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
[EDITORS NOTE: The following is a Letter to the Editor, written by a Reader. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The B-Town Blog nor its staff:]
Honarable Mayor Lucy Krakowiak Councilman Austin Bell Burien City Council et al
Please present, for your consideration, at the next city council meeting.
In regards to; Minor Amendments to BMC Titles 9, 17 and 19,esp. 9.105.400 Noise.
(c) Yelling, shouting, whistling or singing on or near the public streets, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. or at any time and place as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property.
The text or at any time and place which negates the particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m is a clear violation of the freedom of speech amendment to the constitution of the United States and should be struck.
Also, the term unreasonably disturb has not been clearly defined to decibel level or is the issue content driven? Both The National Endowments of the Arts and The Washington State Arts Commission supports street music and busking. What would New Orleans be without its street music? New York, to San Francisco has its revered street musicians. Seattle has its famous Pike Marketplace musicians. The Burien ordinance had no restrictions on street music. The laws must take into account all the citizens of Burien. This amendment appears to be placating to the comfort of owners or possessors of real property who are not sentient citizens, but merely property owners.
Street music is a demonstration that a city has musical culture and refinement.This change appears to be more than it is and is clear violation of the First Amendment which protects freedom of speech, the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. and that includes music.
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely, Joe Moldovan
[Have an opinion or concern youd like to share with our ~80,000+ monthly Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, please cite your sources, remain civil and pending our careful review well consider publishing it.]
Posted by Scott Schaefer on Friday, March 10, 2017 at 10:03 am Filed under Burien News, Headlines, Letters to the Editor, Opinion, Politics Tagged with Burien, burien city council, city of burien, first amendment, Law, Legal, letter to the editor, news, noise, Opinion, ordinance, Politics
Read the rest here:
LETTER: Resident claims Burien's Noise Ordinance violates First Amendment - The B-Town Blog (blog)
Protecting free speech can be challenging. Consider Bill S2493, passed last June and again last week by the New York state Senate.
The bill would withhold state university funding from any student group calling for a boycott of Israel or other "allied nations." Supporters say it's a way to show solidarity with Israel during a time of increasing anti-Semitism.
To be sure, that's a noble cause. The anti-Semitic acts being committed around the state and nation are reprehensible.
But Bill 2493 quite likely violates the First Amendment. It should be rejected by the Assembly, where it currently is in the Government Operations committee.
The bill specifically would bar state universities, city universities, and community colleges from funding any student organization that promotes, encourages, or permits boycotts against certain nations or permits intolerance or hate speech. Besides Israel, the anti-boycott bill would cover other NATO countries, South Korea, Japan, Ireland and several Pacific and Latin American treaty signatories.
The bill is unconstitutional.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a group founded in 1999 to defend and sustain individual rights at Americas colleges and universities, explains it this way: "The bills language is broad, encompassing both actual boycotts and merely encouraging others to boycott, and would compel New York universities to distribute their funding on a viewpoint-discriminatory basis. That is, New York universities could fund groups that discourage boycotts of Israel (or other allied nations), but not those that encourage it."
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Southworth (2000), held that When a university requires its students to pay fees to support the extracurricular speech of other students, all in the interest of open discussion, it may not prefer some viewpoints to others.
State Sen. Joseph Griffo, R-Rome, voted for defunding student groups; Assemblyman Anthony Brindisi, D-Utica, is co-sponsor of a similar bill in the Assembly.
We condemn this pattern of deplorable threats that has spread fear within the Jewish communities across our state, and New York will not turn a blind eye to such intolerance, Griffo said. We reaffirm our commitment to work with our state and federal law enforcement agencies to hold accountable the people who perpetrate these acts of hate.
No argument. By all means, hold the criminals accountable. Anyone convicted of hate crimes should be punished to the fullest extent allowed by law.
But don't pass bills that violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
That's what this legislation does, and it should not become law.
See the article here:
OUR VIEW: State Bill S2493 means well but likely violates First Amendment - Utica Observer Dispatch
When the group Support Portsmouth Public Art asked Sue Landerman to make a First Amendment sculpture, she knew exactly what it should look like: Virginian-Pilot columnist Ida Kay Jordan's old desk.
The metal and stone sculpture, "Our First Freedom," will be installed on a pillar on the landing in front of the Portsmouth Public Library on Court Street. The artwork will be unveiled on March 22.
"We chose the site in front of the library also as a symbol; much in the way as the lady of justice is blindfolded in front of a courthouse," said Dr. John Joyce, president of the public art group's board. "There would be no library, no books or newspapers, without this amendment. We also believe that freedom of artistic expression ... originates from this same freedom."
Support Portsmouth Public Art uses grants and donations to commission art throughout the city. Barbara Vincent, the group's secretary, said the funds for Landerman's statue came from a Portsmouth Museum and Fine Arts Commission grant and a donation provided by Friends of the Portsmouth Public Library.
"If we didn't have people contributing to the arts for our city, we wouldn't be able to do this," Vincent said.
Landerman, a local artist, did a lot of research before she started the sculpture. She read the Constitution and a letter that George Washington wrote to Congressabout the first amendment.
"Of course, my creativity wheels started spinning," she said.
She pictured longtime friend Jordan's desk. When she was a reporter at a Pilot bureau in Portsmouth, Landerman said, her desk was in the corner and had a typewriter and big stacks of newspapers. That's what the artist wanted to replicate.
"Ida Kay, she's like legendary in Portsmouth," Landerman said.
The sculpture, which is 45 inches tall and just under 4 feet wide, took several months to complete. Landerman enlisted Newport Newssculptor Jon Ware to help construct the desk.
The finished work also features a typewriter, Washington's letter and a stack of papers topped by an issue of Currents,in which Jordan has a recurring column.
"I feel very, very honored," Jordan said, although she was abit embarrassed to have her desk immortalized.
"Oh my goodness, I hope it's not realistic because I'm a mess; a typical old-fashioned reporter."
Landerman said it's the perfect time to honor the First Amendment.
"(It) has certainly been challenged more lately," Vincent said. "We hope that this sculpture will make people think about the value of (the First Amendment) because it's certainly what separates us from other societies."
And the artwork itself beautifies the city, she said.
"Public art has many functions. It creates conversation, it inspires imagination, it can make a city a destination."
Landerman wants this piece of art to inspire action.
"I hope that (viewers) go home, go online, Google the Constitution and read it," she said. "And share it with your children and grandchildren. They'll never forget it."
See original here:
Ida Kay Jordan's former desk at the Pilot immortalized in First Amendment sculpture - Virginian-Pilot
Clay Calvert, University of Florida
(THE CONVERSATION) Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for United States Supreme Court justice nominee Neil Gorsuch are fast approaching.
Its time to consider some key questions about First Amendment speech rights the senators should ask during the constitutionally mandated advice-and-consent process.
These hearings often are contentious. That was the case for Justice Clarence Thomas in the early 1990s. And they surely wont be a cake walk this time, given Democratic anger over Republican inaction on Merrick Garland, former President Barack Obamas nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016.
The First Amendment questions Id pose to Gorsuch are critical because the man who nominated him, President Donald J. Trump, bashes the press as the enemy of the people yet proclaims no one loves the First Amendment more than he.
An obvious question for Judge Gorsuch is his view of the courts 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission. That five-to-four decision divided sharply along perceived partisan lines. It affected the speech rights of corporations and unions in funding political ads shortly before elections. Committee Democrats no doubt will grill Gorsuch about Citizens United.
As the director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida, I would like to suggest at least three other timely and vital questions he should be asked about speech rights but that I doubt he will face.
The first question Id pose to Gorsuch involves an issue the Supreme Court has never tackled does the First Amendment protect a persons right to record police officers doing their jobs in public places?
Its a vital question in light of incidents such as the April 2015 shooting in the back of unarmed African-American Walter Scott by white police officer Michael Slager in South Carolina. A video of it was captured on a smartphone by barber Feidin Santana while walking to work. It was key evidence in Slagers murder trial which ended with a hung jury.
Without guidance from the Supreme Court about recording cops in public venues, lower courts have had to sort it out for themselves.
Just last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded in Turner v. Driver that First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. Thats a positive step in terms of creating a constitutional right to record cops within the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. But just what constitutes a reasonable restriction is extremely vague and problematic, especially because judges usually defer to officers judgments.
Worse still, some courts havent even recognized any First Amendment right to record police.
In the case of Fields v. City of Philadelphia, now under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, a federal judge ruled there is no First Amendment right to film police in public spaces unless the person recording does so with the intent of challenging or criticizing police actions. In brief, there is no First Amendment right to neutrally record police as a bystander or journalist in Philadelphia.
Gorsuch thus should be asked: Do citizens have a First Amendment right to record police doing their jobs in public places and, if there is such a right, what if any are the specific limits on that right?
Trumps presidency ushers in a new era of confrontational political activism. Protests against Trump and rallies for him are common, with some ending in arrests. Berkeley, California home of the 1960s free speech movement saw 10 arrests this month when pro- and anti-Trump individuals clashed.
Gorsuch should be questioned about the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble and the limits on that right affecting political demonstrations on public streets, sidewalks and parks. The Supreme Court privileges such quintessential public forums for picketing and protests, and it carefully reviews any restrictions imposed there on speech and assembly. Would Gorsuch follow that tradition of protection?
Disturbingly, The New York Times reported earlier this month that lawmakers in more than 15 states are considering bills that would curb, to varying degrees, the right to protest. Some measures, such as Florida Senate Bill 1096, do so by requiring a special event permit be obtained before any protest on a street, thus stifling spontaneous demonstrations that might occur after a controversial executive order or a startling jury verdict.
Requiring the government to grant a permit before one can protest constitutes a prior restraint on speech. Prior restraints, the Supreme Court has repeatedly found, are presumptively unconstitutional.
Gorsuch thus should be asked: What, if any, limits are there on the First Amendment right to engage in political speech in public spaces, including streets, sidewalks and parks?
Finally, Id ask Gorsuch for his views about the First Amendment right to offend. Its an important topic today for three reasons.
First, protesters may use offensive language to capture attention and show the passion behind their views. The Supreme Court traditionally protects offensive political speech, as it famously did in 1971 in Cohen v. California. There it ruled in favor of Paul Robert Cohens First Amendment right to wear a jacket with the words F the Draft in a Los Angeles courthouse hallway.
Second, some believe theres a pall of political correctness in society, particularly in higher education. Some students may be deterred from using certain language or expressing particular viewpoints for fear they will offend others and thus be punished.
Third, the Supreme Court is set to rule in the coming months in a case called Lee v. Tam. It centers on the power of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny an Asian-American band called The Slants trademark registration over that name because it allegedly disparages Asians. The court heard oral argument in the case in January.
Id thus ask Gorsuch: When does offensive expression - in particular, offensive speech on political and social issues - lose protection under the First Amendment?
Gorsuch already has submitted written answers to the Judiciary Committee on some issues, but not on the questions raised here. These topics filming cops in public, protesting on streets and sidewalks, and using offensive language seem especially relevant in a turbulent Trump era.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article here: http://theconversation.com/neil-gorsuch-and-the-first-amendment-questions-the-senate-judiciary-committee-should-ask-73887.
Continued here:
Neil Gorsuch and the First Amendment: Questions the Senate Judiciary Committee should ask - mySanAntonio.com