Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

Op-ed: Berkeley overrules Citizens United!

By William Bennett Turner

William Bennett Turner teaches First Amendment courses at UC Berkeley, and is the author of 'Figures of Speech: First Amendment Heroes and Villains' (2011).

The biggest vote-getter on the Nov. 4 ballot in Berkeley was not the tax on sugary soda, which got 75% of the vote and national attention. Nor was it a candidate for any office. It was Proposition P, which called for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Courts 2010 Citizens United decision. Prop P got 85% of the vote.

The proposition was, as California propositions go, remarkably simple. It asked if the United States Constitution should be amended to abolish the concept that corporations are persons that are entitled to constitutional rights, and the doctrine that the expenditure of money may be treated as speech. (Berkeleyans have rarely been bothered that their principled positions on national and international affairs have little effect; the proposition was placed on the ballot by the City Council.)

The official ballot argument in favor of Prop P (no opposing argument was submitted) overstated the Citizens United decision by claiming it gave corporations the same rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution as human persons. It mistakenly added that the decision specified that donating unlimited money on campaigns should be considered free speech, and asserted the court had endorsed the slogan money equals speech. The argument ended with a ringing call to abolish corporate personhood.

Citizens United is the most misunderstood decision in the 21st century. That is partly because the opinions in the case ran to 176 pages, and very few people have read them. I doubt anyone on the Berkeley City Council has read them.

As it happens, on election day I was teaching the decision in my First Amendment class at UC Berkeley. I felt obligated to tell the students some of the ways Citizens United has been mischaracterized.

First, it did not give corporations the same rights under the U.S. Constitution as natural persons. It didnt give them the right to vote, or the right to contribute directly to a candidate. Nor did it invent the concept of corporate personhood. That was done peremptorily by the court in a railroad case in 1886, without any argument, discussion or analysis. In 1978, the court ruled that political speech in an election did not lose First Amendment protection because of the corporate identity of the speaker, and that became the main theme of Citizens United. The court also protected corporate speech in at least 24 cases before Citizens United, including cases establishing bedrock free speech principles. Those included New York Times v. Sullivan (the right to criticize government without fear of being sued for libel), and the Pentagon Papers case (no prior restraints-type government censorship), both won by the Times corporation.

At this point in our history, abolishing corporate personhood would cause all kinds of mischief. The New York Times and all other media corporations would have no First Amendment rights and could be censored at will. (Relying on the Press Clause of the First Amendment is no answer, because the court has rejected the contention that it gives whoever claims to be the press a difficult definitional question in these days of Fox News, Twitter and bloggers special speech rights not enjoyed by ordinary citizens.) Some Berkeleyans might not be unhappy if government prohibited corporate advertising, thus wiping out the Super Bowl and most media, though few would be pleased if a corporation, not being a person, could not be sued for polluting the environment.

Second, the court did not say money is speech. It simply quoted from its 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo to the effect that restricting the amount of money that can be spent in a campaign restricts the quantity and nature of campaign speech. This is self-evident: it costs money to print and distribute flyers and yard signs, rent billboard space, and buy television and radio time; the less money you can spend, the less you can speak. In that sense, the court now treats money as speech, but it doesnt use the slogan simplistically equating the two.

Here is the original post:
Op-ed: Berkeley overrules Citizens United!

Houston City Council candidate Trebor Gordon files First Amendment challenge to campaign blackout period

From our community

Late Tuesday afternoon, Houston City Council candidate Trebor Gordon filed a First Amendment lawsuit challenging a discriminatory Houston ordinance that prevents city candidates from fundraising until February.

Gordon is a conservative candidate for Houston City Council at large. Houston is a great city because of the entrepreneurial culture of its citizens, among other things, Gordon said. But our current leadership has been chipping away at that spirit, overregulating and fleecing the taxpayers with a runaway budget. Im running to restore responsible leadership and let Houstonians run their own lives.

Im also compelled to address the deeply offensive posture Mayor Parker has taken towards people of faith in this city, harassing pastors with abusive subpoenas, Gordon continued. I have to address these issues now, because they are happening now. I cant wait until February to start my campaign.

Gordon will be on the ballot in the citys next general election in November 2015. Currently, section 18-35(a) of the Houston code of ordinances states that candidates may only solicit or receive contributions beginning in February of the election year and ending on March 4 of the year after the election. This provision prohibits fundraising for a full ten months of every two-year cycle, and candidates have only nine months to raise funds before Election Day.

Gordon is represented by political law attorney Jerad Najvar. There is no blackout period banning bad decisions by city officials for a part of every election cycle, Najvar said, and the government has no authority to tell Gordonor any other candidateto wait until February to start campaigning. City officials have access to free media all day long, and my client certainly has the right to fund his campaign and speak to the public. This waiting period serves only to insulate the city from organized opposition.

Najvar continued: The blackout period is facially unconstitutional. But it gets even worse, because people who currently hold non-city office are raising money right now, and everybody knows it will be transferred to their city campaign in February. This whole system is an absurd charade encouraging candidates to act like theyre running for something theyre not. While these shadow campaigns are proceeding aggressively, nonincumbents like Gordon have to sit on their hands. The First Amendment does not permit such nonsense.

The case is Gordon v. City of Houston, No. 14-CV-3146, currently pending in federal court in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. Gordon has asked for an immediate injunction, and is awaiting a hearing date from the court.

Go here to read the rest:
Houston City Council candidate Trebor Gordon files First Amendment challenge to campaign blackout period

Nexstar CEO Perry Sook Honored with First Amendment Service Award

Irving, TX -- Nexstar CEO Perry Sook has been honored as a First Amendment Award winner by The Radio Television Digital News Foundation.

Perry Sook, president and CEO of Nexstar successfully built Nexstar Broadcasting from two dozen stations to more than 100, while building and improving news operations across the ever-expanding group. This award honors professionals in local or network news who work in an off-air, management, largely behind-the-scenes capacity.

Our honorees are true champions of press freedom," said Chris Carl, Chairman of RTDNF. "Each of them have demonstrated outstanding support of the First Amendment through their work and their commitment to excellence." "We are proud to recognize the tireless dedication of this year's recipients, added Mike Cavender, RTDNF Executive Director. From the board room to the courtroom and from the White House Press Room to our living rooms, they embody the values of a free press in our society."

The awards will be presented at a ceremony at the Grand Hyatt, 1000 H Street NW in Washington, DC on Wednesday, March 11, 2015.

Sook was recently inducted into the Broadcasting & Cable Hall of Fame.

Read the rest here:
Nexstar CEO Perry Sook Honored with First Amendment Service Award

NYPD says First Amendment Ends When They Say – Video


NYPD says First Amendment Ends When They Say
NYPD says First Amendment Ends When They Say. Police are still abusing their power regardless of the rhetoric coming from NYPD commissioner Bratton. We the community need to continue to ...

By: PeacefulStreetsNYC

See more here:
NYPD says First Amendment Ends When They Say - Video

Something About the Music (Remastered) (feat. First Amendment) – Video


Something About the Music (Remastered) (feat. First Amendment)
Something About the Music (Remastered) [feat. First Amendment] Be+UpOne First Amendment Auto-generated by YouTube.

By: Various Artists - Topic

The rest is here:
Something About the Music (Remastered) (feat. First Amendment) - Video