Mediaboss Marketing

Coin Center has vehemently pushed back the controversial SEC proposal that sought to redefine the definition of exchange within the Securities Exchange Act in a bid to include systems that offer the use of non-firm trading interest and communications protocols to bring together buyers and sellers of securities. The group deemed the regulators move as unconstitutional.

The Washington-based non-profit that focuses on cryptocurrency policies, Coin Center, announced filing a comment letter with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). According to the crypto lobby, the proposal by the commission breaches the First Amendment by requiring a license to speak, even for open source developers working behind projects in the ecosystem.

Think tanks and crypto lobby groups motivations to rebuff SECs proposal comes amidst the regulators of the country gearing up to tighten oversight.

Last month, the agency published Amendments Regarding the Definition of Exchange. Many experts believe it targets bringing the crypto and, most importantly, decentralized finance (DeFi) sector into its regulatory perimeter, thereby dramatically redefining the risk profile of operating a project in the US.

While arguing that the implications on developers, publishers, and republishers would be adverse, Coin Centers comment letter stated:

A new SEC proposal has a serious change hidden within its complex language. Bottom line: The proposal violates the First Amendment by requiring a license to speakeven of open source developers. Its unconstitutional and they should change it. Coin Center is pushing back.

The non-profits research director Peter Van Valkenburgh said that the proposal is unconstitutional and that the SEC should retract it.

The regulatory authoritys interpretation of exchange is deemed as inappropriately broad since the lengthy 200 pages document never mentions crypto or DeFi once. Coin Center also cited Supreme Courts (SC) previous precedent, which could potentially compel the SEC to withdraw the proposal if it finalizes the new rule as drafted.

Coin Center also stated that the Commission should narrow the definition of exchange before finalizing the proposal to true professional conduct. Failing to do so could cool down substantial protected speech, and stifle innovation in the country, besides facing an unfriendly Court that the lobby believes, is primed to vindicate the First Amendment freedoms.

PrimeXBT Special Offer: Use this link to register & enter POTATO50 code to receive up to $7,000 on your deposits.

Link:
SECs Proposal to Amend the Definition of Exchange Violates the First Amendment, Says Coin Center - CryptoPotato

NEW BRITAIN Several residents expressed concern about a proposed resolution regarding park use regulations and how it would impact first amendment rights.

The citys Common Council met Wednesday night and discussed a resolution that would amend a portion of Chapter 17 of the citys Code of Ordinances regarding park use. The change proposes residents be required to obtain a permit from the board of Park and Recreation commissioners to reserve any area or place in any park for special or private use by groups of more than 25 persons. The proposed change would also require that applicants submit requests at least 60 days prior to the event.

New Britain Racial Justice Coalition Founder Alicia Strong said the proposed changes could have a significant impact on community and advocacy groups that wish to assemble in the future. Strong said, if passed, the resolution could not only impact individual residents but a number of local community groups.

I think right now New Britain has amazing and beautiful parks and I think we should allow all organizations and all residents to take part in that without feeling like theyre breaking some kind of rule or doing something wrong, Strong said.

Strong said requiring a permit for groups of more than 25 and requiring an application for a permit 60 prior could infringe on residents rights to assemble. Strong referenced a recent protest by teachers and paraprofessionals organized in Central Park, which was planned in less than 60 days. She said under the new provision that type of organization would not be allowed to happen.

The mandate to apply 60 days for a permit before [an event] is also very difficult not only for our work that we do in the community but for a lot of protests and actions and things of that nature that happen, Strong said.

Resident Jason Peppin said the city could run into legal problems if they passed the resolution because of implications that it would infringe on residents first amendment rights. He said if the city shuts down an event because of the regulation and arrests are made, it could open the city to potential lawsuits.

If this city has to worry about a budget, worrying about paying for a lawyer or anything like that is just a ridiculous thing to infringe on someone's first amendment right, Peppin said.

The resolution also states persons/organizations holding a special event per the definitions herein without a permit shall be subject to a $99 fine. Additionally, the change states the city can shut down the event and costs related to the shutdown of said event will be the responsibility of the event organizer. Strong said the coalition has conducted multiple community giveaways and protests and if the proposed regulation passed, the organization would be at risk to receive a fine. She said its something that would significantly impact the coalition, which has a small operating budget.

The citys Common Council voted to refer the resolution to the Consolidated Subcommittee, which is slated to meet again Wednesday, May 5 in the Council Chambers at City Hall.

Excerpt from:
Several New Britain residents speak up against proposed resolution regarding park use regulations, say it goes against first amendment rights - New...

Exton, Pennsylvania What should library staff do when self-proclaimed citizen journalists enter the library claiming a right to question employees and film in any space accessible to the public? The May 11 webinar First Amendment Audits: What Your Library Board and Staff Need to Know, presented by United for Libraries and the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom, will share how to prepare by adopting well-crafted policies and training staff.

This program will also cover the library as a public forum and the necessary components of user behavior policies and meeting room policies. The program will include opportunities to participate in role-play scenarios that demonstrate best practices when board members interact with library users and members of the public. The program will include a Q&A with presenters Deborah Caldwell-Stone and Lori Fisher.

Deborah Caldwell-Stone is Director of ALAs Office for Intellectual Freedom and Executive Director of the Freedom to Read Foundation. She is a recovering attorney and former appellate litigator who works closely with library professionals and library trustees on a wide range of intellectual freedom issues. She advises ALA's Intellectual Freedom Committee and its Privacy Subcommittee on law and policy issues, and has served on the faculty of the ALA-sponsored Lawyers for Libraries and Law for Librarians workshops. She is a contributor to the 10th edition of the Intellectual Freedom Manual and has contributed articles on law, policy, and intellectual freedom to American Libraries and other publications.

Lori Fisher is the Assistant State Librarian for New Hampshire since 2019, previously working as a small public library director for over 11 years in Bow, NH. She is the ALA Councilor for the NH Library Association (2019-2023) and a current member of the ALA Committee on Legislation, ALA Policy Corps (cohort 2), and the United for Libraries Public Policy & Advocacy Committee. Lori has served as President of NH Library Association (2012), and is a current co-chair of the NHLA Advocacy & Legislative Committee. Aside from managing IMLS ARPA monies on behalf of the state library, Lori creates and leads professional development opportunities for staff at all types of libraries locally, regionally, and nationally.

This webinar is free for Intellectual Freedom Round Table members, and United for Libraries Statewide All-Access Partners (those in MD, MA, MI, MT, NE, NH, ND, OR, SC, SD, TX, & VA). Visit the eLearning registration page for more information and to register. Statewide All-Access Partners can register here.

United for Libraries: The Association of Library Trustees, Advocates, Friends and Foundations, is a division of the American Library Association with approximately 4,000 personal and group members representing hundreds of thousands of library supporters. United for Libraries supports those who govern, promote, advocate, and fundraise for libraries, and brings together library trustees, advocates, friends, and foundations into a partnership that creates a powerful force for libraries in the 21st century. To join, please visit http://www.ala.org/unitedor call (800) 545-2433, ext. 2161.

More here:
United for Libraries and OIF to present May 11 webinar on 'First Amendment Audits: What Your Library Board and Staff Need to Know' - ala.org

Join us for the James Madison Program's Initiative on Freedom of Thought, Inquiry, and Expressioninaugural event!

To understand the core principles of free speech on campus, it is helpful to understanding the evolution of First Amendment jurisprudence over the past century. As the Justices of the Supreme Court have struggled to make sense of the Constitutions vague and open-ended guarantee that Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, it has gradually embraced ten core principles that now define our constitutional understanding of the freedom of speech. By exploring the wisdom or unwisdom of those ten principles, it is possible to better understand why our nations colleges and universities have moved in a similar direction in their commitment to academic freedom and what they mean by that term.

Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. After serving as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Mr. Stone joined the faculty of The University of Chicago Law School in 1973. In the years since, he has served as Dean of the Law School (1987-1994) and Provost of the University (1994-2002).

Mr. Stone is the author or co-author of many books on constitutional law, including Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and The Future of Our Democracy (forthcoming 2022); National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press (2021); Democracy and Equality: The Enduring Constitutional Vision of the Warren Court (2020); The Free Speech Century (2018); Sex and the Constitution (2017); and Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime (2004). Mr. Stones books have received many national awards, including the Robert F. Kennedy Award for the Best Book of the Year, Harvard Universitys Award for the Best Book of the Year in Public Affairs, and the American Political Science Associations Award for the Best Book of the Year in Political Science.

Mr. Stone is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Law Institute and the American Philosophical Society. He has served as Chair of the Board of the American Constitution Society and as a Senior Advisor to the American Civil Liberties Union. In 2013, in the wake of Edward Snowdens leaks, President Obama appointed Mr. Stone to serve on a five-member Commission to review the NSAs surveillance policies and to make recommendations to the President and to Congress. In 2014, Mr. Stone chaired the University of Chicago committee that drafted what has come to be known as The Chicago Free Speech Principles, which have been adopted by more than eighty colleges and universities across the nation.

Go here to read the rest:
Understanding Free Speech on Campus: The Ten Critical Judgments the Supreme Court Has Made About the Meaning of the First Amendment | James Madison...

Grand Rapids police release video of officer fatally shooting Patrick Lyoya

WARNING: This video contains graphic content. Video from the Grand Rapids Police Department was released at a press conference and shows one of their officers fatally shooting Patrick Lyoya.

Provided by the Grand Rapids Police Department

LANSING The Michigan Department of State said Friday it would no longer release the driving records of victims of violence, but Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson reversed the policy change a few hours later.

"There is no change in policy at this time," Benson said in a news release later Friday.

"The department is currently reviewing the manner in which it provides the driver record of any Michigan resident to third parties to ensure we balance the critical importance of government transparency and access to information with the need to protect the privacy of Michiganders."

But while the review is underway, "there will be no changes to our current policy, nor will there be any changes to media or public access to such data."

The earlier announcement had brought sharp blowback and criticism from First Amendment proponents.

Driving records and other motor vehicle recordsare routinely and quickly obtained by members of the news media and members of some other industries, such as insurance companies. But Tracy Wimmer, a spokeswoman for the department, said the statehas discretion and the law says it "may release" such information, not that it must.

In an unsigned news release issued earlier Friday, the Department of State, which Benson heads,said its sudden policy change was related to the police killing in Grand Rapids last week of Patrick Lyoya, a 26-year-old unarmed Black man, during a traffic stop. The police shooting is under investigation by the Michigan State Police.

The release said the state agency had provided Lyoya's driving record to three unidentified media outlets"before recognizing that it was being included as an irrelevant detail that wrongly suggests he is culpable for being shot in the back of the head by a Grand Rapids police officer."

Department officials would not say whether the Free Press, which obtained the information and reported only that Lyoya's license was revoked, was one of the media outlets that prompted the policy change.

More: Grand Rapids police release video of officer fatally shooting Patrick Lyoya

More: Patrick Lyoya escaped violence and persecution in Congo only to die in Michigan

The department "condemns the killing of Patrick Lyoya," and "will no longer provide the driving record and personal information of Mr. Lyoya to the media, nor will it provide to media such records and information of other victims of violence," said the statement, which was later reversed.

Detroit Free Press Editor Peter Bhatia said obtaining driving records is"a standard journalistic practice and a long-standing service provided by the Secretary of State's Office to the media." Bhatia said it was his understanding that the Free Press reporting was in part the cause of the press release.

"While we acknowledge that some may see the publication of such information as inflammatory, and cite press reports after the killings of other Black men by police officers, we saw the license revocationas important context given the sequence of events in Grand Rapids and that the encounter between Lyoya and the officer deteriorated quickly after the officer asked for Lyoya's license. Our intention was purely journalistic," Bhatia said.

"In situations such as this we are extremely careful to provide information about everyone involved in context and at the appropriate time in the evolution of a case. We do not rush to publish because we might have some details first."

Lisa McGraw, public affairs manager for the Michigan Press Association, said she has "grave concerns" about any state agency withholding or releasing information based on how that agency believes the information is going to be used.

"That flies in the face of the intent of the law," she said. "At what point does that allow officials to protect themselves?"

In the specific case of the fatal shooting of Lyoya, "it's in the public interest to have as much transparency as possible," McGraw said.

Free Press legal counsel Herschel Fink said the policy floated Friday would set a dangerous precedent.

"This is censorship pure and simple. Its not the place of a secretary of state toimpose her political judgment on what information the public is entitled to have concerning investigations of possible crimes. Its the function of law enforcement and prosecutors, and, where necessary, the courts interpreting open record laws."

In the earlier statement, the Department of Statecalled on state lawmakers to "strengthen the law to demonstrate that they value the privacy of Michiganders." In the meantime, it said it will continue to review and revise policies under which it provides "the personal information of any Michigan resident to third parties."

Wimmer said that because the department has discretion about what information it releases and under what circumstances, there would likely be lengthier conversations to assess the purpose of requestsbefore information is released.

Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or pegan@freepress.com.Follow him on Twitter @paulegan4. Read more on Michigan politics and sign up for our elections newsletter.

Become asubscriber.

See the original post:
State moves to block release of certain driver records, then reverses itself - Detroit Free Press