Mediaboss Marketing

This matter is in the news again, because of a proposal in Boston to limit residential picketing so that it can only happen from 9 am to 9 pm. (This appears to have been prompted by residential picketing outside Mayor Michelle Wu's home.) I therefore thought I'd repost an item of mine that answers the question:Is this sort of targeted residential picketing protected by the First Amendment?

The short answer: No, but any restrictions on such picketing have to be imposed through content-neutral statutes or ordinances (or, in some situations, injunctions); and they have to leave people free to demonstrate in the same neighborhood:

Carey involved a pro-busing group picketing the home of a mayor, while Frisby and Madsen involved anti-abortion groups picketing the homes of clinic employees. Indeed, most of the residential picketing cases I've seen have involved anti-abortion protesters; at least in the 1980s and 1990s, such residential picketing seemed to be a favored tactic of at least some parts of that movement.

But the Court of course didn't draw distinctions based on the content of the speech or based on whether the picketing was aimed at a public official. For instance, Justice Scalia, who had often faulted the Court in free speech cases where he thought anti-abortion speech was being treated unfairly, was in the majority in Frisby; Justices Brennan and Marshall, strong supporters of abortion rights, dissented; none of them seemed swayed by the speakers' ideology. Rather, as I note above, the Court expressly forbade such distinctions.

So a city or a state could ban picketing or allow it. But the rules would apply equally to anti-racism protesters, antifa protesters, anti-abortion protesters, alt.right protesters, and any other protesters.

To my knowledge, residential picketing is banned on a statewide basis only in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota, though the statutes operate somewhat differently. (The Arizona ban is limited to picketing conducted "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm"; the Minnesota law allows injunctions to be issued based on targeted residential picketing that happens "on more than one occasion," rather than banning such picketing outright.) But various cities ban it as well.

Finally, even when there is no ordinance banning residential picketing, particular kinds of behavior while picketingespecially loud noise at night (cf. the August 2020 Washington protest outside the Postmaster General's home)may be banned by content-neutral restrictions. See Kovacs v. Cooper (1949). Of course, those restrictions must be enforced in a content-neutral manner as well: A city can't deliberately ignore loud protests that express certain views but then punish loud protests that express others.

Visit link:
Protests Outside People's Homes (Residential Picketing) and the First Amendment - Reason

By Anna Maria Basquez

EL PASO COUNTY, Colo. (CBS4) Administrators and a teacher at a Colorado Springs area high school are engaging in discussions with students and parents after an incident in which the teacher is alleged to have used racial slurs in the course of instruction.

Samantha Briggs, spokeswoman for Widefield School District 3, said Mesa Ridge High School Navy JROTC instructor Brian Gauck used the N-word in multiple classes. The district states the word was used in a discussion about the First Amendment.

I can confirm a JROTC instructor used the word during a class discussion around the First Amendment and language, Briggs said. The word was not used to call or refer to anyone.

The schools principal took immediate action once she was made aware of the situation and the instructor publicly apologized to all students in the classes.

In addition, the principal has apologized to students and parents on behalf of the school, she said. The principal and the instructor are engaging in individual conversations with students and parents to restore relationships. The district and the school are committed to providing a safe, welcoming, and culturally inclusive environment for all of our students and families. That is all the information I have on the situation at this time.

Briggs said she wouldnt provide any specifics on any possible disciplinary action that may have resulted from the situation.

View original post here:
Colorado Teacher Apologizes After Using N-Word In The Classroom During First Amendment Instruction - CBS Denver

A bill passed by the Arizona House this week that would ban people from taking close-rangerecordings of police without permission has raised concerns of violatingpeople's First Amendment rights.

House Bill 2319 initially restricted people within 15 feet of law enforcement activity from recording police without permission. It was later amended to 8 feet to addressconcerns it would be unconstitutional, bill sponsorRep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills)said at a committee hearing on Monday.

"Based on comments made by people testifyingin committee and by my working withour Rules attorneysand their intern, I received a lot of goodinput to make this bill conform with the Constitution," he said.

"The major changes areI went from 15 feet to 8 feetand that is based upon 8 feet being established bythe U.S.SupremeCourt as being a reasonable distance as they applied it to peopleentering and leaving abortionclinics when faced with protesters, they said that was a good balance," Kavanagh continued.

Other amendments to the bill before passageincluded allowingany person at the center of police contact or any occupants of a vehicle stopped by police to record those interactions from a close distance aslong as they don'tinterfere with police actions, like searches or field sobriety tests.

The bill now also defines law enforcement activity as any instance in which police are questioning a suspicious person, arresting someone or interacting with "an emotionally disturbed or disorderly person who is exhibiting abnormal behavior."

HB 2319 would make it a petty offense punishable with a fine for anyone found in violation of the potential law.However, offenders risk facing a misdemeanorif they failto followan officer's verbal warnings or hadpreviously been convictedof violating the law.

Kavanagh, a former detective at the Port Authority in New York, proposed a similar bill in 2016 while he served as a state senator. He killed thatbill himself before it was assigned a hearing because it was "mired in controversy," he said at the time.

The measureproposed this legislative session was approved on Wednesday by the Houseona 31-28party-line vote, with Republicansin favor,and will next go to the Senate for consideration.

Democratic Minority Leader Reginald Bolding voted against the measure, stating it "would make it less transparent for citizens."

"(It's) not the direction that we should be walking in as a state," he said. "I further believe that right now what we have to do as a state is make sure that we are standing up directly for ourcommunities to ensure that they know that they are safe."

SomeFirst Amendment experts say the bill poses a constitutional issue and grants police too much discretion.Various news organizations including Gannett, the company that owns The Arizona Republic, also signed a letter from the National Press Photographers Association opposing the bill because it violated the free speech and press clauses of the First Amendment as well as"the 'clearly established right' to photograph and record police officers performing their official duties in a public place."

"As several federal courts have affirmed, people have the First Amendment right to record police officers while they carry out their duties and the ability to record police interactions has become an important tool to ensure police accountability and transparency," said ACLU of Arizona Communications DirectorMarcela Taracena.

Bystander videos of law enforcement activityhave become increasingly common, and at times helpful at exposing instances of police misconduct. It was instrumental in the case against former Minneapolis police Officer Derek Chauvin who was ultimately convicted in the murder of George Floyd.

Video captured by a bystander also recently showed13-year-old Taylor Thomasbeing punched by a Phoenix police officer.Phoenix's new Office of Accountability and Transparency director Roger Smith told The Republic earlier this month the law "cuts against transparency."

"The more quality information you can get about these incidents, the better," he said. "And for officers who are doing their jobs right, it's better to have more information than less. You'd be able to help those officers to present the fact that they did their jobs correctly."

Aside from the First Amendment issues the bill poses, Arizona First Amendment Coalition Attorney Dan Barr pointed out that it'd be difficult for peopleto follow. Gregg Leslie, director of Arizona State University's First Amendment Clinic, also separately noted that police situations were too fluid to be able to applylimits like the 8-foot distance set by the bill.

"Let's say you're observing the police and you're outside the 8-foot area but the police come at you and they say 'hey turn that camera off' and they come within 8feet of you, are you nowcommitting a crime?" Barr questioned.

Barr later added if HB 2319 issigned into law, it'd only a matter of time before it's challenged in court.

"When you're in public, you just don'thave the same kind of privacy that gives you control over other people'sactions," Leslie said. "So once you add police to the context, there's always an interest in knowing how police are performing their function, even if you're pro-police andyou'rerecording them to show that you think they're doing the right thing ... there's just a public interestin knowing how police are doing their job that is fundamentally important to people."

Reach the reporter at chelsea.curtis@arizonarepublic.comor follow her on Twitter@curtis_chels.

Support local journalism.Subscribe to azcentraltoday.

Excerpt from:
Arizona House approves bill that bans close range recordings of police - The Arizona Republic

Arkansans have a chance to add their names to three petitions for state constitutional amendments that would legalize recreational marijuana for adults. But the three proposals differ in how they would shape cannabis use in the state.

Those differences come in how they would increase the number of dispensaries and cultivators, how cannabis would be taxed and whether past criminal convictions for marijuana would be expunged.

Organizers for the three proposals each need 89,151 verified signatures by July 8 to make the November ballot. If two or more measures make the ballot and receive more than 50% of the vote, the amendment with the highest vote total will become law, according to Kevin Niehaus of the Arkansas Secretary of States office.

Arkansans can sign each of the petitions once, Niehaus said.

Arkansas voters passed Amendment 98 to the Arkansas constitution in 2016, legalizing medical marijuana in the state. The 2016 amendment allows for up to 40 dispensaries and eight cultivators who serve patients who qualify by having one or more of 18 qualifying conditions. The state Medical Marijuana Commission has issued 38 of the maximum 40 dispensary licenses, and all eight of the cultivation licenses. The medical marijuana amendment does not allow residents to grow their own marijuana plants.

Arkansas True Grass

The first amendment was filed last year by Arkansas True Grass, a group of volunteers who describe themselves on their website as a grassroots movement to legalize cannabis in Arkansas. Called The Arkansas Recreational Marijuana Amendment of 2022, this proposal takes the least restrictive approach to cannabis legalization, allowing for an unlimited number of dispensaries and cultivators in the state.

The Arkansas True Grass proposal is also the only proposal that would allow Arkansas residents to grow their own marijuana plants. According to the amendment, Arkansas residents could grow up to 12 plants of their own out of public view and may possess an unlimited number of seeds.

The amendment would also expunge convictions for some marijuana offenders. Under the amendment, anyone incarcerated or serving probation or parole for a violation of the Arkansas Uniformed Controlled Substances Act as it pertains to marijuana and whose only conviction was for a marijuana-related offense prior to Nov. 9, 2022, would be released and their convictions would be expunged.

Its the best [amendment] for the people, for the poor people mostly, people who cant afford to participate in the medical program, said Briana Boling, who filed the amendment for Arkansas True Grass.

Boling provided an example of a friend with health issues who lives on a fixed income. The friend cant afford a medical marijuana card and cant afford the prices at dispensaries, she said, so he still buys marijuana off the street even though its legal for medical use. The friend is also a felon who was convicted for selling marijuana, Boling said.

Its the people like that that were wanting to help, Boling said.

Recreational marijuana would be taxed at 13%, according to the amendment, with an 8% excise tax and 5% sales tax. Medical marijuana would continue to be taxed at 10.5%. Arkansas True Grass has raised $14,208.58, according to filings with the Arkansas Ethics Commission.

Melissa Fults

The second amendment was filed last year by marijuana advocate Melissa Fults, who serves on the state board of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). Called The Arkansas Marijuana Amendment of 2022, Fults amendment takes a more restrictive approach than Arkansas True Grass. For instance, whereas Arkansas True Grass would allow for an unlimited number of dispensaries and cultivators, Fults plan would limit them based on the states population.

Under Fults amendment, there would be one dispensary for every 17,500 in population or part thereof. Based on Arkansass population of 3,025,891 in the 2020 census, the amendment would allow for 173 dispensaries, but the number could increase as the states population grows.

There would also be one cultivator for every 300,000 residents in the state, which would permit 11 cultivators, based on census figures.

The amendment would also increase the number of plants dispensaries can grow from 50 to 400. Fults said this would allow the dispensaries to be less reliant on cultivators for their product.

Fults said her amendment is right for Arkansas because it strikes a balance between restrictive and unrestrictive approaches to cannabis legalization.

Its middle of the road, Fults said. Its open enough to satisfy consumers but also restrictive enough because people who wont partake but want people to legally do it can live with it.

Fults amendment also expunges some criminal convictions related to marijuana. According to the proposal, all nonviolent felony and misdemeanor convictions before Jan. 1, 2023, for possession, cultivation, manufacture, distribution or sale of 16 ounces or less of marijuana, six or fewer marijuana plants, or marijuana paraphernalia would be expunged.

Fults amendment would also expand the medical marijuana program. The amendment would allow Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRN) to certify patients for the program, in addition to doctors. The amendment would also expand the qualifying conditions to include any condition the certifying doctor or APRN believes would benefit from cannabis-based therapeutics. Patients would also be able to use telemedicine for new certifications and for medical card renewals.

Fults amendment would eliminate state taxes on medical marijuana while taxing recreational marijuana at 15%.

Fults has not raised any money to date.

Responsible Growth Arkansas

The final amendment is from Responsible Growth Arkansas, a ballot question committee led by former state Rep. Eddie Armstrong. Called The Arkansas Adult Use Cannabis Amendment, the proposal has the support of five of the states cultivators, who each chipped in $350,000 for a total of $1.75 million.

The amendment takes the most restrictive approach of the three proposals, increasing the number of dispensaries to 120 and the number of cultivators to 20. The cultivation licenses would be split into two groups. The original eight cultivators would be granted Tier 1 licenses and would be permitted to grow unlimited amounts of cannabis. The remaining 12 cultivation licenses would be considered Tier 2 licenses, and those cultivators would be permitted to grow up to 250 plants each. Armstrong has compared the smaller cultivators to being like craft breweries.

The amendment does not expunge any marijuana convictions and does not expand the medical marijuana program.

Like Fults amendment, Responsible Growth Arkansass proposal would eliminate taxes on medical marijuana. Under Responsible Growths plan, recreational marijuana would be taxed at the same 10.5% rate at which medical marijuana is currently taxed. Revenue from the taxes generated by recreational marijuana would go to the states general revenues and would also support cancer research at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and fund a stipend for law enforcement officers.

Armstrong said the industry leaders behind his amendment did a lot of work to draft an amendment with a highly regulated marketplace that could pass. He said the amendment is not a shot in the dark.

I think [this amendment is] the right one, because its the most tightly regulated and most responsible approach that the industry took upon themselves to really work through before presenting anything to the people of the state, Armstrong said.

The cultivators who donated to Responsible Growth Arkansas are Bold Team LLC of Cotton Plant; Good Day Farms Arkansas LLC of Rogers; Osage Creek Cultivation LLC of Berryville; DMCC LLC of Jonesboro; and NSMC-OPCO LLC of White Hall.

Armstrong said he believes his amendment provides a regulated market that will appeal to voters, rather than the more unregulated medical marijuana market in neighboring Oklahoma.

Its industry-led, its responsible, Armstrong said of the proposal. Its tightly regulated. Its not Oklahoma, and we dont want that.

Originally posted here:
Puff, puff, pass: comparing and contrasting the three petitions to allow adults to use marijuana recreationally in Arkansas - Arkansas Times

Attorney General Jason Miyares is the first Republican to hold the office in nearly a decade. So his office says its natural to expect the states legal position to change after eight years under the control of Democrat Mark Herring.

Asked for a complete accounting of cases in which Miyares directed the state to change sides or withdraw, Miyaress spokeswoman, Victoria LaCivita, listed five:

Virginia v. Ferriero: A case filed against National Archivist David Ferriero to compel him to recognize the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and include it in the U.S. Constitution. Miyares filed to withdraw from the lawsuit, which would leave Nevada and Illinois as plaintiffs.

West Virginia v. EPA: Herring had added his name to a brief last year opposing the case aimed at blocking environmental regulations. Miyares says the state will no longer be a participating party because Virginia is no longer anti-coal.

Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization: In this case, Herring had joined 22 attorneys general to argue Mississippis 15-week abortion ban was unconstitutional. In a statement, Miyares said, Virginia is now of the belief that the Constitution is silent on the question of abortion.

Carson v. Makin: Miyares also withdrew from a brief Herring had signed onto opposing a lawsuit in which families in Maine are seeking to force a local school district to provide tuition assistance for religious schools. The Commonwealth believes that the First Amendment prohibits states from withholding tuition assistance from families solely on the ground that those families choose to send their children to religious schools, LaCivita said.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen: In this pending case, a New York couple is suing to overturn a state law that limits concealed carry handgun permits to people who can show a special need for protection. Miyares said he withdrew from a brief Herring had signed supporting limits to concealed carry permits because he believes the law is in direct conflict with the Second Amendment.

It is expected for a new attorney general to assess the states legal positions and make their own decisions regarding the future of the legal challenges, LaCivita said of the changes in an email. These decisions must be made at the very beginning of the administration, out of respect to the court.

Legal experts say the actions are entirely symbolic and will have no effect on the outcome of any of the lawsuits.

I dont think any judges are sitting there counting the number of attorneys general on one side or the other, said Saikrishna Prakash, a professor at University of Virginia School of Law. Theyre looking at arguments and trying to come to a conclusion. The fact that Jason Miyares has changed the views of the attorney generals office is not going to matter at all.

Read this article:
From the ERA to abortion: five cases in which Va.'s new AG changed the state's legal position - Virginia Mercury