First Amendment Radio Judea and Samaria
Ezra Ridgley appears on the show "Barry Chamish Presents" on "First Amendment Radio" Ezra talks about the new Documentary by the Jewish Heritage Project. htt...
By: Ezra Ridgley
Read the rest here:
First Amendment Radio Judea and Samaria - Video
Kids speak at OAS
Child comments on his other friends being afraid to come down and exercise their first amendment rights.
By: ZFG Street-Art
Continue reading here:
Kids speak at OAS - Video
Dear readers, we need to review this First Amendment thing again.
Since former Wolfeboro Police Commissioner Bob Copeland admitted calling President Barack Obama the n-word in public (Copeland resigned under pressure this week), some have claimed that demanding his resignation violates his right to free speech. Thats not how the First Amendment works.
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, the amendment states. The 14th Amendment then applied that restriction to the states as well. Copeland was an elected government official who said something awful (he called President Obama the n-word), stuck by it, and doubled down on it. The Founding Fathers would hardly have objected to the idea that the people should hold elected officials accountable for what they say.
The First Amendment is not a shield to deflect all barbs tossed in response to ones words. It protects against government censorship and punishment, not the reproach of the people. Copeland remains free to call people names as often as he wishes. And the people of Wolfeboro remain free to hold their elected officials to higher standards of behavior.
Read more here:
Copeland's rights They were not violated
The Kansas state attorney general approved a revised policy that states any employee at a public university in the state can be fired over improperly using social media, raising questions that their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon.
"It's too broad; it's too vague, and it's already causing people to chill themselves in the way that they use social media," Doug Bonney, the legal director for the ALCU of Kansas, told Think Progress.
The Kansas Board of Regents approved last week an amended version of the new social media policy. The Wichita Eagle reported that the new policy allows a university's chief executive to fire any faculty member who uses social media and posts a comment that could incite violence, disclose confidential information or otherwise damage the university.
One of the elements of the new policy that has legal experts confused is the part that says a faculty member can face disciplinary action for "speech contrary to the interests of the university."
"Unless you had access to every piece of information pertaining to the university, you would never know what affects its interests," Ken Paulson, the president of the First Amendment Center, told Think Progress.
The regents developed the social media policy after an anti-NRA tweet in September 2013 by David Guth, a University of Kansas journalism professor. He reportedly tweeted, "blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters."
The tweet caused an uproar over the bounds of social media.
Under the policy, social media covers blogs and social networking sites.
Kirk McClure, a professor in the Department of Urban Planning at Kansas University, said the social media policy would hamper the ability for Kansas schools to compete for top faculty.
"The social media policy makes it even harder to sell KU to top faculty candidates. A new faculty member can be disciplined, even terminated for a tweet," McClure said.
Read more:
Social media posts could get Kansas university employees fired
A St. Paul judges ruling will level the playing field for political donations in Minnesota, halting a law that plaintiffs argued dishes out First Amendment rights on a first-come, first-served basis.
Only weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal limits on campaign donations in McCutcheon v. FEC, U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank on Monday applied that precedent to a Minnesota campaign finance law that allowed some Minnesotans to donate more than others to the same candidate in state elections.
The federal court directed Minnesota officials to halt enforcement of the states special sources limit law. Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, initiated the case.
The government should not be using campaign finance laws to play favorites, said Anthony Sanders, lead attorney for IJ in the constitutional challenge. This ruling means that all Minnesotans who want to support political candidates will enjoy the same rights, no matter when in the election they make their contribution.
Under the law, 12 contributors could donate up to $1,000 to a candidate for the state House. The 13th contributor, however, would be restricted to a donation of $500, due to a $12,500 special sources limit for large contributions. Similar limits with larger dollar amounts applied to candidates for state Senate and constitutional offices.
Click for more from Watchdog.org
See the rest here:
Federal court puts MN campaign finance limits on hold