Mediaboss Marketing

Sharon Myers|The Dispatch

Davidson County is proposing a new law to regulate gatherings on public property on the heels of months of protest and counter-protest in uptown Lexington surrounding the Confederate memorial.

We have to have something in place, right now we dont have anything, said Davidson County Manager Casey Smith. It is not the intent to infringe with anyones First Amendment rights, but in the times we are living in we need a better way to deal with things like access to public property, signage, and flags.

On Nov. 10, the Davidson County Board of Commissioners will hold a public hearing to receive input on an ordinance to address assemblieson public property to define how and where people can assemble, as well as, what they are allowed to carry or display.

The first amendment of the U.S Constitution gives citizens the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging thefreedomof speech, or of the press, or therightof the people.

Government officials cannot prohibit any public assembly on public property, but it can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met.

We cant infringe on anyones right to protest. This is a tool for our law officers; it will give them a law to be able to deal with enforcement. Right now we dont have an ordinance that allows them, for example, to tell anyone to remove a flag or sign from a government building or from putting flags on county property, said Smith.

The proposed ordinance follows months of protest and counter-protest focused on the Confederate monument in uptown Lexington, which was removed on Oct. 20. Two groups of protesters were located on county-owned property in front of the historical Davidson County Courthouse and at the square across the street.

Under the proposed ordinance, protestors or assemblies cannot obstruct, interfere or block people entering or exiting vehicles; public buildings; crossing the street or deny the use of any other public areas.

Also, assemblies shall not be conducted on any public roadway used primarily for vehicular traffic, nor interfere with the business of the county or state.

The proposed ordinance limits signs or flags to less than 36 inches and cannot use words that would incite violence. The staff or pole for any sign, flag or banner cannot be made of metal and must be continuously held by a protestor.

If the ordinance is passed it will be unlawful to hang, fasten, or attach banners, flags or electrical devices to any county property including buildings, handrails, fences, bridges, memorials, landscaping, and trees. It also would prohibit the placement of poles, posts, pins, or pegs in the ground on government property.

The ordinance also states that law enforcement is allowed to assign different groups a place to assemble in order to preserve the public peace and that members of a group are not allowed to enter the assigned area of another group. The priority of location would be based upon which group arrived first and is at the discretion of law enforcement.

Also, spectators are not allowed to physically interfere with individuals or groups who are protesting and will not speak fighting words or threats that would tend to provoke a reasonable person to a breach of the peace.

Law enforcement will still be allowed to issue a command to disperse if a threat to the public peace is determined. Officers are also allowed to establish barricades to preserve public peace and it would be unlawful for anyone to intentionally cross over a law enforcement line or barricade.

Under the proposed ordinance, it will be unlawful for anyone to camp or light a bonfire on any public property owned by the county, including public rights-of-way and sidewalks. The county retains the right to remove a temporary shelter, bedding or personal belongings deemed a public nuisance.

If the ordinance is approved, it will be unlawful for any person to use objects to obstruct a public road, sidewalk, right-of-way or any entrance or exit to private property or any other area open to the public. This also includes attaching themselves to another person, building, or vehicle.

The ordinance states anyone who fails or refuses to abide by or violates these rules shall be subject to penalties and arrest.

Smith said after the months of protest and counter-protest, government officials became aware of the impact that not having a set ordinance has had on the public peace. He said the ordinance isto bring a little bit of clarity about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable when protesting.

We need to have a tool for our law enforcement officers to have clear cut rules and regulations, Smith said. Given the world we live in, we need some regulationin case something like this ever happens again. We are not regulating the right to free speech or right to assemble, we are just making the rules realclear.

More here:
New county ordinance to regulate protest and public gatherings - Lexington Dispatch

From MPD:

On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 and Wednesday, November 4, 2020, multiple First Amendment demonstrations are scheduled to occur in the District of Columbia. In conjunction with this event, there will be parking restriction and potential street closures that motorists should take into consideration:

The following streets will be posted as Emergency No Parking on Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 12:00 a.m. to Wednesday, November 4, 2020 11:59 p.m:

Constitution Avenue, NW from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWPennsylvania Avenue, NW from 9th Street, NW to 18th Street, NWConnecticut Avenue, NW from H Street, NW to L Street, NWVermont Avenue from H Street, NW to L Street, NWF Street from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWG Street from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWI Street from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWH Street from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWK Street from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NWNew York Avenue, NW from 18th Street, NW to 9th Street, NW17th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW

(to include both sides of Farragut Square)

16th Street From H Street, NW to L Street, NW15th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW

(to include both sides of McPherson Square)

14th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW13th Street from Pennsylvania Avenue, NW to L Street, NW12th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW11th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NW10th Street from Constitution Avenue, NW to L Street, NWC Street, NW from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NWD Street, NW from 18th Street, NW to 17th Street, NW

While the Metropolitan Police Department does not anticipate street closures, there is the potential for intermittent closures in the downtown area of the District of Columbia. Any decision to close a street will be based upon public safety.

Read more from the original source:
"On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 and Wednesday, November 4, 2020, multiple First Amendment demonstrations are scheduled to occur in the District of...

San JoseNovember 4, 2020November 5, 2020

A screenshot from the First Amendment Under Fire forum hosted by San Jos Spotlight and First Amendment Coalition.

As the country grappled with the police killing of George Floyd, San Jose found itself at the center of widespread protests, confrontational policing and conversations about police brutality, racial bias and First Amendment rights of protesters and journalists.

What has San Jose its people, elected leaders and civic institutions learned from a season of protest? How does a community balance First Amendment rights with public safety?

San Jos Spotlight teamed up with the First Amendment Coalition for a dynamic discussion featuring policymakers, activists and legal experts.

The discussion dug deep into the movement for racial justice, recent legislative proposals to increase police accountability and the clashes between law enforcement and those engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment.

San Jos Spotlight is a 501(c)3 nonprofit news organization thats 100% funded by your support. Please help us continue bringing high-quality, independent political and business news coverage to San Jose by joining our membership program with a tax-deductible donation today.

Donate Now

Join our mailing list to receive the latest news and updates from our team.

Read the original:
WATCH: What has San Jose learned from a season of protests? - San Jos Spotlight

The Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based nonprofit backed by the internet giants, sued over the order in June, arguing it violates the First Amendment. And voter advocacy groups in late August filed a separate suit, arguing it would hurt voters who get electoral information through social media.

Although the Biden campaign balked at Trumps executive order, the former vice president found himself in rare agreement with Trump about the legal protections it targets. Biden said in an interview published in January that the online industrys legal shield afforded under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act should be immediately revoked, but his campaign hasnt outlined how he would revamp or revoke it.

But the two candidates hold the same position for opposite reasons: Trump says social media platforms have been too punitive in cracking down on messages from him and his allies, while Biden says the companies havent done enough to curb misleading posts by politicians.

It remains unclear how Bidens administration will tackle the issue, however. Asked about his position on Section 230 in May, a campaign spokesperson said Biden wants to use legislation to hold social media companies accountable for knowingly spreading falsehoods, without elaborating.

Andrew Yang, who ran against Biden in the Democratic primary on a platform of modernizing regulations on tech and the future of work, said in an interview hes against repealing Section 230 without a replacement and that he hopes to work with a potential Biden administration on reforming it instead.

You don't want to eliminate it altogether, Yang said.

Hopefully under a Biden-Harris administration we can start to do the hard work of figuring out what Section 230 should actually look like in 2020 or 2021, he added.

Go here to see the original:
Biden wants to tackle legal protections for tech companies, though its unclear how hed do it - POLITICO

Jannette Pippin|The Daily News

The votes have not yet been certified in Onslow County but efforts have already begun by community members hoping to stop a controversial candidate newly elected to the Board of Education from serving on the board.

Eric Whitfield, who faced allegations of racism early in his campaign and was denounced by the Onslow County GOP, was elected on Nov. 3 in a Republican sweep of the four open seats that upset three long-time members of the board who chose to run as unaffiliated candidates in the partisan race.

As news of the Election Night results spread Wednesday, two efforts quickly emerged on social media by residents concerned about Whitfield sittingon the school board.

While Whitfield would have to resign his newly elected seat, since there is no recall function, those concerned say action is needed.

An online petition has been started on ipetitions.com entitled Recall/Remove Eric Whitfield for Board of Education.

Eric Whitfield does not represent the students, staff, stakeholders, or citizens of Onslow County and should not represent a school district in which he has absolutely no invested interests. His beliefs and views are racially charged and individualistically motivated. We want him out! the petition states.

Nefatina Everhart, an Onslow County educator and parent with children in Onslow County Schools, created the petition due to concerns within the community, which she said have come from both sides of the political spectrum.

There are concerns from citizens on both sides, Democrat and Republican. It is not a partisan effort, Everhart said. Many people feel the Board of Education should be nonpartisan. That is why we are here where we are; education has become partisan.

Everhart plans to present the petition to the Board of Education at the Nov. 10 meeting.

Everhart said Whitfield has made highly publicized comments on social media that she said are not only racially charged but show a lack of interest in serving on the school board or acting in the interest of the students.

His main objective is to put taxpayers in front of students, Everhart said.

Serving the taxpayers is a goal he has not denied.

I have never once said that I represent the children. Not one single child voted for me. I have chosen to give representation to other stakeholders that are never represented on the School Board. I represent the taxpayers. There are already plenty of board members to look out for the children, Whitfield said in comments responding to questions from The Daily News.

Whitfield was elected to the school board along with Republican incumbent Ken Reddic and Republican newcomers Melissa Oakley and Joseph Speranza.

After winning the partys nomination in March, Whitfield was fired from his job at Jacksonville Christian Academy and received backlash for a comment posted on Facebook that used the term ignorant darkies in reference to Black people.

Whitfield has called the petition silly and said his comments are protected by the First Amendment.

The petition is silly. Free speech is a real thing. The first amendment really does exist. The signers of the petition are being dishonest. They know people cannot be punished in our country for the things that they say. I'm not getting removed from office. They have no legal grounds at all. There really is a first amendment, he stated.

Whitfield said he only plans to resign if the Onslow County Board of Commissioners lowers the countys property tax rate, which is his goal.

My platform was to improve race relations and reduce the property tax rate by 3.5 cents. If Robin Knapp and the Board of Commissioners will reduce the property tax rate by 3.5 cents in June 2021 then I will resign at that time, he wrote in his statement . I don't expect that to happen but it is a solution that would be mutually beneficial to everyone involved. The GOP needs to work with Robin Knapp to pursue that avenue.

Al Burgess, a former president of the local NAACP chapter, has been the target of comments by Whitfield and said he is disappointed by Whitfields election to the board but not necessarily surprised with an 18,000 disparity in Onslow County between Republican and Democratic Party voters.

Burgess has been behind efforts to have the Confederate monument relocated from in front of the Onslow County Courthouse that have to-date seen resistance, with only one county commissioner on the all-Republican Board of Commissioners publicly supporting the move, which would require the boards support.

That monument was a referendum within itself on whether or not racism or a symbol of racism in Onslow County is still possible, Burgess said.

Kristin Greer, a parent with concerns about Whitfield serving on the Board of Education because of the comments hes made on social media, started a Recall Eric Whitfield page on Facebook to organize others who may have concerns.

Greer said they are still researching to see if there are any official steps that can be taken but regardless she and Everhart agree that it is important to show the communitys concerns.

We want to show the board members how we feel; we want to have a voice, Everhart said.

Reporter Jannette Pippin can be reached at 910-382-2557 or Jannette.Pippin@JDNews.com.

See the original post here:
Petition started to protest newly elected Whitfield service on Onslow school board - Jacksonville Daily News