Mediaboss Marketing

As President Trump continues to vow to come down hard on illegal immigration, supporters of immigrants find themselves at odds over how much to fight for those whose criminal history is fodder for advocates of harsher and broader crackdowns.

L.A. County became an early flashpoint in the debate after officials in response to fears of mass deportations unveiled a $10-million fund to hire lawyers to defend local immigrants without legal status.

Some activists believe that not only should the L.A. Justice Fund help all immigrants but that no one should be deported not even those convicted of violent crimes.

That position puts them at odds with others including Democratic politicians in California and many immigrants themselves who support deporting those convicted of violent and more grave crimes, which was a long-standing policy embraced by President Obama.

Those others want to focus their efforts on preventing deportations of people who simply came to the country for a better life.

I dont think theres a member of Congress Republican or Democrat who believes that if somebody commits an egregious crime, that they shouldnt be deported, said Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-Los Angeles), the son of Mexican immigrants. Public safety is a very important issue to all of us.

L.A. Councilman Gil Cedillo, a key figure in the successful push to allow immigrants who are in the country illegally to get drivers licenses in California, said there are people who should lose the privilege of remaining in the U.S.

I dont want one person taken away from their family, he said. But thats different from narco-traffickers or people who are engaged in sex trafficking. And I dont know how you would try to defend that.

Cedillo argues that the Justice Fund doesnt deny anyone their due process rights. Rather, he said that because it cant subsidize the cost of legal representation for all immigrants facing deportation, leaders decided not to extend it to those who engage in universally heinous acts.

For activists like Pablo Alvarado, executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, deportation even of convicted criminals ends up sowing chaos in places with weaker criminal justice systems such as Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador. And that, he said, causes more people there, including victims of crime, to flee those countries.

Ive been in El Salvador and in Honduras when the planes land with deportees, Alvarado said. Its becoming the penal colony of the United States where criminal dumping is acceptable.

Its a position with far more currency among activists than many of the immigrants they advocate for something evident during the May Day rally Monday that saw thousands of people march to downtown L.A.

While many people carried signs demanding no more deportations, immigrants interviewed expressed reluctance to be lumped in with those convicted of serious crimes. Sitting on a grassy knoll outside City Hall, Rosa Alvarez, 66, said she had no problem with immigrants in the country illegally being deported if they had extensive or serious criminal histories.

Get rid of the bad ones, I say. Deport the criminals and leave the rest of us alone, the ones who are working and dont do anything, Alvarez said.

Nearby, Christian Hernandez, 25, and his mother, Lydia Hernandez, 57, said they came to the march as a way to challenge Trumps anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Christian, a beneficiary of the Obama administrations immigration relief program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, said he and his mother have been in the U.S. since 1998 and have no criminal records. He said immigrants who commit violent crimes make people like him look bad and should be removed.

But like many immigrants and activists, Christian Hernandez said Trump has stirred racism by broadly painting immigrants in the darkest tones.

The minute he decided to say were all criminals and rapists, it was like a bucket of cold water being thrown at you, he said.

For some activists, though, simply getting rid of the bad ones is more complicated than it sounds. They point out that the Trump administration has already broadened the definition of criminal and also highlight cases of immigrants being detained and deported after minor infractions or after being caught up in raids targeting others.

Though crime in the U.S. is much lower than it was a generation ago when there were far fewer immigrants in the country illegally Trump has successfully rallied many supporters by focusing on immigrants who have committed violent crimes.

Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, believes all deportations should be suspended until the immigration system is reformed.

Were deporting people without a single penny to their name into abject poverty or homelessness, many of them back to places they havent known, she said. These people are products of our society.

Jorge Gutierrez of the L.A.-based LGBTQ group Familia: Trans Queer Liberation Movement, said there will likely be more pronounced disagreements over which immigrants to defend if the Trump administration hires thousands more Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and becomes more aggressive over whom it targets.

He hasnt put the whole infrastructure together, Gutierrez said of Trump. So once he does, its going to create more deportations. And in all of that, this narrative, the tension, is going to become more visible among who is pushing to protect a few and who is pushing to protect everybody.

For many conservatives, there is no debate: Everyone in the country illegally should eventually be deported, they say.

David Ray, communications director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said deportations should be prioritized with criminals at the top of the list. FAIR keeps a running list of serious crimes committed by people who lack legal status.

The principal of American fairness is based on the fact that nobody is above the law, Ray said. If we fail to enforce the immigration laws, then people stop respecting them.

Early in his presidential campaign, Trump called for the deportation of all 11 million immigrants estimated to be in the country illegally. But he has also expressed sympathy for DACA recipients, often called Dreamers.

While polls have shown that most Americans are against mass deportations, a 2016 CNN/Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 55% of Trumps strongest supporters whites without college degrees think everyone lacking legal status should be removed.

Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute a libertarian think tank based in Washington, D.C. said he understands the ethical point that groups like the National Day Laborer Organizing Network are making. But he said removing people who commit violent or property crimes is whats best for everyone in the U.S.

Part of the deal when you come to this country is youre going to abide by serious laws, he said. There needs to be serious punishment for breaking that beyond just serving time in prison.

The Trump administrations immigration guidelines significantly broaden the definition of who is considered a criminal, making nearly all immigrants in the U.S. illegally susceptible to deportation. Last month, the Department of Homeland Security unveiled a new office to help people victimized by criminal aliens.

According to a Homeland Security report from 2013, there were 1.9 million removable criminal aliens, a figure that includes immigrants here illegally, those with temporary visas and legal permanent residents. The number of immigrants with criminal records who are here illegally is unclear, though the Migration Policy Institute calculated in 2015 that it was about 820,000. The think tank estimated 690,000 of those people had felony or serious misdemeanor convictions.

California state Senate leader Kevin de Len (D-Los Angeles) has introduced a sanctuary state bill that would expand policies prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from using resources to investigate, interrogate, detain or arrest people for immigration enforcement purposes.

After changes to the bill, federal immigration officials would be notified when felons who have violent or serious convictions are released, and a recent amendment to the bill would require the state parole board or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to give ICE a 60-day advance notice of the release date of inmates who have been convicted of a serious or violent felony, or those who are serving time for a nonviolent crime but have a prior conviction for violent or serious crimes.

Alvarado, of the day laborer network, said he knows that deportations will continue and that his belief that criminals should not be automatically removed is hardly shared by most immigrants. But hes undeterred.

As an immigrant, I love this city as much as I love the village where I come from, he said. Its racist to think that its not OK for rapists and murderers to do their actions here, but its OK to do them in El Salvador and Guatemala.

Nowrasteh, of the Cato Institute, said those that hold the most hard-line positions on either side of the debate over deportations are likely to be disappointed in the end.

I dont think well ever get to a point where aliens who commit serious crimes will be allowed to stay, he said, nor will we see a day where the government rounds up 12 million people and ships them out of here.

Times staff writer Ruben Vives contributed to this report.

andrea.castillo@latimes.com

@andreamcastillo

ALSO

O.C. sheriff wants to expand immigration detention

In a California farm town, the border is just a line that must be crossed every day

Feds say they didn't deport 'Dreamer,' but acknowledge error on his DACA status

Read the rest here:
Here's why some immigrant activists say not even criminals should be deported - Los Angeles Times

President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpGeorgia special election breaks spending record CNN host: Colbert went 'too far' with Trump rant Facebooks Zuckerberg has spoken with Trump numerous times on the phone: report MORE experienced some failures with his immigration policies during his first 100 days in office, but it would be a mistake to underestimate him. He has made major changes in enforcement policy.

Destruction of the Home Free Magnet.

PresidentBarack Obamafocused his immigration enforcement efforts primarily on aliens who had been convicted of serious crimes or who had been caught near the border after making an illegal entry, and he protected aliens here unlawfully who were not in a priority category.

His administrations enforcement policy memorandum required ICE officers to obtain permission from a Field Office Director before arresting a deportable alien who was not in a priority category.

This created what I call a home free magnet. Aliens wanting to enter the United States illegally knew that they would be safe from deportation once they had reached the interior of the country unless they were convicted of a serious crime. This was a powerful incentive to do whatever was necessary to enter the United States.

Justice Dept. releases first set of Trump-ordered data on illegal immigrant incarceration rates https://t.co/niY6PLlsNE pic.twitter.com/opyNi27MSX

President Trump destroyed this magnet with tough campaign rhetoric and his Executive Order, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, which greatly expanded enforcement priorities. No deportable alien is safe under President Trumps enforcement policies.

This seems to have improved border security already.

In April 2017, CBP reported a sharp decline in the number of aliens apprehended along the Southwest border, and in the number of aliens who were found inadmissibleat ports of entry. In March, 16,600individuals wereapprehended or deemed inadmissible, which was a 30 percent decrease from February, and a 64 percent decrease from the same month in 2016.

Interior enforcement against all aliens who are here illegally may be a more effective deterrent than a wall would be.

This is not the first time that the importance of interior enforcement has been recognized. It was the basis for the last legalization program 30 years ago.

Expansion of Expedited Removal Proceedings.

As of the end of January 2017, the immigrant court's backlog was 542,411 cases. Even if no additional cases are filed, it would take the court two-and-a-half years to catch up with its backlog.

President Trump finessed his way around this problem by expanding the use of expedited removal proceedings with hisExecutive Order, Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.

In expedited removal proceedings, which are conducted by immigration officers, an alien who lacks proper documentation or has committed fraud or a willful misrepresentation to enter the country, will be deported without a hearing before an immigration judge, unless he requests an asylum hearing.

NEW: Dems observe May Day as immigrant day of action https://t.co/ViZAVyLb8F pic.twitter.com/tdkzrg540O

Asylum hearings, which are conducted by immigration judges, are available to aliens who establish a credible fear of persecution. An asylum officer determines whether the alien has a credible fear of persecution.

The alien cannot have assistance from an attorney in these proceedings, and, because detention is mandatory, his ability to gather evidence in support of his case is severely restricted.

Moreover, Section 208(a)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) limits asylum to aliens who have been in the United States for less than a year (with some exceptions).

If the asylum officer rejects the credible fear claim, the alien can request an expedited review of his credible fear case by an immigration judge, which usually is held within 24 hours but in no case later than seven days after the adverse credible fear determination.

Federal court review is available, but it is restricted to cases in which the alien makes a sufficient claim to being a United States citizen, to havinglawful permanent residentstatus, or to having been admitted previously as a refugee or an asylee.

A federal judge recently held that asylum denials in expedited removal proceedings are not reviewable in federal court and the Supreme Court let the decision stand.

Previous administrations limited expedited removal proceedings to aliens at the border and aliens who had entered without inspection but were apprehended no more than 100 miles from the border after spending less than 14 days in the country.

The Executive Order expands expedited removal proceedings to the full extent of the law. Section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii)(ll)of the INA authorizes expedited removal proceedings for aliens who have been physically present in the United States for up to two years.

It is likely to be very difficult for aliens to establish physical presence of more than two years, and if they do, they will be faced with the one year deadline for asylum applications, which in many cases is the only form of relief available to an undocumented alien.

President Trump will be able to use expedited removal proceedings to deport millions of undocumented aliens without hearings before an immigration judge.

The only way to stop him is to find a way to work with him on a comprehensive immigration reform bill that meets the political needs of both parties, and time is running out.

Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing and Collaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

The rest is here:
On illegal immigration, Trump ends Obama's 'home free magnet' - The Hill (blog)

By all means enjoy a mint julep on Derby Day, but placing your bets on the first race of the Triple Crown series is a time for sober calculation. For Kentucky Derby neophytes, CBS Sports has this handy breakdown of all the main betting terms you'll need to understand at the track:

Win: Pick the horse that wins the race

Place: Pick a horse that finishes first or second

Show: Pick a horse that finishes first, second, or third

Daily Double: Pick the winners of two races

Exacta: Pick the first and second-place finishers in the correct order

Exacta Box: Pick the first and second-place finishers in no particular order

Trifecta: Pick the first, second, and third-place finishers in the correct order

Trifecta Box: Pick the first, second, and third-place finishers in no particular order

Superfecta: Pick the first, second, third, and fourth-place finishers in the correct order

Superfecta Box: Pick the first, second, third, and fourth-place finishers in no particular order [CBS Sports]

As for which horses to pick (assuming you're not choosing on name quality alone), Andrew Beaton at FiveThirtyEight explains that new rules for determining which 20 Thoroughbreds get to run has made the race more predictable in recent years, even though the contest remains volatile compared to comparable races. That new dynamic means "the best betting strategy for this years Derby may also be the dumbest one," Beaton says, namely: "Bet on Classic Empire," the favorite to win.

Coverage of the Derby begins at 2:30 p.m. ET Saturday on NBC. The race itself, "The Most Exciting Two Minutes in Sports," is scheduled for 6:46 p.m. ET. Bonnie Kristian

Read this article:
changing the first amendment - theweek.com

Four California high school students who were suspended for liking and commenting on racistInstagram postshavefiled a federal lawsuit alleging administrators paraded them through the school and allowed their classmates to berate them as part of a healing exercise.

The plaintiffs were among more than a dozen students at Albany High School who were accused of liking or commenting on the posts, which showed pictures of female African Americanclassmates and the girls basketballcoach with nooses drawn around their necks. Other images showedthe girlsnext to photos of apes, according tothe Mercury News.

The posts surfaced in March, after some of the students classmates took screen shots of them and reported them to administrators at the public high school. The student who created the images not named in the lawsuit was suspended.

A complaint filed this week accuses the Albany Unified School District of going too far in suspending the other students. The lawsuit which names the school district, the school and several administrators alleges the four plaintiffswere punished in violation of their First Amendment and due process rights.

This action arises out of a private online discussion between friends that the Albany School system has pried into without authority, the lawsuit said. All conduct at issue in this matter occurred off school property, were conducted off school hours, and were otherwise completely unrelated to school activity.

Albany Unified School District Superintendent Valerie Williamssaid in a statementWednesday that the district wasreviewing the case.

The district takes great care to ensure that our students feel safe at school, and we are committed to providing an inclusive and respectful learning environment for all of our students, Williams said, as reported by the Mercury News. The district intends to defend this commitment and its conduct within the court system.

The lawsuit alleged that the plaintiffs, all juniors,were wrongfully suspended by the school in late March after some of their classmates took screen shots of the Instagram posts and reported them to administrators.

When the students returned on March 30, the lawsuit said, administrators forced them to march through the school while their peers tormented them.

School administrators allowed the student body to hurl obscenities, scream profanities, and jeer at the Plaintiffs and the other suspended students, who were all not allowed to leave what the school considered an act of atonement but was rather a thinly veiled form of public shaming, the lawsuit said.

Eventually, a parent stepped in and convinced administrators to stop the event, which was described in the complaint as a healing exercise.

Later the same day, they attended a voluntary restorative justice session organized by a community group. A few hundred students and parents gathered outside to protest. When the session came to a close, the demonstration grew tense, prompting the plaintiffs parents to ask for a police escort out, according to the complaint.

As two of the plaintiffs were leaving,an incensed demonstrator struck both of them in the head, leaving one of them with a broken nose and the other with cuts and bruises, the lawsuit alleged.

Plaintiffs have all have suffered emotional distress due to these incidents, the complaint read, including anxiety, fear, insomnia and other distress.

Thestudents want theschool to wipe their disciplinary records clean, refrain from any further punishment and allow them to make up the work they missed.

Some of the students on the receiving end of the racist posts told local media they felt threatened. The uncle and guardian of a teenage girl shown in one of the images told the Mercury Newshis nieces grades suffered after the incident.

Free speech is a fundamental right, said the uncle, who asked not to be named, but it cant be at the expense of hurting someone.

Awoman who said she was the mother of a sophomore at the school told the Mercury News:This is bullying. This is racist. This is sexist. They were attacking kids.

Read more from the original source:
Does the First Amendment protect 'liking' a racist Instagram post? Some Calif. students say it does. - Washington Post

Is the First Amendment Under Attack?

Updated: 4:16 PM EDT May 5, 2017

The first amendment is being challenged on all sides freedom of religion is being tested in the Supreme Court, protests are keeping conservative pundits away from liberal campuses, and the White House is threatening a crackdown on the press. Over thirty tweets bashing the media have been sent out by President Donald Trump since inauguration. Besides condemning mainstream media as fake news, he also suggested the loosening of libel laws, something he called for on the campaign trail. But does the president have that authority or influence? First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams says no the federal government has no power over libel laws which differ for each state. Abrams, best known for his defense of the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case, has published his latest book, The Soul of the First Amendment. He joins Soledad OBrien to explain the intersection of free speech and the right to protest, the beginnings of the First Amendment, and the case a former president could have against the current one.

WEBVTT SOLEDAD: I'M SOLEDAD O'BRIEN.WELCOME TO "MATTER OF FACT."THE 45 WORDS THAT MAKE UP THEFIRST AMENDMENT ARE BEING TESTEDBY THE 140 CHARACTERS OFTWITTER.AT LEAST, THE PRESIDENT'STWITTER.PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ANTI-MEDIAPOSTS AND CHIEF OF STAFF REINCPRIEBUS' ADMISSION THAT THEWHITE HOUSE IS LOOKING INTOOPENING LIBEL LAWS COULD POSE ATHREAT TO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS,SUGGESTING RETALIATION FOR NEWSCOVERAGE CONSIDERED SLANTED.ONE LEGAL SCHOLAR SAYS THEPRESIDENT'S TRAIL OF TWEETSCOULD ACTUALLY PROTECT THE MEDIAPROVING HIS INTENT TO PUNISHJOURNALISTS BY USING THE LEGALSYSTEMFLOYD ABRAMS HAS WRITTEN A NBOOK.IT IS CALLED "THE SOUL OF THEFIRST AMENDMENT," TO RE-EDUCATEUS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OFPROTECTING SPEECH -- EVEN WHENWE FIND IT OFFENSIVE.ABRAMS ARGUED AT THE SUPREMECOURT ON BEHALF OF THE "NEW YORKTIMES" IN THE PENTAGON PAPERSCASE DURING THE NIXONADMINISTRATION AND HAS BEEN BACKIN COURT MANY TIMES SINCDEFENDING REPORTERS AND EDITORS.IT'S NICE TO SEE YOU, SIR.THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. YOU START THE BOOK WITH FASCINATING LOOK AT OUR NATION'SFOREFATHER1787, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THEWENT BACK AND FORTH ON THEPHRASING. ORIGINALLY, THEY TALKED ABOUTTHE PEOPLE'S RIGHT ANDEVENTUALLY IT SHIFTED TO WHATCONGRESS COULDN'T DO. WHY DOES THE NUANCE MATTERFLOYD: IT MATTERS BECAUSE THELANGUAGE WE WOUND UP WITH --EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING -"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWCONGRESS LATER BECAME THEPRESIDENT ALSO AND THE STATESALSOBUT IT BECAME CLEAR A BAN, ABAR, A LIMITATION ON GOVERNMENT,WHICH IS THE STUFF OF LAW. THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS A LAWIT IS NOT A POEM, NOTASPIRATIONAL, NOT JUST A HOPEFOR THE FUTURE. IF YOU PHRASE IT THE OTHER WAY,IF YOU SAY PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BEDENIED THEIR RIGHTS, IT SOUNDAS IF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING --WOULDN'T THAT BE A GOOD IDEA?SO THEY DELIBERATELY MADE ITSTRONGER, BY MAKING IT NARROWER."CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECHOR OF THE PRESS."SOLEDAD: YET WE ARE CONSTANTGOING BACK AND FORTH ABOUTWHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING ISPROTECTED BY THE FIRSTAMENDMENT, FOR SOMETHING THATWAS SUPPOSED TO BE KIND OFSTRONG. DO YOU WORRY ABOUT PRESIDENTTRUMP, WHO HAS MADE HIS DISTASTEFOR BOTH JOURNALISTS AND THEFIRST AMENDMENT PRETTY CLEAR?FLOYD: WELL, YES I AM WORRIEDABOUT IT. I THINK SOME AREAS HE'S TALKEDABOUT HE REALLY CAN'T AND WON'TBE ABLE TO GET INTO, LIKE LIBELLAW. HE HAS SAID HE WANTS TO LOOSENTHE LIBEL LAW. BUT THERE IS NO FEDERAL LIBELLAW. THERE IS NO UNITED STATES LIBELLAW. WE HAVE 50 STATES, THEY HAVELIBEL LAWS. THERE IS NO ROLE FOR THEPRESIDENT OR THE CONGRESS ABOUTLIBEL LAW. AND OF COURSE, IT IS THE FIRSTAMENDMENT WHICH PROTECTS AGAINTHE STATE LIBEL LAWS SO AS TOMAKE IT REALLY HARD FOR APRESIDENT OR A PUBLIC OFFICIALOR A PUBLIC FIGURE TO WIN LIBEL CASE, PURPOSELY.LIBEL LAW ONLY APPLIES TO FALSSTATEMENTS OF FACT, NOT OPINION.NOW AN EXAMPLE, PRESIDENT OBAMACOULD SUE OUR PRESIDENT AND SAY,"YOU SAID I COMMITTED A CRIMINALACT BY WIRETAPPING YOU, AND ITIS NOT TRUE."THAT IS A LAWSUIT.SOLEDAD: THE FORMER PRESIDENTCOULD SUE THE CURRENT PRESIDENTFOR LIBEL? THAT WOULD BE -- FLOYD: THAT WOULD BE A GREATLAWSUIT.SOLEDAD: WOW, WOW. CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS WILL BEGOING CRAZY OVER THAT.LET'S TALK ABOUT PROTESTS ONCOLLEGE CAMPUSESMOST RECENT ONE IS ANN COULTERSUPPOSED TO SPEAK AT BERKELEY,IT SORT OF BECAME THIS BIG FREESPEECH DEBATE. EVEN THOUGH SHE NEVER SPOKE ANSHE WITHDREW, PROTESTERS MADE ITCLEAR, AND I AM ROUGHLYPARAPHRASING, THAT SHE ISCONSERVATIVE AND SHE DOESN'TDESERVE TO SPEAK HERE. PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE BERKELEY ISA PUBLIC UNIVERSITY.FLOYD: RIGHT. PUBLIC UNIVERSITY AND THEREFORESUBJECT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT. WE TREAT PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ASIF THEY WERE THE CONGRESS. AND SO, IF A PUBLIC UNIVERSITREATS HER DIFFERENTLY BECAUSESHE IS CONSERVATIVE OR BECAUSESHE IS OUTRAGEOUS, THERE COULDBE A LAWSUITSOLEDAD: SO IF SOMEBODY HAS ARIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, AND WEKNOW THAT PEOPLE WHO APROTESTING, THAT IS ALSO A FORMOF FREE SPEECH AND THEY HAVE THERIGHT TO PROTEST, WHERE IS THELINE? THEY BOTH HAVE A RIGHT.FLOYD: THEY DO BOTH HAVE ARIGHT. AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO HECKLE.WHAT THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TOIS TO SHUT PEOPLE UP. THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO BE SLOUD, OR SO CONTINUING, OR SOTHREATENING THAT THE SPEECHSIMPLY CAN'T GO ON.UNFORTUNATELY, THAT IS WHAT HASHAPPENED TOO OFTEN ON COLLEGECAMPUSES AROUND AMERICWE CAN'T JUST SAY THESE COLLEGESTUDENTS DON'T KNOW WHAT THEYARE DOING. WE HAVE TO TEACH THEM IN JUNIORHIGH SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL, ANDWE DO NEED CIVICS COURSE. WE DO NEED A LESSON ON AMERICANLIBERTY ON A CONTINUING BASISFROM THE TIME PEOPLE ARE KIDS.SOLEDAD: FLOYD ABRAMS, IT IS SO

See original here:
Is the First Amendment Under Attack? - WBAL Baltimore