Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

Pre-trial conference set for a federal First Amendment lawsuit against the Vigo County Health Department – WTHITV.com

Updated Information

Find a statement from the Vigo County Health Department at the bottom of this story.

VIGO COUNTY, Ind. (WTHI) - We now know some of the next steps forward in the lawsuit against the Vigo County Health Department.

We first told you about this lawsuit in late October of last year.

Vigo County resident Doug Springer filed a federal lawsuit against the health department, claiming it violated his rights by banning him from its Facebook page.

Springer says in January of 2021, he commented on a health department post involving COVID-19 cases in the county. It's an action he claims got him banned.

A pre-trial conference is set for Monday, January 24, via telephone. By Monday, those involved need to file a proposed case management plan. It will include deadlines for witnesses and evidence.

Springer said he reacted to a Facebook post from the department, writing that positive COVID-19 test results aren't the same as cases of sick patients.

Court documents say, Springer, to the best of his recollection, posted the following:

"They are NOT cases; they are positive test results and the majority of them will never get sick from the virus. The very fact that the number of positives without accompanying illness is so high shows that the virus is much less dangerous than it is being portrayed."

When the health department banned him from the page, the lawsuit claims that it hid his previous comments from public view. It also continues to ban him from making new comments.

The lawsuit claims the actions from the Vigo County Health Department violate Springer's rights under the First Amendment. It goes on to say the department's actions represent improper viewpoint-based discrimination.

He's asking to be unbanned from the health department's Facebook page and for all of his comments to be restored.

In court documents, the Vigo County Health Department says the following:

"The Health Department admits the decision to prevent the plaintiff, Mr. Springer, from commenting on the Facebook Page of the Health Department is based on the belief that Mr. Springer was using the Health Departments Facebook platform to engage in disinformation and unprotected speech regarding the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nothing prevents Mr. Springer from posting on his own Facebook page his feelings and issues surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic...The plaintiffs statement indicating that this disease was much less dangerous than it was being portrayed is a message the Health Department is not willing to tolerate on its Facebook Page for anyone"

See the full document below.

Read this article:
Pre-trial conference set for a federal First Amendment lawsuit against the Vigo County Health Department - WTHITV.com

Trump repeats claims that 2020 election was stolen at first rally of new year – New York Post

Former President Donald Trump held his first political rally of the new year in Arizona on Friday, continuing to insist that he had won the 2020 election without evidence.

At the large rally in Florence, Ariz., Trump again claimed that he had actually won the state in 2020, despite having lost to Joe Biden 49.4 percent to 49.1 percent. Trump won the state handily in 2016 against Hillary Clinton by over 4 percentage points.

I love Arizona. We had a tremendous victory in Arizona that was taken away and I just want to wish everybody a happy New Year. Were going to have, I think, a great year, Trump said shortly after taking the stage to loud cheers.

Last year we had a rigged election and the proof is all over the place, he continued. We have a lot of proof and they know its proof. They always talk about the Big Lie theyre the Big Lie.

The Big Lie is a lot of bull****, thats what it is, he said to more cheers.

The ex-presidents claims came one day after officials from Arizonas second-largest county concluded that none of the 151 cases they reviewed merited criminal charges.

While PCAOs investigation documented instances of these voters knowingly submitting more than one ballot, there is little to no evidence that they acted with the awareness that their actions would or could result in multiple votes being counted, said Pima County Attorney Laura Conover in a statement on Friday. What our investigation revealed was the genuine confusion about the electoral process, particularly relating to mail-in and provisional ballots, and the genuine fear, for a variety of reasons, that their initial vote would not count.

According to an investigation by the Associated Press,fewer than 200 cases of potential fraud in Arizona had been identifieduntil last week, when election officials in Maricopa County the states largest said they had discovered 38 potential voting fraud cases during an exhaustive review of 2.1 million ballots. Those cases were sent to the state attorney generals office for review.

Trump also mentioned the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill rioters, whom he said were being persecuted for expressing their First Amendment rights when they disrupted congress certification of the electoral votes that would officially make Biden president.

On top of it all, people are being persecuted for using freedom of speech to talk about the corrupt election but more and more information is coming out and its coming out far worse than anyone ever thought it could be.

He said, it would be a lot easier for me to go out and enjoy my life and say you know what? we did great. You know I ran twice and I won twice and we did better the second time, he claimed.

Earlier in the week, Trump abruptly ended an interview with National Public Radio after the outlet pressed him on his repeated claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him by voter fraud.

At the desert rally, he threw his support behind GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, who pushed Trumps stolen election narrative and has threatened to throw the states top election official in prison.

Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar, a vehement Trump supporter and 2020 election results denier, also took the stage. Gosar was was censured by House Dems and stripped of his committee assignments in November after he tweeted a video depicting himself as an anime character assassinating progressive New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and attacking President Biden.

Read the original here:
Trump repeats claims that 2020 election was stolen at first rally of new year - New York Post

An Army captain fought his chain of command for a year over his free speech rights and won – Task & Purpose

After more than a year, a former Army National Guard officer and current Army reservist has had an official reprimand that he received from his chain of command for attending a protest during the summer of 2020 overturned.

Capt. Alan Kennedy, an Army reservist who was serving with the Colorado Army National Guard when he attended a Black Lives Matter rally in 2020, called the decision a victory for the First Amendment.

Kennedy had initially received a general officer memorandum of reprimand, or GOMAR, from the head of the Colorado Army National Guard for his actions. That action was reversed following a decision from the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board.

The issue began more than 18 months ago, on May 30, 2020, when Kennedy who was not on duty at the time as a Colorado Army National Guard officer participated in a protest in Denver. During the protest, Denver police began tear-gassing the crowd. Kennedy later recounted his experiences in an editorial column for the Denver Post. Service members are normally not allowed to use their uniform or rank to inform public statements.

The op-ed launched an investigation by Col. Charles Beatty, chief of staff of the Colorado Army National Guard, into whether Kennedy had violated Department of Defense Instruction 1325.06, which prohibits service members, even when off duty, from participating in demonstrations in foreign countries, that are in violation of local laws, or where violence is the likely result.

The initial investigation, conducted by a lieutenant colonel in the Colorado Army National Guard according to documents obtained by Task & Purpose, found that Kennedy had not committed any misconduct. Given that Kennedy was not serving as a National Guard officer either when attending the protest or when publishing the editorial, there was no violation of military regulations.

Shortly after those findings, Beatty overruled the initial investigation and issued Kennedy a temporary local reprimand, arguing that Kennedy should have known that violence was likely to occur at any protest.

The protests that Kennedy attended later became the subject of a civil court case, Abay v. City of Denver, in which a judge found fault with the Denver Police Departments use of tear-gas and projectiles when responding to the demonstrations.

The next month, in July 2020, Kennedy published a second editorial recounting his experience. That launched a second investigation by the Colorado Army National Guard.

By publishing the article and identifying yourself as a service member you violated regulations and provisions of the Colorado Code of Military Justice, and your actions brought disrepute and dishonor upon the COARNG. It is also apparent from the plain language of the article that it was your intent to do so, and thereby to intimidate the command into refraining from lawful use of its authority to investigate, read the reprimand issued by Brig. Gen. Douglas Paul on Sept. 11, 2020.

The GOMOR issued would have essentially ended Kennedys military career, preventing any potential for promotion or further advancement through the ranks.

Kennedy then filed a lawsuit, alleging that the military reprimand represented a violation of his constitutional rights.

That lawsuit also alleged that Kennedys superior officers held that Black Lives Matter protests are inherently violent, asserting that all Black Lives Matter protests begin peacefully and devolve into violent clashes with the police. The lawsuit also triggered a third investigation into Kennedy, which still upheld his GOMAR.

It was clear that I was not representing the views of the military when I wrote those articles, said Kennedy. The Colorado National Guard just didnt like what I wrote.

Kennedy has since transferred to the Army Reserve, currently serving in Virginia.

Soldiers expressing their views in public is not a new issue for the military, but Kennedys case comes at a moment when service members have increased visibility in their personal lives, and the gap between soldiers and civilians is increasingly blurred by social media.

Earlier this summer, Marine Corps. Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller saw his career rapidly go up in flames after taking to social media to decry the pullout from Afghanistan. Seven states are now suing the federal government to protest COVID-19 vaccine mandates for their National Guard personnel.

But its also become a way for service members to call out their leaders. In 2020, a sergeant first class at Fort Hood took to TikTok to discuss toxic leadership conditions in his unit after having been rebuffed by his chain of command. In 2019, Task & Purpose wrote about a Wisconsin Air National Guard master sergeant who spent years trying to call attention to claims of sexual harassment in his unit. For members of the National Guard and Reserves, who only spend a few days a month in uniform, that dichotomy between service time and civilian life is only heightened.

Its just common sense to me that you dont lose your constitutional rights just because you take an oath to defend them, said Kennedy.

Kennedys lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, remains outstanding. It raises a question that while specific to one social movement in this case is increasingly relevant to service members.

Can the government prohibit off-duty, out-of-uniform service members stationed in the United States from peacefully participating in Black Lives Matter and other peaceful protests, if the service members conduct is not in breach of law and order? reads the complaint.

In July 2021, the National Guard Bureau issued a memorandum stating that the regulations under which Kennedy had initially been punished would only to National Guard service members in a title 10 duty status under federal command and control.

Want to write for Task & Purpose? Click here. Or check out the latest stories on our homepage.

Visit link:
An Army captain fought his chain of command for a year over his free speech rights and won - Task & Purpose

GOP bill setting free speech rules, punishing colleges that violate them moves forward – Wisconsin Public Radio News

A bill aimed at punishing colleges and universities for violating free speech and academic freedom rules set by Republicans has passed a legislative committee by a party-line vote. This comes after a GOP author amended the legislation to remove provisions that were potentially unconstitutional.

The bill, introduced by state Rep. Rachel Cabral-Guevara, R-Appleton, and Rep. Dave Murphy, R-Greenville, bars technical colleges and universities from enforcing time, place or other restrictions on free speech events happening anywhere on campus except classrooms.

The legislation also requires colleges to survey students annually about First Amendment rights, academic freedom, whether they feel there is perceived political bias at their school or the "campus culture promotes self-censorship."

If anyone feels a college or university violated their rights, the bill allows them, a district attorney or state attorney general to sue the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents or a technical college district board. If a judge rules against a college, the court must award a minimum of $500 in damages and a maximum of $100,000 in damages to plaintiffs.

In addition to financial penalties, if a school violates the bill's regulations, it will be required to notify incoming students that it has "violated the free speech or academic freedom provisions in the Wisconsin statutes."

The bill passed by the Assembly Colleges and Universities Committee on Thursday looked different from the original legislation introduced Dec. 2.

An amendment offered by Rep. Cabral-Guevara removed aspects that were potentially unconstitutional, including a provision that would have allowed legislative committees, like her own, to rule on alleged violations. The amendment also removed a proposal to block state grant funding for scholarships from going to schools found to have violated free speech rights.

Stay informed with WPR's email newsletter.

During a Dec. 8 public hearing on the bill, an attorney with the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Council said lawmakers giving themselves judicial authority "very well could be subject to separation of powers issues" and that "it's kind of questionable" whether a legislative committee could restrict financial aid to colleges.

During a meeting of the Assembly Colleges and Universities Committee on Thursday, Rep. Katrina Shankland, D-Stevens Point, said the legislation is unnecessary because First Amendment protections already exist at the federal and state level. She also pointed to a 2017 UW Board of Regents policy that punishes students for repeatedly violating free speech rights of others.

"So, at the end of the day, I do think at least some of the bill authors were more interested in putting forward a bill that was designed to be political and furnish political talking points during the year 2022, to which you can conclude pretty reasonably that it has more to do with outside the building politics than it certainly does within making laws," said Shankland.

Cabral-Guevara pushed back, saying the legislation is needed due to genuine concerns from constituents who said they feel campus environments stifle free speech rights of conservative students or teachers.

"I hope that students and instructors will have a platform in the future, no matter what side you stand on and where you stand, to speak freely their passions and their desires (and) their concerns on the campuses that are supported here in Wisconsin," said Cabral-Guevara.

State Rep. Clint Moses, R-Menomonie, said the majority of professors and instructors at state colleges are "great, great people."

"But there are some that are abusing their position where they're supposed to be encouraging free thought and open discussions," said Moses.

See more here:
GOP bill setting free speech rules, punishing colleges that violate them moves forward - Wisconsin Public Radio News

A Bill Proposed a New Way to Teach History. It Got the History Wrong. – The New York Times

Amid a flurry of bills nationwide that seek to ban the teaching of critical race theory in schools, one such proposal in Virginia stood out.

Tucked inside a bill introduced by Wren Williams, a Republican delegate, was a glaring error: Among the concepts that school boards would be required to ensure students understood was the first debate between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.

But as scholars, Mr. Williamss colleagues in the House of Delegates and others on social media noted, that debate was between not Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, the abolitionist, but Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, a Democratic senator from Illinois.

The gross mistake in this bill is indicative of the need to have scholars and teachers, not legislators/politicians, shaping what students at every level learn in the classroom, Caroline Janney, a professor of Civil War history at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, said in an email.

On Friday, Addison Merryman, a spokesman for Mr. Williams, released a statement from the states Division of Legislative Services, which took the blame for the error.

The mistake was inserted at the drafting level following receipt of a historically accurate request from the office of Delegate Wren Williams, according to the division, which described itself as a nonpartisan state agency that drafts, edits and releases thousands of legislative drafts for the General Assembly each session.

Mr. Merryman did not respond to additional questions about whether a historian had been consulted on the legislation or about concerns that the proposal could run afoul of the First Amendment. (Parts of that bill, such as a section that tells school boards not to teach or incorporate into any course or class any divisive concept, have been criticized as overly broad and likely to infringe on the free speech of students and educators.)

Instead, he referred to statements that he and Mr. Williams had made on Townhall, a conservative website. Mr. Merryman told Townhall that Mr. Williams had submitted an anti-discrimination bill that correctly referred to the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Lincoln and Douglas met seven times in 1858, when Lincoln, a Republican, challenged Douglas for Senate. Lincoln lost the election, but the debates between the two brilliant orators transfixed the country, drew attention to the bitter arguments over slavery and catapulted Lincoln to national fame.

Mr. Williams told Townhall that he was frustrated by the error.

I have a very high standard for my office, and my service to my constituents and the Commonwealth, he said.

I trust this was an honest mistake, he added, and I dont hold it against Legislative Services.

The mix-up recalled remarks by President Donald J. Trump on the first day of Black History Month in 2017 in which he referred to Douglass in the present tense, leading some critics to conclude that he believed the abolitionist, who died in 1895, was still alive.

Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody whos done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice, he said.

The error should not distract the public from the general contents of the bill, which would keep conversations about the United States racial history out of classrooms, said Lara Schwartz, a professor of government in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington.

If this so-called divisive concepts bill became law, all of Virginias students would be the worse for it, and ignorance of our history would not just be a sad punchline it would become more the norm, she said in an email.

Critical race theory an advanced academic concept generally not introduced until college is not part of classroom teaching in Virginia. But during the statewide race last year, Mr. Williams, 33, a lawyer who worked on Mr. Trumps failed efforts to overturn the election results in Wisconsin, said he would ban it in schools if he won.

The bill, the first one introduced by Mr. Williams, is pending in committee and must be passed by both the House of Delegates and the Senate, where Democrats hold a slim majority.

C.R.T. is not new. Derrick Bell, a pioneering legal scholar who died in 2011, spent decades exploring what it would mean to understand racism as a permanent feature of American life. He is often called the godfather of critical race theory, but the term was coined by Kimberl Crenshaw in the 1980s.

The theory has gained new prominence. After theprotestsborn from the police killing of George Floyd, critical race theory resurfaced as part of a backlash among conservatives includingformer President Trump who began to use the term as apolitical weapon.

The current debate. Critics of C.R.T. argue that it accuses all white Americans of being racist and is being used to divide the country. But critical race theorists say they are mainly concerned with understandingthe racial disparities that have persisted ininstitutionsandsystems.

A hot-button issue in schools. The debate has turned school boards into battlegroundsas some Republicans say the theory is invading classrooms. Education leaders, including the National School Boards Association, say that C.R.T. is not being taught in K-12 schools.

The legislation would forbid school boards or educators to teach any divisive concept, encourage students to participate in political activism or public policy advocacy, or hire equity and diversity consultants.

The legislations wording prohibits teachers from helping students understand the continuing role of racism in the development of American institutions and culture, said James Grossman, the executive director of the American Historical Association, which represents more than 11,500 historians. It provides a chilling effect that makes teachers wary of teaching accurate American history.

He said the bill had come from the same template as legislation introduced in more than 30 other states that seeks to ban or limit the teaching of divisive concepts relating to race and racism in classrooms.

Professor Schwartz said that the fact that there is a basic factual error in this bill has amused many people.

She added, But its a distraction from an issue thats not funny at all: a wave of state legislation that has the effect and intent of impeding the important conversations that teachers and students need to have in their classrooms.

Go here to read the rest:
A Bill Proposed a New Way to Teach History. It Got the History Wrong. - The New York Times