapped in December.

The result is Senate Bill 40, which will be heard in the Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on Feb. 6. I am headed down to Denver to testify in its support. If it passes out of committee, it will move to the Senate floor.

Some people might wonder if it is my place to speak in support of legislation at a time when we are discussing daily how to best offer balanced coverage for you.

Just as it is our responsibility to fight abuses of power and champion issues for those who do not have a voice, it is also our duty to work for improved transparency.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.

Timely stuff, even if his comments were made 15 years ago.

The update to CORA is a reasonable solution thats worked its way through a monthslong process with stakeholders from across the state and the political divide.

I am impressed by the open-minded approach taken by Colorado legislators on both sides of the aisle, as well as state agencies such as the Secretary of States Office, and how stakeholders with disparate missions brought to a table to make concessions.

With this piece of legislation, Colorado is demonstrating that it can be an exception to todays political rule in Washington, D.C.

This bills sponsors (Sens. John Kefalas and Dan Pabon) compromised. Just as important, they listened. Im hopeful the committee will do the same when it considers the legislation.

The bill would require the custodian of the public records to provide an accurate copy of the public records in a searchable format when requested. If public records are not stored as structured data but are stored in an electronic or digital form and are searchable in their native format, the custodian is required to provide a copy of the public records in a format that is searchable when requested.

Nothing in the bill requires a custodian to produce records in their native format. A searchable format is required.

http://leg.colorado.gov/content/committees

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

Go here to see the original:
Gustus: First Amendment matters; here's what I'm doing - The Coloradoan

Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. questions Attorney General-designate, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 10, 2017, during the committee's confirmation hearing for Sessions. Alex Brandon / AP

Now, Sessions' support of FADA is being called into question. In his list of

Sessions balked at the idea that FADA is "deceptively named," telling Franken: "The purpose of the legislation was to prohibit the federal government from taking discriminatory actions against any person based on their belief or action in accordance with a religious or moral conviction." Other supporters of the bill have similarly stressed the concept of federal government "discrimination," rather than addressing the bill's protection of those who engage in discrimination.

Franken wasn't happy with Sessions' answers to his questions about the bill.

"Contrary to Senator Sessions' response, federal law does not allow the government to discriminate against someone on the basis of a sincerely held religious belief," Franken told NBC News. "The First Amendment Defense Act would legalize discrimination, pure and simple."

Sen. Mike Lee's spokesperson, Conn Carroll, told NBC News that FADA "explicitly does not preempt state law, so it does not enable discrimination anywhere." That was a direct response to questioning about how FADA would apply in the 20-plus U.S. states that currently have laws protecting LGBTQ residents from discrimination. Would FADA only apply in half of the country?

The ACLU's Ian Thompson, a Legislation Representative specializing in LGBTQ policy, told NBC News the bill's text actually states the oppositeand would evenly apply nationwide.

"The notion that national law can only apply to some states boggles the mind. If FADA passed it would apply in every state," Thompson said. "At the very beginning of FADA, you will see that it clearly states 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.' That's essentially saying that it overrides any other law."

Besides, Thompson said, FADA it so sweeping in its reach that it would impact LGBTQ people everywhere, even if state laws did offer protection.

"If you went down to the Social Security office with your partner," Thompson said, "an employee would be empowered to say 'I can't help you because of my religion or morals regarding same-sex couples.' It would allow a federal contractor in NYC to discriminate despite the Obama executive order. It would allow commercial landlords to reject a same-sex couple or an unmarried couple."

Regardless of state-level or even local anti-discrimination ordinances, experts say FADA would apply to any entity that receives federal funding. Franken told NBC News that it would "sanction sweeping discrimination."

"A homeless shelter could turn away a married same-sex couple seeking a safe place to sleep," Franken explained. "A commercial landlord could refuse to rent to a single mom or a pregnant single woman, because the business doesn't believe in sex outside of marriage.This is a dangerous bill."

Ambiguous, confusing language "notwithstanding any other provision of law" and the use of the term "discrimination" is part of what makes the true intent of the First Amendment Defense Act so difficult to untangle. Interpretation of FADA's scope varies wildly, too, between its supporters and its opposition. That could be due to the changing drafts of the bill, which first appeared to allow religious and moral-based discrimination universally, and was later changed to exclude federal contractors, publicly traded companies and hospitals.

But even the version of the bill that excludes hospitals from the right to turn away LGBTQ patients or patients having sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage would allow an individual employee to opt out, according to Sen. Lee's spokesperson.

"Pro-life doctors work at hospitals that provide abortion services all the time, but those hospitals don't force doctors to perform abortions," said Carroll, who told NBC News the newest draft would likely resemble the

The version of FADA that will be reintroduced to Congress this term has yet to be seen, and despite Carroll's assertion that FADA will probably exclude hospitals, the only version that was ever actually introduced to Congress did not mention exclusions at all leaving all businesses and institutions free to claim a moral objection to serving LGBTQ people or unmarried couples.

All versions of FADA so far entrust the Attorney General to press charges against any "independent establishment" that violates the law. That means that if the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) the federal agency tasked with enforcing civil rights protections in the workplace were to try and do its job, for example, Sessions could take the agency to court.

"It says to federal agencies like the EEOC that they can't step in and protect these people," Thompson said.

The legal scope of FADA isn't the only criticism it has faced. Clergy of all stripes, including Baptists, have spoken out against the law. In 2016, a group of clergy in Georgia held a press conference where they said FADA would allow adoption agencies to put bias ahead of children's best interests.

"I find it unacceptable at every level as a pastor, as a citizen, as a Baptist and as a father," said Trey Lyon, a pastor at Atlanta's Park Avenue Baptist Church, according to

Progressive Christians have been fighting similar laws, with one

Follow NBC Out on

Continued here:
First Amendment Defense Act Looms Over Sessions' Confirmation Vote - NBCNews.com

The band 'The Slants' is taking their trademark fight to the Supreme Court. Despite making music for more than a decade, the Portland, Oregon-based band has been unable to get its name registered as a federal trademark. USA TODAY NETWORK

The Slants, of Portland Ore.(Photo: The Slants)

When Simon Tam founded his rock band and named it The Slants,the Asian-American musician was trying tore-appropriate an ethnic slur and turn it into something positive.

Many people may find the name offensive, and they have plenty of options. They can vote with their feet and deny The Slants an audience. Or launch a boycott. Or go to appearances and protest. Thats the beauty of the First Amendments guarantee of freedom of speech. The antidote to speech you find offensive is more speech.

But what the federal government did in 2011, when it found the name "disparaging," is offensive to this constitutional guarantee. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied Tam trademark protection,citing a law that bars the government from approving trademarks that may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols."

Simon Tam, founder of The Slants band, at the Supreme Court in January 2017.(Photo: Yuya Matsuda)

Tam challenged the decision. And this month,after a long trip through the lower courts, the case landed at the Supreme Court, which will likely decide the case this spring. A trademark is a valuable commodity, giving the holder the exclusive right to use the name and legal power to sue others who infringe on that right.

No matter what the Patent and Trademark Office thinks of the name, government bureaucratsshouldnt be in the business of deciding what is and isnt disparaging to some group, or of protecting certain groups from getting their feelings hurt,which is essentially what the patent law allows.

USA TODAY

Deny trademark of hateful names: Opposing view

Popular, inoffensive speech seldom needs protection. The beauty of the First Amendment in a free society is that it protects unpopular or offensive speech, particularly from government regulation. The Supreme Court has said asmuch many times over many years.

The government tried to get around such strong affirmations of freedom of speech by arguing that a trademark denial doesnotrestrict free speech.The Slants can still use the name. It merely places a reasonable limit on access to a government program, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart argued for the government.

Several justices didnt buy that defense. Justice Samuel Alito said the government was stretching the concept of a government program past the breaking point, noting that the government provides many services, such as fire protection,and could not choose to provide them only to some groups.

Justice Elena Kagan said the denial sounds like a fairly classic case of viewpoint discrimination, which is flatly unconstitutional. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the laws vagueness and inconsistent application, pointing out that the patent office had both approved and rejected trademarks for the term hebe. Other trademarks, surely offensive to some, have been approved, includingYellowman, Retardipedia and Crippled Old Biker Bastards. Its all too arbitrary to pass constitutional muster.

The court's decision will affect other trademarks, some far more infamous and controversial. In 2015, a federal trial judge in Washington upheld the patent officescancellation of the trademark of the Washington Redskins football team. That appeal is pending at a federal appeals court.

Native Americans and many others find the teams name deplorable, including Tam and The Slants,whose website says redskin represents a long history of oppression.They can loudly protest, just as others can celebrate the name all without government interference.

And thats just the point. When the government denies a valuable benefit based on its arbitrary determination of offensiveness, everyone loses one of the Constitutions most cherished guarantees.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by itsEditorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view a unique USA TODAY feature.

To read more editorials, go to theOpinion front pageor sign up for thedaily Opinion email newsletter.To respond to this editorial, submit a comment toletters@usatoday.com.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2jOYy2b

Continue reading here:
What's in a name? A 1st Amendment right: Our view - USA Today - USA TODAY

In the words of the philosopher Epictetus, Only the educated are free.

While I do not intend to disseminate my political beliefs, I will refer tothe First Amendment of the U.S.Constitutionand discuss my other thoughts.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

As of today, I have not seen a violation of anybodys right to practice their religion in the United States. I will admit that there has been a hatred and bias toward particular religions in this country. For instance, the Islamic religion has become more topical since Friday. Just because a person is Muslim, does not mean he or she is a terrorist.

Religious studies scholar Reza Aslan, in an interview with Midnight Mayhem, has great insight into the Muslim religion.

On Friday, President Trump issued an executive order to ban immigrants from seven Muslim majority countries. However, this should come as no surprise as he stated his plan here, and in fact, voters go to the booths so their president can stick to their word. He had a plan, he stuck with it and his voters got what they expected.

On Sunday, President Trump tweeted a link to his official Facebook stating his intentions for the ban:

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Any person regardless of race, religion or ideology has the freedom to speak. But people will continue to hold others accountable for a poor choice of words.

I believework speaks louder than words, and if someone is willing to put in the effort toresearch and understand different viewpoints, then this person, above all, will have my attention.

When speaking, be clear in what you have to say. Do not stumble. Be confident. No person benefits from stifling themselves.

In addition, make sure toresearch, research and research. I have been on the forefront of arguments, covered numerous protests and have seen the complaints that a liberal agenda can bring to the table.

NowI do feel for the people who are directly affected by the situations they are fighting for, but nothing makes me less enthused as a journalist than to hear unintelligent responses to questions like: Why are you here? or Why is this event important? or What is the common goal of this protest, and what is your role in it?

Journalists are essentially educators, and their job is to voice your response to the issues at hand. So the next time a journalist asks you a question, I hope you have done your research on the cause of your activism, instead of shoving journalists out of the way. Were there to document, inform and educate, not embarrass and humiliate.

Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Without bias, journalists understand this law to its fullest extent. Any person has the right to assemble on public property to address the government of its grievances. Therefore, you have the right to protest and other Americans have the right to disagree with you.

If you understand that at some point in your life, there will be a disagreement, the best thing you can do is prepare to argue.

How do you do this? Educate yourself on the facts. Stand firm in your beliefs, but also understand the other side.

As open as a liberal is to welcoming other countries into their societies, conservatives are open to listening and understanding liberal concerns.

Agreeing to disagree isnt a bad thing. As a matter of fact, arguments are beneficial because they push each participant to their fullest, challenging the agendas and striving for an understanding of one another.

There are going to be opinions on this article both good and bad. However, I am ready to take them on and continue my research, education and understanding of other peoples beliefs.

I understand that no person hinders my ability to move forward in this American society. We are a mixture of people, and each person paves their own way to success.

If youre an activist, I encourage you to research your topic of choice and not go off on solely personal experiences.

As an American people, we need to find solutions to problems we have in this country. Opposing opinions different fromour own wont do any good. We must strive to educate each other, pushing everyone around usto be better citizens.

The president does not hold the key to the future, nor does the government. We the People do.

Featured Illustration: Samuel Wiggins

Visit link:
Regarding the First Amendment, let's have a conversation - North Texas Daily

Did President Donald Trumps executive order on immigration ban Muslims from the country on the basis of their religion? That will be a central question when federal judges dig more deeply into the constitutionality of the order, signed on Jan. 27. If the answer is yes, it appears vulnerable to a First Amendment challenge.

So far, four U.S. district judges -- in Brooklyn, New York; Boston; Alexandria, Virginia; and Seattle -- have issued temporary rulings blocking aspects of the order. These provisional, hastily granted judicial rulings didnt delve into deep constitutional issues. Instead, they sought to prevent deportations or other government actions that would harm individuals affected by it.

Lawyers for those individuals will return to court in coming days to flesh out their arguments. The Trump administration presumably will send attorneys from the Justice Department to defend the executive order, and the respective judges will subsequently issue more-thorough rulings.

One or more of the pending cases is likely to evolve this week into unusual and fascinating debates over the meaning of soaring constitutional provisions such as due process, equal protection, and a part of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from enacting laws respecting the establishment of religion.

The debate also promises to spill over into confirmation hearings for Trumps Supreme Court nominee, whom he is expected to make in coming days.

The executive order indefinitely suspended resettlement of Syrian refugees and all other refugee resettlement for 120 days. It also banned entry for 90 days of nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

This was a Muslim ban wrapped in a paper-thin national-security rationale, said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the organizations that went to court to challenge the order.

Several legal experts drew similar conclusions.

Its clearly a nationality ban and a de facto religion ban, said Dan Siciliano, a law professor at Stanford University. We have in place statutes that say the government should not set policy or take actions based on nationality.

Laurence Tribe, a prominent liberal constitutional scholar at Harvard University, called the order barely disguised religious discrimination against Muslims and religious preference for Christians. The order by its own terms establishes preferential treatment for refugees identified with minority religions in their country of origin.

The Supreme Court, in a 1982 ruling, explained that the clearest command of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment "is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.

Still, some observers said the courts ultimately might uphold Trumps order. Its alleged anti-Muslim thrust is not clear to me, said Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law. Judges might interpret the order as targeting people from countries where jihadist sentiments are common, he said.The president generally has broad authority to exclude noncitizens from coming into the country, Volokh said.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, predicted the courts wouldnt interpret the order as a religious ban. It is not on its face a Muslim ban, he said. That dog simply wont hunt. No judge can look at the order and analyze it as a Muslim ban because the vast majority of Muslims around the world are not affected by the limitations placed on these seven countries.

President Trump insisted that his purpose was to halt immigration from areas afflicted by terrorism. This is not about religion, he said in a statement Sunday evening. This is about terror and keeping our country safe.

In fact, airports in the U.S. and around the world were engulfed in confusion and, in some cases, protests related to the imposition of the order.

Trump appeared to ignore the high courts 1982 pronouncement when he told Christian Broadcast News in an interview scheduled to air Sunday evening that he intended to give priority to Christians from the Middle East over Muslims. It was almost impossible for Syrian Christians to enter the U.S., he said in the interview. Separately, in a Tweet on Sunday, the president said: Christians in the Middle East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!

Keep up with the best of Bloomberg Politics.

Get our newsletter daily.

Business

Your guide to the most important business stories of the day, every day.

Markets

The most important market news of the day. So you can sleep an extra five minutes.

Technology

Insights into what you'll be paying for, downloading and plugging in tomorrow and 10 years from now.

Pursuits

What to eat, drink, wear and drive in real life and your dreams.

Game Plan

The school, work and life hacks you need to get ahead.

Even some conservative Republicans expressed unease about the constitutionality of the Trump order. Focusing on the First Amendment issue, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on ABCs This Week on Sunday: Its hopefully going to be decided in the courts as to whether or not this has gone too far.

I think we need to be careful, McConnell added. We dont have religious tests in this country.

Roger Pilon, founding director of the Cato Institutes Center for Constitutional Studies, predicted the debate over Trumps immigration order would ultimately end up with the Supreme Court.

I dont see President Trump backing down, he said. I do hope, however, that the stays the lower courts are issuing will allow for a measure of business as usual, because the initial situation seems very chaotic.

Original post:
Trump's Immigration Ban Promises Constitutional Showdown - Bloomberg