Mediaboss Marketing

CHICAGO (FOX 32 News) -

A new eavesdropping bill is generating some First Amendment concerns before it even becomes law.

The law will replace the previous one, which was declared unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court. However, some nebulous language is causing concerns among some groups who fear it could have a chilling effect on people videotaping the police.

The law makes it illegal to record any conversation unless everybody in the conversation consents or no one in the conversation has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Well, what does it mean to have a reasonable expectation of privacy? This law doesn't tell you how to know that, said Jacob Huebert, Sr. Attorney with the Liberty Justice Center.

But the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois said those concerns are misguided.

When you see a police officer having an interaction in public, and you can hear what they're saying, you can record it, said Ed Yohnka, Communications Director with the ACLU of Illinois

Yohnka said people who have been marching in the streets of Chicago to vent their frustrations over the Eric Garner death in New York City should not have to worry about recording their interactions with police, or any other public interaction with law enforcement, as long as it's in a public place.

That right was established by the decision issued by the Illinois Supreme Court back in the spring when it ruled the old eavesdropping law was unconstitutional, according to the ACLU.

Yohnka said the new law would put the onus on police officers to take steps to have any private conversations in places where they could clearly expect privacy. He added prosecutors and police need to make it clear to their officers that people do have the right to record them doing their job in public.

They have a right, under the First Amendment, to gather that kind of information, you know to try to redress wrongs, to try to correct a situation, to make a complaint about the actions of a particular public official, Yohnka said.

Continued here:
Illinois eavesdropping legislation focuses on 'private' dialogue

Nov. 25, 2014 front page of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. (Newseum)

Something more than fires and rage has been sparked in the streets of Ferguson. There is a growing awakening and reawakening of hundreds and thousands of protesters to their First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I saw it firsthand as I talked to men and women, young and old, black and white, before and after a grand jury decided not to indict former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown.

Before this sleepy suburb in my hometown of St. Louis morphed into an international flashpoint for race relations and police tactics in America, for many of the protesters the 45 words in the First Amendment had as much interest or meaning as the Yellow Pages. Now, the First Amendment, like Ferguson, is a rallying cry, a hashtag, ammunition they can use to protect themselves from any government authority that tries to quell their voices.

Voices like Thomas Bradley. The 24-year-old barber works on the stretch of West Florissant Avenue in Ferguson that suffered the most damage. A week before Brown was killed, Bradley said he was physically and verbally harassed by a Ferguson policeman. In the aftermath of Browns death and the grand jurys exoneration of Wilson, Bradley has taken a place beside other young demonstrators on the citys streets.

I didnt know anything at all about the First Amendment, at least not as much as I should have, he said. Now I do. This is not just about Mike Brown but everybody who has ever been abused by the police department.

Voices like 63-year-old Beverly Adams of University City, Mo., who knew about her constitutional rights but hadnt exercised them in years.

I was enraged when [Browns body] was left out in the street for four and a half hours, she said. I started marching on Canfield, the street where Brown died. Thats where I always go, by myself. I think when all is said and done, there will be a special law in his name against police brutality.

Voices like Ericka Hughes, 42, a business owner in Jennings, Mo., who made some of the T-shirts worn in the Ferguson protests. She took to the streets within the first few days of Browns shooting.

This is not the first time I have marched for a cause, she said. Browns death hit so close to home in so many ways. I have nephews and cousins and stepsons. This affects everybody.

The rest is here:
#Ferguson, #FirstAmendment

SlutWalk and the First Amendment
Our Journalism project that looks into SlutWalk and Victim Blaming and how it pertains to the First Amendment.

By: Margaret Silhasek

More here:
SlutWalk and the First Amendment - Video

Ragtop ft. First Amendment - Fuckin
(New Orleans,LA) - 1992 On Next Level Distributed..

By: MarvellKilla071

Follow this link:
Ragtop ft. First Amendment - Fuckin - Video

John Flannery, a Loudoun litigator and former federal prosecutor, raised the subject to Loudoun County Public School Superintendent Eric Williams at the Loudoun Democrats monthly meeting Dec. 4, where Williams was a guest speaker.

Flannery filed a Freedom of Information Act request with LCPS requesting school facility community use applications, revealing 33 religious groups using school facilities.

According to the documents, 40 percent of the county's public school buildings are used for religious worship services on weekends.

Flannery believes religious services of any kind that are held in public school buildings are unconstitutional and break the First Amendment of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from passing laws establishing religion or hindering religious expression.

There are cases that basically say that [worship services in public schools] is essentially the establishment of religion, Flannery said to Williams at the meeting. Religions can use the schools in certain contexts, but they can't use them for worship services, as that's establishing a religion. I was wondering what you propose to do about that?

Williams said that he was not familiar with court cases in which worship service in schools was considered a violation of the First Amendment.

I am accustomed to working in school divisions in which the norm was [schools allowing worship services when not using the building], Williams said. Obviously I'm familiar with the case law in terms of separation between church and state as it relates to school day practices and so that is important. I will tell you that's just not my understanding in terms of what's appropriate in terms of weekend use.

Williams said he was happy to have the board's attorney look into the issue.

Flannery has begun a discussion with school and county officials on whether or not worship in public school buildings is appropriate, saying it violates the First Amendment.

Its time to declare that religious worship is an impermissible use of our public schools, Flannery wrote in a letter he sent to School Board members and the Loudoun Board of Supervisors. Some jurisdictions take great pains to ban religious worship in the public schools so that they wont breach the constitutional barrier designed to separate church from state action It is indicative of establishment when the disputed practice is religious rather than secular, when the practice advances religion, and, finally, when the government is entangled with the religious practice.

Original post:
Loudoun attorney says LCPS in violation of First Amendment