Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

A Colorado ‘cake artist’ bakes up a big First Amendment case for Supreme Court – Charlotte Observer


NBCNews.com
A Colorado 'cake artist' bakes up a big First Amendment case for Supreme Court
Charlotte Observer
With rookie Justice Neil Gorsuch on board, the high court said Monday that it would consider the highly anticipated First Amendment case in the term that starts in October. The dispute arises from Gorsuch's home state, and will provide an early test ...
Supreme Court to Hear Anti-LGBT Bakery CaseEater
Supreme Court to hear case of baker's refusal to make wedding cake for gay coupleFox News
Supreme Court will hear religious liberty challenge to gay weddingsUSA TODAY
The Week Magazine -ABA Journal -Washington Examiner
all 136 news articles »

The rest is here:
A Colorado 'cake artist' bakes up a big First Amendment case for Supreme Court - Charlotte Observer

How the First Amendment Trumps Political Correctness – Highbrow Magazine


Highbrow Magazine
How the First Amendment Trumps Political Correctness
Highbrow Magazine
On Monday June 19, in the case of Matal v. Tam, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled yet again that the First Amendment trumps political correctness. This time, though, the circumstances were a bit unusual. Simon Tam, an Asian-American musician, founded ...
Editorial: Court shores up First AmendmentThe Detroit News
Editorial: Win for 1st AmendmentBoston Herald
Our View: First Amendment Racist trademarks legal, still not rightMankato Free Press
Reading Eagle -JD Supra (press release) -Richmond.com -Supreme Court of the United States
all 104 news articles »

The rest is here:
How the First Amendment Trumps Political Correctness - Highbrow Magazine

Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no hate speech …

From todays opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the Slants case:

[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote separately, also for four justices, but on this point the opinions agreed:

A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an egregious form of content discrimination, which is presumptively unconstitutional. A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the governments benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.

And the justices made clear that speech that some view as racially offensive is protected not just against outright prohibition but also against lesser restrictions. In Matal, the government refused to register The Slants as a bands trademark, on the ground that the name might be seen as demeaning to Asian Americans. The government wasnt trying to forbid the band from using the mark; it was just denying it certain protections that trademarks get against unauthorized use by third parties. But even in this sort of program, the court held, viewpoint discrimination including against allegedly racially offensive viewpoints is unconstitutional. And this no-viewpoint-discrimination principle has long been seen as applying to exclusion of speakers from universities, denial of tax exemptions to nonprofits, and much more.

(Justice Neil Gorsuch wasnt on the court when the case was argued, so only eight justices participated.)

Asian-American dance rock band The Slants talk about their Supreme Court case, including a supporter they'd rather not have: Dan Snyder. (Gillian Brockell,Jesse Rosten/The Washington Post)

See the rest here:
Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no hate speech ...

Editorial: Win for 1st Amendment | Boston Herald – Boston Herald

An Asian-American rock group with an edgy name can now trademark that name thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck a blow for the First Amendment and against federal bureaucrats consumed by political correctness.

In an 8-0 ruling this week, the high court found that the disparagement clause used by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny trademark protection for the Oregon-based band The Slants is quite simply unconstitutional.

The band, of course, can call itself anything it wants, but without trademark protection couldnt safeguard its rights for, say, T-shirts or other items after the patent office found the name offensive. Theyve been fighting this lunatic ruling since 2011

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court, found, The clause reaches any trademark that disparages any person, group, or institution. It applies to trademarks like the following: Down with racists, Down with sexists, Down with homophobes. It is not an anti-discrimination clause; it is a happy-talk clause. In this way, it goes much further than is necessary to serve the interest asserted.

Dont you wonder if those ubiquitous Yankees Suck T-shirts were ever covered?

Alito also noted, It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the grounds that it expresses ideas that offend.

Also cheering the ruling were the Washington Redskins, whose appeal of a similar 2014 ruling has been awaiting action on this case.

Redskins owner Dan Snyder has insisted the team name represents honor, respect and pride for Native Americans. Those who disagree are free to not buy tickets or T-shirts and to exercise their own First Amendment rights. They just cant have overreaching government bureaucrats fighting their battles for them.

Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar grounds is hateful, Alito wrote, but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought we hate.

And thank goodness for that!

Read more:
Editorial: Win for 1st Amendment | Boston Herald - Boston Herald

It’s Time for Congressman Issa to Come Down From the Roof and … – ACLU (blog)

On May 30, Rep. Darrell Issas San Diego County constituents saw a different side of the nine-term member of Congress.

Angry at peaceful protesters outside his district office building in Vista, California, the congressman took to the roof to express his frustration. Looking down upon the protesters, he phoned a local newspaper reporter to explain he was on the roof because the protesters wouldnt speak to him and blamed the reporter for being in cahoots with the protesters. On Twitter, however, Issa said he spent his morning talking to constituents and then popped upstairs to photograph them from the roof.

While Issas behavior was erratic, it isnt the most concerning aspect to this story. No member of Congress likes to see protests outside his window, but he should vocally defend protesters First Amendment right to do so. But Issas silence has been deafening, even though the city of Vista is trying very hard to crack down on the protests.

For the past few months, Ellen Montanari has organized weekly protests outside Issas office to voice concerns over Issas public policies, including Issas vote to repeal Obamacare. These days, people are eager to express their dissatisfaction with Issas performance and Montanaris protests have given them a platform to do it. So every Tuesday, the protesters show up for an hour-long peaceful rally outside of Issas office, and the city of Vista has taken notice.

Until recently, the protesters gathered on the public sidewalk next to his office building to exercise their First Amendment rights. But under the terms of the citys most recent permit, which is issued in 30-day increments, they have been relegated to a dirt path on the opposite side of the road. Taking direct aim at Montanari, the permit also makes her financially responsible for the behavior of all the protesters who show up.

The actions taken by the city are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that public sidewalks are one of the places where our First Amendment rights are at their most robust. A government restriction on sidewalk protests can be justified only by the most compelling and fact-based need and that reason can never include the government's desire that a protest be less visible or less critical.

Our First Amendment freedoms ensure that anger and political disagreement dont fester into violence.

On June 1, the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties issued a letter to the city of Vista seeking the removal of the unconstitutional restrictions in the permit granted to Ellen Montanari. In our letter, we made it clear that the city cannot ban protest from a public sidewalk or make Ms. Montanari responsible for the conduct of others. We also explained to the city that it cannot bill protesters for any law enforcement response and reminded it cannot ban the use of bullhorns or microphones by protesters. The ACLUs letter is now under review by the city attorney.

Contempt for the First Amendment, however, isnt confined to Vista. Since the election, 22 state legislatures have considered 31 anti-protest bills. Fourteen have been defeated, but 10 are pending and seven have passed including laws in South Dakota and Tennessee against blocking streets during demonstrations.

But the United States commitment to the First Amendment has been on the decline since before the election.

In July 2016, Maina Kiai, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, undertook an official mission to the U.S. to assess our countrys commitment to freedom of assembly and protest. When he completed his trip, he observed that Americans have good reason to be angry and frustrated at the moment.

But he then went on to explain that its our First Amendment freedoms that ensure that anger and political disagreement dont fester into violence. And it is at times like these when robust promotion of assembly and association rights are needed most, he said. These rights give people a peaceful avenue to speak out, engage in dialogue with their fellow citizens and authorities, air their grievances and hopefully settle them.

The local officials of Vista, California, should heed Kiais words and stop trying to block Ms. Montanari and other peaceful protesters from exercising the very rights that have made America an example to the world for over two centuries. And we should all hope Darrell Issa can find his way down from the roof and assure his constituents that he believes they have a right to protest even when hes the target.

See the article here:
It's Time for Congressman Issa to Come Down From the Roof and ... - ACLU (blog)