Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

Dickson: No First Amendment rights to yell in city council meetings – KSL NewsRadio

OPINION

UPDATED: MAY 16, 2023 AT 1:23 PM

St. George Mayor Michelle Randall speaks during a city council meeting that lead to her changing public comment rules and First Amendment rights. (Screenshot courtesy of St. George City)

This is an editorial piece. An editorial, like a news article, is based on fact but also shares opinions. The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and are not associated with our newsroom.

ST. GEORGE, Utah Contentious public meetings are not a new thing. Utah has seen more than its share of raucous school board meetings, especially during the pandemic.This week, the mayor of St. George, Michelle Randall, decided to close city council meetings because they had become too divisive. That prompted one citizen in attendance at the meeting to quote their First Amendment rights.

Another citizen, David Johnson of Washington City, said, The First Amendment is very clear and leaves no doubt what our rights are.

Actually, there is plenty of doubt. Open meeting laws, sometimes called sunshine laws, were not included in the Constitution. They cannot be traced back to common law or common practice during the time when the Bill of Rights was passed.

They are a relatively new development. The movement to require open government meetings began in the 1950s, and by 1976, all states and the District of Columbia had adopted sunshine laws. These laws vary from state to state, but in general require that all public meetings be open to the public, with some exceptions.

Utahs open meetings law also provides that any citizen who willfully disrupts a meeting can be removed from that meeting.

Additionally, our sunshine law only applies to the state, its agencies and political subdivisions.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals looked at this issue in Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa. There the court said that a persons speech must actually disrupt the city council meeting before the person can be removed. The Fourth Circuit also said that public officials must have the discretion to cut off speech which they reasonably perceive to be a disruption. See Steinburg v. Chester County Planning Commission.

The bottom line misunderstanding that many Americans struggle with is their belief that rights are absolute.

You may hear someone say in conversation: If I own my home, I ought to be able to do whatever I want with it.

Property law does not convey an absolute right. Your ownership is subject to restrictions, including taxes and eminent domain. Youll also hear people talk about their gun ownership rights in absolute terms, but you must be a certain age and go through a background check, among other restrictions, in order to legally buy a gun.

Likewise, your freedom of speech, in city council meetings and elsewhere, is not absolute. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater (to name the famous one), and you cant use speech to incite imminent violence. Speech rights are most protected in public forums, but the city council chamber is considered a limited public forum.

Because it is limited, the government is allowed to impose time, place and manner restrictions on the exercise of your free speech rights.

Amanda Dickson is the co-host of Utahs Morning Newsand A Womans View.

Continued here:
Dickson: No First Amendment rights to yell in city council meetings - KSL NewsRadio

The First Amendment and the Marketplace of Ideas – WESTVIEW … – WestView News

As a media lawyer and fan of the WestView News, I appreciate this publications willingness to tackle contentious issues. But even the most well-intentioned publishing decisions can spark conflict. Indeed, WestView recently found itself embroiled in controversy relating to a breakaway competitor, and I contributed an opinion piece to last months issue advocating for WestView and sharing my opinions on the matter. As it turns out, my opinion piece has itself become the subject of some controversy. These recent events prompted WestView to ask me to explain the First Amendment right to hear provocative speech.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. One of the most important aspects of the First Amendment is the protection of free speech, which includes both the right to express polarizing opinions and the right to hear them. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment includes the right to hear unpopular speech, stating in First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti that the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.

The right to free speech includes the right to offend, shock, and criticize others. While it may be uncomfortable to hear opinions that differ from our own, it is important to allow dissenting voices to be heard and considered. Doing so can foster a more inclusive and diverse society where voices are valued and represented. By fostering open and honest debate, the right to hear contentious discourse about sensitive topics provides a check against tyranny and oppression. Robust public debate creates a marketplace of ideas, where the best arguments and most persuasive viewpoints rise to the top.

The right to hear unpopular speech is essential for protecting minority viewpoints. Without protection of all perspectives (including ones that may be challenging), we risk creating an echo chamber where only the dominant opinions are heard, and minority viewpoints are suppressed. But when the minority has the right to speak and be heard, it can defend its position and perhaps gain support if warranted. At the very least, the right to hear unpopular speech ensures that the public has access to a diverse range of viewpoints, and can make informed decisions based on multiple perspectives.

While the right to engage in and hear unpopular speech is essential to the functioning of our democracy, there are of course limits to speech. One such limit is defamation, which occurs when a speaker makes a false statement of fact (rather than an opinion) that harms the subject in some appreciable way, and is made with fault or malice. I practice in this area and have experience both bringing and defending lawsuits involving defamation claims. But no matter the case, one constant remains: opinion-based speechsuch as argument about whether someones conduct was appropriateis absolutely protected. This protection includes the right of readers to hear such an argument and decide for themselves whether they agree.

Ultimately, the right to hear unpopular speech is essential to the functioning of a true democracy. It allows for the free exchange of ideas, protects minority viewpoints, and guards against censorship. It is important to challenge and critique opposing views, and it is equally important to allow those views to be heard and considered. By doing so, we can foster a more open and inclusive society where all voices are valued. As Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote, If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

Justin T. Kelton is a partner and Co-Chair of the Litigation Department at Abrams Fensterman, LLP. His practice focuses on media law, First Amendment issues, and complex commercial litigation. He can be reached at 718-215-5300 or jkelton@abramslaw.com. This article represents Mr. Keltons personal opinions only, and does not constitute legal advice.

More here:
The First Amendment and the Marketplace of Ideas - WESTVIEW ... - WestView News

VANGUARD INCARCERATED PRESS: First Amendment Petition … – The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

By James S. Kor

Re:

1) Questions about legitimacy and integrity of the Court

2) Uniformity of the Courts position on debt relief

3) Honor, Fundamental Fairness, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW

It seems obvious that most Americans dont know or have forgotten about your consistent history of favoring big business and the wealthy. But now, based on the direction some of you appear to be leaning on the issue of forgiving student loan debt, there is the opportunity to present and highlight a very telling contrast. So, with this petition, we question what seems to be your Orwellian, ANIMAL FARM-like idea of EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW; some are more equal than others?

The example that follows is merely one of many that indicate some of you are all for forgiveness and lack of accountabilityso long as it is for mega-rich corporations like Monsanto, big pharma, big oil, or corrupt prosecutors and judges who violate citizens rights in criminal cases (the root cause of the unprecedented and growing epidemic of wrongful convictions).

As a result of the EXXON VALDEZ oil tanker spill in Alaskan waters, which devastated wildlife and the environment, EXXON was appropriately saddled with billions of dollars in clean-up costs and also fines that were supposed to have served as a deterrent. Years went by without the fines being paid. Peoples memories of the disaster faded. Then, very quietly, without media fanfare and little notice to the public, YOU, the Supreme Court, acted to forgive the remainder of EXXONs debt; that of the appropriate justice of the fine. To this day it remains unclear HOW justice was supposedly served, HOW the American people were served, HOW the Constitution was served, or HOW that corporate friendly favor you did for EXXON qualifies as EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.

We think some Americans are finally becoming vigilant enough to ask questions about your integrity and legitimacy. Such as this question: If the millions of good mainstream Americans who stand to get relief from their student loan debt were all stockholders in a big corporation, like EXXON, might your postures and questions, re the issue, be different right now? Hmm.

No obsequios overly deferential bootlicking shyster lawyer would ever dare to publicly rub the Courts nose in its own self-created, albeit obscure, shame but the litigant in California Supreme Course CASE #S275842 has no qualms about doing so:

Approximately 22 short months after you granted the debt forgiveness to EXXON and its shareholders, the world witnessed yet another catastrophic oil spill. The BP Oil platform blowout in the Gulf of Mexico was caused by the exact same thing as the EXXON VALDEZ tanker spill; the relaxing of supposedly mandatory safety rules.

Regulatory standards, guidelines and Constitutional rights are in place for good reasons. When YOU create your own new history of allowing them to be broken and violated at will, and take all the teeth out of any deterrent sanctions, remove meaningful oversight, YOU are doing two things for certain:

Now? Who had the wise, centuries-long foresight to see not only that such could happen but also HOW it would come about? It would be a filthy slur on his memory were any of you to deny or attempt to downplay the great Alexander Hamiltons original intent for the courts. Important, here, is what he warned future generations about: YOUR incestuous collusion with both the Executive and Legislative branches and overt prostitution of your rulings to corporations and an increasingly extremist religious right are proving how the courts have become dangerous to liberty and the nation.

In the eyes of those of us paying attention, there is no haven of deniability for you. We see YOUR fingerprints all over the following and more:

1) Youve made political corruption easier (bribery of politicians) via CITIZENS UNITED;

2) You are responsible for the epidemic of wrongful convictions. You are directly complicit in violating citizens rights via the Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Through your supervision of the courts the most powerful and meritorious challenges to the AEDPAs habeas forms are being suffocated in their cradles by those lower courts. Why? Because you do know those reforms are unconstitutional; because you wish to maintain the tyranny wrought through them; and because you know you would be forced to strike them down were such a powerful and meritious challenge to them be allowed to land in front of youwith the public watching. We know that you, the Supreme Court, are fully aware of the following:

a) Those so-called habeas reforms had long-been a pet project of the infamous racist, segregationist, Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond;

b) They eviscerated centuries of precedent and jurisprudence pertaining to what better judges than yourselves respected and fiercely defended as The Great Writ.;

c) Most damning of all is that you know, you do see, that the AEDPAs habeas reforms are actually a diabolically camouflaged resurrection of a huge part of YOUR infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision. In Dred Scott YOU said that the Negro has no rights the white man is bound to respect. And now YOU know the reality is that the state court defendant/appellant/petitioner, most of whom are people of color, have no rights your white man-created system is bound to respect.

d) You know it is a fact that the AEDPA has facilitated the epidemic of wrongful convictions of disproportionate numbers of people of color thus qualifying as institutionalized racism;

e) And now you have at least some idea that HISTORY IS GOING TO SHOW the AEDPAs habeas reforms to have been a racist hate crime masquerading as civilized American law. You already know that good judges have long been saying the reforms are unconstitutional; i.e. the late Justice Stanley Mosk of the California Supreme Court and the NINTH CIRCUITs dissenting judges in Crater v. Galaza et al,

NOTE: See CASE NO.S275842 in the California Supreme Court for the example of a powerful,

meritorious challenge to the ongoing institutionalized racism being perpetrated through the AEDPA, WITH THE SUPREME COURTS COMPLICITY. This is also a case that shows Supreme Court approval of a forced abortion. And for true enlightenment, get and read: The Complicity of Judges in Wrongful Convictions, by Hans Sherrer.

3) YOU, the Supreme Court, are also responsible for the gutting of both the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT and the VOTING RIGHTS ACT, as part of a racist agenda.

4) As to your recent Dobbs v Jackson Womens Health Organization, YOU have preemptively sentenced countless unwanted children to miserable lives and to becoming the MOST LIKELY victims of YOUR clearly established Dred Scott EQUAL (?) JUSTICE UNDER LAW. Roe v. Wade was not merely a precedent; it was a superprecedent (see Blacks Law Dictionary) and that 1973 decision brought about the greatest drop in crime in recorded history. (see FREAKONOMICS by Levitt and Dubner) Fortunately, you have not yet felt the full wrath of 70% of women in America who feel that your Dobbs decision was/is a slap in their faces. Racist? Sexist? Preemptively crippling unborn children? Honorable? Hmmm.

Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I dont see how it is possible.

-Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor

5) The epidemic of mass shootings (44 in the first month of 2023) and WHY, out of all supposedly-civilized nations, the U.S. stands uniquely alone with so much violence an entire society has become numb to it. How are you to blame? First of all, you conduct your charade of justice in a building that advertises THE very biggest lie ever told in all the world: EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW. The brand of soap that washes out your collective mouths from that lie is called REALITY:

A just system of human government is stable. But violence resonates in the unjust system.

Who in this nation doesnt know that youre corrupt; that you lie; that you facilitate wrong being done on the biggest of all scales? Who does not know that judges in America, judges you supposedly-supervise, disregard both the facts and the law when either or both conflict with outcomes they have preemptively decided? Going to the 2+2=4 basics, YOU have too many people in this country becoming aware of these ugly realities, simultaneously. And, on the fringes of these vast numbers of people, there are those who are ACTING on what theyve construed as an invitation to get satisfact- ion, ANY WAY THEY CAN. (citing the great Justice Brandeis dissent in Olmstead).

Too many people are seeing the reality YOU have created where FORCE and MONEY win the day, not rule of law, not fundamental fairness, not justice. For decades, YOU have led the way. You have given tacit approval, implied consent for lying, cheating, violating Constitutional rights and committing criminal offenses in the justice(?) system. YOU have given this power of tyranny to the lower courts, prosecutors, and police and look at what YOUR cowardly gift has wrought, as well as what it has made inevitable; on the immediate horizon. Watch! The chickens are coming home to roost (consequences).

How many times has this entire society been witness to people being WRONGFULLY CONVICTED, BEATEN, or SHOT DEAD by police? Through the decades, how many times has this society borne witness to YOU JUDGES making up some sort of excuse for why wrong done by law enforcement was acceptable? Countless times. 13 shots! 19 shots! 23 shots! 31 shots! 42 shots! 50+! 60+! 70+! 100+ shots fired! WHO started this? Cops.

YOU are the guiltiest of all because the buck was/is supposed to have stopped in your forum. In plain language, you gave prosecutors, cops, and lower courts an inch and theyve taken a mile, and then some. It did not start with the trend of many shots being fired but with the little things you have trivialized and whitewashed thus building this momentum of far more serious injustices being inflicted. People are witness to this momentum of wrongdoing and virtual non-accountability YOU have set in motion through your expert excuse-making and acquiescence. There is no running from the responsibility; out of sheer cowardice YOU have refused to stand by the Constitution which, in reality, was originally intended to make FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS the law of the land.

With the supposedly solemn responsibility of supervision you are fully complicit in every single wrong done by prosecutors and judges in all criminal cases. If they did/do wrong, YOU did/do wrong. Thats the way leadership with integrity and honor works. And good judges from our countrys past, who were raised by good mothers and fathers, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE SUFFER TODAY, would agree. Where is our modern-day John Marshall? Benjamin Cardozo? Oliver Wendell Holmes? Or a counterpart for this great judge:

Our government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself, it invites anarchy.

-Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting in Olmstead v United States (1928) 277 U.S. 438

What about right now? What about fundamental fairness for the millions deserving relief, including those who owe on their student loan debts? Chief Justice Roberts? You said the case presents extraordinarily serious important issues about the role of Con- gressWe take very seriously the idea of separation of powers and that power should be divided to prevent its abuse Yet that purported concern is proven completely absent with respect to Congress unconstitutional encroachment into the province of the federal judiciary via the AEDPAs purported habeas reforms. The great man whose portrait YOU have in your antechamber, Chief Justice John Marshall, agrees via his opinion in Marbury v. Madison. (as cited and argued in CASE NO. S275842 Calif. Supreme Court) EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW doesnt have a soundtrack of cowardly deafening silence now: To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men!-Abraham Lincoln Who can protest an injustice but does not is an accomplice to the act -The Talmud

Read the rest here:
VANGUARD INCARCERATED PRESS: First Amendment Petition ... - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

Developer creates pro-First Amendment AI to counter ChatGPT’s ‘political motivations’ – Fox News

An AI researcher developed a free speech alternative to ChatGPT and argued that the mainstream model has a liberal bias that prevents it from answering certain questions.

"ChatGPT has political motivations, and it's seen through the product," said Arvin Bhangu, who founded the AI model Superintelligence. "There's a lot of political biases. We've seen where you can ask it give me 10 things Joe Biden has done well and give me 10 things Donald Trump has done well and it refuses to give quality answers for Donald Trump."

"Superintelligence is much more in line with the freedom to ask any type of question, so it's much more in line with the First Amendment than ChatGPT," Bhangu said. "No biases, no guardrails, no censorship."

WATCH MORE FOX NEWS DIGITAL ORIGINALS HERE

ChatGPT, an AI chatbot that can write essays, code and more, has been criticized for having politically biased responses. There's been numerous instances of the model refusing to provide answers even fake ones that could put a positive spin on conservatives, but would follow suit if the same prompt were submitted about a liberal.

"Unfortunately, it is very hard to deal with this from a coding standpoint," Flavio Villanustre, the global chief information security officer for LexisNexis Risk Solutions, told Fox News in February. "It is very hard to prevent bias from happening."

But the full potential of AI will only be realized when the models can provide unbiased, authentic answers, according to Bhangu.

"Presenting an answer to the user and letting them determine what is right and wrong is a much better approach than trying to filter and trying to police the internet," he told Fox News.

Elon Musk has been open about the dangers of AI, saying it could cause civilizational threats if left unregulated. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

AI CHATBOT 'HALLUCINATIONS' PERPETUATE POLITICAL FALSEHOODS, BIASES THAT HAVE REWRITTEN AMERICAN HISTORY

OpenAI, the company that developed ChatGPT, is "training the AI to lie," Elon Musk told Fox News last month. He also hinted in a tweet that he might sue OpenAI, seeming to agree that the company defrauded him.

Additionally, George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley said ChatGPT fabricated sexual harassment claims against him and even cited a fake news article.

ChatGPT also wouldn't generate an article in the style of the New York Post, but it did write an article modeled after CNN, bringing further criticisms of the platform showing bias.

Bhangu said ChatGPT's biases hurt AI industry's credibility.

Bhangu searches "why is it important to have a competitor to ChatGPT," on his AI model Superintelligence. (Fox News Digital/Jon Michael Raasch)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"ChatGPT's biases can have a detrimental effect on the credibility of the AI industry," he said. "This could have far-reaching negative implications for certain communities or individuals who rely heavily on AI models for important decisions."

OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment.

To watch the full interview with Bhangu, click here.

Read more:
Developer creates pro-First Amendment AI to counter ChatGPT's 'political motivations' - Fox News

‘It’s ridiculous’: Uvalde father ready to sue school district over alleged First Amendment violation – KENS5.com

SAN ANTONIO A Uvalde father who was banned from school property in February after voicing his concerns about an officers qualifications is prepared to sue the district.

Attorneys with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) are representing Adam Martinez.

During a board of trustees meeting on Feb. 13, Martinez approached Uvalde CISD Chief of Police Joshua Gutierrez to discuss his reservations regarding an officer who was just hired. Martinez said he had missed out on signing up for the public comment portion of the meeting.

As multiple recordings of the meeting demonstrate, their conversation remained quiet and did not disrupt the meeting. Nevertheless, in response to Mr. Martinezs calm but impassioned criticism, Chief Gutierrez told Mr. Martinez to sit down. Mr. Martinez, who wished to continue speaking with Gutierrez, refused, according to a letter authored by FIRE sent to Uvalde school officials on May 15.

Martinez said Gutierrez escorted him and his family outside the board room building and proceeded to issue a criminal trespass warning from all district properties.

After Mr. Martinez filed a grievance with the school district, UCISD has allowed him to pick up his daughter from Morales Junior High school and attend events in which she is involved, the letter said. Upon Mr. Martinezs further request, UCISD allowed him to attend his sons baseball practices.

Attorney Jeff Zeman argues the district, including Interim Superintendent Gary Patterson and Chief Gutierrez, violated Martinezs Constitutional rights.

It is his First Amendment right to speak out about his government and criticize his government, Zeman said. This ban violates the Constitution. He wants to bring matters to his local governments attention that he thinks he can make things better for his family and his community.

The FIRE-addressed letter details several precedent cases involving First Amendment issues challenged in court.

The document also noted the ban also contravenes both Texas state law and the school districts policy related to free speech and parental rights to take part in his childs education.

>READ the full letter from FIRE attorneys below

Just to me, its ridiculous, its embarrassing, Martinez said.

Uvalde CISD fired Crimson Elizondo from the district police force after learning she was among the handful of state troopers who first arrived on scene at Robb Elementary.

Body-camera video from May 24 revealed Elizondo responding to another officer about the shooting.

If my son had been in there, I would not have been outside. I promise you that, Elizondo said in the body-camera footage.

Uvalde CISDs efforts to reform the police department have been heavily scrutinized, which is a major reason why Martinez questioned another officer hire, although it led to him getting banned from school property for two years.

I felt that it was urgent for me to find out more about this hire and make sure that they knew that he was not rehireable, according to the sheriffs standards, Martinez said.

The father of two leads the organization Keep All righteous Minds Aware, or KARMA, which formed after the Robb Elementary shooting where 19 children and two teachers were killed.

Martinez recalls the frantic phone call from his wife as he was eating lunch at a restaurant in Uvalde.

She was pretty hysterical and told me there was an active shooter, Martinez said.

His son Zayon Martinez, was in second grade at the time. While not physically harmed in the shooting, Zayon carries the weight of emotional trauma like so many other survivors.

Hes doing good, he still wont sleep in his bed. He was real excited about having his own room and now he shares a room with me and my wife, Martinez said.

The FIRE letter states a lawsuit will be filed if Uvalde CISD fails to remove its ban on Martinez by May 22.

Martinez hopes for more transparency among the district for the benefit of the entire community. He also hopes the ban is lifted so he can attend his nephew's graduation on May 26 and attend future school board meetings.

If they reached out to the community members a little more, I think wed be able to come together better.

To view the full letter, go here.

>TRENDING ON KENS 5 YOUTUBE:

Originally posted here:
'It's ridiculous': Uvalde father ready to sue school district over alleged First Amendment violation - KENS5.com