Mediaboss Marketing

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) The city of St. George must issue a permit for a Utah-based group that organizes drag performances to host an all-ages drag show in a public park, a federal judge ruled, calling the citys attempt to stop the show unconstitutional discrimination.

Public spaces are public spaces. Public spaces are not private spaces. Public spaces are not majority spaces, U.S. District Judge David Nuffer wrote in a Friday ruling granting the preliminary injunction requested by the group. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution ensures that all citizens, popular or not, majority or minority, conventional or unconventional, have access to public spaces for public expression.

Southern Utah Drag Stars and its CEO, Mitski Avalx, sued the city of St. George in May after the city denied the group permits for an all-ages show it aimed to host in a public park in April. A complaint filed in federal court accused city officials of flagrant and ongoing violations of their free speech, due process, and equal protection rights, and asked for St. George to reverse its decision and authorize a drag show at the end of June.

A city events coordinator told Drag Stars, Avalx said, that the group could start advertising for the April show before obtaining a permit. The city council later denied the permit, citing a never-previously-enforced ordinance that forbids advertising before permit approval. The permit denial based on that ordinance, Nuffer wrote in his ruling, was a pretext for discrimination.

Public officials take an oath to support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Utah, Nuffer wrote. They do not merely serve the citizens who elect them, the majority of citizens in the community, or a vocal minority in the community.

The city now may not enforce any new advertising prohibitions against the group or its show, Nuffer ruled, ordering that the performance must take scheduling precedence over any other event.

In a statement, the city of St. George said it is committed to ensuring public parks and facilities remain viable and open to residents and those who want to hold special events.

Our intent is always to follow the law both when we enact laws and when we enforce laws, and we will continue to do so, the statement said. We have read Judge Nuffers opinion and while we are disappointed in the result, we are currently evaluating our options in light of the ruling.

The lawsuit marked the most recent development in a fight over drag shows in St. George, Utah, a conservative city 111 miles (179 kilometers) northeast of Las Vegas, Nevada. Since HBO filmed a drag show in a public park last year for an episode of its series Were Here, the city has emerged as a flashpoint in the nationwide battle over drag performances as theyve garnered newfound political scrutiny in Republican-controlled cities and states.

Public events like drag queen story hours and the all-ages event that Avalx intended to put together have been increasingly targeted in legislatures throughout the country. In May, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a ban on minors attending drag shows, and Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed a ban on people dressed in drag from reading books to children at public schools and libraries.

In Utah, a proposal from a St. George Republican to require warning notices for events like drag shows or pride parades in public places stalled after advancing through the state House of Representatives in March. The proposal stemmed from the pushback that resulted from the HBO-produced drag show in St. George.

City officials issued permits for the show over the objection from some council members and community activists. City Manager Adam Lenhard resigned months later after writing councilmembers to say that he could not legally deny the show permits, according to emails obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune.

Avalx founded Southern Utah Drag Stars after the fallout, hoping to showcase drag for members of the LGBTQ+ community in a rural place where such forms of entertainment are often lacking.

I made it my mission to continue to do these events and not just one month out of the year, but to do so people that were like me when I was little can see that there are queer adults that get to live a long and fulfilled life, Avalx said in an interview with The Associated Press. My biggest ambition was to provide a public space where people can go to a park and enjoy a show thats meant for everyone.

Go here to see the original:
A Utah city violated the First Amendment in denying a drag show ... - East Idaho News

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says social media giant YouTube was wrong to take down videos of COVID-19 vaccine discussions and an interview in which the Democrat presidential candidate said that chemicals in the water are turning kids transgender.

"I think its wrong. I think were living in [a] new era where these big social media sites have now replaced the public square," Kennedy said Tuesday in an interview with Fox News Digital. "I think they really ought to have a sense of obligation to be the forums for open debate on issues even if the issues are complex or difficult."

The environmental lawyer and high-profile vaccine critic, whos a scion of arguably the nations most famous family political dynasty, said "the First Amendment was not passed to protect safe speech. It was passed to protect difficult speech, speech that people dont want to hear. And I think the social media sites need to really have to look carefully at their responsibility."

Kennedy and podcast host Jordan Peterson tweeted Sunday that the video-sharing website had taken down their interview from an episode of Petersons show and accused the social media platform of censorship and interfering with a presidential campaign.

WHY YOUTUBE SAYS IT REMOVED A ROBERT F KENNEDY JR INTERVIEW

Kennedy, who's mounting a primary challenge against President Joe Biden, told Fox News during a campaign stop interview in Nashua, New Hampshire, that "I have dissenting views on some of these issues, but we ought to be able to debate that. We ought to be able to debate it in a way thats congenial and respectful and is fact-based and not employ censorship."

READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP

In the interview with Peterson, Kennedy said that "a lot of the sexual dysphoria" America is seeing comes from exposure to chemicals in the water.

"I think a lot of the problems we see in kids, particularly boys, its probably underappreciated on that how much of that is coming from chemical exposures, including a lot of the sexual dysphoria that were seeing," Kennedy said.

Story continues

ROBERT F KENNEDY JR PROPOSES SOLUTION TO END HOMELESSNESS

"I mean, theyre swimming through a soup of toxic chemicals today, and many of those are endocrine disruptors. Theres atrazine throughout our water supply," the Democrat presidential candidate said.

"Atrazine, by the way, if you in a lab put atrazine in a tank full of frogs, it will chemically castrate and forcefully feminize every frog in there," Kennedy said. "And 10% of the frogs, the male frogs will turn into fully viable females able to produce viable eggs if its doing that to frogs. It could, theres a lot of other evidence that its doing to human beings as well."

A Google spokesperson told Fox News Digital in a statement that YouTube "removed a video from the Jordan Peterson channel for violating YouTubes general vaccine misinformation policy, which prohibits content that alleges that vaccines cause chronic side effects, outside of rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities."

Additionally, the spokesperson said the company "removed a video from the Jordan Peterson channel featuring a conversation with Robert F. Kennedy Jr." and that Google's "Community Guidelines apply equally to all creators on our platform, regardless of political viewpoint."

"Under our general vaccine misinformation policies, we remove false claims about currently administered vaccines that are approved and confirmed to be safe and effective by local health authorities and the WHO. This includes content that falsely alleges that approved vaccines are dangerous and cause chronic health effects, claims that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease, or contains misinformation on the substances contained in vaccines will be removed. This would include content that falsely says that approved vaccines cause autism, cancer or infertility, or that substances in vaccines can track those who receive them."

"Our policies not only cover specific routine immunizations like for measles or Hepatitis B, but also apply to general statements about vaccines," the spokesperson wrote. "Content that would otherwise violate our Community Guidelines may stay on YouTube when it has Educational, Documentary, Scientific, or Artistic (EDSA) context, such as providing countervailing views to the remarks that violate our policies."

JOE ROGAN, ELON MUSK CHALLENGE VACCINE SCIENTIST TO DEBATE RFK JR

Kennedy, speaking with Fox News, also reiterated that he's long been asking a prominent vaccine scientist to join him in a debate.

Elon Musk and Joe Rogan touched off a firestorm over the weekend as they pushed Dr. Peter Hotez to debate Kennedy on Rogan's popular podcast.

Rogan offered Hotez $100,000 to the charity of his choice if he agreed to debate Kennedy on Rogan's program after Hotez slammed a recent interview Kennedy had on Rogan's program as "awful" and "nonsense." Kennedy repeated unproven claims he has long made that vaccines cause autism, and he and Rogan also discussed what they viewed as the dangers of 5G technology and the power of the pharmaceutical industry.

"Ill debate anybody anywhere on this issue. Ive been asking Peter Hotez to debate me for years. But he has refused to do it," Kennedy said Tuesday.

"If youre a scientist and you cannot defend your science, theres something wrong with it," he added. "I think it would be healthy for our country. I think we ought to have the debate. I think the American people deserve that kind of debate on every public health issue. All science is ultimately rooted in reason and logic and we ought to be able to defend it."

Hotez said on Twitter over the weekend that he was "stalked" outside his home Sunday morning by two people espousing anti-vaccinesviews and urging him to debate Kennedy.

Asked for a reaction, Kennedy said that "nobody should be harassed for their points of view. Thats un-American, too."

Continued here:
RFK Jr lectures social media sites on First Amendment after YouTube memory-holed his 'dissenting views' - Yahoo News

###

Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Gregory J. Kreis last week ruled in favor of Sharon and Steve Wolff, owners and publishers of the local news site Rio Dell Times, in a matter that pitted accusations of libel, slander and harassment against the right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment.

In his ruling, Judge Kreis ordered attorney Chris Hamer, of Arcata firm Stokes, Hamer, Kirk & Eads, and her client, Royce Mendonca, to pay more than $53,000 in attorneys fees to the Wolffs representative, Sacramento-based Paul Nicholas Boylan, who specializes in media and free speech matters. [DISCLOSURE: Boylan has also represented the Lost Coast Outpost in the past.]

The ruling stems from a contentious legal battle over the conservatorship of Sharon Wolffs elderly mother and father-in-law, Barbara and Ronald Keller. In 2021, the probate court appointed Mendonca as conservator of the Kellers, much to the frustration of the Wolffs, who characterized the situation as a court-sanctioned kidnapping. (They had filed a competing conservatorship request.)

In a press release sent out Thursday, Sharon Wolff alleged that Hamer helped Mendonca, a distant relative of her stepfather, remove the elderly couple from the Wolffs Fortuna home shortly before a conservatorship hearing with no explanation.

And then they had mom and Ron declared mentally incompetent, which meant they could control mom and Ron completely. Thats what it felt like and looked like, and I said so in the Rio Dell Times, Sharon Wolff said, adding, This is a cautionary tale for all adult children of Alzheimers and dementia victims.

Reached by phone this morning, Hamer said that after losing the conservatorship decision, Sharon Wolff lashed out with wild allegations online and in a series of letters.

She was a sore loser, and she has been libeling and slandering us, me and my client, since the order saying that she lost and we won, Hamer said.

As described in Kreiss decision, the Wolffs chronicled their grievances in the conservatorship case on riodelltimes.com, accusing Hamer of lying and fraud, among other allegations, while accusing Mendonca of being a virtual stranger to the Kellers who kidnapped them and pursued conservatorship so he could steal their money. (Hamer says thats false and that, in fact, the Kellers personally nominated Mendonca as their preferred conservator.)

Last summer, Hamer filed two petitions on behalf of Mendonca, seeking injunctions to prevent the Wolffs from libel, slander and harassment of both Mendonca and herself. They also asked the judge to order the Wolffs to immediately remove all existing false and derogatory posting, audio files, articles, statements, letters and pictures about Mendonca and Hamer from their website.

The petitions also complained about a series of letters that accused Mendonca of elder financial fraud and abuse, letters that the Wolffs sent to Humboldt County Superior Court judges, federal state and local officials and various media outlets, including the Times-Standard, Lost Coast Outpost, Redheaded Blackbelt and North Coast Journal.

Hamer described these writings as a campaign of daily disparagement.

This imposed a considerable burden and distraction on administration of the conservatorships, Hamer said in an emailed statement. Instead of filing independent civil lawsuits for damages for defamation, Royce Mendonca, as the conservator of both Ronald and Barbara Keller, filed petitions requesting that the court simply instruct Sharon and Steve Wolff to cease libeling Royce Mendonca, the conservator, and his attorney.

In response to that filing, the Wolffs retained Boylan, and last September, Boylan filed whats known as an anti-SLAPP motion, accusing Hamer and Mendonca of trying to stifle the Wolffs free speech rights through a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

The Wollfs were the victims of the legal system to a degree Ive never encountered before, Boylan said in an email to the Outpost. Sharons mother was legally removed from her life, and then the attorney who helped do that used the inequities in the legal system (i.e., the often crushing costs of defense) to censor free speech and the right to petition.

Hamer and Mendonca wound up dismissing their petitions after being told that they shouldhave been filed them as independent civil actions, rather than petitions in the context of the conservatorship proceedings. Boylan then sought to recoup his legal fees from Hamer and Mendonca, citing a rate of $750 per hour.

Hamer said it was unfair of Boylan to seek reimbursement from herself and her client, saying there is no legal authority whatsoever supporting such a request.

In his ruling, filed on June 8, Kries says that while not all of the Wolffs statements have concerned matters of public interest, the ones concerning Chris Hamer and her activities as a lawyer in connection with the case are of public interest in that they seek to inform the public about alleged abuses of public court processes designed to protect vulnerable members of the public.

Kries also ruled that Boylan and the Wolffs would have prevailed on their anti-SLAPP motion and are thus entitled to attorneys fees and costs. (He wound up using an hourly rate of $500 to calculate the amount due to Boylan: $53,445.34.)

This is a true David and Goliath story, the largest law firm in Humboldt County against the smallest local newspaper, suing them for the exercise of constitutionally protected rights, Boylan is quoted as saying in a press release from the Wolffs. (He confirmed to the Outpost that the quote is accurate.) It is rare to encounter people this deserving of assistance, he added.

Sharon Wolff described the ruling as a wonderful outcome to a very bad chapter in my life and said,Hamer and Mendonca were using my mom and Rons money to finance two lawsuits for [their own] benefit. I am grateful that the Court put a stop to it.

Hamer reiterated that she considers the imposition of fees on Mendonca and herself to be unprecedented, saying, [T]here is not a single decided case where a judge has ever done this.

She vowed to appeal the ruling.

###

DOCUMENT: Order re: Motion for Attorneys Fees

See original here:
Judge Sides With Publishers of Rio Dell Times in First Amendment ... - Lost Coast Outpost

San Jose is on a path to close anelection loophole that former Mayor Sam Liccardo and his right-hand man usedto raise more than $1.5 million to fill seats on the City Council.

The city is looking to prohibit elected officials and their staff from working on political action committees (PACs) that raise money for local races. This move comes after residents and city leadersquestioned the extracurricular political activities of Jim Reed while he served as Liccardos chief of staff. The council voted 8-1-2 on Tuesday to change city laws, with Councilmember Bien Doan dissenting and Councilmembers Sergio Jimenez and Omar Torres absent. The law is slated to take effect by August, pending final approval.

Current city policy only prohibits someone running for officea candidatefrom working on PACs. The definition of candidate would be redefined to include elected city officials, their employees and any City Hall employee. The shift would align San Jose with state law.

Reed and Liccardo raised nearly $1.5 million from wealthy landowners, developers and business executives through their political action committee Common Good Silicon Valley. Most of the dollars went to support Mayor Matt Mahans bid for the citys top seat. Reed is now Mahans chief of staff. And while his fundraising involvement was allowed then, it could soon violate city policy.

Mahan and Reed previously told San Jos Spotlightno one on the mayors staff will be working on a local PAC while Mahan runs for reelection in 2024. Reed said he volunteered for Common Good and never received payment for his work. However, councilmembers want to expedite the rule change to take effect by August when election season officially starts.

The importance of maintaining the integrity of our political system and preventing corruption and undue inputs from special interest groups is paramount, Councilmember Domingo Candelas said. Thats ultimately what were doing, protecting the public trust in our government.

Former Councilmember Maya Esparzawas one of the first to call on the city to change local election laws last November, after she lost her reelection bid to Doan. She was one of the candidates that Reed and Liccardos PAC spent money against.

Several residents called out Reed by name at Tuesdays council meeting. John Tucker, a union member of MEF-AFSCME Local 101, said hes particularly concerned with Reeds political activity because having wealthy contractors donate to Common Good could curry favors from the mayors office.He pointed to two different contractors that donated $10,000 each to the PAC: California Waste Solutions and GreenWaste Recovery Inc.

Bully for Jim Reed who abused this loophole to get his candidate elected and keep his own job in the process, Tucker said.

Tucker said the policy change would help eliminate the perception of favoritism and potential corruption at City Hall.

Esparza also directed the city to explore banning elected officials and city employees from working at a local PAC for a specific period of timeafter they leave the position, also known as a revolving door policy. However, the city attorneys office said the idea could violate their First Amendment rights to participate in local elections. Councilmembers deferred further discussion of the policy until August.

Matthew Alvarez, board member of the California Political Attorneys Association, said the changes would be unconstitutional during last weeks Rules and Open Government Committee meeting. Alvarez works at the Sutton Law Firm which represents Common Good.

The city has no compelling interest to prevent employees from participating in their personal time on whatever campaigns they wish and in whatever capacity they wish, Alvarez told councilmembers. This is basic First Amendment law 101 and the city is completely ignoring it.

The first hearing of the local election rule changes is June13 and the council will vote on June 20. If approved, the rule will go into effect on July 20. Learn how to watch and participate.

Contact Jana Kadah at [emailprotected] or @Jana_Kadah on Twitter.

Original post:
San Jose officials want to stop shady politics - San Jos Spotlight - San Jos Spotlight

Jack Greiner| Cincinnati Enquirer

I need to start this article with some caveats. First, I have been a Xavier University basketball fan since 1985. Second, I detest Bob Huggins' coaching style. Third, I think the University of Cincinnati did the right thing when it fired him back in the day. So, having said that, I assume some readers will accuse me of bias. Fair enough.

But this article isn't so much about whether West Virginia University should fire Huggins forhis homophobic comments on the Bill Cunningham radio show earlier this month. It's more about whether Huggins could hide behind the First Amendment to avoid any discipline imposed by West Virginia University.

WVU is a public institution. This means Huggins has First Amendment rights. He is in a different position than Thom Brennaman. As some readers may recall, Brennaman was removed from his post as a Cincinnati Reds announcer within minutes of using the same slur as Huggins. But Brennaman wasn't employed by a public entity. So, the Reds didn't have to worry about any First Amendment concerns when they cut him loose.

Huggins isn't free to say whatever he wants. Public employees are in a unique First Amendment space. On the one hand, as citizens, they don't lose their rights by accepting a job with a public employer. On the other hand, as employees, they can be subject to discipline for their speech.

To gain First Amendment protection, a public employee must speak out as a citizen, and not in his official capacity as an employee. Second, the speech must pertain to a matter of public concern. If those two elements are satisfied, a court then balances the interests of the employee as a citizen, "in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interests of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees."

In weighing the employer's interests, the court considers (1) whether the speech or conduct impaired discipline by superiors or harmony among co-workers, (2) whether the speech or conduct had a detrimental relationship on close working relationships for which personal loyalty and confidence are necessary, and (3) whether the speech or conduct impeded the performance of the speaker's job duties or interfered with the regular operation of the enterprise. Here's ahelpful pieceon the subject.

One example of a public employee being protected by the First Amendment would beDean Smith. Smith routinely spoke out in support of the civil rights movement while coaching at the University of North Carolina. Had North Carolina sought to discipline him for his vocal support of the movement, it would have been a problem.

The question then, is whether Huggins' speech on the radio is in any way comparable to Dean Smith's speech. Most likely the answer is no. It's questionable whether Huggins was acting outside of the scope of his employment while being interviewed by Cunningham. The subject, after all, was hoops. It's also questionable whether Huggins' recollection of a particular crosstown shootout (which ultimately resulted in his slur) is a matter of public concern.

But let's say for the sake of argument that Huggins satisfied both of the first two elements. It's clear that the University's interests justify discipline. WVU is already dealing with the fallout, which has no doubt interfered with its "regular operation." The First Amendment won't allow Huggins to escape accountability. Nor should it.

And this whole sordid episode should be a reminder for all of us, but maybe those of us of a certain age, to do our best to purge our inventory of hateful words. It's upsetting that Huggins used the word. It's more upsetting that he was able to so easily pull it out from his closet of insults. Maybe now he'll purge it for good. Let's hope.

Jack Greiner is a partner at Faruki PLL law firm in Cincinnati. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues

Read more:
Will the First Amendment protect Huggins against any discipline WVU might impose? - The Cincinnati Enquirer