Mediaboss Marketing

New Jersey AG Employee Sues IBEW Union, State of New Jersey for Seizing Dues from Her Paycheck in Violation of First Amendment

Employee asserts that NJ laws tiny escape period to stop dues deductions violates rights underJanusSupreme Court decision

Trenton, NJ (April 28, 2021) With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Heather Anderson, an employee of the New Jersey Attorney Generals office, is suing the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 33 union and the State of New Jersey for illegally restricting her and her coworkers First Amendment right to stop union dues deductions from their paychecks.

The class-action civil rights lawsuit was filed today in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and challenges a New Jersey law that forbids workers from ending financial support for the union except during a tiny 10-day escape period once per year. Andersons suit says the state-enforced restriction, which union officials endorsed in their contract with the state, violates her and her coworkers rights under the Foundation-won 2018Janus v. AFSCMEU.S. Supreme Court decision.

InJanus, the High Court ruled that no public employee can be forced to pay union dues or fees as a condition of getting or keeping a job. The Court also held that union dues or fees can only be deducted from a public employees paycheck if that employee clearly and affirmatively waives their right not to pay. Justice Alito wrote for the Court majority that such a waiver cannot be presumed by union or state officials.

Anderson is challenging New Jerseys so-called Workplace Democracy Act (WDEA), which mandates 10-day escape periods. The WDEA was passed only months before the Supreme Court handed down its ruling inJanus, seemingly in a preemptive attempt by union-allied legislators to limit any rights the Court recognized inJanusto cut off union financial support.

According to her lawsuit, Anderson exercised herJanusrights in February of this year when she informed IBEW union bosses that she wished to terminate dues payments. New Jersey officials rebuffed her request, claiming it could only be accepted if she submitted it within an escape period that would not begin until August, and that the state would continue to seize dues from her paycheck until that time. The escape period was not mentioned in any dues checkoff authorization card she signed, according to her lawsuit.

Andersons lawsuit asks the federal District Court to declare the WDEAs escape period scheme unconstitutional, and seeks refunds of all dues seized from her paycheck in violation ofJanusafter she invoked her rights.

Across the country, Foundation staff attorneys are currently representing public servants in more than a dozen cases where union officials have tried to confine their First AmendmentJanusrights to an escape period, and have favorably settled 8 such cases. The pending cases include that of New Jersey public school teachers Susan Fischer and Jeanette Speck, who were trapped in a similar arrangement by New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) union officials.

The ruling in theJanusdecision was crystal clear: public servants have a First Amendment right to refuse to associate with union bosses whose so-called representation they oppose, commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. It is blatantly unconstitutional that the WDEA prevents public workers from exercising their constitutional right for more than 97 percent of the year.

###

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in more than 250 cases per year. Its web address iswww.nrtw.org.

(Visited 143 times, 118 visits today)

See more here:
New Jersey AG Employee Sues IBEW Union, State of New Jersey for Seizing Dues from Her Paycheck in Violation of First Amendment - InsiderNJ

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) An Iowa man charged with leaving a threatening voicemail telling Gov. Kim Reynolds she should be hung for treason defended his comments Thursday as free speech, saying he was expressing opposition to COVID-19 restrictions.

Harvey Hunter Jr., 48, is charged with first-degree harassment for the profane Jan. 5 message he left on a governors office phone line set up to gather input over whether Reynolds should continue the partial statewide mask mandate.

Hunter called the GOP governor a dictator and said every single one of you need to be hung for treason for pushing this COVID scam, according to a criminal complaint filed in Polk County. Growing more intense, Hunter called Reynolds two derogatory names for women and said you need to be put in front of a firing squad, the complaint said.

Hunter last month turned himself in to face the charge, an aggravated misdemeanor that carries up to two years in prison. He has pleaded not guilty, and his attorney recently filed a motion to take the governors deposition in the case. Trial is scheduled for June.

A charging document filed this month said that Hunters comments amounted to the most serious form of harassment under Iowa law because they included a threat to commit a forcible felony against the governor.

The Iowa Department of Public Safety said last week that Reynolds and other elected officials have faced widespread and alarming recent threats, announcing a long-discussed $400,000 plan to erect a security fence around the governors residence, Terrace Hill. A spokesman referenced Hunters case last week when asked by the Des Moines Register for specifics.

In phone interviews Wednesday and Thursday, Hunter denied that he was threatening to kill the governor. Instead, he said she and other government officials who imposed COVID-19 restrictions that he believed were violations of freedom should be put on trial for treason and punished if convicted.

This is why we got the First Amendment so we can criticize our government, said Hunter, a truck driver from Stuart, Iowa, a small town about 40 miles west of Des Moines. It was my opinion.

Hunter, a self-described conservative who said he believes central parts of the QAnon conspiracy theory, said that unlike a post on Facebook, the call would have never become public had he not been charged. He said he opposed the governors decision in November to impose a limited mask mandate, which she lifted in February, and her previous restrictions on businesses and schools.

I was a big fan of Gov. Reynolds until she started stepping on everyones rights and freedoms, he said. Shes wanting to play a victim, when shes literally victimizing everyone else.

Under Iowa law, comments cross the line into illegal harassment if they are intended to intimidate, annoy or alarm another person and have no legitimate purpose.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that a man who wrote a profane letter to a state trooper who had ticketed him for speeding was not guilty of harassment. Only a small subset of fighting words intended to incite violence or injury amount to criminal harassment while profane and offensive language does not, the court ruled.

The First Amendment does not protect true threats that express a serious intent to commit violence against an individual or group, said Rita Bettis Austen, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa.

That is a very high mark for a prosecutor to meet, and care must be taken not to chill protected speech in bringing a prosecution, she said.

Reynolds faced criticism from conservatives for using her emergency powers to impose public health restrictions as hospitals filled up with virus patients last November, including the mask mandate and limits on gatherings. At the same time, public health experts have argued that Reynolds acted too late and has been too quick to fully reopen schools and businesses. Nearly 6,000 residents have died after contracting the virus.

Hunter said he was pleased that he wasnt forced to wear a mask while he was booked at the Polk County jail before he was released on bond.

Read the original post:
Man charged with threatening Iowa governor cites free speech - Associated Press

Ken Paulson, director of theFree Speech Center, at Middle Tennessee State University, is available to provide expertise on how First Amendment rights apply to social media.

OnMahony Area School District v. B.L., for which arguments are on Wednesday, April 28, Paulson says Freedom of Speech is not something awarded with a high school diploma. These are citizens with a right to speak out about the operations of a public school, and the U.S. Supreme Court has the opportunity to make that clear.

Paulson's op-ed "Cheerleader case could bolster - or damage - students' speech rights" is available for reprint.

Paulson is former editor-in-chief of USA Today, where he remains a columnist writing about First Amendment and media issues. He founded the Free Speech Center at MTSU in 2019. He was executive director of the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University and served as the centers president and CEO before that.

Paulson speaks widely on First Amendment issues and has been quoted extensively in media outlets including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA TODAY, ESPN, CBS Evening News and Newsweek.

Paulson has testified before Congress as a First Amendment expert. He has a juris doctorate and is a member of both the Illinois and Florida bars.

Throughout his career, Paulson has drawn on his background as a journalist and lawyer, serving as editor or managing editor of newspapers in five states. He was on the team of journalists who founded USA Today before moving on to manage newsrooms in N.Y., Wis., N.J., Fla., and finally USA TODAY.

See the rest here:
From Snapchat to the Supreme Court: @KenPaulson1 is available to comment on Mahony Area School District v. B.L. - Newswise

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the consolidated cases of Americans for Prosperity v. Becerra and Thomas More Law Center v. Becerraon Monday. The cases raise First Amendment challenges to aCalifornia law requiring charities to submit to the state a list of the names and addresses of their major donors to the IRS. The Courts decision has potential to affect an array of disclosure laws, and in particular, campaign finance laws or regulations against so-called dark money.

Conservative watchdog groups filed lawsuits arguing that the policy violates the First Amendment, specifically by depriving donors of their privacy in association. According to the plaintiff petitioners, California has no need to compel this sensitive donor information to serve any law-enforcement goal, and the state virtually never uses any of the information for law-enforcement purposes.

Election law expert Rick Hasen predicts that its clear that California will not win this case, and explained that there are multiple roads to such a loss.

The Ninth Circuit applied exacting scrutiny an intermediate level of legal scrutiny and sided with California; petitioners now ask SCOTUS to reverse, arguing that the case is unconstitutional on its face, and that the Court should apply a higher level of scrutiny to the analysis.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrettall seemed receptive to the petitioners argument that compulsory disclosure of donor lists has some potential to chill speech.

Derek Shaffer conducted oral arguments on behalf of Americans for Prosperity, and he found a likely ally in Justice Thomas, who opened with an innocuous-sounding hypothetical before raising the specter of cancel culture.

How would it affect your analysis if the organization involved didsomething that was not controversial, such as provide free dog beds, or taking care of stray puppies or something like that? asked the justice.

Shaffer quickly responded that the justices hypothetical facts would not alter his analysis in any way, and pointed out that PETA was one of the many organizations that filed an amicus brief supporting his position in the case.

Justice Thomas continued, raising a line of questioning he would repeat each time he spoke during arguments: What does Californias law mean for donors who might be seen as contributing to a controversial charity?

In this era, there seems to be quite a bit of loose accusations about organizations for example accused of being a white supremecist organization, or racist, or homophobic and as a result become quite controversial. Do you think that sort of labeling would change your analysis? queried Thomas.

Its part of the problem, agreed Shaffer. Precisely because there is such intensity of views and such a proclivity to vilify perceived enemies in your time, it raises the stakes.

It was Justice Stephen Breyer, however, who raised the question about how the Courts decision in this case might affect campaign finance rules.

If you win in this case, it will have been because the interest of the donors in maintaining privacy of their giving to a charity outweighs the interest of the state in having a law on the books that even if it never is actually enforced frightens people into behaving properly, predicted Breyer.

But if we hold that, the elder justice continued, can we distinguish campaign finance laws where the interest is even stronger in people being able to give anonymously? Later in arguments, Breyer questioned whether this case is a stalking horse for campaign finance.

When it was time for Justice Elena Kagan to take her first turn at telephonic questioning, she and Shaffer engaged in a sharp colloquy.

Kagan asked Shaffer to assume that a very substantial number of donors in a very substantial number of charities are not concerned about disclosure, and in fact, they rather like public disclosure of their generosity. Then Kagan asked how such facts would affect the legality of the disclosure regulation. Shaffer refused to concede any potential truth to Kagans hypothetical and the two jousted until Kagan said, lets just take my facts as a given.

Justices Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor were the most skeptical, leaving open the possibility of finding that the petitioners rights were violated but still refusing to strike down the law. As Professor Hasen pointed out, both justices might only agree that the law was problematic on an as applied basis.

Justice Alito departed from the world of hypotheticals, and pressed the attorneys on Californias actual history of using the disclosed information.

Do you doubt that donors to organizations that take unpopular positions on hot-button issues have reason to fear reprisal if those donations are made public? Do you think thats a legitimate fear in our current atmosphere? Or do you think its paranoid? asked Alito.

Acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar responded that such a result is certainly possible, but that there is no indication in the record that it is a widespread issue affecting the average donor to the average charity.

Justice Kavanaugh quoted from the ACLUs amicus brief multiple times, raising the argument that a critical aspect of First Amendment protection is the right to keep association confidential. Such a focus is a possible indication that Kavanaugh would vote to strike down the law not because of the potential chilling effects related to speech, but rather, because of its effect on free association.

Justice Barretts involvement in this case has been controversial from the start, many arguing that she should have recused herself because a group related toAmericans for Prosperity spentmillions on advertisingsupporting Barretts confirmation.

As if to rehash Kagans earlier exchange with petitioners, Barrett asked Schaffer whether a law prohibiting all speech on a state university campus would be illegal even if no one complained about it. When she turned to Prelogar, Barrett pressed the attorney on the level of tailoring required in the case a likely indication that Barrett would support abandoning exacting scrutiny for the more demanding strict scrutiny.

Chief Justice John Robertstake on the case was somewhat harder to pin down, though some have suggested that Roberts will use the exacting scrutiny standard of review, only to redefine that standard in a manner so strict as to strike down most campaign finance laws.

[image via Erin Schaff/POOL/AFP via Getty Images]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Go here to read the rest:
Justices Appear Poised to Strike Down California Law in Case with Potential to Allow More Dark Money in Politics - Law & Crime

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--FOX News Media, along with Maria Bartiromo, Judge Jeanine Pirro and former host Lou Dobbs, have all filed replies in support of their motions to dismiss the lawsuit by electronic voting company Smartmatic. The replies follow FOXs earlier motion to dismiss, which was filed on February 8th, and the additional motions filed by Ms. Bartiromo, Ms. Pirro and Mr. Dobbs on February 11th.

Kirkland & Ellis Partner Paul Clement filed the replies, which argue, Seeking to impose billions of dollars in liability for [Foxs] coverage goes beyond a chilling effect: It poses a direct threat to the reporting of newsworthy allegations on which our democracy depends. Reporting both the allegations and the denials is critical to the truth-seeking function, not an invitation for groundless lawsuits.

Referencing numerous cases in support of their arguments, the replies outline how both the First Amendment and New Yorks anti-SLAPP statute compel dismissal of Smartmatics lawsuit. As the replies explain, Smartmatics frustration stems from the fact that it became embroiled in a heated national controversy brought forth by the sitting President of the United States. But one cannot supply voting technology and expect to avoid the spotlight. Controversy comes with the territory. And it was the Presidents allegations, not the presss coverage of them, that put Smartmatic in the spotlight. Theres no dispute that those allegations were newsworthy just by virtue of being made, and the press does not lose its protection if the allegations are disproven; instead, the reporting is part of the truth-seeking process. The replies highlight the extraordinary chilling effect that allowing a lawsuit like this one to go forward would have on public debate.

The replies also explain why Smartmatic fails to adequately allege the necessary actual malice to support a defamation suit, explaining that Smartmatics effort to make up in volume what it lacks in substance comes nowhere close to bringing home to any of the FOX hosts (let along to FOX itself) the actual knowledge required to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.

The Bartiromo filing reinforces these core First Amendment claims. As it notes, Smartmatic has failed to identify any case in the history of our nation in which a member of the press has been held liable for covering allegations made by a sitting president and his lawyers. Shorn of rhetoric and hyperbole, the reply explains, Smartmatics allegations against Ms. Bartiromo do not begin to withstand scrutiny. The electronic voting company identifies fewer than a dozen unique statements stemming from three broadcasts within three weeks of the election, and under both the First Amendment and Section 74, those statements are not actionable defamation as a matter of law. The reply also explains why Smartmatic comes nowhere close to satisfying the actual-malice standard imposed by the First Amendment and New York law, which is another reason all the claims against Ms. Bartiromo must be dismissed.

As the Pirro brief explains, the sole claims from Smartmatic involving Ms. Pirro rest on statements from only two segments from the program Justice with Judge Jeanine, none of which come close to actionable defamation. The Pirro reply outlines how any examination of those statements pulled from Ms. Pirros program readily confirms that they not only constitute neutral report, fair report, and/or opinion, but often did not even concern Smartmatic. In calling for the claims against Ms. Pirro to be dismissed, the reply also explains why the Smartmatic complaint falls woefully short of alleging facts that would prove by clear and convincing evidence that Pirro acted with actual malice.

The Dobbs motion again illustrates the core First Amendment problems with Smartmatics claims. Contrary to Smartmatics assertions, Mr. Dobbs was not purporting to accept the presidents allegations as true or embrace them as his own; in fact, he reminded viewers that the presidents lawyers would need to prove their claims in court and called for an investigation to find out the truth. As the reply explains, that is not defamation; it is core journalistic activity fully protected by the First Amendment. Furthermore, the reply explains why Smartmatic comes nowhere close to satisfying the actual-malice standard, as its clear Mr. Dobbs reported the presidents allegations, presented Smartmatics denials, and offered his opinion that the allegations warranted an investigation. That is not actual malice, the response illustrates, it is part of the uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate that our Constitution protects.

The responses in support of the motions to dismiss were filed by Kirkland & Ellis on behalf of FOX News Media, Maria Bartiromo, Judge Jeanine Pirro and former host Lou Dobbs.

FOX News Media operates the FOX News Channel (FNC), FOX Business Network (FBN), FOX News Digital, FOX News Audio, FOX News Books, the direct-to-consumer digital streaming services FOX Nation and FOX News International and the recently announced AVOD platform FOX Weather. Currently the number one network in all of cable, FNC has also been the most watched television news channel for 19 consecutive years, while FBN currently ranks among the top business channels on cable. Owned by FOX Corporation, FOX News Media reaches 200 million people each month.

Originally posted here:
FOX News Media in Conjunction With Maria Bartiromo, Judge Jeanine Pirro and Lou Dobbs, File Replies in Support of Their Motions to Dismiss Smartmatic...