Mediaboss Marketing

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was initially adopted is 1791 and simply states:

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 press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since then, a great many interpretations and Supreme Court decisions have used this amendment as a highly controversial instrument to foster a wide variety of social programs. Most recently, arguments by some federal judges have been used to oppose the immigration rules issued by President Trump on the grounds that those rules are in conflict with the First Amendment since they target the Islamic religion. Lets review what the U.S. Supreme Court has had to say, in the past, on a few key cases:

In 1878, one clarification was made: Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order. In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while state or federal laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (such as human sacrifices). The court stated that to rule otherwise, would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Therefore, the government would exist in name only, under such circumstances.

Another, more recent, argument can be found in 1998, when the Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, seeking to restore the compelling interest requirement applied in Sherbert and Yoder. In the City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the court declared: that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere, when religious principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. Notably, while a religion may hold opinions contrary to U.S. law, they are not free to act on those opinions without suffering the consequences of breaking the law.

While I am not a lawyer, the problem yet to be resolved, seems to be: Can the USA act against statements made by a religion in which they threaten to do something that is contrary to U.S. law, or is it necessary to first, allow such actions to take place before it is allowable to take legal action?

Lets try and construct a hypothetical example so as not to upset or offend any of the more than 14 recognized religions in the world with more than 35,000 organized denominations, or subsets, of the known religions. Then lets decide what rational and legal actions are permissible under U.S. law to deal with the problem of religious fanatics from a hypothetical group seeking to entering the USA.

Assume some religious denomination, called the Red Rabbit religion and located primarily on Rabbit Island, have stated their intent to come to the USA to kill all people with red hair because they believe that they are, in some way, offensive to their god. We recognize, in the First Amendment, that they have the right to hold this strange opinion but they do not, according to Supreme Court rulings, have the right to take actions, on that belief, resulting in the death of innocent people, at least within the USA.

To cope with this hypothetical situation, we have some of the following options:

1. We could require all red-haired people in the USA to dye their hair so as not to offend this fanatical group of people. But this would violate the general freewill provisions of the Constitution.

2. We could impose a travel ban on all people from Rabbit Island. But this would restrict the rights of the nonbelievers in the Red Rabbit religion, and inconvenience others.

3. We could open the boarders to all Rabbit Island people and try to protect red-haired citizens within the USA from being attacked. But this would be impractical, expensive and would likely result in the death of numbers innocent people.

4. We could require an in-depth examination, or vetting, of anyone seeking to enter the USA from Rabbit Island. But since extremists are likely to lie about their intent or enter illegally, this is not a complete protection option.

5. We could try to convert the radical Red Rabbit people to follow a more acceptable religious view. But they have vowed to attack anyone who speaks of another religion on Rabbit Island.

Are we then doomed to wait for some overt action to take place within the USA before we can take any effective legal action or do we have a moral duty to do our best to prevent such actions? If the Red Rabbit group clearly intends to conduct overt acts, in violation of peace, social duties and subversive to good order, the imposition of regulations to prevent people holding such a declared intent seems fully justified. Freedom of religion means freedom to hold even peculiar ideas, however, freedom to act on those ideas is not granted by any normal reading of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in my opinion.

In addition, it seems clear that the president has the duty and authority to ban immigration from any country or any group of people who he deems to be a threat to the safety and security of the people of the USA. It is possible for a federal judge to delay and attempt to justify his actions, based on the First Amendment, but it is most certainly not logical nor in the interest of the people in the USA to allow this to continue for any length of time.

Orville Moe is one of several community columnists who regularly contribute to this page.

View original post here:
COLUMN: Controversy over the First Amendment - Crow River Media

On MSNBC yesterday, former Vermont Governor and DNC Chair Howard Dean elaborated on his argument that Ann Coulters upcoming speech at Berkeley does not have to occur because hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment:

Okay, several things to think about. One, the United States has the most far-reaching protections on speech of any country in the world. Two, its not absolute. Three, there are three Supreme Court cases you need to know about. One, the most recent, a John Roberts opinion, the Phelps people, that church out in Kansas, had a right to picket horrible offensive signs at military funerals. Well, two, in 2002, the Supreme Court said cross burning was illegal because it could incite violence. And three, Chaplinsky, the Chaplinsky case in 1942 said that speech was not permitted if it included fighting words that were likely to incite violence.

This is not a clear-cut carrying on the way the Right does. The Right loves to be able to say anything they like, no matter how offensive it is. Well, Ann Coulter has used words that you cannot use on television to describe Jews, blacks, gays, Muslims immigrants, and Hispanics. I think that theres a case to be made that that invokes the Chaplinsky decision, which is fighting words, likely to cause violence. I think Berkeley is within its rights to make the decision that it puts their campus in danger if they have her there. Ill be the first to admit its a close call.

Actually, its not a close call; Dean is making the wrong call under the Constitution. Deans entire answer piles wrong argument atop wrong argument until he completes a Dagwood sandwich of wrong.

Dean cites three court cases, and he mischaracterizes the decisions in all of them. The first case he references, Snyder v. Phelps, was an 8 to 1 decision in favor of the Westboro Baptist Churchs freedom to chant the horrible slogans and hold up the horrible banners it favors at a military funeral. If the church is free to protest at a military funeral, it makes no sense to argue that Ann Coulter is not free to give a speech at Berkeley. Dean is perhaps unknowingly citing a case that argues the reverse of his position.

The second case Dean cites, Virginia v. Black, struck down a state law that deemed cross-burning a prima facie attempt at intimidation. The decision was complicated, with multiple justices concurring in part and dissenting in part, but its upshot was that if prosecutors wanted to charge someone with a crime for burning a cross, they had to prove that the cross-burner intended his action as a threat.

Criminal threats, intimidation and criminal harassment are already crimes on the books in many states. If Ann Coulter explicitly threatens an individual in her speech, she can be charged with a crime for that. But whatever her flaws, Coulter is unlikely to make an explicit incitement to violence in a speech at Berkeley.

The third case Dean cites, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, has come up a bit more frequently as of late. Eugene Volokh points out that while the Chaplinsky precedent hasnt yet been struck down, subsequent decisions have drastically narrowed its definition of fighting words. In 1971, the court ruled that a vulgar phrase on a jacket didnt fall within said definition because it was unlikely that any individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words to be a direct personal insult. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, the Court struck down a hate-crime statute, decreeing that the state can restrict speech to a certain time, place, or manner, but only if those restrictions were justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech. (I.e., the government can ban flag-burning by, say, banning all outdoor fires in certain areas, but not explicitly because it dishonors the U.S. flag.)

Without knowing what Coulter would say in her speech, Dean suggests that it would contain fighting words, given her history of using words you cant say on television to describe minorities. Given the words you cant say on television have no bearing on the constitutionality of an (as-yet-undelivered) speech at Berkeley, the one-time front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination seems to be insisting that just by being offensive, Coulters words incite violence and must be restricted and banned. It is fair to ask Dean and his ilk why they are so focused on restricting and punishing speech that supposedly incites violence and much less focused on punishing those who actually commit violent acts.

If Deans real desire is to ban speech that he doesnt like, he should just say so.

Jim Geraghty is National Reviews senior political correspondent.

READ MORE:

Read the original:
Ann Coulter Berkeley Address: Howard Dean's Legal Argument ... - National Review

On Wednesday, officials of the University of California-Berkeley announced they were canceling a speech to be given by conservative writer Ann Coulter scheduled for April 27. Then on Thursday, facing the prospect of a lawsuit, caught between the First Amendment and the fear of violence, university officials proposed Coulters speech be moved to May 2 a move she and her supporters quickly rejected, pointing out there would be no students on campus, as it coincided with a reading period before final exams.

This was a low point for the birthplace of the free-speech movement.

Ive known Ann Coulter for years, and Ive gone to great lengths truly great lengths to disagree with her. After she published a book called Godless, which accused liberalism of being a godless religion, I wrote a book called Soulless, which attacked the right-wing church of hate. I even donned her trademark sleeveless black dress, added about 10 inches of long blonde hair and posed for a cover that looked almost as sexy as hers.

We agree on almost nothing, except for the importance of free speech and public discourse. And we always have gotten along just fine.

Last summer, when a reporter went to her for comments about me, she could not have been more gracious. Thats how it should be in a democracy.

Our Founding Fathers understood something that seems to be getting lost in the ugly partisanship that has gripped our country. You dont deal with speech you dont like by shutting it down. You deal with it by speaking up yourself. Speech is powerful; it is protected not because it is harmless but because the alternative is even worse. And that alternative is what were facing now.

It is not just at Berkeley that this issue is rearing its ugly head. In response to the cancellation of a speech at Claremont-McKenna College by Heather Mac Donald, the president of Pomona College (part of the Claremont Colleges consortium) wrote an open letter defending the principle of free speech. To my shock, frankly, a group of black students went on the attack, claiming white supremacists (Mac Donald is a fellow of the conservative Manhattan Institute, not the Klan) have no right to free speech. Come again? Who is supposed to decide who gets to speak? Do these students not understand it is precisely oppressed minorities who have historically needed the protection of the First Amendment the most? Do they really think that if speech is regulated, they will be the beneficiaries? On which planet? Under which president?

For those who disagree with Coulter, shutting down her speech only elevates her position. Instead of speaking before a group of students two weeks before exams, the cancellation has brought her national attention and brought Berkeley the criticism it must surely have expected.

But blaming Berkeley is the easy way out. One way or another, the great majority of Americans who support the Constitution must stand up to the minority who think violence and censorship is the answer to speech they dont like. You cannot pick and choose which civil liberties to support, which opinions deserve protection.

As a writer myself, I get more than my share of ugly emails from people who disagree with me. No one enjoys reading those. And as a woman and a Jew, I have sharply felt the sting of hatred. But unless there is a threat of violence (the Constitution provides for shutting down speech if it poses an imminent threat of violence or an imminent threat to national security), the way to handle such ugly emails is simply hitting the Trash button, or better yet, responding with more speech. Because if you shut down free speech this time, next time, the one who is shut down might be you.

Susan Estrich is a columnist,

commentator and law and political science professor at USC.

Continued here:
Is the First Amendment dead? - Hays Daily News

Herbst identifies a surprising source for this new understanding of the First Amendment, and identifies factors in students' development that could reinforce it as students move from high school to college. Citing research from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Newseum Institute, PEN America, the Pew Research Center and other sources, Herbst paints a comprehensive picture of student free expression issues that goes beyond episodic analysis of campus speech incidents.

The paper provides a set of recommendations for increasing student tolerance of offensive speech, and helping them become stronger advocates for free expression. Among Herbst's recommendations: first and secondary schools must educate students on the First Amendment; colleges and universities must make an absolutist case for free speech; and schools must continually make the case that free speech helps minorities and those who are alienated.

Now, when the younger generations make up the largest age demographic in America (Millennials now outnumber Boomers), it is more critical than ever to educate students on the First Amendment and the full rights it affords. The danger in not doing so, writes Herbst, would lead to nothing less than restrictions on our core freedoms.

Generous support for this project was provided by the Knight Foundation.

ABOUT THE NEWSEUMThe Newseum promotes, explains and defends free expression and the five freedoms of the First Amendment: religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. Headquartered on historic Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., the Newseum's compelling, dynamic and engaging exhibits, programs and education initiatives help ensure that these fundamental freedoms remain strong and protected both today and for future generations. The Newseum Institute promotes the study, exploration and education of the challenges confronting freedom through its First Amendment Center and the Religious Freedom Center. The Newseum is a 501(c)(3) public charity funded by generous individuals, corporations and foundations, including the Freedom Forum. For more information, visit newseum.org and follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/newseum-finds-alternate-understanding-of-the-first-amendment-among-young-adults-300445408.html

SOURCE Newseum

http://www.newseum.org/

Here is the original post:
Newseum Finds 'Alternate Understanding' of the First Amendment ... - PR Newswire (press release)

Hillary and Chelsea Clinton / AP

BY: Madeleine Weast April 26, 2017 10:52 am

Hillary Clinton's top spokesmen for her failed 2016 presidential campaign rushed to defend Chelsea Clinton on social media this week after the former first daughterclaimedagain that she is not running for public office.

On Monday night, Chelsea Clinton responded on Twitter to a Vox writer who asked who will challenge her in the Democratic primary for New York's 17th congressional district.

"I'm not running for anything*," Clinton wrote, indicating the asterisk meant, "Apparently periodic reminder may mean twice a day reminding."

The former first daughter received backlash for the Twitter exchange, causing senior communications officials from her mother's 2016 campaign to quickly come to her defense.

Brian Fallon, Hillary Clinton's former national press secretary, responded within an hour and defended his former boss's daughter by criticizing President Donald Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump.

Josh Barro, a senior editor at Business Insider,wondered why "ex-Clinton staffers do [Chelsea Clinton's] comms work like it's their job."

Nick Merrill, another one of Hillary Clinton's former press secretaries, jumped in to criticize Barro, coming to Chelsea Clinton's defense.

Neera Tanden, head of the Center for American Progress and a policy adviser who worked with both Bill and Hillary Clinton, defended their daughter with a sarcastic joke about her running for home association president when she is 65.

Chelsea Clinton recently dispelled rumors that she will run for public office in the near future but appeared to leave the door open for a potential future in politics.

"If someone steps down or something changes, I'll then ask and answer those questions at that time," she told Variety. "But right now, no, I'm not running for public office."

Here is the original post:
Hillary Clinton's Fmr Campaign Spokesmen Rush to Defend Chelsea From Social Media Detractors - Washington Free Beacon