are you recording me first amendment
my brother and i were recording all of the empty store by the mall and a lady saw us and tried to confront us. what dumbass.
By: harry zimbler
Read more:
are you recording me first amendment - Video
Apparently this Cop has Never Heard of YouTube OR the First Amendment Now He Will
CHARLOTTE COUNTY FLORIDA SHERIFF CORRUPTION https://www.facebook.com/Charlottecountyflcopwatch.
By: charlottecountyflcopwatch2
Read the original:
Apparently this Cop has Never Heard of YouTube OR the First Amendment Now He Will - Video
By Rachel Raczka
Boston.com Staff | 12.08.14 | 9:39 AM
ICYMI the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week about whether or not violent statements posted on social media are proof of intent to harm. And before you hit post on that status update about how Tommy So-and-So in your office is driving you so crazy you could strangle him, listen up.
The case at hand involves an Allentown, Penn., man named Anthony Elonis, who posted violent rants and threats against his estranged wife, schoolchildren, and law enforcement on Facebook in 2010. He was found guilty of making threats and the court sentenced him to 44 months in prison. Elonis appealed to the Supreme Court, where he argued that he didnt actually intend for his words to be threatening.
Words like this:
Advertisement - Continue Reading Below
If I only knew then what I know now/I would have smothered your ass with a pillow/Dumped your body in the back seat/Dropped you off in Toad Creek and made it look like a rape and murder
Not pretty. But heres the catchElonis claims these were rap lyrics. Rather than a threat, theyre just an expression of creativity and therefore protected by the First Amendment, just as they are for musicians and rappers who have garnered praise and awards for lyrics like these for years. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. even quoted Eminems 97 Bonnie and Clyde during the debate.
The Supreme Court seems hung up on whether theres a difference in the creative liberties allowed to artists and those allowed to independent individuals. The intent of a statementwhether or not it is meant to incite fear and/or violencehas been paramount in previous cases brought before the justices and the lower courts. Also, in some cases, its more about who the threats are directed atthe military, the President of the United States, your family and peers. Sometimes a test known as the Dinwiddie factors, which gauges the frequency, medium, and reaction to a said threat, is used to determine whether or not its valid.
If the court decides that Eloniss intent was to show off his rap prowess and not to terrify two women and a bunch of children, it would set a problematic precedent, as Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. notes:
Continued here:
The Supreme Court Is Tackling Facebook, Rap Lyrics, and the First Amendment
Published December 07, 2014
This photo, provided by FIRE, shows Citrus College student Vincenzo Sinapi-Riddle.
A California community college has settled a lawsuit with a student who claimed it violated his First Amendment rights when an administrator threatened him for collecting petition signatures outside of a small, designated "free speech zone."
Student Vincenzo Sinapi-Riddle, with help from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, sued Glendora, Calif., Citrus College after the incident, which occurred on Sept. 17, 2013 - the day designated as "Constitution Day." Sinapi-Riddle was collecting signatures for a petition condemning the federal National Security Agency's domestic surveillance activities. When he left the area for a lunch break and headed to the student center, he and another student discussed the petition, prompting an administrator to intervene, according to FIRE. Claiming that a political discussion could not take place outside of the free speech zone, the unidentified school employee threatened to eject Sinapi-Riddle from campus for violating the policy.
- Greg Lukianoff, FIRE
I feel that free speech and the ability to express oneself freely is a very important right for all students, said Sinapi-Riddle.
After a suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the school agreed to pay Sinapi-Riddle $110,000 in damages and attorneys' fees, as well as to revise its free speech policies. In a statement, the school noted the settlement figure was far less than the anticipated cost of fighting the lawsuit and defended its policies as in compliance "with a long line of U.S. Supreme Court cases relating to speech activities in public places, including college campuses." But the school affirmed its support for free speech and agreed to change some campus regulations.
"Freedom of expression is crucial in the higher education community, and the District and its Board of Trustees have done much to protect and advance this cherished right," the statement read. "As part of the settlement, the District will be implementing new procedures that will expand its current free speech area to include most open spaces on campus, enhance the Districts co-curricular program by streamlining internal procedures that apply to activities of recognized student clubs and organizations, and help to ensure the safety and security of students involved in such activities."
FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said his group had taken on Citrus College before, and reached a similar agreement, only to have the school go back to the old policy.
"Citrus College agreed to eliminate its restrictive 'free speech zone' in the face of a FIRE lawsuit back in 2003, but later reinstated its speech quarantine when it thought no one was watching," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said in a statement on the group's website. "But FIRE was watching, and well continue to do so. If the speech codes come back again, so will we."
See original here:
FIRST AMENDMENT FIGHT Calif. college settles suit over 'free speech zone'