Mediaboss Marketing

But Candy Lab, maker of the AR game Texas Rope 'Em, sued the county and claimed that the ordinance was a First Amendment violation. They also asked the courts for an injunction of the rule before the lawsuit goes to trial next April, which a district judge granted on Thursday. In the ruling, the judge said, "Greater injury will be inflicted upon [Candy Labs] by the denial of injunctive relief than will be inflicted upon [Milwaukee County] by the granting of such relief."

Milwaukee County has argued that this isn't a First Amendment violation because the game and its makers don't have First Amendment rights. "Texas Rope 'Em is not entitled to First Amendment protection because it does not convey any messages or ideas. Unlike books, movies, music, plays and video games mediums of expression that typically enjoy First Amendment protection Texas Rope 'Em has no plot, no storylines, no characters and no dialogue," said Milwaukee County in its motion to dismiss the case. It also claims that the game isn't protected by the amendment because it constitutes illegal gambling.

The permit Milwaukee County began demanding treats AR gaming like a special event, requiring start and end times, expected numbers of participants, portable restroom supply and fees for things like garbage collection. All of which seem rather ridiculous to ask of a game developer.

In response to the judge's injunction approval, Candy Lab's attorney told Ars Technica, "I think it's a huge win for the medium of augmented reality as a whole. It's a strong affirmation that AR is a medium for creative expression."

Go here to read the rest:
First Amendment suit halts anti-'Pokmon Go' law - Engadget

First Amendment, amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States that is part of the Bill of Rights and reads,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The clauses of the amendment are often called the establishment clause, the free exercise clause, the free speech clause, the free press clause, the assembly clause, and the petition clause.

The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally restricted only what the federal government may do and did not bind the states. Most state constitutions had their own bills of rights, and those generally included provisions similar to those found in the First Amendment. But the state provisions could be enforced only by state courts.

In 1868, however, the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution, and it prohibited states from denying people liberty without due process. Since then the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually used the due process clause to apply most of the Bill of Rights to state governments. In particular, from the 1920s to the 40s the Supreme Court applied all the clauses of the First Amendment to the states. Thus, the First Amendment now covers actions by federal, state, and local governments. The First Amendment also applies to all branches of government, including legislatures, courts, juries, and executive officials and agencies. This includes public employers, public university systems, and public school systems.

The First Amendment, however, applies only to restrictions imposed by the government, since the First and Fourteenth amendments refer only to government action. As a result, if a private employer fires an employee because of the employees speech, there is no First Amendment violation. There is likewise no violation if a private university expels a student for what the student said, if a commercial landlord restricts what bumper stickers are sold on the property it owns, or if an Internet service provider refuses to host certain Web sites.

Legislatures sometimes enact laws that protect speakers or religious observers from retaliation by private organizations. For example, Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans religious discrimination even by private employers. Similarly, laws in some states prohibit employers from firing employees for off-duty political activity. But such prohibitions are imposed by legislative choice rather than by the First Amendment.

The freedoms of speech, of the press, of assembly, and to petitiondiscussed here together as freedom of expressionbroadly protect expression from governmental restrictions. Thus, for instance, the government may not outlaw antiwar speech, speech praising violence, racist speech, pro-communist speech, and the like. Nor may the government impose special taxes on speech on certain topics or limit demonstrations that express certain views. The government also may not authorize civil lawsuits based on peoples speech, unless the speech falls within a traditionally recognized First Amendment exception. This is why, for example, people may not sue for emotional distress inflicted by offensive magazine articles about them, unless the articles are not just offensive but include false statements that fall within the defamation exception (see below Permissible restrictions on expression).

The free expression guarantees are not limited to political speech. They also cover speech about science, religion, morality, and social issues as well as art and even personal gossip.

Test Your Knowledge

President of the United States: Fact or Fiction?

Freedom of the press confirms that the government may not restrict mass communication. It does not, however, give media businesses any additional constitutional rights beyond what nonprofessional speakers have.

Freedom of petition protects the right to communicate with government officials. This includes lobbying government officials and petitioning the courts by filing lawsuits, unless the court concludes that the lawsuit clearly lacks any legal basis.

Excerpt from:
First Amendment | Contents & Supreme Court Interpretations ...

Earlier this week, the ACLU sent a letter to members of Congress opposing the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. The bill would amend existing law to prohibit people in the United States from supporting boycotts targeting Israel making it a felony to choose not to engage in commerce with companies doing business in Israel and its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Violations would be punishable by a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.

The bill is aimed at advocates of boycotts targeting Israel, most notably the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement a global campaign that seeks to apply economic and political pressure on Israel to comply with international law. Specifically, the bill sponsors intend the act as a response to the U.N. Human Rights Councils 2016 resolution calling on companies to respect human rights, including in occupied Palestinian territories.

No matter what you think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one thing is clear: The First Amendment protects the right to engage in political boycotts.

In fact, the right to boycott is one of the brightest stars in our constitutional firmament. The American Revolution was founded on boycotts against British goods to protest excessive taxes. John Jay led a boycott against New York merchants who engaged in the slave trade. And the Montgomery bus boycott of 19551956 was a major turning point in the struggle for civil rights in the Jim Crow South. In the 1970s and 1980s, colleges and universities led a widespread campaign to boycott and divest from South Africa, in protest of apartheid. In 2015, football players at the University of Missouri went on strike until the school addressed acute racial tensions on campus. And North Carolinas law prohibiting transgender people from accessing restrooms and other facilities consistent with their gender identities sparked massive boycotts by businesses and individuals.

Boycotts are a form of collective action that allows ordinary people to make their voices heard. For precisely this reason, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the right to boycott. The courts landmark decision in NAACP v Claiborne Hardware Co. affirmed the constitutional right of NAACP activists to hold a mass economic boycott of white-owned businesses in Port Gibson, Mississippi, to protest the communitys persistent racial inequality and segregation. In ringing language, the court held that the boycotters exercise of their rights to speech, assembly, and petition . . . to change a social order that had consistently treated them as second-class citizens rested on the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values.

No matter what you think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one thing is clear: The First Amendment protects the right to engage in political boycotts.

This is a proud constitutional legacy. Today, though, the right to boycott is under assault. Over the past several years, federal, state, and local legislators have introduced wave after wave of legislation seeking to stamp out boycotts and divestment campaigns aimed at Israel. One such law, passed earlier this year by Nassau County in New York, prohibits the county from doing business with people who support the BDS movement. As a result, Roger Waters of Pink Floyd fame could be banned from playing at the Nassau Coliseum in New York. Similar laws have been passed in Arizona and Kansas.

None of them comport with the First Amendment.

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act introduced in Congress goes a step further, threatening severe civil and criminal punishment against individuals who refrain from doing business with Israel because of their political opposition to its governments actions. The bill amends two existing laws, the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, which prohibit certain boycotts sponsored by foreign governments.

The bill would expand the application of those laws in a number of ways. It would expand the laws to prohibit boycotts called for by international organizations, like the United Nations and the European Union; it would threaten sanctions against people who boycott businesses operating in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories; and it would prohibit even requests for information about companies business relationships with Israel and Israeli companies. This expansive language would likely chill a wide range of political activity in the United States directed at the Israeli government activity that is constitutionally protected, regardless whether members of Congress agree with it.

A number of the bills sponsors were apparently surprised by the ACLUs free speech concerns with the bill. A number of them have now expressed their intention to review the legislation with the ACLUs civil rights and civil liberties concerns in mind. We hope they do the right thing by backing away from any bill that violates our First Amendment rights.

The rest is here:
The First Amendment Protects the Right to Boycott Israel - ACLU (blog)

Underneath the myriad political stories dominating the news sucking up time and energy like traffic on a Los Angeles freeway, a culture war ripples like an earthquake fault line underneath our feet. Religious liberty, however unpretentious and boring it may appear to be, remains a pressing issue on the importance of societal well-being. Last week, there was another victory for schools associated with all faiths.

Joanne Fratello was the principal of St. Anthony School. As such, she led students in religious activities such as prayer, mass, and encouraging religious-based curriculum. The school eventually did not renew Fratello's contract when they determined she was not advancing the school's Catholic values.

So she sued. Her lawyer claimed the school was not allowed to hire a principal who would promote the Catholic faith at St. Anthony School.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented the school, announced that a New York court recently ruled St. Anthony School and the Roman Archdiocese of New York "can choose a principal who shares their faith." Eric Rassbach, deputy general counsel at Becket, a nonprofit religious liberty law firm, said, "The court saw right through this blatantly anti-Catholic lawsuit, agreeing with the Supreme Court that the church, not the state, should pick religious leaders."

It was clear in the opposing trial lawyer's arguments he was vehemently opposed to religious freedom. He "accused the Catholic Church of being "dangerous to society," the Russian Orthodox Church as "indoctrinating children with Stalinist communism," and the Supreme Court's unanimous decision as an aid to "potential jihadists.'" Such rhetoric is not only divisive, even for a lawyer, but more importantly has no place in a court of law when the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In the decision, which went to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the court ignored the opposing counsel's illogical bluster and instead said there is historical precedent for this case when "a stammering Moses was chosen to lead the people, and a scrawny David to slay a giant." That a New York appellate court would cite centuries-old Jewish history for a 2017 religious liberty case should make any First Amendment fanatic's heart skip with glee even as it no doubt filled opposing counsel with disdain for religious history.

This aligns with a similar decision the Supreme Court unanimously decided five years ago, when the state tried to intervene with a Lutheran school about what kind of leaders the school could choose.

Even though religious liberty cases keep popping up in the court system nationwide, it's heartening to see (for people of all faith or no faith) that the First Amendment remains authoritative and secure.

That said, when cases like this, where a woman sues a religious school because she believes she was unlawfully fired because that school reserved the right to hire someone who promotes their religious values, reaches an appellate court, religious liberty advocates must remain vigilant.

Nicole Russell is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist in Washington, D.C., who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota. She was the 2010 recipient of the American Spectator's Young Journalist Award.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Read more from the original source:
Even in (religious liberty) victory, First Amendment advocates must ... - Washington Examiner

The First Amendment promises that, among other things, Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech but, in reality, there are always some legal restrictions on self-expression, as upheld by the Supreme Court.

One of the exceptions is for commercial speech, which is generally defined as speech intended for commerce and aimed at consumers or potential consumers. Its a legally tricky area of law in which the courts have determined the purpose of the speech and its audience determines whether outright lies or significant omissions are subject to First Amendment protections.

And its an area of law the anti-abortion movement seems determined to exploit in an effort to gain the right to mislead people who seek medical care from any health care provider opposed to abortion or birth control.

Whether the anti-abortion movement has a First Amendment right to lie to pregnant patients is the crux of a number of lawsuits in Illinois, consolidated by the courts, in which 20 crisis pregnancy centers are suing the state. They claim that their constitutional rights will be violated by a new rule that went into effect on Jan. 1. The rule requires that all medical professionals adhere by a standard of care that includes informing patients of all their medical options for a given diagnosis or situation, regardless of whether or not a provider is morally opposed to a given relevant option.

Felicia Morris-Bolar, center director of Planned Parenthood in the Bronx, N.Y., works in her office with a view from her window of the EMC Pregnancy Center signage.

Though broadly written, the law acts as a revision to Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, a decades-old state law that was passed following Roe v. Wade, in order to ensure that providers who were opposed to abortion for religious reasons were legally able to recuse themselves from performing the procedure. The new amendment still doesnt force anyone to perform a procedure to which they have religiously motivated objections, but it does require that they inform their patients about everything relevant to their care and conditions. In other words, it is now illegal for a reproductive health care provider to not tell a patient about the existence of contraception or abortion.

But crisis pregnancy centers are, essentially, health care centers though they dont function like many other medical providers. Still, they often advertise and present themselves as full-fledged medical facilities, even when they are mostly avenues through which anti-choice activists some of whom are licensed medical professionals can try to convince people facing unintended pregnancy to avoid abortion.

So now, some of these Illinois-based CPCs claim that the new amendment violates their First Amendment rights by requiring them to mention procedures which they oppose on religious grounds.

The new amendment wasnt, however, intended to target crisis pregnancy centers, according to Lorie Chaiten, director of the Reproductive Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. As Chaiten explained in an interview with Mic, the new amendment was designed to ensure that all patients in Illinois receive care that meets the standards to which any given medical specialty is held, regardless of the religion of the provider. Legally, medical professionals are evaluated by whether they meet a standard of care a certain degree of skill and knowledge that would be considered the norm amongst peers when it comes to evaluating whether malpractice has occurred. Chaiten explained that the bill was designed to help pregnant people get information about all their medical options, whether or not the doctors involved would participate in carrying out the patients chosen course of action.

Stages of a fetus are displayed at the Illinois Right To Life a table while Republican presidential hopeful and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee speaks at the Freedoms Journal Institute for the Study of Faith and Public Policy 2015 Rise Initiative on July 31, 2015 in Tinley Park, Illinois.

The ACLU of Illinois was one of the leading forces in the state working to pass the new amendment to guarantee that patients were not denied knowledge of treatment options at the expense of a providers religious beliefs.

For example, Chaiten pointed to a situation in which a pregnant woman who had planned to have a tubal ligation could be wheeled into an operating room for a C-section, totally unaware that her Catholic doctor wouldnt perform the tubal ligation. In that case, the woman might have to have a risky second surgery. The surgeons objections should have been made clear prior to the initial surgery.

Crisis pregnancy centers being forced to disclose the full range of a peoples medical options is simply a side effect of the larger amendment. Because health care provider is defined very broadly under the statute, anybody who issues any aspect of the provision of health care is covered by the statute by definition, Chaiten said.

It means that crisis pregnancy centers and the people who work in them who hold themselves out as health care providers are covered by Right of Conscience and now must also meet the obligations of this new amendment.

Chaiten doesnt have a lot of sympathy for the CPCs arguments that they have a First Amendment right to keep from telling their patients the full truth. You dont get a free pass. When every other health care provider has to give standard of care information, so do you, Chaiten says. Its not like you have to say, abortion is good. Thats not what it is.

And, there is legal precedent for the government to regulate commercial and professional speech in a way they cant with other forms of speech, Kelli Garcia, senior counsel with the National Womens Law Center, said.

Garcia said that this area of First Amendment law is pretty well established because the government has an interest and a duty to protect the health and well-being of its citizens.

NEW YORK, NY - MARCH 25: Participants in the International Gift of Life Walk, a pro-Life, anti-abortion event in New York, New York on March 25, 2017. Photo Credit: Rainmaker Photo/MediaPunch/IPX

Chaiten said that, in a number of amicus briefs theyve filed on these such issues, the ACLU has noted that patients make decisions about where to go based on the information a provider advertises, just as they make decisions about the kind of treatment they will receive based on the kind of information a provider gives them. She explained that this is exactly the sort of speech the Supreme Court envisioned as commercial speech, so that it could constitutionally be regulated to require accuracy.

Meanwhile, the challenges to Illinois amendment come on the heels of the news that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals moved to uphold San Franciscos Pregnancy Information Disclosure and Protection Ordinance another law recently challenged by CPCs. The San Francisco law prohibits CPCs from making false or misleading statements claiming that they offer abortions, emergency contraception or referrals to abortion providers.

The NWLCs Garcia says the Ninth Districts ruling speaks to exactly the issues now at play in Illinois.

We have truth in advertising laws that exist in other realms, and crisis pregnancy centers shouldnt be able to say were going to get out of the standards, the rules and regulations that regulate everyone else, Garcia says. People expect when they see advertisements that they get what they expect.

And in both San Francisco and Illinois, Garcia says, the laws simply require that anyone who positions themselves as a health care provider to live up to the same standards as all health care providers.

Continued here:
Why pro-life doctors want the First Amendment to protect their right to lie to patients - Mic