Mediaboss Marketing

The Affordable Care Act raises myriad constitutional problems. The Supreme Courthasheld that the commerce clause does not provide Congress with thepower to enact the individual mandate. The Court also invalidated, under the spending clause, provisions that required states to expand medicaid coverage or lose all federal medicaid funds.

But what about Obamacares First Amendment problem? A little-known portion of the law requires restaurants and grocery stores to provide calorie counts on menu items. As I explain on Fa on First, years of research showthat menu labeling does not change what people order in any significant way. Whats more, Obamacares menu labeling requirement may actuallymake it harder for restaurants to offer healthier options. To comply, restaurants that want to offer healthier items must paythousands of dollars first to a lab to test the food, and then to a printing company to print new menus.

In thiscomment letter, PLF informed the Food and Drug Administration that the menu labeling requirement violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment not only appliesto laws that censor speech, but also to laws that compel speech. At a minimum, laws that force people to speak must directly advance a substantial governmental interest. The menu labeling requirement doesnt do that. Rather, it forces restaurants and grocery stores to bear the costs of a law that, if anything, could decrease the number of healthy options they can provide to their consumers.

Good news may be on the way. The FDA has already decided to delay the implementation of the menu labeling rule.This administration may decide to scrap it altogether. If not, yet another constitutional challenge to Obamacare could be on its way.

See original here:
Obamacare's First Amendment problem - PLF Liberty Blog - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) (press release) (blog)

Two months ago, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri was prepared to take the Hazelwood School District to court for suspending dozens of students who walked out in protest for unionized teachers.

Now, the district and ACLU are holding a community workshop together about the First Amendment in schools.

According to the district's website, the workshop will be held on Monday, July 31 from 6-8 p.m. at the Hazelwood administration building, which is at 15955 New Halls Ferry Road.

The suspensions of about 200 Hazelwood West High students in May sparked outcry from students, parents and civil rights activistswho viewed the incident as a violation of freedom of speech. The district, on the other hand, said the walkout was not peaceful and that students had been running and cursing during it. After three days of heavy community pressure,the district rescinded thesuspensions.

In 1988, Hazelwood was the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case about freedom of speech in schools, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. The court then ruled that school officials could exercise editorial control over the student newspaper and student speech so long as it was "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."

The workshop's speakers include Hazelwood Superintendent Nettie Collins-Hart, ACLU of Missouri Executive Director Jeffrey Mittman and two Washington University School of Law professors: Gregory Maragian and Eric Miller. The event will be moderated by alumnus Reece Ellis, who graduated from Hazelwood East High this year.

Shake off your afternoon slump with the offbeat or overlooked news of the day.

View original post here:
Hazelwood Schools to host First Amendment workshop with ACLU - STLtoday.com

Wednesday on Fox Business Networks Cavuto: Coast to Coast, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz dismissed accusations of treason aimed at Donald Trump, Jr., as a New York Times op-ed suggested, for his meeting with a Russian lawyer offering opposition research on his fathers Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election.

Dershowitzpointed to The New York Times publishing of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, noting thatit was protected by the First Amendment.

[T]heres really no difference under the First Amendment between a campaigner using information he obtained illegally, from somebody who obtained it illegally, and a newspaper doing it, he said. So I think this is conduct that would be covered by the First Amendment. Its also not prohibited by law. Theres been so much overwrought claim. There are people who are talking about treason. I cant believe The New York Times had an op-ed yesterday in which treason was mentioned without even looking at the definition.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read more:
Dershowitz Rips NY Times for Trump Jr Treason Accusation Conduct Covered by First Amendment - Breitbart News

Columbia Universitys Knight First Amendment Institute is suing Donald Trump for blocking people on Twitter, claiming that it violates free speech protections. The institute filed suit today on behalf of seven Twitter users who were blocked by the president, which prevents them from seeing or replying to his tweets. It threatened legal action in a letter to Trump in June, and now asks the court to declare that the viewpoint-based blocking of people from the @realDonaldTrump account is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the Southern District of New York, elaborates on the Knight Institutes earlier letter. It contends that Trumps Twitter account is a public political forum where citizens have a First Amendment right to speak. Under this theory, blocking users impedes their right to participate in a political conversation and stops them from viewing official government communication. Therefore, if Trump blocks people for criticizing his political viewpoints, hed be doing the equivalent of kicking them out of a digital town hall.

Trump has definitely used his Twitter account as an official platform. The White House confirmed that his tweets are official statements, and its preserving them as public presidential communications. However, its much less clear that it counts as a public forum, or that being prevented from viewing or participating in a Twitter thread chills free speech. Users can still view tweets by logging out or creating a new account, and as First Amendment lawyer and blogger Ken White told Vox, a successful lawsuit could make it difficult for any official Twitter account to block trolls or spammers without worrying about legal action.

Nonetheless, the Knight Institute has printed statements from its seven plaintiffs, who say they feel measurably impacted by the block. My Twitter following is relatively small, but because my tweets show up in the comment threads under the presidents tweets and can be seen by his millions of followers, my replies could gain traction, says surgery resident Eugene Gu. Now I have extremely limited access to the public forum where I once could be heard. I feel cut off and as though Im being treated like an outsider in my own country.

Read more here:
Trump is being sued by a First Amendment group for blocking Twitter users - The Verge

Even though a backlash against it arguably contributed to President Donald Trumps election, political correctness retains a firm foothold in American society.

The 2017 State of the First Amendment survey shows 54.9 percent of Americans believe racist comments should not be allowed on social media, 43.3 percent say colleges should be able to ban controversial speakers and 22.5 percent think the First Amendment goes too far in the freedoms it guarantees.

Taken together, those figures suggest discomfort with free expression resides largely on the left side of the political spectrum, but not all is as it seems.

Respondents who identified as conservative (24.6 percent) and moderate (26.3 percent) were more likely than those who said they were liberal (15.8 percent) to consider the First Amendment too far-reaching.

And while more conservatives than liberals understand that a free society must tolerate offensive speech, the right lagged behind the left and center where religious liberty one of the five First Amendment freedoms along with speech, press, assembly and petition is concerned.

Asked to respond to the statement, Government should be able to hold Muslims to a greater level of scrutiny in considering immigration applications or status, even if it infringes on their religious liberty, 33.3 percent of respondents agreed and 62.1 percent disagreed overall.

Among conservatives, support for religion-based vetting stood at 51.2 percent, compared to 32.9 percent for moderates and 17.9 percent for liberals.

Commissioned by the Newseum Institute, the State of the First Amendment survey has been conducted each year since 1997. While some questions remain the same, a new batch is added to the brew each year. Some of the 2017 queries were squishy, gauging attitudes rather than knowledge of legal absolutes. First Amendment advocates could plausibly find themselves on either side.

For example, the First Amendment does protect racist comments, but as private companies, social media sites can set the ground rules for fair play in their respective sandboxes. Freedom of speech means the government cant punish you for speaking your mind, but it doesnt prevent Facebook or Twitter from suspending your account.

As for campus speaker bans, public colleges and universities are arms of the government and cannot lawfully discriminate against controversial views, but private institutions can.

Results showed 26.5 percent of people believe the First Amendment should protect the publication of news reports even if they are purposely fake while 70.8 percent disagree that fake news should receive free-speech protections.

The case law here is murky while lies are often protected speech, knowingly false factual claims about individuals can constitute libel. Some fake stories are legally actionable and others are abhorrent but constitutionally permissible.

Of particular concern to us is the rising proportion of Americans who believe the First Amendment goes too far. The survey shows this figure has inched upward each of the past three years.

Neither conservatives nor liberals have a monopoly on the First Amendment. It transcends partisan politics, and its up to all Americans to defend its core constitutional rights from erosion.

.

Read the original here:
TAR HEEL VIEW: First Amendment challenges beliefs on right, left alike - Richmond County Daily Journal