Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

Legislature runs afoul of First Amendment advocates – San Francisco Chronicle

Back before the Internet made it so easy to find a celebritys age, a 29-year-old actress landed the role of a 17-year-old girl and helped propel Beverly Hills 90210 into a hit TV show in the 1990s.

That was the story actress Gabrielle Carteris told state lawmakers last year as she lobbied for a bill to strip actors ages from commercial websites used in casting. Now the president of the Screen Actors Guild, Carteris said she would never have been able to land the career-making role today because of websites like IMDb.com that publish actors ages.

In response, lawmakers sweeping aside First Amendment concerns that the government doesnt have the right to keep anyone from publishing information such as a birth date approved AB1687, and Gov. Jerry Brown signed it into law.

That law is now being challenged in federal court with a lawsuit that says it amounts to unconstitutional censorship. Its one of a handful of policies to come out of the Democratic-controlled Legislature that limit unfettered speech some of them prompted by pressure from liberal allies such as the actors labor union and Planned Parenthood. And when the state has to defend them, taxpayers wind up footing the bill.

The government tries to restrict speech in order to serve whatever it sees as important goals, said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, one of several First Amendment scholars who signed an amicus brief supporting IMDb.com in its suit against the state over AB1687. Usually free speech prevails, even against worthy government goals.

In this case, the worthy goal was the Legislatures desire to shield actors from being discriminated against as they age. AB1687 author Assemblyman Ian Calderon, D-Whittier (Los Angeles County), said his bill does that without violating the Constitution.

The Legislature isnt looking to censor anyone or anything just because we think we can, he said. Its about protecting an industry that is large in this state, that is homegrown to this state, and the folks that work within it.

A different case Volokh litigated last year, on behalf of a gun rights group called the Firearms Policy Coalition, challenged the Assemblys long-standing rule that prohibits rebroadcasting public video footage of its proceedings for any political or commercial purpose. The firearms group wanted to use government video clips in political ads and argued that the prohibition infringed on its right to free speech.

The Legislature defended the rule, saying it was meant to keep lawmakers from grandstanding. A federal court judge ripped that argument apart in a sharply worded injunction that said the Assemblys rule violated the First Amendment.

One persons grandstanding is anothers passionate debate. In other words, grandstanding is simply speech by another name, said U.S. District Judge Morrison England. The states interest in preventing such speech is far from compelling.

The Legislature then passed a new law repealing the prohibition on rebroadcasting public video footage.

First Amendment concerns were also raised last year as the Legislature debated a bill inspired by the revelation of secretly recorded videos of a Planned Parenthood executive. State law already forbids secret recordings; the bill made it an additional crime to distribute a confidential communication with a health care provider.

Lobbyists for the news media feared the bill would inhibit a free press. Publishers and other First Amendment advocates successfully lobbied for amendments that prevent news organizations from being prosecuted for distributing undercover videos they did not record.

Still, legislative staffers flagged the potential for a lawsuit in their analysis of the bill, writing that there could be potentially significant future costs for litigation to the extent the provisions of this measure face constitutional challenges under the First Amendment. Nonetheless, the bill was approved and signed into law in September.

Its impossible to know exactly how much First Amendment legal challenges cost the state, because they are handled by the attorney generals office as part of its overall case load. Free speech advocates in Sacramento expect debates to continue as the media landscape shifts with the evolution of technology.

The Internet is a Wild West of free speech issues, said Nikki Moore, a lawyer for the California Newspaper Publishers Association. I dont expect this to be a dying trend.

Case in point: Democratic lawmakers have already proposed two new bills inspired by the fake news phenomenon that emerged during presidential campaign. The bills, AB155 and SB135, call on education officials to craft lessons teaching students to discern which online news stories are trustworthy.

Free speech advocates will be watching to see if Democrats response to the latest liberal cause celebre escalates into a constitutional violation.

Laurel Rosenhall is a reporter for CALmattters.org, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Read more from the original source:
Legislature runs afoul of First Amendment advocates - San Francisco Chronicle

Writers in Trump’s America: Creatives mobilize to protect First Amendment rights – Columbia Chronicle

Complete silence engulfs the back room of a West Loop bookstore as the crowd listens with rapt attention to T Clutch Fleischmann read House With Door, a monologue about an encounter with a little boy on the street. The boy finds a commonality between the two after questioning the writers gender identity, by shouting: Hey! I live in a house with a door!

Hey, me too! Fleischmann replied.

And we both laughed and then it was over, I was down the block, read Fleischmann, whose writing focuses on transgender issues.

Poet T Clutch Fleischmann shares a piece they wrote post about gender identity and striving for commonality among differences at Open Books in the West Loop Jan. 15.

The words roll over the audience in swift, rhythmic waves that capture the rooms energy.

Fleischmann is one of more than 75 authors who participated in the local chapter of the worldwide Writers Resist movements Jan. 15 re-inauguration of compassion, equality, free speech and fundamental democratic ideals in the wake of a Donald Trump presidency and a new political era.

The Writers Resist movement which started in New York City after the election and spread to 50 cities around the globe in just three monthshighlights the fears and disbelief of writers, journalists, nonprofit organizations and activists since Trumps election in November. The movement is attempting to take hopelessness and anger and transform them into a call to action against the threats Trump represents to freedom of speech, the First Amendment and human rights of marginalized groups, leaders say.

Trump publicly harassed a disabled New York Times reporter during his campaign, seen in video footage and subsequently reported by multiple news organizations such as the Washington Post; however, in a Nov. 26 Post article, Trump said he did not intend to mock the reporter but rather the reporters confusion. This sort of routine denial from Trump has been described as gaslighting, from the 1944 movie about a man who tried to drive his wife crazy by denying the obvious and creating his own reality.

Trump has been outspoken about his contempt for the press, refusing to call on CNN reporter Jim Acosta during his first official press conference Jan. 11 and denouncing the news organization as fake news.

Later, Trumps spokesperson Sean Spicer threatened to have the reporter ejected from the conference if he tried to ask more questions, according to a CNN story from the same day.

Reince Priebus, the incoming White House chief of staff, also suggested changes to daily press briefings that would alter the traditional relationship between the press and The White House, according to his Dec. 14 interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.

In a country that historically values and supports free speech, many writers and artists are defending democracy through marches and protests, public artwork and writing events. Some believe a call to action is neededaction that has a lasting impact on the Trump presidency, according to Brian Kornell, one of the organizers of Chicagos Writers Resist.

Brian Kornell, one of the organizers of the local chapter event for Writers Resist, shared his opening remarks at Open Books in the West Loop Jan. 15.

Kornell remembers how tough it was to get through Nov. 9, the day after the election. Like many around the country and the world, Kornell said he felt downtrodden and hopeless, but seeing protesters out on the streets of Chicago reminded him that he was not alone, and using artistic expression to resist the new president was crucial.

Historically, writers have been the ones to reflect what is happening in society, Kornell said. The bigotry that feels like is taking hold or has given a place to exist [forced me] to speak up as a writer, as a citizen. [Writers Resist] is the way for me to feel like I am taking some action to help.

Kornell, who writes nonfiction and is assistant editor of online literary publication The Rumpus, said the movement is not necessarily meant to focus on Trump and his disrespectful rhetoric but to empower creatives to band together and remain positive in unpredictable times.

Writers Resist Chicago has managed to do exactly that, bringing together successful writers with diverse backgrounds and experiences into a unified voice for freedom of the pen. Writers Resist, which held seven events across Chicago Jan. 15 with a central reading event at West Loops Open Books, 651 W. Lake St., had support from Planned Parenthood of Illinois, Center on Halsted and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.

Rachel Murphy, an organizer for the ACLU of Illinois, said the nonprofit has 30,000 members statewide. Of those, one third have joined since the election, which is indicative of the fear Trump has aroused, Murphy noted.

Murphy said the ACLU is concerned about government encroachment in five areas: womens reproductive rights, LGBT rights, policing, national security and surveillance, and immigration and refugees. The ACLU plans to work locally and make sure marginalized communities, which she said are under attack from Trump, have their voices heard.

Womens reproductive rights and abortion might face the greatest threat after years of battles in court and the legislature, Murphy added.

In the last five years, we have seen an onslaught of anti-access in legislation in an attempt to undermine the fundamental right to choose, established in Roe v. Wade, Murphy said.

Organizations around the country are joining in, such as PEN America, which unites writers and defends their self-expression. Dubbed the flagship sponsor of the Writers Resist movement, PEN is an outspoken proponent of First Amendment freedoms. Even inadvertent violations, unlike the deliberate ones of the Trump administration, sound alarms for writers and artists, said Sarah Edkins, deputy director for Communications at PEN America in New York. PEN America is part of the PEN Charter, which spans more than 100 countries worldwide.

When we see those early warning signs of infringement on the First Amendment, that really gives writers pause and makes them feel a great deal of concern, Edkins said. As more and more rights are potentially taken away and infringed uponas they are more at risk and surveilledoftentimes that can stifle [creativity].

Some also see this as a fertile time for creative voices and the generation of big and crazy ideas that result in some of the best literature and art, Edkins said. This also applies to journalists, whom Trump has demonized and has ominously opined about the possible expansion of libel laws, she added.

Edkins said the most basic and important action is to speak up about these concerns and not lose hope.

Keep this constant dialogue, constant pressure, constant reminder of how important these rights are within our community, but also expand that conversation to happen within a larger community, she said.

Throughout her career, journalist and writer Michele Weldon has used her work to start discussions about controversial topics within the worlds largest community: the internet. An outspoken feminist who frequently writes about the medias portrayal of gender and women and has written five nonfiction books, Weldon said her feminist commentaries have attracted threats of violence and rape. But that will not silence her, especially when the incoming president has shown a fundamental disrespect toward women, she said.

Weldon may have even predicted Trumps ascendancy in her work. In her 2008 book, Everyman News: The Changing American Front Page, she discusses the dangers of unvetted sources and citizen journalism as the 21st century witnesses a changing media landscape. In her chapter Chicken Little Journalism, which she read from on Jan. 15 at a Chicago Writers Resist event in Evanston, Illinois, Weldon analyzed the effect that reality TV, such as Trumps The Apprentice, has had on the cultural appetite and how it contributed to confusing opinion with fact. Nine years later, Trump became the next president, confirming that her worries were founded, Weldon said.

Audiences do not understand the difference between an investigative reporters text based on data and interviews and hard evidence versus a tweet that just says something is true backed up by nothing, she told The Chronicle. It is easy to just type. We are confusing typing with reporting.

Weldon, who has more than 38 years of journalism experience and was a professor at her alma materNorthwestern Universitys Medill School of Journalismuntil 2013, said journalists need to stand their ground in this era of political uncertainty and maintain high standards for publishing fact-checked material. Weldon said journalists need to vigorously refute unverified claims by the administration and is committed to the fight, and other writers and citizens should be as well, she said.

I am ensuring myself up for a deeper and more fierce onslaught of hate [and] preparing to safeguard myself because I plan on being outspoken and backing everything up with evidence, Weldon said.

From the perspective of someone not born in this country, New Zealand native and writer Toni Nealie said the political issues in the U.S. are unlike anything she has experienced.

People on all sides on the political spectrum are horrified, she said of the view of Americas politics from her homeland. This is not a right-wing-left-wing [issue]. Anyone who believes in democracy, even in limited and sometimes shedding democracy, [is] alarmed in what they see.

Nealiea prolific writer in Chicagos literary scene and editor for Newcity and The Rumpusteaches in the Television Department at Columbia. She also published a collection of personal essays called The Miles Between Me in May 2016 that each explore her cultural heritage, family and dispersal.

Fleischmann, who is also a visiting professor in Columbias Creative Writing Department, pointed out that challenges did not just start happening but occurred during Obamas administration as well, such as the former presidents deportation recordhigher than any other president in history.

Fleischmann said looking at how artistic expression is affected from both sides of the political landscape will spark effective resistance and show a myriad of ways art can shift ideals.

Ideally and hopefully, writers and artists are always paying some attention to the way our work is resonating in the world, Fleischmann said. Hopefully, thinking it communicates for a world that is more free or more liberated or more equitable.

See the rest here:
Writers in Trump's America: Creatives mobilize to protect First Amendment rights - Columbia Chronicle

Is the First Amendment back on trial? – Newsday

Donald Trump attacked the news media during his campaign through tweets and speeches, and did so again Saturday during a visit to the CIA. He has implied that the First Amendment might be too protective of the press, and that he would open up our libel laws. There are those who would have agreed with him with respect to the liberties taken by the press, including the very Founding Fathers who enacted the First Amendment.

President John Adams had such an intense dislike of the press that he sponsored legislation that criminalized false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government, the president or members of Congress. (The seemingly anomaly of not including the vice president as one of the protected people can be explained by the fact that the sitting vice president was the Federalists archenemy Thomas Jefferson.)

The First Amendment, ratified in 1791, prohibits Congress from making any law that abridges freedom of speech or the press. Yet, just seven years after the First Amendment was enacted, in the midst of the threat of war with France, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts supported by Adams and Alexander Hamilton. These founders who were responsible for the enactment of the First Amendment felt that criminalizing false and malicious criticism of the government or the president or members of the Congress did not run afoul of the First Amendment.

The great irony here is that conservative talk show hosts today believe as did the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia that the original intent of the founders should be used in the interpretation of the Constitution and its provisions. In that case, it is apparent that the founders did not intend to allow the vilification of the president or certain members of Congress to be considered protected speech. If we lived back in that day, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would have been in serious violation of the law when they harshly criticized President Barack Obama.

The first of many prosecutions under the Sedition Act was that of Rep. Matthew Lyon of Vermont. He was a veteran of the Revolutionary War, having fought with patriot Ethan Allen at the battle of Fort Ticonderoga in New York. His crime was to write in a letter to a journal that criticized Adams unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation and self-avarice. In 1798, Lyon served four months in jail after publishing that affront. Benjamin Franklins grandson was arrested for leveling too scandalous a criticism at Adams.

The Sedition Act was later rendered meaningless by justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who interpreted the First Amendment, not as intended by our founders, but by contemporary standards comporting with our notion of freedom and press protection.

As Justice William Brennan noted in the 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan: Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history.

Those who want to revert to the original intent of our founders with respect to the First Amendment may not feel comfortable with laws that would hobble their ability to speak freely in criticizing our public officials. However, now that he is president, Trump might just agree with Adams and Hamilton that press criticism of him should have its limits.

Sol Wachtler, a former chief judge of New York State, is professor of Constitutional Law at Touro Law School.

Excerpt from:
Is the First Amendment back on trial? - Newsday

Freeze Peach Friday: President Trump must respect, uphold First … – Daily Bruin

In general, shouting matches are reserved for fights between moody teenagers and their parents, or between contestants on reality shows. They should not be between the leader of the free world and the press tasked with reporting on him. Unfortunately, we elected a reality star into the highest office of the land and hes bringing some of his ratings-boosting tactics with him.

At his Jan. 11 press conference, then-President-elect Donald Trump got into a shouting match with Jim Acosta, a senior White House correspondent for CNN. President Trump called CNN fake news and refused to take Acostas question.

Lets first recognize the unbelievable irony of this. The man who fueled the birther movement, and fixated on alleged wrongdoing in crooked Hillary Clintons emails, called a world-renowned news agency fake news.

Done chuckling? Today, President-elect became President. Its not a joke anymore, or a what-if scenario floated around by political pundits.

Its time to examine the scary reality President Trumps actions could mean for the future of the First Amendment. The fact of the matter is one cannot outright silence a reporter just because they do not like the question that is being asked. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, and thus their commitment to carrying out their job.

Even student journalists here at the Daily Bruin work to make it a watchdog to higher authorities. Every year, we publish reviews of our very own USAC elected officials and the events they put on. We often act as a watchdog for USAC slates. The Daily Bruin also serves as a forum in which we can criticize and make suggestions for our campus administration.

The fact that Daily Bruin gave me the green light to write a whole series on free speech shows that our commitment to the First Amendment is steadfast. If college students can uphold and protect the First Amendment, shouldnt the leader of our country have the capacity to do the same?

The media has also played an important role as a watchdog for Congress and the President. If you have no idea what I am talking about, I have a single word for you: Watergate.

Unfortunately, his past actions lead me to believe he is either incapable or unwilling to respect the amendment that journalists and other elected officials have upheld for centuries. Jan. 11s fiasco hardly marked the first time the President has sparred with the media or otherwise indicated a desire to upheave tradition. As I have mentioned in earlier columns, President Trump has expressed his desire to open up libel laws, which, in theory, would make it easier for him to sue reporters for publishing articles that portray him in a negative light: however, as President, he has no power to do that.

Furthermore, the Trump administration indicated Sunday that they may be looking to move the press corps outside of the West Wing, a move that sent shockwaves through D.C.s journalist community and raised questions about the administrations transparency and accessibility. Journalists currently have offices in the West Wing and have direct access to the offices of press aides and the press secretary. Its unclear whether or not President Trump will give these reporters the boot as well, but moving the press corps away from the White House signals a physical move away from transparency and accountability.

American media and the West Wing go together like, well, America and apple pie. So important did the Founding Fathers find the freedom of the press that they included it in the very first amendment in our Constitution. Woodrow Wilson started the tradition of regular presidential press conferences with the media in 1913. While solo press conferences are less frequent, today press briefings with the White House press secretary happen most weekdays. When President Obama was President-elect, he formally fielded questions from the press 18 times. President George W. Bush held 11 during his time as President-elect. President Trump only fielded questions once. The fact that we hear from him more on Twitter, where he often berates and belittles his opponents, than in a formal press conference setting shows he is not concerned with answering the medias questions.

Today, President Trump swore to uphold all of the fine print of the Constitution, even and especially the parts of the First Amendment that he may find allow the public and press to attack his character. He must uphold free speech with the same voracity he is required to uphold the due-process clause and the emoluments clause with. I fear, based on his actions so far, that he will not hold good on this oath.

Many opponents of President Trump fear what will happen if his presidential powers run unchecked by Congress and if his rhetoric is normalized by the public. The media and their right to freedom of speech are a powerful tool to combat these very fears. If our President continues to alter the relationship between the West Wing and the press, or otherwise manipulate the presss free speech protection under the First Amendment, I fear that our country will be walking a thin line between democracy and fascism .

How will President Trumps bullying presence, the same one he unleashed upon Jim Acosta, alter the ways in which reporters cover facts? On a larger scale, how will his distaste for press conferences affect the way the American public receives news? Could we be moving towards a 1984 or North Korean-esque state, in which censorship runs rampant and allows dictators to advance their agendas? It is too soon to say for sure. However, it is of the utmost importance that journalists, students and civilians remain vigilant in protecting the First Amendment.

Great Cheeto Overlord, if you are reading this, I implore you: Respect and protect the First Amendment in all forms. Even if it means having to hear you have small hands from reporters you dont like.

Original post:
Freeze Peach Friday: President Trump must respect, uphold First ... - Daily Bruin

Freeze Peach Friday: President Trump must respect, uphold First Amendment – Daily Bruin

In general, shouting matches are reserved for fights between moody teenagers and their parents, or between contestants on reality shows. They should not be between the leader of the free world and the press tasked with reporting on him. Unfortunately, we elected a reality star into the highest office of the land and hes bringing some of his ratings-boosting tactics with him.

At his Jan. 11 press conference, then-President-elect Donald Trump got into a shouting match with Jim Acosta, a senior White House correspondent for CNN. President Trump called CNN fake news and refused to take Acostas question.

Lets first recognize the unbelievable irony of this. The man who fueled the birther movement, and fixated on alleged wrongdoing in crooked Hillary Clintons emails, called a world-renowned news agency fake news.

Done chuckling? Today, President-elect became President. Its not a joke anymore, or a what-if scenario floated around by political pundits.

Its time to examine the scary reality President Trumps actions could mean for the future of the First Amendment. The fact of the matter is one cannot outright silence a reporter just because they do not like the question that is being asked. The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press, and thus their commitment to carrying out their job.

Even student journalists here at the Daily Bruin work to make it a watchdog to higher authorities. Every year, we publish reviews of our very own USAC elected officials and the events they put on. We often act as a watchdog for USAC slates. The Daily Bruin also serves as a forum in which we can criticize and make suggestions for our campus administration.

The fact that Daily Bruin gave me the green light to write a whole series on free speech shows that our commitment to the First Amendment is steadfast. If college students can uphold and protect the First Amendment, shouldnt the leader of our country have the capacity to do the same?

The media has also played an important role as a watchdog for Congress and the President. If you have no idea what I am talking about, I have a single word for you: Watergate.

Unfortunately, his past actions lead me to believe he is either incapable or unwilling to respect the amendment that journalists and other elected officials have upheld for centuries. Jan. 11s fiasco hardly marked the first time the President has sparred with the media or otherwise indicated a desire to upheave tradition. As I have mentioned in earlier columns, President Trump has expressed his desire to open up libel laws, which, in theory, would make it easier for him to sue reporters for publishing articles that portray him in a negative light: however, as President, he has no power to do that.

Furthermore, the Trump administration indicated Sunday that they may be looking to move the press corps outside of the West Wing, a move that sent shockwaves through D.C.s journalist community and raised questions about the administrations transparency and accessibility. Journalists currently have offices in the West Wing and have direct access to the offices of press aides and the press secretary. Its unclear whether or not President Trump will give these reporters the boot as well, but moving the press corps away from the White House signals a physical move away from transparency and accountability.

American media and the West Wing go together like, well, America and apple pie. So important did the Founding Fathers find the freedom of the press that they included it in the very first amendment in our Constitution. Woodrow Wilson started the tradition of regular presidential press conferences with the media in 1913. While solo press conferences are less frequent, today press briefings with the White House press secretary happen most weekdays. When President Obama was President-elect, he formally fielded questions from the press 18 times. President George W. Bush held 11 during his time as President-elect. President Trump only fielded questions once. The fact that we hear from him more on Twitter, where he often berates and belittles his opponents, than in a formal press conference setting shows he is not concerned with answering the medias questions.

Today, President Trump swore to uphold all of the fine print of the Constitution, even and especially the parts of the First Amendment that he may find allow the public and press to attack his character. He must uphold free speech with the same voracity he is required to uphold the due-process clause and the emoluments clause with. I fear, based on his actions so far, that he will not hold good on this oath.

Many opponents of President Trump fear what will happen if his presidential powers run unchecked by Congress and if his rhetoric is normalized by the public. The media and their right to freedom of speech are a powerful tool to combat these very fears. If our President continues to alter the relationship between the West Wing and the press, or otherwise manipulate the presss free speech protection under the First Amendment, I fear that our country will be walking a thin line between democracy and fascism .

How will President Trumps bullying presence, the same one he unleashed upon Jim Acosta, alter the ways in which reporters cover facts? On a larger scale, how will his distaste for press conferences affect the way the American public receives news? Could we be moving towards a 1984 or North Korean-esque state, in which censorship runs rampant and allows dictators to advance their agendas? It is too soon to say for sure. However, it is of the utmost importance that journalists, students and civilians remain vigilant in protecting the First Amendment.

Great Cheeto Overlord, if you are reading this, I implore you: Respect and protect the First Amendment in all forms. Even if it means having to hear you have small hands from reporters you dont like.

See the article here:
Freeze Peach Friday: President Trump must respect, uphold First Amendment - Daily Bruin