Mediaboss Marketing

Grant Berardo, a Wall High School junior, saw his image digitally altered with a plain black T-shirt in his yearbook.

WALL - The school district settled a lawsuit withthe former high school teacherwho received harassmentfrom students and death threats from across the countryafter she digitally altered a yearbook photo to removea logo for former President Donald Trump's campaign a change she says was ordered by the school principal.

Susan Parsons, 66, filed a lawsuit against the school district in 2019, alleging that she faced death threats after digitally removing a campaign logo forTrump's 2016 presidential campaign from a student's T-shirt while editing the 2017 Wall High School yearbook.

In the lawsuit, she alleged the digital alteration and other cuts were ordered by the school principal's office.

"During these conversations, (Parsons) and the administration often disagreed about the direct edits and what (Parsons) believed to be improper censorship to the yearbook," the complaint states. "Directed edits included requests to Photoshop, crop and delete photos or content in the drafts of the yearbook pages."

Toms River: Student's Trump flag got him kicked out of class. Now his mom wants an apology

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

The amount of the settlement was not publicly disclosed. NJ Advance Media reported a total settlement award of $325,000, with $204,000 going to Parsons and the remainder to attorney fees.

In June 2017, the Wall High School yearbook became another battleground over the Trump presidency after three students reported that their Trump-related contributions to the yearbook were left on the cutting room floor most notably student Grant Berardo, who wore a navy T-shirt on school picture day with the Trump campaign logo, including the phrase "Make America Great Again."

The slogan was scrubbed from the published image.

Wall Township High School junior Grant Berardo's T-shirt was digitally altered in the school's yearbook. He wore a Donald Trump campaign shirt for his portrait.(Photo: Courtesy of Joseph Berardo, Jr.)

'Trump 2024': Asbury hunts vandals who spray painted anti-Biden, pro-Trump messages

When Berardo's parents complained to the school about the digital alteration and the story went viral Berardo appeared on national cable news talk shows to talk about the incident Parsons was immediately suspended. New yearbooks with the unaltered photo of Berardo were eventually ordered.

It wasn't the first time school officials requested yearbook alterations, Parsons said. In one yearbook, that included whiting out a bumper sticker that read"feminism is the radical notion that women are people," placing digitally rendered T-shirts onto shirtless students going swimming and removing writing on two students' upper chests, according to the lawsuit.

At the time:Trump thanks Wall students for 'standing up' to yearbook censorship

Parsons retired from the school district after the 2017-18 school year, during which she reported being "disrespected and ridiculed by students and other persons who believe she was responsible for editing the Trump T-shirt in the 2017 yearbook," according to the complaint.

Wall is a town with strong Republican ties, with every Republican presidential candidate carrying the town by over 60% until Trump's 2020 re-election campaign, which carried the town by 58%.

Parsons, a Trump voter in2016, alleged that her First Amendment rights were violated by formerSuperintendent Cheryl Dyer, who barred her from speaking to reporters after the scandal became a national story, leading to the death threats.

Wall Superintendent Tracy Handerhan declined tocomment.

Mike Davis has spent the last decade covering New Jersey local news, marijuana legalization, transportation and basically whatever else is going on at any given moment. Contact him atmdavis@gannettnj.comor@byMikeDavison Twitter.

Read or Share this story: https://www.app.com/story/news/education/in-our-schools/2021/03/18/wall-nj-high-school-donald-trump-yearbook/4746260001/

Link:
Wall BOE settles with former HS teacher over Trump yearbook censorship - Asbury Park Press

Amazons recent removal of Ryan T. Andersons book When Harry Became Sally is an attack by a major corporation on free speech. This restriction reinforces our duty to allow free speech to thrive in the pursuit of truth in our own social and academic spheres without letting our bias blind us to unintended social censorship.

After Amazon removed Andersons book without warning and then refused to explain its action, Sens. Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, Mike Braun and Mike Lee demanded that Amazons CEO Jeff Bezos explain this political censorship. Amazon responded on March 11, stating that Amazon has chosen not to sell books that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness. Ryan Anderson claims that his book does no such thing.

The debate rages on.

There stand the facts of controversy surrounding When Harry Became Sally. My concern lies with those of the Republican senators: what does the removal of this book mean for free speech?

Last interterm at the University of Dallas, I had the opportunity to re-read and study When Harry Became Sally under Andersons guidance in his Natural Law and Public Affairs class. Both times I read it, I found the book to be what Anderson claims it to be: a well-articulated, compassionate and well-researched critique of the continuing discussion over transgenderism.

Regardless of where you fall on the transgenderism discussion, Andersons book is a valuable source of exposure to one side of the conversation.

Amazons decision to pull this book from its cyber-shelves silences a valid and widely held opinion on an extremely important social issue and could prove to be devastating to American society.

Silencing people because they do not agree with us is a tragic error that damages our ability to discover what is actually true. If we allow this sort of behavior to continue unchecked from corporate giants like Amazon, we are beginning to concede our right to free speech.

I would be equally outraged if Amazon had removed a pro-transgenderism book of the same caliber as Andersons from its inventory. Regardless of your opinion or identity, we all share the same humanity, and we should be able to have a full and inclusive discussion encompassing both sides of the argument.

Since most of us do not have the information or time to research these questions to their full extent, we rely on scholars to present us with the facts and details so that we may draw conclusions based on our understanding of ourselves and the truth. Always, this discernment requires treating both sides of an issue with equal care.

Not only must we maintain this openness in a public and corporate sphere, we must also do so in our immediate culture and society. How can we expect respect and openness in a large sphere if we cannot maintain it on a small and personal one?

By nature of UDs religious and political orientation, we tend to attract Catholic, conservative students. With this demographic, the prevailing opinion on campus tends to be conservative. I challenge UD to open the door wider.

UD prides itself on being an institution that creates independent thinkers. We are lucky to have this haven of intellectual freedom where non-woke opinions can be engaged. But if we claim to be independent thinkers, we must live it out.

Let us encourage conversation from the students who do not hold the popular beliefs on campus. Let us welcome dissenting opinions. Let us engage with the other side of the conversation.

This openness to challenge and dialogue does not mean that UDs catholic identity will be compromised. UD can maintain its mission of being a Catholic university while simultaneously living up to its claim of producing independent thinkers.

The university does not have to endorse ideologies or opinions that are inconsistent with its mission or catholic doctrine. It does not need to codify these dissenting opinions in its institutional policies or procedures. UD can and should continue to stand up for what it believes is the truth.

I am not advocating for a compromise of UDs explicitly expressed values and beliefs (which I happen to share). I am simply pointing out that UD has a duty to its students, faculty and larger community to be a platform where the truth can be challenged and wrestled with.

The UD community should actively support conversations on campus that deal with both sides of any given issue. We students should be willing to listen to those who disagree with us in a respectful and attentive manner. If all we ever encounter on campus simply reaffirms existing beliefs, how can we call ourselves independent thinkers?

Willingness to discuss both sides of an issue reinforces the validity of our personally held opinions. Lack of exposure or simple refusal to have these conversations signifies that we are either afraid of being proven wrong or content to live in ignorance.

I do not get that impression from either UD or its students.

The independent, truth-seeking spirit of UD is becoming more important than ever, and we need to rise to that challenge as a community.

Amazons recent removal of Ryan T. Andersons book When Harry Became Sally is an attack by a major corporation on free speech. This restriction reinforces our duty to allow free speech to thrive in the pursuit of truth in our own social and academic spheres without letting our bias blind us to unintended social censorship.

After Amazon removed Andersons book without warning and then refused to explain its action, Sens. Marco Rubio, Josh Hawley, Mike Braun and Mike Lee demanded that Amazons CEO Jeff Bezos explain this political censorship. Amazon responded on March 11, stating that Amazon has chosen not to sell books that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness. Ryan Anderson claims that his book does no such thing.

The debate rages on.

There stand the facts of controversy surrounding When Harry Became Sally. My concern lies with those of the Republican senators: what does the removal of this book mean for free speech?

Last interterm at the University of Dallas, I had the opportunity to re-read and study When Harry Became Sally under Andersons guidance in his Natural Law and Public Affairs class. Both times I read it, I found the book to be what Anderson claims it to be: a well-articulated, compassionate and well-researched critique of the continuing discussion over transgenderism.

Regardless of where you fall on the transgenderism discussion, Andersons book is a valuable source of exposure to one side of the conversation.

Amazons decision to pull this book from its cyber-shelves silences a valid and widely held opinion on an extremely important social issue and could prove to be devastating to American society.

Silencing people because they do not agree with us is a tragic error that damages our ability to discover what is actually true. If we allow this sort of behavior to continue unchecked from corporate giants like Amazon, we are beginning to concede our right to free speech.

I would be equally outraged if Amazon had removed a pro-transgenderism book of the same caliber as Andersons from its inventory. Regardless of your opinion or identity, we all share the same humanity, and we should be able to have a full and inclusive discussion encompassing both sides of the argument.

Since most of us do not have the information or time to research these questions to their full extent, we rely on scholars to present us with the facts and details so that we may draw conclusions based on our understanding of ourselves and the truth. Always, this discernment requires treating both sides of an issue with equal care.

Not only must we maintain this openness in a public and corporate sphere, we must also do so in our immediate culture and society. How can we expect respect and openness in a large sphere if we cannot maintain it on a small and personal one?

By nature of UDs religious and political orientation, we tend to attract Catholic, conservative students. With this demographic, the prevailing opinion on campus tends to be conservative. I challenge UD to open the door wider.

UD prides itself on being an institution that creates independent thinkers. We are lucky to have this haven of intellectual freedom where non-woke opinions can be engaged. But if we claim to be independent thinkers, we must live it out.

Let us encourage conversation from the students who do not hold the popular beliefs on campus. Let us welcome dissenting opinions. Let us engage with the other side of the conversation.

This openness to challenge and dialogue does not mean that UDs catholic identity will be compromised. UD can maintain its mission of being a Catholic university while simultaneously living up to its claim of producing independent thinkers.

The university does not have to endorse ideologies or opinions that are inconsistent with its mission or catholic doctrine. It does not need to codify these dissenting opinions in its institutional policies or procedures. UD can and should continue to stand up for what it believes is the truth.

I am not advocating for a compromise of UDs explicitly expressed values and beliefs (which I happen to share). I am simply pointing out that UD has a duty to its students, faculty and larger community to be a platform where the truth can be challenged and wrestled with.

The UD community should actively support conversations on campus that deal with both sides of any given issue. We students should be willing to listen to those who disagree with us in a respectful and attentive manner. If all we ever encounter on campus simply reaffirms existing beliefs, how can we call ourselves independent thinkers?

Willingness to discuss both sides of an issue reinforces the validity of our personally held opinions. Lack of exposure or simple refusal to have these conversations signifies that we are either afraid of being proven wrong or content to live in ignorance.

I do not get that impression from either UD or its students.

The independent, truth-seeking spirit of UD is becoming more important than ever, and we need to rise to that challenge as a community.

View original post here:
Amazon's censorship reminds us of UD's need to protect free speech - University of Dallas University News

The Fourth Amendment stands for the principle that the government generally may not search its people or seize their belongings without appropriate process and oversight. Today, we are at a jurisprudential inflection point as courts grapple with when and how the Fourth Amendment should apply to the data generated by technologies like cell phones, smart cars, and wearable devices. These technologies which we rely on for enhanced communication, transportation, and entertainment create detailed records about our private lives, potentially revealing not only where we have been but also our political viewpoints, consumer preferences, people with whom we have interacted, and more. The resulting trove of information is immensely valuable to law enforcement for use in investigations and prosecutions, and much of it is currently available without a warrant.

This paper describes how the U.S. Supreme Courts 2018 decision inCarpenter v. United Stateshas the potential to usher in a new era of Fourth Amendment law. InCarpenter, the Court considered how the Fourth Amendment applies to location data generated when cell phones connect to nearby cell towers. The Court ultimately held that when the government demanded seven days of location information from defendant Timothy Carpenters cell phone provider without a warrant, it violated the Fourth Amendment. The decision sits at the intersection of two lines of cases: those that examine location tracking technologies, like beepers or the Global Positioning System (GPS), and those that discuss what expectation of privacy is reasonable for information disclosed to third parties, like banks or phone companies. In reaching its conclusion that a warrant was required, the Court upended existing precedent, ruling for the first time that location information maintained by a third party was protected by the Fourth Amendment.

In exploring the Courts decision inCarpenterand its application to data from a variety of technologies such as GPS, automated license plate readers (ALPRs), and wearables this paper argues that it is incumbent on courts to preserve the balance of power between the people and the government as enshrined in the Fourth Amendment, which was intended to place obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance. Moreover, in determining the scope of the Constitutions protections for data generated by digital technologies, courts should weigh the five factors considered inCarpenter: the intimacy and comprehensiveness of the data, the expense of obtaining it, the retrospective window that it offers to law enforcement, and whether it was truly shared voluntarily with a third party. Section I is an overview of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Section II discusses theCarpenterdecision and its takeaways. Section III appliesCarpenterto various surveillance technologies and looks ahead at how Fourth Amendment jurisprudence might continue to develop in the digital age.

Visit link:
The Fourth Amendment in the Digital Age - brennancenter.org

The Standing Committee of the 13th National Peoples Congress, Chinas top legislature, adopted the Fourth Amendment to the 1984 Chinese Patent Law on October 17, 2020. The Fourth Amendment follows a series of amendments that were last adopted in 2008 and will become effective on June 1, 2021. Among the provisions is Article 76, establishing a new pharmaceutical patent linkage system modeled after the U.S. Hatch-Waxman Act. Article 76 of the Fourth Amendment was implemented in accordance with Article 1.11 of the Economic and Trade Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Peoples Republic of China.[1]

Key provisions of Article 76 of the Fourth Amendment include:

There are several key differences between the U.S. Hatch-Waxman system and the new Chinese law. Chinas patent linkage system is not limited to small molecules and also includes biologics and traditional Chinese medicine. Further, China provides a much shorter stay period of only 9 months. This 9-month stay period only applies to small molecules and excludes biologics or traditional Chinese medicine. The market exclusivity period for first generic entrants (12 months), however, is far longer than that of the United States (180 days).

The patent linkage system for pharmaceutical patents in China is just developing, and the resolution mechanism for patent disputes under Article 76 of the Fourth Amendment currently lacks detail for both generic market entrants and patentees. One notable piece of information missing in the current legislation is whether there is an obligation for the generic market entrants to notify the patentee of the non-infringement statement. In this regard, stay tuned for updates on finalized draft rules, which are expected to provide further guidance on Chinas new patent linkage system.

[1]The text of the Phase One Trade Agreement with China (2020) is available at: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/agreements/phase%20one%20agreement/Economic_And_Trade_Agreement_Between_The_United_States_And_China_Text.pdf. Article 1.11 begins on page 1-6 on Chapter 1 (page 7 of the PDF).

See original here:
Chinas Hatch-Waxman Act: Patent Linkage System Implemented in the 4th Amendment to the Chinese Patent Law - JD Supra

In a federal lawsuit filed earlier this week, Kenneth Walkerthe boyfriend of 26-year-old EMT Breonna Taylor, who was fatally shot by police in her apartment last Marchalleges that Louisville police flagrantly violated his and Taylors Fourth Amendment rights during the violent raid. To help him make that case, he has retained two Washington constitutional law experts: former US solicitor general Donald Verrilli Jr. and Georgetown Law professor Cliff Sloan.

Its very important for him to get vindicationto get justice and accountability, says Sloan of his client. Its also a way to honor the memory and life of Breonna Taylor, and of trying to ensure that nothing like this happens again.

Taylors death, along with the killing of George Floyd, marked a turning point for the Black Lives Matter movement, and became a primary motivator of last summers racial justice demonstrations. According to Walkers complaint, he and Taylor thought her apartment was being broken into when they were disturbed by loud banging on the door after midnight on March 13, 2020. Walker alleges that Taylor repeatedly called out to the intruders to identify themselves but the officers outside never did. The lawsuit describes how the intruders burst in, and how Walker, a licensed gun-owner who believed armed assailants were in the home, fired a round. The officers, according to the complaint, responded with a fusillade, killing Taylor.

So-called no knock search warrants, says Sloan, are plainly illegal. Its a constitutional requirement that police knock and announce themselves, unless there are special circumstances, like its very dangerous. Not only were there no such circumstances in this case, says Sloan, but police got their warrant for Taylors apartment based on fraudulent information. The lawsuit alleges that a detective obtained the warrant by falsely stating hed verified that packages for a suspected drug-dealer had been sent to the address. (No drugs were found in Taylors apartment.)

Walker has several Louisville attorneys on his team, too. One of them is an old family friend of Sloans, which is how Sloan got involved. Sloan, in turn, recruited his longtime friend, Verrilli. Both DC lawyers are experienced Supreme Court advocates, which could potentially come in handy. We think that the law is clear and settled about the violation of [Walkers] constitutional rights, but were prepared to litigate this vigorously at every stage, including going to the Supreme Court if necessary, says Sloan. He points out that in past Supreme Court cases involving Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, the thing the justices have emphasized including justices like Justice Scaliais that the point of a knock-and-announce is exactly to avoid danger, and this exact situation.

Beyond Walkers specific claims, the lawsuit also alleges a pattern of problematic search warrants within the Louisville Metropolitan Police Department, and a failure to train officers in using reasonable force. Walker does not specify a damages amount.

Join the conversation!

Senior Editor

Marisa M. Kashino joined Washingtonian in 2009 as a staff writer, and became a senior editor in 2014. She oversees the magazines real estate and home design coverage, and writes long-form feature stories. She was a 2020 Livingston Award finalist for her two-part investigation into a possible wrongful conviction stemming from a murder in rural Virginia. Kashino lives in Northeast DC.

See the article here:
Two High-Powered DC Lawyers Have Jumped into the Breonna Taylor Case - Washingtonian