Mediaboss Marketing

Indianas student-to-counselor ratio ranks worst in the nation, according to the 2023 State of the Indiana Girl Report published in September.

Two bills introduced in the General Assembly one in the House, the other in the Senate seek to fill the counselor void, but critics say their solution is unconstitutional and could end up further harming some childrens emotional and mental health.

House Bill 1192 and Senate Bill 50 would allow public and charter schools to employ chaplains, or approve them as volunteers, to counsel students and staff. Though school chaplains wouldnt be required to divulge privileged or confidential communications, the bills are written to invite skepticism as to the ultimate goal of allowing pastoral care.

The Senate version, authored by Sen. Stacey Donato, R-Logansport, says a chaplain may only provide secular assistance, unless the student (or their parent or guardian) gives consent for religious advice, guidance and support services. The House proposal of Rep. Doug Miller, R-Elkhart, does not include such language.

The primary role of chaplains is to provide pastoral or religious counseling to people in spiritual need, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana said in a statement. Allowing them to assume official positions whether paid or voluntary in public schools will create an environment ripe for religious coercion and indoctrination of students.

Without any oversight to prevent chaplains from imposing their own religious viewpoint on the children they counsel, HB 1192 and SB 50 could undermine the religious freedom of students of all faiths and no faith.

For a transgender student experiencing mental health concerns, especially in light of Senate Enrolled Act 480 that banned childrens gender-affirming care last year, having a chaplain provide counsel could be harmful.

The Indiana Youth Institute and Girl Coalition of Indiana examined mental health data and surveys completed by school-age children and found schools statewide employed just 1,494 counselors for more than 1 million students.

Proponents of HB 1192 and SB 50 likely will tout the proposals as remedies to the mental health needs of Hoosier students.

Chaplains are trained and certified to provide spiritual and emotional support. Lawmakers should leave mental health care services to the professional school counselors qualified to do that job.

Excerpt from:
Faith-based school chaplains would test First Amendment - Fort Wayne Journal Gazette

Pointing to childrens mental health and online sexual predators, the Florida House on Wednesday passed a bill that seeks to prevent children under age 16 from having social media accounts.

The House voted 106-13 to approve the measure (HB 1), a priority of House Speaker Paul Renner, R-Palm Coast. The issue will go to the Senate, amid arguments from parts of the tech industry that the bill would be unconstitutional.

This is about protecting children from addictive technology and what we know harms them, Renner told House members after the vote. And what the social-media platforms know. For years, they have known this and they have failed to act. By your vote today, we have done so.

Lawmakers said children have suffered mental health problems because of such things as bullying on social media. They also said the technology makes children targets for sexual predators.

The truth is, people use these platforms to prey on our children, Rep. Kevin Chambliss, D-Homestead, said.

But opponents questioned the bills constitutionality and said it would take away the rights of parents to determine whether their children use social media. Thirteen Democrats voted against the bill, while 23 Democrats joined Republicans in supporting it.

Rep. Daryl Campbell, D-Fort Lauderdale, called the bill a complete governmental overreach.

Parents should have the ultimate decision-making ability for their child, Rep. Ashley Gantt, D-Miami, said. I 100 percent agree with the bill sponsors position of making sure that we protect children. I 100 percent agree. But it should not come at the cost of parents being able to make the ultimate decision in how they raise their child.

The bill would prevent minors under 16 from creating social media accounts and would require social media platforms to terminate existing accounts that are reasonably known by the platforms to be held by children younger than 16. It also would allow parents to request that minors accounts be terminated.

The bill would require platforms to use independent organizations to conduct age verifications when new accounts are created and would require denial of accounts for people who do not verify their ages. The organizations would be required to delete the data after ages are verified.

Meta, the parent company of platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, and NetChoice, a tech industry group, last week criticized the proposal and raised the possibility that it would be challenged in court.

NetChoice posted testimony on its website that said the bill has constitutional flaws. It said federal courts have blocked similar social-media restrictions in other states.

If passed, HB 1 would violate minors First Amendment rights by imposing a blanket restriction on access to constitutionally protected speech for anyone who is either under the age of 16 or refuses to comply with the laws age-verification requirements, the industry group said. The fact that HB 1 covers the internet rather than books, television programs, or video games, does not change the First Amendment issue.

But Renner, an attorney, told reporters that the bill doesnt violate the First Amendment. He said the bill is directed toward addictive technology, not content.

This is why weve narrowly defined it, because Its a situation in which kids cant stay off the platforms, and as a result of that, they have been trapped in an environment that is harming their mental health, Renner said.

The Senate version of the bill (SB 1788) has not started moving through committees as lawmakers near the end of the third week of the 60-day legislative session.

Also Wednesday, the House unanimously passed another Renner priority (HB 3) that would require age verification to try to prevent minors under age 18 from having access to online pornography.

The bill would set a series of standards for determining whether online material would be harmful, such as whether it appeals to the prurient interest and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Here is the original post:
Florida House passes HB 1 to ban kids 16 and under from having social media accounts - NBC 6 South Florida

(Updated with Lizzo spokesperson statement) The legal battle over assault, harassment and discrimination claims between Lizzo anda trio of former tour dancers and reality show contestants has turned into a constitutional squabble, at least for now.

Can a global celebrity be forever insulated from civil liability because all their conduct is protected as free speech under the anti-SLAPP statute? rhetorically ask lawyers for Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguezin an opposition filing this week to the Grammy winners attempt to have the matter tossed out of court. Defendant Lizzo asks this Court to rule in exactly that fashion. Fortunately for all victims of celebrity malfeasance, the law says otherwise.

More from Deadline

(Read the opposition memo to Lizzos anti-SLAPP filing here)

The recipient of the Record of the Year at the 65th Grammys, Lizzo plus her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc and dance team head Shirlene Quigley have been accused by formerLizzos Watch Out for the Big Grrrlscontestants Davis and Williams, along with Rodriguez, of body-shaming and being put through what the trio call an excruciating audition for their jobs.

Placed in the docket at LA Superior Court on August 1, the suit also alleges that the dancers were forced to attend and participate in sex shows at venues like Paris Crazy Horse cabaret while on tour, had their virginity made fun of, suffered false imprisonment and were subjected to religious tirades. The suit goes on to claim racial discrimination from the all-white management team against Davis, Williams and other non-African American dancers.

Followed in short order by another suit from Asha Daniels, a wardrobe designer who worked on Lizzos 2023 tour and claims of disrespect by Lizzos camp from Oscar nominated filmmaker Sophia Nahli Allison, the nine-claim complaint from Davis, Williams and Rodriguez seeks unspecified damages.

In addition to denials by Lizzos reps, declarations from staffers and other dancers to her good character, and the October 27 anti-SLAPP motion theJuicesinger herself (real name Melissa Jefferson), Lizzo has pushed back against the claims. She went online in early August to deride the allegations as sensationalized and coming from former employees who have already publicly admitted that they were told their behavior on tour was inappropriate and unprofessional.

This week, it is Team Lizzo thats essentially accused of being unprofessional or at least strategically selective.

In an apparent effort to dupe this Court, Defendants either cherry-pick allegations or out-right omit allegations inconvenient to their position, instead sanitizing them with euphemisms, the November 8 filing from the plaintiffs lawyers continues with an implied swipe at Lizzos heavyweight lawyer Marty Singer and his team at Lavely Singer.

None of Plaintiffs claims arise from conduct implicating a public issue or interest, the memorandum from attorneys at West Coast Lawyers APLC goes on to state. The document continues, How exactly does Quigley relaying how she masturbates or performing oral sex on bananas implicate public interest? Or when Lizzo attempted to strike Plaintiff Rodriguez? Or when Plaintiff Davis was deprived of her phone and confined to a room? These acts, which give rise to the claims at issue here, do not implicate public issues, and thus cannot be protected.

In closing, the 19-page filing insists Lizzos Special Motion to Strike should be denied in its entirety as Plaintiffs claims do not rise from conduct that is protected under Code of Civil Procedure.

The celebrity-can-do-what-they-want argument was shut down previously by the Court of Appeal in a case [in which] Marty Singers firm represented Shia LaBeouf, plaintiffs lawyer Ron Zambrano told Deadline today. They should know better.

Last month, 18 independent witnesses stood by Lizzos work ethic and character, a spokesperson for the performer said Friday. It is clear since then, these plaintiff lawyers have come up with exactly zero to refute these facts.

Lizzos Special Tour started on September 23, 2022, and ended on July 30 in Japan. With the exception of receiving the Quincy Jones Humanitarian Award in LA in September, Lizzo has kept a pretty low profile of late.

The anti-SLAPP battle in this case is set for a November 22 court hearing in downtown LA.

Best of Deadline

Sign up for Deadline's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Go here to read the rest:
Lizzo Accusers Say First Amendment Is No Reason To Throw Out Assault, Sexual Harassment & Discrimination Suit Against Grammy Winner - Yahoo...

(Photo by Brendan McDermid-Pool/Getty Images)

In 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that it is a legitimate exercise of state power to ban trial participants from speech which poses a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a judicial proceeding. That case,Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, involved a ban on attorneys commenting on pending trials. But for 30 years,Gentile has been understood to set the standard for imposing gag orders on all parties to a case, not just the attorneys.

What Donald Trumps appeal of his gag order in the election interference prosecution presupposes is maybe it didnt?

MaybeGentile only applies to lawyers. Maybe the proper test is theBrandenberg incitement standard. Maybe under Supreme Court decisions from 1976 and1978, Trump has the same rights as any member of the press to discuss a pending case. Maybe his status as a presidential candidate allows him to intimidate witnesses at will.

Or maybe not.

These are arguments which Trumps lawyers made at the trial level with Judge Tanya Chutkan. Quite frankly, they sucked then, and they continue to suck now. The only difference is that Trump has became even more brazen in his insistence that prosecutors did not include any evidence that any witness, prosecutor, or court staff had experienced any threats or harassment from third parties after President Trumps statements.

Trump repeats this claim several times, carefully stepping around the fact that a woman named Abigail Shry is under indictment after leaving a voicemail for Judge Chutkan saying Hey you stupid slave n You are in our sights, we want to kill you. Yes,technically, thats not a threat to any witness, prosecutor, or court staff. But its not speculative, as Trump argues repeatedly.

In fact, prosecutors and the trial court both noted that Trumps social media posts provoked waves of harassment for election officials and poll workers in the wake of the 2020 election as he sought to sow the claims of vote fraud which formed the basis of the election interference charged in this case. Trumps lawyers scoff that this was almost three years ago, and long before this case was brought, which is basically like a sealed juvenile record, if you think about it. (But not too hard.)

Trump continues to mischaracterize the hecklers veto, claiming that his free speech rights cannot be abridged just because his goons might hear him say that Gen. Mark Milley ought to be executed and then take it upon themselves to make it happen. Which is wildly offensive, but perhaps less so than Trump likening himself to civil rights protestors wrongly arrested for disturbing the peace by exercising their First Amendment rights. After all, this is a case which charges Trump with violating a Reconstruction Era statute by seeking to toss out 20 million votes on an inchoate theory that there must have been vote fraud in majority-Black cities.

Trump also argues that Judge Chutkans order violates the sacred right of 100 million Americans to hear Trump call Bill Barr a sluggish loser:

The Gag Order violates President Trumps most fundamental First Amendment rights. Even worse, it gives no consideration to the First Amendment rights of President Trumps audience, the American public, to receive and listen to his speech.

Never mind that that statistic includes the 94 million bots and actual users from platforms Trump got booted off of in January of 2021.

These are profoundly unserious arguments, all of which failed at the trial court. Although, to be fair to Lauro, once your client has forced you to defend his right to attack the prosecutors wife on social media, youre a little bit boxed in when you try to argue that he has a fundamental First Amendment right to call Special Counsel Jack Smith Deranged.

Theres also the bad fact that the second Judge Chutkan administratively stayed the gag order, Trump took to Truth Social to complain that cooperative witnesses are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation. I dont think that Mark Meadows is one of them, but who really knows?

And Trumps vicious attacks on Michael Cohen, who testified against him in New York, are a pretty fair indicator of how hell behave in this case if allowed to persist unmuzzled.

The gag order remains stayed through oral argument on November 20. Whether Judges Millet, Pillard, and Garcia will be swayed by the same arguments which failed to convince Judge Chutkan is unclear. But perhaps this brief is aimed a little further down First Street after all.

US v. Trump[Circuit Docket via Court Listener]

Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she writes about law and politics.

More here:
Trump Appeals Gag To Protect First Amendment Right To Intimidate ... - Above the Law

The streets I used to walk on / Are full of broken glass. Thosewords, ripped from the brand new Rolling Stones album, might well be a metaphor for the shit show going on college campuses when it comes to the Israel-Gaza catastrophe. Whichever way one turns, conflict and chaos seem to be trumping civility and consensus. The marketplace of ideas has become a bazaar of pandemonium. Yes, democracy is messy, but how messy can it become until it ceases to be democratic?

The rise of antisemitism

Things appear to be going from bad to worse: Anti-Defamation League Director Jonathan Greenblatt hasnoted that there has been a 388 percent increase in antisemitism in America since Hamas Oct. 7 surprise attack in Israel that killed more than 1,400. Against that backdrop comes a recentop-ed in the Los Angeles Times,one penned by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky:

I was stunned when students across the country, including mine, immediately celebrated the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel on Oct. 7. Students for Justice in Palestine called the terror attack ahistoric winfor the Palestinian resistance. A Columbia professorcalledthe Hamas massacre awesome and a stunning victory. A Yale professortweeted, Its been such an extraordinary day! while calling Israel a murderous, genocidal settler state. A Chicago art professorposteda note reading, Israelis are pigs. Savages. Very very bad people. Irredeemable excrement . . May they all rot in hell. A UC Davis professortweeted, Zionist journalists . . . have houses with addresses, kids in school, adding they can fear their bosses, but they should fear us more. There are, sadly, countless other examples.

While Chemerinsky is careful to avoid calls for censorship, he justifiably feels compelled to call for the very thing that is certain to fan the flames of conflict: There has been enough silence and enough tolerance of antisemitism on college campuses. I call on my fellow university administrators to speak out and denounce the celebrations of Hamas and the blatant antisemitism that is being voiced.

The rise of repression

Of course, there is more to the free speech story. Enter the ACLUsDavid Cole:

In recent weeks, weve seen a surge in efforts to punish and silence students for their speech. The Anti-Defamation League and The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law issued an open letter last week calling on university leaders to investigate pro-Palestinian student groups, alleging their speech constitutes material support for terrorism, punishable under federal and state law, despite no evidence to support such claims. That is why the ACLU sent its ownopen letterto the administrative leaders of each states public college system, reaching over 650 colleges and universities, expressing our strong opposition to any efforts to stifle free speech and association on college campuses. The letter unequivocally urges universities to reject calls to investigate, disband, or penalize pro-Palestinian student groups for exercising their free speech rights.

And thenthis from Aaron Terr over at FIRE:

[S]ome reactions to opinions about the latest escalation of the conflict have gone beyond counter-speech:

Truth in the marketplace of candor

Colleges are struggling to balance campus safety for their students and free speech concerns amid the hostile rhetoric around the Israel-Hamas war. The Hill (Oct. 31)

So it has come down to this: Antisemitism continues, chaotic clashes persist, repression endures, and, yes, counter-speech remains when possible. And yet nobody seems quite fine with it. The much-hailed marketplace of ideas has become less of an Enlightenment mechanism than a college combat zone. In the process, minds close while tempers flare. This raises a question: What if more free speech is not the answer or is not a meaningful antidote to the menacing disturbances so rampant on college campuses? What then?

Let us not speak falsely: Does anyone really believe that free speech and open debate in the conflict that has engulfed college campuses will win over many minds or quell near-riotous clashes? While this is not a call for censorship, it is a call for some realist truth in the marketplace of candor.

Related: Josh Blackman What about critical curricula on antisemitism?

Anti-Semitism is as old as civilization itself. It never vanishes. In every generation, anti-semitism simply manifests in different forms.

Virtually every law school has courses of critical racial studies. Query how much of that curriculum focuses on anti-semitism? Every law school has a DEI department. Query how much of that programming focuses on anti-semitism? I suspect the answer to both questions is very little. Indeed, in 2021, Stanford's DEI Department said thequiet part out loud. They do not focus on anti-semitism as not to diminish discussion of anti-black racism. And, anti-semitism is not as important because Jews can hide behind their white privilege.

Related articles

How the redefinition of antisemitism has functioned as a tactic to undermine Palestine solidarity

The widespread adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism and the internalization of its norms has set in motion a simplistic definitional logic for dealing with social problems that has impoverished discussions of racism and prejudice more generally, across Britain and beyond. It has encouraged a focus on words over substance.

Erasing Palestinetells the story of how this has happened, with a focus on internal politics within Britain over the course of the past several years. In order to do so, it tells a much longer story, about the history of antisemitism since the beginning of the twentieth century.

This is also a story about Palestine, a chronicle of the erasure of the violence against the Palestinian people, and a story about free speech, and why it matters to Palestinian freedom.

University campuses in North America and Europe are deeply polarized over the character of the Jewish state and the meaning of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This book reveals the damage that antisemitism does to the identity of Jewish students, staff, and faculty. It is the first book to ask what the impact has been on the fundamental principles the academy relies on for its identity academic freedom, free speech rights, standards for hiring or firing faculty members and administrators, and the ethics of academic conduct and debate.

WhileHate Speech and Academic Freedom details the chilling challenges we face, it also offers policies to use in meeting them, concluding with detailed chapters on how to use the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism.

Hate speech has been a societal problem for many years and has seen a resurgence recently alongside political divisiveness and technologies that ease and accelerate the spread of messages. Methods to protect individuals and groups from hate speech have eluded lawmakers as the call for restrictions or bans on such speech are confronted by claims of First Amendment protection. Problematic speech, the argument goes, should be confronted by more speech rather than by restriction.

Debate over the extent of First Amendment protection is based on two bodies of lawthe practical, precedent determined by the Supreme Court, and the theoretical framework of First Amendment jurisprudence. InHate Speech is Not Free: The Case Against Constitutional Protection,W. Wat Hopkins argues that the prevailing thought that hate is protected by both case law and theory is incorrect.

Within the Supreme Courts established hierarchy of speech protection, hate speech falls to the lowest level, deserving no protection as it does not advance ideas containing social value. Ultimately, the Supreme Courts cases addressing protected and unprotected speech set forth a clear rationale for excommunicating hate speech from First Amendment protection.

An engaging guide to the most important free speech rules, rationales, and debates, including the strongest arguments for and against protecting the most controversial speech, such as hate speech and disinformation.

This concise but comprehensive book engagingly lays out specific answers to myriad topical questions about free speech law, and also general explanations of how and why the law distinguishes between protected and punishable speech.Free Speechprovides the essential background for understanding and contributing to our burgeoning debates about whether to protect speech with various kinds of controversial content, such as hate speech and disinformation: the applicable legal tenets and the strongest arguments for and against them.

The book focuses on modern First Amendment law, explaining the historic factors that propelled its evolution in a more speech-protective direction - in particular, the Civil Rights Movement. It highlights the many cases, involving multiple issues, in which robust speech-protective principles aided advocates of racial justice and other human rights causes. The book also shows how these holdings reflect universal, timeless values, which have been incorporated in many other legal systems, and have inspired countless thinkers and activists alike.

Without oversimplifying the complexities of free speech law, the book's lively question-and-answer format summarizes this law in an understandable, interesting, and memorable fashion. It addresses the issues in a logical sequence, presenting colorful facts and eloquent language from landmark Supreme Court opinions. It will be illuminating to a wide range of readers, from those who know nothing about free speech law, to those who have studied it but seek a well-organized summary of major doctrinal rules, as well as insights into their background, rationales, and interconnections.

The case isNational Rifle Association of America v. Vullo.The issue raised in it is:

Does the First Amendment allow a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the governments own hostility to the speakers viewpoint or (b) a perceived general backlash against the speakers advocacy?

Professor Eugene Volokh was the counsel of record on thecert. petition.

The Supreme Court handed down some big First Amendment victories last term. What lies ahead for the Court in the upcoming term? FIRE Chief Counsel Robert Corn-Revere and FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London join the show to discuss important First Amendment cases that will be heard during the Court's 2023-24 session.

Related

The Supreme Courtworked hardina pair of argumentson Tuesday to find a clear constitutional line separating elected officials purely private social media accounts from ones that reflect government actions and are subject to the First Amendment. After three hours, though, it was not clear that a majority of the justices had settled on a clear test.

Review granted

Vidal v. Elster

OConnor-Ratcliff v. Garnier

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC/NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton/NetChoice, LLC v. Moody

National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo

Pendingpetitions

Brokamp v. James

Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dept.

Winterville Police Department v. Sharpe

Jarrett v. Service Employees International Union Local 503, et al

Porter v. Board of Trustees of North Carolina State University

Alaska v. Alaska State Employees Association

Speech First, Inc. v. Sands

OHandley v. Weber

Tingley v. Ferguson

State action

Lindke v. Freed

Reviewdenied

Stein v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., et al.

Blankenship v. NBCUniversal, LLC

Center for Medical Progress v. National Abortion Federation

Frese v. Formella

Mazo v. Way

Free speech related

Miller v. USA(pending) (statutory interpretation of 18 U.S.C.1512(c) advocacy, lobbying and protest in connection with congressional proceedings)

Previous FAN

FAN 399:Whats wrong with First Amendment casebooks? Where to begin?

This article is part ofFirst Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the articles author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or of Mr. Collins.

See original here:
Chemerinsky: 'I am a 70-year-old Jewish man, but never in my life ... - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education