Mediaboss Marketing

Anti-Trump protesters and the Denver Police Department may disagree about whether the First Amendment grants them the right to protest at airports.

According to a video posted to YouTube by protester Darren OConnor on Saturday, Commander Lopez of the Denver Police Department was having none of it, no First Amendment Right to express the outrage being felt across the country at the unilateral closing of our borders to people with Green Cards and families in America. The First Amendment requires a permit. Even carrying the constitution without a permit is illegal, according to Commander Lopez. Read that again. And again. And again.

During the protest, Denver Police Commander Tony Lopez told protestersthat they should put all the signs away that have anything to do with First Amendment expression, political message. Based on legal advice we are getting at this time, from the city attorney, whats being displayed, is a violation of airport rules and regulations.

As NBC News affiliate 9News pointed out, the Supreme Court has ruled before that airports are not traditional public forums, giving airport officials the ability to impose reasonable restrictions. This coincides with the position taken by Denver International Airport spokesman Heath Montgomery, who told 9News that we have to ensure that people who use this airport are safe and able to go about their business uninterrupted and thats going to remain our focus. According the airports rules and regulations, protesters need to submit a permit one week in advance, which didnt happen prior to Saturdays event.

Eventually a compromise was struck and the protesters were allowed to move to another part of the airport.

In the end, We The People won the day, proclaimed OConnor in the description under his YouTube video. Commander Lopez backed down, and as We The People stood in support of immigrants and the First Amendment, a federal judge stayed Trumps order. We the people won the day.

Read the original:
Denver Police say airport protesters aren't protected by First Amendment, need permit - Salon

WIAT 42

Police: Veteran's hanging Trump effigy protected by First Amendment WIAT 42 MacLean said Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and under Article 1, Section 9, of the Indiana Constitution, permits and protects speech as long as it is not a call to imminent lawlessness. It is illegal to threaten ... and more »

Link:
Police: Veteran's hanging Trump effigy protected by First Amendment - WIAT 42

An overview of the goals of reforming the Colorado Open Records Act. Nick Coltrain

Lauren Gustus is Executive Editor of the Coloradoan.(Photo: File photo)

About a year ago, a bill withFort Collins origins failed in the Colorado Legislature.

You might be thinking, well, thats nothing new. This session will see more than 700 bills introduced at the Capitol. A fraction of them will become law.

It's what happened after this specific bills failure that was unusual.

The Secretary of States Office committed to helping reframe the bill for 2017 so it worked better for those who made public records requests and those in receipt of them.

The idea: If a record is available in digital form, it should be given to a requestor in a native format, i.e., some sort of searchable digital format. Today the standard is that it be made available in printed form (and that could be somewhere far from where you live).

The prospect of open records modernization is understandably concerning to government employeesworking in an office that doesnt receive requests often or if your office isnt familiar with excel or other digital formats.

So the Secretary of State created a working group to determine how to create a piece of legislation that updated todays Colorado Open Records Act known as CORA, which hasnt been updated since 1996 without creating potential for unintentional release of data that is not public (such employees Social Security numbers, gender, etc).

I served on the 16-person working group as the representative for the Colorado Press Association, which started to discuss the issue in early summer and wrapped in December.

The result is Senate Bill 40, which will be heard in the Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on Feb. 6. I am headed down to Denver to testify in its support. If it passes out of committee, it will move to the Senate floor.

Some people might wonder if it is my place to speak in support of legislation at a time when we are discussing daily how to best offer balanced coverage for you.

Just as it is our responsibility to fight abuses of power and champion issues for those who do not have a voice, it is also our duty to work for improved transparency.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.

Timely stuff, even if his comments were made 15 years ago.

The update to CORA is a reasonable solution thats worked its way through a monthslong process with stakeholders from across the state and the political divide.

I am impressed by the open-minded approach taken by Colorado legislators on both sides of the aisle, as well as state agencies such as the Secretary of States Office, and how stakeholders with disparate missions brought to a table to make concessions.

With this piece of legislation, Colorado is demonstrating that it can be an exception to todays political rule in Washington, D.C.

This bills sponsors (Sens. John Kefalas and Dan Pabon) compromised. Just as important, they listened. Im hopeful the committee will do the same when it considers the legislation.

The bill would require the custodian of the public records to provide an accurate copy of the public records in a searchable format when requested. If public records are not stored as structured data but are stored in an electronic or digital form and are searchable in their native format, the custodian is required to provide a copy of the public records in a format that is searchable when requested.

Nothing in the bill requires a custodian to produce records in their native format. A searchable format is required.

http://leg.colorado.gov/content/committees

Read or Share this story: http://noconow.co/2jOPGJZ

Go here to see the original:
Gustus: First Amendment matters; here's what I'm doing - The Coloradoan

Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn. questions Attorney General-designate, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 10, 2017, during the committee's confirmation hearing for Sessions. Alex Brandon / AP

Now, Sessions' support of FADA is being called into question. In his list of

Sessions balked at the idea that FADA is "deceptively named," telling Franken: "The purpose of the legislation was to prohibit the federal government from taking discriminatory actions against any person based on their belief or action in accordance with a religious or moral conviction." Other supporters of the bill have similarly stressed the concept of federal government "discrimination," rather than addressing the bill's protection of those who engage in discrimination.

Franken wasn't happy with Sessions' answers to his questions about the bill.

"Contrary to Senator Sessions' response, federal law does not allow the government to discriminate against someone on the basis of a sincerely held religious belief," Franken told NBC News. "The First Amendment Defense Act would legalize discrimination, pure and simple."

Sen. Mike Lee's spokesperson, Conn Carroll, told NBC News that FADA "explicitly does not preempt state law, so it does not enable discrimination anywhere." That was a direct response to questioning about how FADA would apply in the 20-plus U.S. states that currently have laws protecting LGBTQ residents from discrimination. Would FADA only apply in half of the country?

The ACLU's Ian Thompson, a Legislation Representative specializing in LGBTQ policy, told NBC News the bill's text actually states the oppositeand would evenly apply nationwide.

"The notion that national law can only apply to some states boggles the mind. If FADA passed it would apply in every state," Thompson said. "At the very beginning of FADA, you will see that it clearly states 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.' That's essentially saying that it overrides any other law."

Besides, Thompson said, FADA it so sweeping in its reach that it would impact LGBTQ people everywhere, even if state laws did offer protection.

"If you went down to the Social Security office with your partner," Thompson said, "an employee would be empowered to say 'I can't help you because of my religion or morals regarding same-sex couples.' It would allow a federal contractor in NYC to discriminate despite the Obama executive order. It would allow commercial landlords to reject a same-sex couple or an unmarried couple."

Regardless of state-level or even local anti-discrimination ordinances, experts say FADA would apply to any entity that receives federal funding. Franken told NBC News that it would "sanction sweeping discrimination."

"A homeless shelter could turn away a married same-sex couple seeking a safe place to sleep," Franken explained. "A commercial landlord could refuse to rent to a single mom or a pregnant single woman, because the business doesn't believe in sex outside of marriage.This is a dangerous bill."

Ambiguous, confusing language "notwithstanding any other provision of law" and the use of the term "discrimination" is part of what makes the true intent of the First Amendment Defense Act so difficult to untangle. Interpretation of FADA's scope varies wildly, too, between its supporters and its opposition. That could be due to the changing drafts of the bill, which first appeared to allow religious and moral-based discrimination universally, and was later changed to exclude federal contractors, publicly traded companies and hospitals.

But even the version of the bill that excludes hospitals from the right to turn away LGBTQ patients or patients having sexual relations outside of heterosexual marriage would allow an individual employee to opt out, according to Sen. Lee's spokesperson.

"Pro-life doctors work at hospitals that provide abortion services all the time, but those hospitals don't force doctors to perform abortions," said Carroll, who told NBC News the newest draft would likely resemble the

The version of FADA that will be reintroduced to Congress this term has yet to be seen, and despite Carroll's assertion that FADA will probably exclude hospitals, the only version that was ever actually introduced to Congress did not mention exclusions at all leaving all businesses and institutions free to claim a moral objection to serving LGBTQ people or unmarried couples.

All versions of FADA so far entrust the Attorney General to press charges against any "independent establishment" that violates the law. That means that if the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) the federal agency tasked with enforcing civil rights protections in the workplace were to try and do its job, for example, Sessions could take the agency to court.

"It says to federal agencies like the EEOC that they can't step in and protect these people," Thompson said.

The legal scope of FADA isn't the only criticism it has faced. Clergy of all stripes, including Baptists, have spoken out against the law. In 2016, a group of clergy in Georgia held a press conference where they said FADA would allow adoption agencies to put bias ahead of children's best interests.

"I find it unacceptable at every level as a pastor, as a citizen, as a Baptist and as a father," said Trey Lyon, a pastor at Atlanta's Park Avenue Baptist Church, according to

Progressive Christians have been fighting similar laws, with one

Follow NBC Out on

Continued here:
First Amendment Defense Act Looms Over Sessions' Confirmation Vote - NBCNews.com

The band 'The Slants' is taking their trademark fight to the Supreme Court. Despite making music for more than a decade, the Portland, Oregon-based band has been unable to get its name registered as a federal trademark. USA TODAY NETWORK

The Slants, of Portland Ore.(Photo: The Slants)

When Simon Tam founded his rock band and named it The Slants,the Asian-American musician was trying tore-appropriate an ethnic slur and turn it into something positive.

Many people may find the name offensive, and they have plenty of options. They can vote with their feet and deny The Slants an audience. Or launch a boycott. Or go to appearances and protest. Thats the beauty of the First Amendments guarantee of freedom of speech. The antidote to speech you find offensive is more speech.

But what the federal government did in 2011, when it found the name "disparaging," is offensive to this constitutional guarantee. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied Tam trademark protection,citing a law that bars the government from approving trademarks that may disparage ... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols."

Simon Tam, founder of The Slants band, at the Supreme Court in January 2017.(Photo: Yuya Matsuda)

Tam challenged the decision. And this month,after a long trip through the lower courts, the case landed at the Supreme Court, which will likely decide the case this spring. A trademark is a valuable commodity, giving the holder the exclusive right to use the name and legal power to sue others who infringe on that right.

No matter what the Patent and Trademark Office thinks of the name, government bureaucratsshouldnt be in the business of deciding what is and isnt disparaging to some group, or of protecting certain groups from getting their feelings hurt,which is essentially what the patent law allows.

USA TODAY

Deny trademark of hateful names: Opposing view

Popular, inoffensive speech seldom needs protection. The beauty of the First Amendment in a free society is that it protects unpopular or offensive speech, particularly from government regulation. The Supreme Court has said asmuch many times over many years.

The government tried to get around such strong affirmations of freedom of speech by arguing that a trademark denial doesnotrestrict free speech.The Slants can still use the name. It merely places a reasonable limit on access to a government program, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart argued for the government.

Several justices didnt buy that defense. Justice Samuel Alito said the government was stretching the concept of a government program past the breaking point, noting that the government provides many services, such as fire protection,and could not choose to provide them only to some groups.

Justice Elena Kagan said the denial sounds like a fairly classic case of viewpoint discrimination, which is flatly unconstitutional. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the laws vagueness and inconsistent application, pointing out that the patent office had both approved and rejected trademarks for the term hebe. Other trademarks, surely offensive to some, have been approved, includingYellowman, Retardipedia and Crippled Old Biker Bastards. Its all too arbitrary to pass constitutional muster.

The court's decision will affect other trademarks, some far more infamous and controversial. In 2015, a federal trial judge in Washington upheld the patent officescancellation of the trademark of the Washington Redskins football team. That appeal is pending at a federal appeals court.

Native Americans and many others find the teams name deplorable, including Tam and The Slants,whose website says redskin represents a long history of oppression.They can loudly protest, just as others can celebrate the name all without government interference.

And thats just the point. When the government denies a valuable benefit based on its arbitrary determination of offensiveness, everyone loses one of the Constitutions most cherished guarantees.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by itsEditorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view a unique USA TODAY feature.

To read more editorials, go to theOpinion front pageor sign up for thedaily Opinion email newsletter.To respond to this editorial, submit a comment toletters@usatoday.com.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2jOYy2b

Continue reading here:
What's in a name? A 1st Amendment right: Our view - USA Today - USA TODAY