Mediaboss Marketing

A federal judge has ruled that the Joplin (Mo.) district violated students' First Amendment rights in 2015 when it took seventh- and eighth-graders on a field trip to a Christian-themed sports complex.

The Joplin Globe reports the court ruled in favor of the American Humanist Association, which sued the district on behalf of a parent of two students. The association had argued that the field trips to Victory Ministry and Sports Complex violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Permission slips were sent home to parents to inform them that "their children may be invited to Bible studies and local churches while at Victory," the lawsuit said. The association argued that the permission slip "required parents to allow their child to participate in worship services, Bible studies or any other activities that may pertain to the Christian faith."

The school district asserted that the trip served a secular purpose rewarding students for positive standardized test scores and good behavior.

ButU.S. District Court Judge Douglas Harpoolconcluded in a 23-page summary judgment that some students could "feel coerced by the Joplin Districts field trips, into either not attending the events, or subjecting themselves to religious beliefs contrary to their familys teaching."

"The Court finds the relationship between Joplin District and Victory, and in particular the seventh and eighth grade field trips...to be an impermissible entanglement of government, government funding, and government authority with a particular religion and religious message," Harpool said in its ruling.

The relationship between a public school district and a religious entity was a clear violation of the First Amendment.

"The frequency, consistency, and extent of the relationship between the Joplin District and Victory goes well beyond occasional or incidental use and impermissibly entangles the Joplin District with religion," the judge said.

David Niose, Legal Director for the American Humanist Association, called the ruling a victory for the Constitution.

The school district has been funneling money and impressionable students to a religious ministry that is in the business of luring children to Christianity," Niose says, "and were glad that the court could see that this is clearly unconstitutional activity.

The judge has not yet imposed a final judgment and order, so it is not clearwhether any sanctions or penalties will be imposed on the district.

Excerpt from:
Joplin (Mo.) district's field trips to Christian center violated First Amendment - American School & University

5521821

2017 is certainly a year that has seen the First Amendment challenged from all sides, and it isnt even half way through March. Believe or not, the First Amendment protections that we have all come to enjoy are so far reaching that freedom of conscience debates can pop up in even the most unlikely of policy areas.

Sadly, though, even as the country is accepting the presidency of Donald Trump, the freedom of conscience for many is at risk. Merely, the term at risk is an understatement to an overt, outright attack on the literal definition of the very first components of our Constitutional rights.

The most obvious scene of where we can see many of these challenges is, of course, the American college campus. Public and private higher education institutions have succumbed to a soft despotism of political correctness and academic censorship that ruins the purpose of a college. Simply put, the college campus has become the breeding ground of the modern day narrative of triggered mentalities for Americas young people entering the work force.

Even more uncharacteristic is that the college campus has also become a breeding ground for identity political warfare dotted with safe spaces for both liberal and conservative students and professors refusing to engage in meaningful debate. As it is put, more crassly by many looking from the outside in, the art of civil discourse in the public square is all but lost.

Once you get away from the college campus, the realm of political debate on the national level has become relatively troubling, as well. When state legislatures and policy makers, all over the country, are continually threatening someones free speech, free exercise of religion, or right of association, something needs to be done.

One of the most rancid takeaways from the overall debate is, too often, that the First Amendment is discriminatory to protected classes (i.e. racial groups and the LGBTQ communities for example). By no means should a document protecting all of our rights, with equal application, be deemed defamatory or discriminatory based on the grounds of political disagreement. Though there is legal precedence to argue that anti-discrimination laws in the federal statutes and the First Amendment should not be at odds, the end result typically sees some form of reverse discrimination pushed on the group arguing on the opposition.

To clarify, the fact that reverse discrimination can occur against people wishing to exercise their freedom of conscience (faith, speech, association) is not the proper way to have equal protection under all laws.

One of the most evident sentiments that is often overlooked in the quest for rights befitting of all humans is the fact that having equal rights doesnt entitle a specific group additional rights above those.

In the end, the final remark is that someones self-endowed civil liberties should supersede those types of claims and scenarios. Civil liberties and civil rights should complement each other, not conflict.

See the original post:
The State Of The First Amendment - Daily Caller

Jack Greiner 7:04 a.m. ET March 10, 2017

John C. Greiner, attorney for Graydon Head Legal Counsel. He's a commercial litigator with an emphasis on communications and media law. He serves on the firm's Appellate Practice Group. (Photo: Provided, Provided)

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument recentlyon a case that poses the question whether the First Amendment prevents a state from prohibiting a person from using certain designated social media sites. On its face, that question may elicit a question in response, e.g. why would the state prevent anyone from using social media?

And the answer is that North Carolina has a statute that prohibits registered sex offenders from accessing: a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages on the commercial social networking Web site.

The statute defines commercial social networking site as one that:

That definition, of course, sweeps a lot of sites under its reach, including LinkedIn. And that poses a problem for people affected by the law. People use social networking for any number of reasons some trivial, some not. Job seekers no doubt use LinkedIn to search for opportunities and otherwise network. A law that shuts off that resource makes it tough to find work.

The law may or may not be good policy. But that isnt the issue for the Supreme Court. The question there is whether the Constitution permits it. And that decision may depend on a determination about what the statute actually prohibits. In upholding the law, the North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that the law did not restrict expressive conduct. And for that reason, the First Amendment did not invalidate the law, so long as the statute advanced an important government interest and wasnt substantially broader than it needed to be to achieve the interest. Applying this test, the North Carolina Supreme Court concluded that the governments interest in protecting children from sexual predators was important, and the statutes limited application (it didnt bar all internet usage) wasn't overly broad.

But the U.S. Supreme Court may conclude the statute in fact limits expressive conduct. If so, North Carolina would need to prove the ban is the least restrictive means to achieve the interest. That is a tougher test. And the Supreme Court may apply it. Justice Ruth Ginsburg, for example, noted that the First Amendment protects the right not only to speak but the right to receive information. A law barring access to a broad swath of social media sites would bar the receipt of information. If thats the case, and North Carolina has to prove the statute is the least restrictive means it will be in for an uphill fight. That standard allows the opposing party to effectively brainstorm all of the ways the law could be restricted. And if the court agrees with any of the ideas, it can invalidate the law.

We'll see how the Supreme Court resolves this one. There is still the prospect of a 4-4 tie (until Neil Gorsuch is confirmed). That would allow the law to stand. But if the Supreme Court applies the more strict standard, the odds are long for North Carolina.

It goes to show that we never know when the First Amendment will pop up. But it protects people we like as well as people who creep us out.

Jack Greiner is a lawyer with the Graydon Head law firm in Cincinnati and represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues

Read or Share this story: http://cin.ci/2msX0OZ

Continue reading here:
Is there a First Amendment right to LinkedIn? - Cincinnati.com

Vice President Mike Pence vow to go after WikiLeaks for "one of the most significant compromises of national security in recent memory" could run smack into a First Amendment wall, according to one legal expert.

Pence, in an interview with Fox News' Bret Baier Thursday night, promised that those responsible for the 8,000-plus-file dump of CIA secrets, possibly including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, will pay a hefty price.

"Trafficking in national security information, as is alleged WikiLeaks has done, is a serious offense," Pence said in an exclusive "Special Report" appearance. "This president and this administration will take it very seriously and use the full force of the law, and the resources of the United States, to hold all of those to account that were involved."

"Assange is clearly a media entity, albeit an unorthodox one... so the thief, the person who hands it to WikiLeaks, is the criminal. Not WikiLeaks."

- Judge Andrew Napolitano

The idea of prosecuting Assange has been floating around since 2010, when WikiLeaks shared a massive trove of U.S. secrets leaked by Army Pvt. Chelsea Manning, then known as Bradley Manning. But to date, Assange has not been charged with any crime related to his website.

The Australian-born Assange remains holed up in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London where he was granted asylum in 2012, because of a European arrest warrant stemming from sexual assault allegations made by two women in 2010. Assange denies the claims, but risks deportation the moment he steps foot outside of that embassy.

Prosecuting Assange for the document dump would be an uphill battle for the U.S., according to Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano. In the modern, increasingly broad definition of press, WikiLeaks fits the bill, he said.

"If a stolen document containing state secrets gets into the hands of the press, which is loosely defined as any entity in the business of revealing things, and it is a matter of public interest then it can be exposed with impunity," Napolitano said. "Assange is clearly a media entity, albeit an unorthodox one... so the thief, the person who hands it to WikiLeaks, is the criminal. Not WikiLeaks."

Pence is not the only elected official who would like to see Assange behind bars.

"Assange should spend the rest of his life wearing an orange jumpsuit," Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said in a Thursday statement. "He's an enemy of the American people and an ally to Vladimir Putin."

Tuesday's leak of more than 8,000 documents touched off an international uproar, as some of the spy agency's most closely guarded cyber tools were allegedly revealed to the world. The CIA, according to the files, has the ability to spy on people through their smartphones and certain TVs and computers, expressed interest in hacking into the electrical systems of automobiles and operates a clandestine hacking sites in Germany.

While the First Amendment may protect Assange, it would not cover anyone who illegally leaked the material to his organization. The FBI has already mounted an investigation aimed at finding the mole who divulged the material or any external hacker who retrieved it from CIA servers.

But U.S. investigators will get no help from Assange on that score.

"We're specialists in source protection," Assange said.

Adding to the difficulty in tracing the source of this leak is the fact that many of the tools the government would have used may have just been shared with the public, at least according to WikiLeaks.

"How can you use your full resources when they were just radically depleted?" cybersecurity expert Gregory Keeley wondered. "This is analogous to the nuclear football codes being posted on Facebook."

See the rest here:
First Amendment could protect Assange despite Pence's vow, says legal expert - Fox News

Forbes

The First Amendment Red Herring In The Net Neutrality Debate Forbes Since the transition in January, progressive tech policy groups have worked overtime to shield the Obama Administration's net neutrality rules from President Trump's deregulatory scythe. These rules, adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in ...

Continue reading here:
The First Amendment Red Herring In The Net Neutrality Debate - Forbes