Archive for August, 2017

Equality, Justice and the First Amendment – ACLU (blog)

For all people of good will regardless of party affiliation, race, creed, or color the events that took place thisweekend in Charlottesville were sickening and deeply disturbing.

Several clear themes emerged for me this weekend. And while they are pretty obvious, I thought I would share them with the broader ACLU community, in an effort to give voice to what many of us are feeling and to spark a further discussion that will allow us to move together with greater hope and resolve through what are likely to be troubling days ahead.

While the events of this weekend withwhite supremacists holding lit torches frightened and outraged many Americans, we can never underestimate the impact of these images on African-Americans. Thatrally reflected this nations history of slavery, racial violence, and terrorism, which has left an indelible mark on our democracy to this day. As employees, members, or supporters of an organization dedicated to racial justice, we are all affected. Many of us are even more directly affected because we and our family members are the direct targets of the white supremacists. I know that speech alone has consequences, hurtful and deep, and thats why I believe its important to place the ACLUs representation of white supremacist demonstrators in Virginia in the broader context of the values and principles that have guided this organization for nearly a century.

First, the ACLU unequivocally rejects the ideology of white supremacists and we work actively with all our might to oppose that ideology in diverse communities across the country and to defend the right of all Americans to speak out against those views. By budget allocation, the national ACLUs top issue areas are ending mass incarceration, protecting LGBT rights, and safeguarding immigrants rights, demonstrating our commitment to advancing equality and justice with communities that are often the targets of white supremacists' bigotry and hate.

The ACLU has represented or publicly supported Black Lives Matter activists in First Amendment matters at least five times in recent months. Our work against police agencies surveillance of activists has been frequently in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and American-Muslim organizations and individuals. Weve represented and taken public positions in support of anti-Trump protesters more than five times since the election and represented one of the Standing Rock protesters in a free speech case. The ACLU has also defended the free speech rights of African-American environmental activists in Alabama against a defamation lawsuit brought by the toxic waste-generating corporation they opposed. This is all in the past yearalone.

We are not newcomers to this work. Weve defended individuals targeted for their socialist, anarchist, and communist affiliations, for anti-war speech, and for civil rights activism throughout our history. We have repeatedly defended the free speech rights of day laborers against city ordinances grounded in anti-Latino racism that would have prohibited their expressing their availability for work. The ACLU was founded in 1920 when the attorney general of the United States carried out his Palmer raids to round up immigrants based on their subversive views. And we stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the emerging labor movement of the early 20thcentury. The First Amendment freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press, and freedom of religionhas always been foundational for our organization.

Second,and more directly related to the events of this weekend, there are important reasons for our long history of defending freedom of speech including speech we abhor. We fundamentally believe that our democracy will be better and stronger for engaging and hearing divergent views. Racism and bigotry will not be eradicated if we merely force them underground. Equality and justice will only be achieved if society looks such bigotry squarely in the eyes and renounces it. Not all speech is morally equivalent, but the airing of hateful speech allows people of good will to confront the implications of such speech and reject bigotry, discrimination and hate. This contestation of values can only happen if the exchange of ideas is out in the open.

Thereis another practical reason that we have defended the free speech rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. Today, as much as ever, the forces of white supremacy and the forces for equality and justice are locked in fierce battles, not only in Washington but in state houses and city councils around the country. Some government decision-makers are deeply opposed to the speech we support. We simply never want government to be in a position to favor or disfavor particular viewpoints. And the fact is,government officialsfrom the local to the nationalare more apt to suppress the speech of individuals or groups who disagree with government positions. Many of the landmark First Amendment cases, such as NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware and New York Times v. Sullivan, have been fought by African-American civil rights activists. Preventing the government from controlling speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion of equality.

Third, the First Amendment cannot be used as sword or shield to justify or rationalize violence. Violenceeven when accompanied by speech does not garner the protection of the First Amendment. It is also true that the airing of ideasno matter how repugnant or loathsomedoes not necessarily lead to violence. The violence of this weekend was not caused by our defense of the First Amendment. The ACLU of Virginia went to court to insist that the First Amendment be appliedneutrally and equally to all protesters. Reasonable members of our community might differ on whether we ought to have brought that case. But I believe that having divergent views within an organization dedicated to freedom of speech is a sign of strength not weakness. I also believe the ACLU of Virginia made the right call here. Some have argued that we should not be putting resources toward anything that could benefit the voices of white supremacy. But we cannot stand by silently as the government repudiates the principles we have fought for and won in the courts when it violates clearly established First Amendment rights.

Invoking the threat of violence cannot serve as the governments carte blanche to shut down protests. If that were the case, governments would almost always be able to shut down protests, even when the protesters themselves are peaceful, because others could exercise a hecklers veto through violence or the threat of violence. We must not give government officials a free pass to cite public safety as a reason to stifle protest. They have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of all protestersand may make their case in court for reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. That is what we sought in our lawsuit in Virginia.

Thehard job for us now is to find concrete strategies for healing the divides that were laid bare this weekend. For the broader society, this would require that white supremacy, bigotry, and racism be confronted and rejected. Freedom of speech has to be valued and heralded as the cornerstone of our democratic society. Political leaders must shape the political discourse to underscore what binds us together as people, rather than exploit our differences. And government officials must neutrally apply the First Amendment and ensure the safety of all Americans when they take to the streets to exercise their constitutionally protected rights.

For our organization, we must remain focused and vigorous in our defense of civil liberties and civil rights in every community and in every context. Our 97-year history of defending the constitutional rights of all persons even those we disagree withis imbued with a belief that these rights are indeed indivisible, unalienable, and granted to each of us in our democracy. Our job is to turn those promises and aspirations into a reality for all people. And that work has never been more important than now.

Read this article:
Equality, Justice and the First Amendment - ACLU (blog)

Crossing the fine line of the First Amendment – The Daily Times

Neither in the plain wording of the First Amendment nor in numerous court decisions reaffirming and elaborating on it is there any license for violence or inciting it. Yet some of those who use free speech as a shield clearly are bent on doing harm to others.

A small group of bigots was successful in doing just that on Saturday in Charlottesville, Va. Ostensibly, they went to the college town, home of the University of Virginia, to protest plans by the city to remove a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from a municipal park.

But the appearance of many of them made it clear they were primed for a fight. In addition to Ku Klux Klan robes, there were helmets, body armor and clubs.

Let it be noted the same equipment could be seen on and in the hands of some counter-protesters.

Fighting broke out quickly. Then, according to police, a man from Ohio drove his car into a crowd, killing one woman and injuring 19 other people.

Adding to the days tragedy, two Virginia State Police officers died when the helicopter they were using to monitor the demonstration crashed.

No doubt investigations of the tragedy will focus on the assault by car. But a more wide-ranging probe also is needed to learn just what happened in the wider riot, and why police were unable to prevent it.

One reason is clear: Law enforcement authorities bend over backward to avoid infringing upon First Amendment rights. Wearing combat equipment and carrying weapons such as clubs is not viewed as a legitimate reason to make an arrest or halt a demonstration. Neither is fiery rhetoric, as long as it does not cross the line to openly exhorting people to commit acts of violence.

As many demonstrations have shown, however, the line between whipping up a crowds emotions and saying things that make some of its members attack can be a very, very fine one.

Knowing exactly what happened in Charlottesville is important so police and other government authorities can learn whether the riot could have been prevented.

It is possible it could not have been forestalled without banning the protest entirely and that clearly would have been an infringement upon First Amendment rights.

So, how to prevent similar violence in other places and over other disagreements? It may not be possible. Again, remember that those who organize demonstrations usually stay within First Amendment limits and almost never begin the violence themselves. It is those in the crowds who are the danger.

It is important that what happened be studied carefully and objectively to learn whether the authorities could have done something differently to prevent the violence.

But it may well have been impossible for them to do that. Once that fine line was crossed, infuriating people on both sides, fighting may have been inevitable. Too often, we tend to blame the police for failing to contain violence. Realizing that is unrealistic may be unpleasant, but it is knowledge that could be useful in avoiding violence at similar confrontations in the future and, rest assured, such showdowns will occur.

President Donald Trump is right to be concerned about what is happening in Venezuela. He is wrong to consider use ...

If you have been waiting to nominate a friend or neighbor to be honored as a 2017 Community Star, here's a reminder ...

Cities that refuse to help the federal government enforce the laws, including those on illegal immigration, should ...

Former President Barack Obamas scuttling of the all-of-the-above energy policy our nation needs included a move ...

Homemade peach treats, but with some other savory fare thrown in, will be on the menu for Saturdays 54th-annual ...

It is a summer tradition for Weirton. The Marland Heights 5K Classic is both a competitive race and a community ...

Read the original post:
Crossing the fine line of the First Amendment - The Daily Times

Bush removed it. Obama reinstalled it. Will a plaque honoring Hillary Clinton stay in place under Trump? – Washington Post

He coined the nickname Crooked Hillary. He led his supporters in chants of Lock her up! And even long after their bitter contest ended, President Trump can rarely resist an opportunity to take a jab at Hillary Clinton.

So it may come as something of a surprise that a lavish plaque, dedicated to the accomplishments of Trumps vanquished opponent,is still prominently displayed at the U.S. Agency for International Development in downtown Washington at least, for now.

[Trump can usually make it about a third of the way through an interview without mentioning Hillary Clinton]

The plaque has a rather convoluted history, with an on-again, off-again presence in the stately Ronald Reagan Building. The 800-pound bronze plaque is 6 feet wide by 9 feet tall and features an excerpt of one of Clintons speeches, as well as glowing quote from former USAID administrator J. Brian Atwood: May all who pass through these portals recognize the invaluable contribution to worldwide development made by the First Lady of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It first went up in 1999, framed by a dozen photographs capturing the former first ladys visits to countries across the world. The display, which cost over $27,000 to create and tens of thousands more to install, transformed the lobby into a shrine for Clinton, Washington Post columnist Al Kamen wrote in 2010.

But it didnt last. When George W. Bush took office, the plaque was first covered, then ultimately removed and shipped to a warehouse for storage. It wasnt until 2010 during Obamas firstterm, after Clinton became secretary of state that the plaque was reinstalled in USAIDs lobby (minus the surrounding haloof framed photographs).

[Why Trump and the conservative media are still obsessed with Hillary Clinton]

Clinton had joked about the whereabouts of the missing plaque during a visit to USAID in January 2009. I was quite honored upon leaving the White House to have a plaque put up in the lobby recognizing my work, she said, And if anybody knows where that plaque is, Id just love to see it again.

She later told The Post that if the plaque was returned, she did not want public funding to pay for the cost so unidentified private donors covered the bill, according to Kamens column.

But now, of course, the political tides have turned again. The White House is home to a new president, one who has made it clear that he has hardly forgotten his volatile battle with an opponent who won the popular vote. Trumps nominee to lead USAID, Mark Green, was sworn in as the agencys new administrator this month.

As for the future of Clintons wall-mounted tribute, a spokesman for the agency declined to offer any comment beyond a statement confirming the plaques current location: The plaque is in the USAID lobby.

Here is the original post:
Bush removed it. Obama reinstalled it. Will a plaque honoring Hillary Clinton stay in place under Trump? - Washington Post

Albert Hunt: Democrats fret the return of Hillary Clinton – Omaha World-Herald

Democrats, reveling in President Donald Trumps plummeting popularity and the Republican Partys civil wars, are looking forward to September. Except for one thing: the rollout of Hillary Clintons next book right after Labor Day.

Clinton has promised to let my guard down in the book, What Happened, explaining her shocking loss to Trump in November. She has already offered up several explanations, blaming Russian interference, former FBI Director James Comey, and misogyny, while also acknowledging tactical errors by her campaign.

Many Washington Democrats, though unwilling to criticize her in public, wish shed move on, as Minnesota Sen. Al Franken has put it. They fear that her complaints help Trump make his case that the controversies surrounding him flow from the Democrats bitterness about their 2016 loss.

They prefer the approach taken by Al Gore after his equally controversial loss in 2000. Gore didnt really criticize the administration of President George W. Bush for almost two years even though he, like Clinton, won the popular vote while losing in the Electoral College. Gore went on to start a new career, winning a Nobel Prize and an Academy Award for his work on climate change.

Associates hoped Clinton would also find a way to make a different contribution, perhaps as a university president or foundation head. Clinton could make a contribution speaking out selectively on important issues, drawing on her wealth of experience.

But she remains haunted by her defeat. The gist of her message next month, based on her public statements and accounts of private conversations from people whove talked to her, will be: I accept the blame for what happened, but the bigger problems were Russian meddling, Comeys on-again, off-again handling of the Federal Bureau of Investigations probe of her private email server, the Democratic Party, and maybe even some of her own campaign staffers.

The Clintons, associates say, are convinced that the election was stolen. They may be right; well find out soon enough whether theres proof that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. If investigations by congressional committees and special counsel Robert Mueller turn up new facts, thatll provide a better basis for analyzing the impact.

But Clinton is the wrong messenger. She just comes across as a sore loser.

Or as Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer told the Washington Post: When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you dont blame other things Comey, Russia you blame yourself.

She could take a lesson from another prominent Democrat, one who has kept a relatively low profile since January. Thats former President Barack Obama, who has mostly resisted the temptation to strike back at repeated Trump cheap shots. Today, surveys of voters have found, hes the most popular American politician. Some Democrats want him to take on Trump a bit more, and are pleased hell be out campaigning for a few Democrats this fall.

By contrast, Clinton has moved from being an admired former New York senator and secretary of state to becoming a divisive and unpopular figure.

In last months Bloomberg national poll, 58 percent of respondents rated her unfavorably compared to 39 percent who gave her favorable marks. More than one in five people who voted for her in November now regard her unfavorably. That was even worse than Trumps standing in the same poll.

Indeed, the only figure with higher negatives in the survey, which was conducted by the Iowa polling firm Selzer & Co., was her old nemesis, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

More:
Albert Hunt: Democrats fret the return of Hillary Clinton - Omaha World-Herald

Hillary Clinton Just Quietly Showed Her Support for Taylor Swift on Social Media – Glamour

PHOTO: Theo Wargo/WireImage/Getty Images

Count Hillary Clinton as one of the many people standing fully in support of Taylor Swift and her recent sexual assault trial.

Hillary took a quick break from writing her forthcoming book , watching Wonder Woman , starting a political organization , and drinking lots of wine to send out a subtle endorsement of Taylor Swift, who recently won her sexual assault lawsuit against a Denver DJ.

As Marie Claire spotted, Hillary Clinton liked a tweet by Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, a grassroots organization working to end gun violence. The tweet quoted a Jezebel article about Swift's win and said, "Taylor Swift is doing this to show every girl that they don't have to tolerate sexual assault. Thank you, @taylorswift13!"

As a refresher , Swift accused DJ David Mueller of reaching under her skirt and grabbing her butt during a meet-and-greet in 2013, while the two were taking a photo together. Mueller sued Swift two years later for $3 million after getting fired from his job, claiming her allegations were false and had led to his termination from Denver's KYGO-FM radio station. Swift countersued for just $1 to make a point about sexual assault.

Swift has used this trial to speak out for survivors of sexual assault, even (and especially) in the face of victim-blaming cross-examination tactics . She's received support from other A-listers (including Kesha , who had her own very public and drawn-out sexual assault trial, against producer Dr. Luke in 2014), as well as encouraging messages from some fans in an office close to the courthouse.

And now, it's clear that Hillary Clinton is totally here for Taylor and the idea of women standing in support of other women and so are we.

Related: Taylor Swift's Mom Says She Wanted to 'Vomit and Cry' After Hearing About Her Daughter's Alleged Sexual Assault

Read more from the original source:
Hillary Clinton Just Quietly Showed Her Support for Taylor Swift on Social Media - Glamour