Mediaboss Marketing

The First Amendment typically regulates expressive activity in public spaces through what has come to be known as forum analysis. In a traditional public forum like sidewalks and parks or in a designated public forum opened to the general public for expressive activity the government may regulate the content of a speakers message only if the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. Because viewpoint discrimination is inconsistent with the First Amendment, most regulations subject to this strict scrutiny standard are struck down. On the other hand, the government may restrict expressive activities in a non-public forum as long as those restrictions are not manipulated to suppress disfavored messages.

In John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy, Inc. v. Tony Evers, a self-described news service affiliated with a right-leaning think tank argued that forum analysis is a freedom-of-speech doctrine governing only a private speakers access to government property. According to the MacIver Institute, the First Amendments free-press clause requires courts to apply strict scrutiny any time a reporter is excluded from a press briefing.

The Seventh Circuit disagreed, holding that forum analysis applies equally to claims under the First Amendments freedom-of-press and free-speech clauses. Noting a host of problems that would arise if strict scrutiny applied any time members of the media were excluded from a private office or meeting room in a government building, the court concluded that the Constitution affords reporters no greater right of access to information or government spaces than that afforded to the general public.

Applying traditional forum analysis, the court held that Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers did not violate the Constitution by excluding the MacIver Institute from a non-public forum like a limited-access press conference. The governors office utilized content-neutral criteria to determine which media outlets were invited to limited-access press events, and the record revealed no evidence that it manipulated those content-neutral criteria to exclude disfavored conservative media outlets.

The MacIver Institute decision should give government officials, public universities, and other public entities comfort that they may impose reasonable attendance restrictions on press events as long as those restrictions are based on content-neutral criteria like circulation, longevity, and independence. And it settles any doubt in the Seventh Circuit about whether traditional forum analysis governs claims under the First Amendments freedom-of-press clause.

Excerpt from:
Seventh Circuit: Forum Analysis Applies to First Amendment's Freedom-of-Press Clause - Lexology

The New York Times recently reported that the The Supreme Court vacated a ruling that Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking people on Twitter. Even though I dont support Trump, I have to say theyre not wrong.

The First Amendment does govern the right to freedom of speech, but hiding that speech from a person is not any violation, especially on a place like the Internet. The Internet and its websites, even if it is a Made in America site, are not only in America. Why should users around the world have to subscribe to the American Constitution when they are not in the United States? The First Amendment has no overlap with the Internet, and should not govern the World Wide Web.

Think of the Internet like the real world. Existing in this digital world the World Wide Web, if you want to truly see how logical this comparison is is a series of different countries. Each country is a website, living at its own address (aka web addresses). From there, each country presents its Constitution in the form of Terms and Conditions. By agreeing to it, you are following their rules. Therefore, the developers of that site are like the Supreme Court, and are allowed to enforce their own rules, even if they dont bend to the needs of the American Constitution. This is their land that they discovered. So if Twitter allows Donald Trump to block people, thats okay.

Theres also the issue of App Store policies. In a way, the App Store is like a boat to these countries (websites). Essentially, the Apple App Store is a quicker way to get you to Facebook, rather than you firing up Safari and typing in the URL to Facebook. If these boats dont like that countrys policies, they can stop their traveltake it off their App Store. The rise of Parler brought forth a unique problem to the digital age: Apple taking it off the App Store for not agreeing with Parlers Constitution. Its Terms and Conditions allowed hateful, racist, discriminatory content on the App Store, according to Bloomberg. (Parler also helped spread word of a small insurgence, if you havent heard, that actually attacked the U.S. Capitol.) Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, issued a 24-hour warning to improve its guidelines, or the App Store would reduce travel-by-boat to Parler. So, Apple pulled the plug on that conservative trade route.

Cook actually appeared on Fox News in January, where he was asked about Parler. He said, We obviously dont control whats on the internet, but weve never viewed that our platform should be a simple replication of the internet. We have rules and regulations, and we just ask that people abide by those. What he means is the Internets guidelines rely on its founders, creators, and developers not a central power from the real world. Cook did say in an interview with The New York Times that he is open to Parlers return to the App Store, as long as they abide by Apples rules. Parler responded by firing three employees that worked on their iOS development team, a signal that says they no longer plan to rerelease applications for the App Store.

So does online censorship further or deter the First Amendment? JSTOR.org writes, Because it is easier for digital platforms to apply a uniform set of rules across their global operations, the strictest rules become the global norm. Essentially, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is allowed to limit the United States government. It cannot limit private entities, even if they are based in the United States, because the Internet is a global resource. Why should people in court wearing robes dictate a realm created by nerds and developers?

Link:
The First Amendment and Social Media The Tack Online - BVU The Tack Online

28 April 2021

Squire Patton Boggs LLP

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The Kentucky Billboard Act requires a permit for billboards thatadvertise off-site activitiesbut no permit is required foron-site billboard advertising. Lion's Den, an "adultsuperstore" that sought to advertise to interstate driverswith a billboard on a neighbor's property, challenged the lawas a violation of its rights under the First and FourteenthAmendments. The district court agreed with Lion's Den andenjoined enforcement of the Act. Recently,the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Judge Sutton's opinion for the court proceeded from theproposition that government regulation of speech based on itscontent is constitutional only if the regulation satisfies strictscrutiny. The on-site/off-site distinction is content-based: toknow which rules apply to a billboard, one has to know the messageon the billboard.

And the Act could not satisfy strict scrutiny. Under circuitprecedent, Kentucky's proffered interests in safety andaesthetics did not qualify as compelling, but "even if theseinterests sufficed in the abstract, the Act leaves untouched otherbillboards with similar qualities," and underinclusive lawsare not narrowly tailored.

The court rejected Kentucky's argument that onlyintermediate scrutiny for commercial speech was appropriate.Although Lion's Den's billboard did contain commercialspeech, the Act treated commercial and non-commercial speech alike.Finally, the court noted that in a 2020 decision, the Fifth Circuithad reached essentially the same conclusions "that a billboardlaw like this one must satisfy strict scrutiny" and that"this kind of law fails the test."

For whatever reason, on-site/off-site distinctions are somewhatcommon in state and municipal laws regulating billboards. The SixthCircuit's decision will be helpful to those bringing FirstAmendment challenges to such laws.

Originally Published 1 March, 2021

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Government, Public Sector from United States

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC

As of noon on Friday, legislative leadership has yet to appoint conferees to begin the budget conference process. It was believed budget negotiations between the House and Senate

Read the original here:
Sixth Circuit Concludes That The Kentucky Billboard Act Violates The First Amendment - Government, Public Sector - United States - Mondaq News Alerts

The First Amendment Awareness Days has four events this week, April 26 to 30.

Student Media is hosting a virtual First Amendment Awareness Days event next week to talk about the protective rights in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and how they relate to current events and topics.

The events are Monday,April 26, 4 to 5:30 p.m., Tuesday,April 27, 4 to 5:30 p.m.,Thursday,April 29, 1:20 to 2:35 p.m.,and Friday,April 30, 4 to 5:30 p.m.Each day has a designated topic and credible guest speakers who have experience in their fields with the given topic.

Mondays event, titled Religious Freedom: A Contested Ideal will involve a presentation and Q&A discussion on the freedoms of religion and the diversity of religion and features guest speaker Tammy Heise, an assistant professor of American religions at the university.

Tuesdays event Pressing the Press is set to have a discussion on the freedom of the press and the conflicts that arise in the field of journalism.Guest speakers include former managing editor of the Laramie Boomerang Joel Funk and editor of the Casper Star Tribune Josh Wolfson.

We take for granted our First Amendment rights, and every time you could have a conversation about why theyre important, thats a great thing, Wolfson said. I think anything that celebrates such an important part of our constitution is great.

Wolfson said he is anticipating a discussion on the interactions between local newspapers and local and state governments.

The free press must be a source of verified information that will benefit society, even in the face of attacks from critics, Funk said. Im very excited to speak with some of the people whose bylines I may be seeing in the coming months and years.

Funk said he plans to speak the freedom of the press in the age of misinformation and his experience working with officials and institutions to obtain information.

Thursdays event Rights, Revolution, and Rock and Roll will feature a presentation from Ken Paulson, the director of the Free Speech Center at the College of Media and Entertainment at Middle Tennessee State University, on the First Amendment as a whole.

Im always pleased to spend some time with the next generation talking about the role of the first amendment and free society. Many Americans are constitutionally illiterate, and a full third of Americans cannot name a single freedom of the first amendment, Paulson said. We need to understand and appreciate these freedoms.

On Friday, the final event of First Amendment Awareness Days titled Peaceful Assembly in the Era of the Vietnam War and the Black 14 will focus on freedom of assembly through personal accounts. Mel Hamilton, a member of the Black 14, will speak at the event.

For more information on First Amendment Awareness Days and featured guest speakers, please visit the following link:http://www.uwbrandingiron.com/first-amendment-awareness-days/

Here is the original post:
Next First Amendment Awareness Days dives into the five freedoms - The Branding Iron

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