Mediaboss Marketing

2014 Civics Video Awards First Amendment I

By: FCPSwrbyrne

Follow this link:
2014 Civics Video Awards First Amendment I - Video

Inside the Classroom with Professor Leslie Kendrick
University of Virginia School of Law professor Leslie Kendrick discusses special relationships and how they affect sovereign First Amendment rights during a lecture in her course Constitutional...

By: University of Virginia School of Law

Read the rest here:
Inside the Classroom with Professor Leslie Kendrick - Video

On May 7 I attended a public hearing on a proposed ordinance in Fairfax County that would limit assembly in private homes. The proposal would limit the size of gatherings at a home to no more than three gatherings of 50 or more people in a 40-day period.

When our Founders wrote the first amendment they included a right to assembly. Though this right is talked about less frequently than others such as speech and press, it is one of the most important. It affects the family, the church, and the people and any attack on it should be opposed with the fervor of those who began our country. The dangers that were foreseen in 1789 regarding limits on peaceable assembly at the national level apply equally to the local level.

At first glance, the average person may not think this new law is such a big deal. Those at the first hearing stated otherwise. One citizen noted that his large Greek family meets regularly for Sunday lunch and that the proposed law would jeopardize their traditional meal together. An attack on the family.

Another citizen mentioned the fact that he is a deacon at his church and that they use an adjacent residential yard for large church activities, particularly for local children. These would be banned. An attack on the church.

Yet another citizen mentioned that numerous human rights organizations around the world recognize freedom of assembly as one of the basic freedoms. After all, if you cant organize against those in power without fear of government intervention how can you expect to fight government tyranny? Grassroots political movements would be hindered. An attack on the people.

Already the county regulates the minutiae of its citizens daily lives. The issue at hand is one of raw government power. In truth, most citizens will not be affected immediately by this ordinance. This makes it no less grievous.

Why the attempt to limit assembly in George Washingtons backyard? Proponents of the ordinance cited only a small number of cases where this issue had come up in the county in recent years. They mentioned in-home restaurants which are already banned in other parts of the zoning code. They consistently ignored the Constitutional and privacy concerns expressed by Fairfax residents.

Prior to the meeting two supervisors mentioned stopping home worship services as the original motive behind the ordinance. When Fairfax County tried to stop home churches previously, Congress stepped in and protected the churches. The countys attorneys recommended going after the places of worship on other grounds and so the county proposed this law. This is unacceptable in a country where religious liberty is listed in the Bill of Rights as our first freedom.

One of the most telling remarks came when the proponents of the law shared why it was needed the code is silent in this area. But our First Amendment rights including the freedom of speech werent written for the codes benefit, but for the peoples.

The code already says too much. A little silence would be golden.

Visit link:
A First Amendment attack on Assembly... in George Washington

May 8, 2014

Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling (Mark J. Terrill/Courtesy The Associated Press)

By Gene Policinski, senior vice president, First Amendment Center

What's left to say about the ugly, racist views of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling and the vocal reactions to his comments?

Well, from a First Amendment free expression perspective, several things some of which may well resonate even longer than Sterling's repugnant remarks and the lifetime ban imposed on him by Adam Silver, commissioner of the National Basketball Association.

Sterling's views came to light via a "leaked" audiotape given to a relatively new kind of news media, TMZ.com, which is positioned somewhere between a host of serious news media outlets and a long line of popular and widely read Hollywood gossip columns and magazines.

Not long ago, a digital media outlet like TMZ.com and online phenoms such as Twitter and Facebook would not have been able to create the kind of national discussion and rhetorical firestorm that followed the first TMZ.com reports of Sterling's private-remarks-made-public.

But no longer.

A Pew Research Center's journalism report on the State of the News Media 2014 found that "digital players have exploded onto the news scene, bringing technological knowhow and new money and luring top talent. BuzzFeed, once scoffed at for content viewed as 'click bait,' now has a news staff of 170."

The Sterling incident was yet another example of what the First Amendment's protection of speech is all about. The amendment restrains government from controlling or punishing most kinds of speech. But nothing in the 45 words shielded the billionaire from public revulsion over his views, suspended endorsement deals, instant campaigns to boycott Clipper tickets and a $2.5 million fine.

Here is the original post:
Donald Sterling and Free Speech

WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the p...

By: TheRumpledOne

Here is the original post:
WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT - Video