Mediaboss Marketing

Splash News/Newscom"Words must do more than offend, cause indignation, or anger the addressee to lose the protection of the First Amendment," a municipal judge reminded us this week in a case involving social media, bow hunting, and a bear called "Pretty Mama."

On trial was Susan Kehoe, an animal rights activist in New Jersey who faced a harassment charge and a possible 30 days in jail.

Under New Jersey law, someone commits criminal harasssment by engaging in a "course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person."

Last October, Kehoe called out two men as the potential culprits in the death of Pretty Mama, based on a video someone had recorded of the bear being dragged from the woods. In a public Facebook post, Kehoe wrote that she "believed" Michael Bush and Nickey Pisco were the killers and linked to their Facebook profiles.

Bush and Pisco reported Kehoe to the Vernon Township Police for harassment, but the police declined to press charges. The men then filed a citizen's complaint, saying they had received death threats as a result of Kehoe's post and Bush had suffered a loss to his business.

Bush initially alleged that Kehoe had posted his home address, but this was later revealed as false. Kehoe had simply linked to his Facebook page, where Bush himself had publicly posted his address.

Still, prosecutor Lisa Thompson argued to the court that Kehoe's speech went beyond permittable free-speech parameters. "There is a not a First Amendment right to incite your followers to cause annoyance and alarm and death threats," she told the court in July.

Bush testified in court that he received threats through direct messages, public Facebook posts, and comments on his business' Facebook page. But none of the threats came from Kehoe directly, nor had she urged people to threaten Bush and Pisco.

On Monday, Mount Olive Municipal Court Judge Brian J. Levine found Kehoe not guilty, citing a 2016 case in which a state appellate court overturned a harassment conviction.

In that case, a former Union County corrections officer was convicted on two counts of harassment "based upon his creation of two 'flyers' that contained the wedding photo of a fellow Union County corrections officer (the Sergeant), which was altered to include vulgar handwritten comments in speech bubbles." But the appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that "the commentary defendant added to the Sergeant's wedding photograph was constitutionally protected speech."

Kehoe's attorney, Daniel Perez, said the judge's ruling in her case "shows that the First Amendment matters."

Read more from the original source:
The First Amendment Protects Social-Media Speculation About Bear Killers - Reason (blog)

Two different cases raising similar issues about advocating suicide may shape US policy for years to come. In Massachusetts, Michelle Carter was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for urging her friend Conrad Roy not to abandon his plan to kill himself by inhaling carbon monoxide: Get back in that car! she texted, and he did. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has already ruled that prosecuting her for involuntary manslaughter was permissible, even though she was not on the scene. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was careful to insist that its holding did not criminalize assisting the suicide of a person with a terminal illness:

It is important to articulate what this case is not about. It is not about a person seeking to ameliorate the anguish of someone coping with a terminal illness and questioning the value of life. Nor is it about a person offering support, comfort and even assistance to a mature adult who, confronted with such circumstances, has decided to end his or her life.

And now the case of Final Exit v. Minnesota is before the Supreme Court, with Final Exit asking the Supreme Court to take the case and overturn its conviction for assisting the suicide of Doreen Dunn on First Amendment grounds. Notably, no individual was convicted in that case: the medical director was given use immunity to testify against the organization, which was found guilty of the crime, and was fined $30,000.

Final Exit was convicted under an interpretation of the assisted suicide law first outlined in a different case, Minnesota v. Melchert-Dinkel. In that case, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that advising or encouraging an individual to commit suicide was protected First Amendment activity, but assisting suicide, including enabling suicide by instructing a specific person how to do it, could be criminalized. Mr. Melchert-Dinkel struck a deal with prosecutors, and therefore never appealed his conviction.

Final Exit has asked the Supreme Court whether Minnesotas criminal prohibition of speech that enables a suicide violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to accept the case.

Both the Carter case and the Final Exit case involve the issue of the limits of criminalizing speech, and in both cases, the defendants foresaw and even intended that the people with whom they were communicating would die. There are several noteworthy distinctions between the two cases. In the first place, Conrad Roys competence to make the decision to die was (at least on the face of the court decisions) far more questionable than that of Ms. Dunn in Minnesota. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court put great emphasis on his vulnerability and fragility. Relatedly, and crucially, Conrad Roy was wavering, and Michelle Carter put her thumbindeed, her entire fiston the pro-suicide scale. First amendment purists might say this makes no difference, and indeed criminalizing her speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination, the worst kind of First Amendment violation. Criminal lawyers, on the other hand, might argue that Roys ambivalence provides support for the contention that Ms. Carter caused his suicide. Final Exit argues that they did not coerce or pressure Ms. Deen; they provided information and comfort and support, but not persuasion.

Whether suicide or assisted suicide, this issue is not only about speech, but also fundamentally about individual agency. Promoting the agency of competent individuals is good, even if they make decisions that we would not make. Overriding a persons will, whether by keeping him or her tethered to a life-support machine or haranguing him to get back in the car and die, is different from assisting him or her to implement a decision made thoughtfully and carefully.

Given Justice Gorsuchs interest in and familiarity with the assisted suicide, and his announcement of his perspective through books and articles, it will be interesting to see whether the Court accepts the Final Exit case. Michelle Carters lawyers have promised to appeal on the issue of whether her texts and communications with Conrad Roy constituted protected speech, although the 2016 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision appears to have largely foreclosed that avenue of appeal. As more states legalize assisted suicide, this issue will continue to recur, and these early rulings have the potential to shape policy around the country.

Featured image credit: Lady Justice by jessica45. CC0 public domain via Pixabay.

Read the original post:
Is advocating suicide a crime under the First Amendment? - OUPblog (blog)

First Amendment is a fundamental building block of our society

Editor:

In a letter recently published in your paper, a writer indicates that she wont lose sleep if a Christian must bake a cake or a church is denied participation in a government grant program. I disagree. Both examples are taken from court cases focused on religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms in this country. In addition to affirming the free exercise of religion, the rights outlined in the First Amendment serve as fundamental building blocks of our society and a protection against government censorship and punishment. Combined with other ideals contained in our countrys founding documents, such as the truth that we are all created equal, the rights contained in the First Amendment provide protections for minority groups and demand that we reject racial bigotry, anti-Semitism and hatred in all forms. In the current state of our country, I cant think of anything more important.

Jon Terry

Petoskey

See the article here:
Letter First Amendment is a fundamental building block of our society - Petoskey News-Review

CNSNews.com

Alinsky Politicians and Press Create Dangerous Anti-First Amendment Environment CNSNews.com I can attest to the fear being spread. Friday night before the next day's Boston rally, a liberal friend and First Amendment lawyer colleague who knows my work for an unrelated Free Speech Coalition out of McLean, Virginia emailed: Tell me it isn't ... Keller @ Large: Making A Joke Of The First AmendmentCBS Boston / WBZ A Huge Victory For Free Speech In BostonForbes Boston Right-Wing 'Free Speech' Rally Dwarfed By CounterprotestersNPR Columbia Journalism Review -Esquire.com all 1,972 news articles »

Read more:
Alinsky Politicians and Press Create Dangerous Anti-First Amendment Environment - CNSNews.com

Courtesy of Dan Gottlieb

White supremacist groups say theyre intent on holding more rallies and protests around the country. Thats after a rally in Charlottesville turned violent, resulting in many injuries and one womansdeath.

Some universities say they wont allow white nationalists and supremacists to rally on or near their campuses due to concerns over safety andsecurity.

That includes Michigan State University, which last weekdenied a request to come on campus from a group led by white nationalist ringleader RichardSpencer.

Spencer claims thats a violation of his First Amendmentrights.

And weve been hearing a lot from these hate groups in recent months about a perceived violation of their right to free speech.

What speech is protected under the First Amendment and what isnt? Is it important that these groups are able to demonstrate as long as they dont turnviolent?

Richard Primus is aconstitutional law expert and professor at theUniversity of Michigan Law School. He joins Detroit Today to talk about thosequestions.

Nobody thinks the founders didnt think, and the courts have never thought that the freedom of speech means the freedom to say any words you want under any circumstances in any way at any time, saysPrimus.

What the government is not supposed to do is repress speech for the purpose of preventing the dissemination of an idea, he says. The questions that are most relevant in things like the Charlottesville scenario are about the line between speech thats the conveying of an idea intended to be offered to persuade people and speech that is actually a set of actions designed not to persuade,but tointimidate.

Jake Neher/WDET

ShikhaDalmia

Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia and Lansing State Journal columnist Judy Putnam also join the show to continue the conversation and talk about MSUs decision, which Putnam says put safety over bravery in a recentcolumn.

Dalmia has written in Reason Magazine about her defense of First Amendment Absolutismas well as the University of California-Berkleys decision to cancel right-wing provocateurMilo Yiannopoulos speech earlier this year after his scheduled appearance sparked violentprotests.

I dont believe in content-based restrictions on free speech, even hate speech, saysDalmia.

I think the American model of free speech is correct that the antidote to hate speech is more speech. Free speech is a great disinfectant to badideas.

However, Dalmia defends MSUs decision, largely because there was no invitation from the university or any student groups to have the group oncampus.

Click on the audio player above to hear the fullconversation.

Read more:
The First Amendment and Hate Groups -- Should They Be Free to ... - WDET