Mediaboss Marketing

USA Today Editorial Board 3:38 p.m. CT May 29, 2017

Protesters against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Washington on May 16, 2017.(Photo: Shawn Thew, epa)

The contrast between despotism and liberty was on stark display earlier this monthin the nation's capital, when bodyguards of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan set upon protesters exercising free-speech rights in front of the Turkish ambassador's residence.

Video captured images of the Turkish strongman emerging from a car to watch his beefy sentinels pummel and kick dissidents until the violence was quelled by baton-wielding D.C. police. Eleven people were injured, including a police officer.

The May 16 melee, largely overshadowed by last week's bombshell news involving President Trump and the Russians, was behavior that might have passed for state-sanctioned oppression in Ankara. But this took place along Washington's Embassy Row, and demonstrators acted with the First Amendment's blessing to peaceably assemble.

Imagine the outcry if Israeli protesters gathering outside the King David Hotel in Jerusalem during President Trump's visit this week had been suddenly attacked by members of the U.S. Secret Service. Nor was this the first time Erdogan's security team fought with demonstrators in downtown Washington. A clash broke out in front of the Brookings Institution last year.

Such brutality is sadly what Americans have come to expect from a leader who once held promise as a much needed reformer for a leading democracy in the Islamic world, only to turn increasing autocratic. Last year, Erdogan barely won a referendum, marred by allegations of fraud, that substantially increased the powers of his presidency. After a coup attempt in July, he launched a widespread purge, jailing thousands of opponents, journalists and educators.

When the United States and other Western nations called for restraint, Erdogan dismissed them. That's why it was so galling to see his imperiousness on display in the U.S. capital. One video of the event last week shows a henchman leaning inside Erdogan's car, as if seeking direction. The man then turns and signals another, who plunges into the demonstrators with his fists swinging. Some protesters also threw punches.

Two Erdogan guards were detained by police but later released; all have since left the country. An investigation continues, but diplomatic immunity would make it tough to bring Erdogan's guards to justice.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called the Turkish conduct "outrageous," and his department issued a condemnation, summoning Turkey's ambassador to the U.S., Serdar Kl, for a dressing down. Days later, the Turkish Foreign Ministry in Ankara playing tit for tat similarly called in the U.S. ambassador to complain of how police treated those guards.

But the White House has remained silent on the violence that occurred shortly after Trump heaped praised on Erdogan during a meeting between the pair. Increasingly and disturbingly, the president has been drawn to strongmen who trample on human rights, among them Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Philippine President Eduardo Duterte and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Doesn't Trump care about Erdogan's thugs beating up protesters just blocks from the White House? The president has, after all, sworn to protect and defend the Constitution and its First Amendment.

Instead, it's left to others like Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to exorcise the bitter taste this episode has left. "That's not America," McCain said. No, it is not.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff.

Read or Share this story: http://www.news-leader.com/story/opinion/contributors/2017/05/29/turkey-henchmen-kick-first-amendment/353025001/

Originally posted here:
Turkey henchmen kick First Amendment - Springfield News-Leader

So the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held Thursday, in Taub v. City & County of S.F.:

Plaintiffs Oxane Gypsy Taub and George Davis , self-described body freedom advocates, appeal the dismissal of their claims against the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Police Department Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their First Amendment rights by enforcing San Franciscos public nudity ordinance.

1. Public nudity is not inherently expressive, but it may in some circumstances constitute expressive conduct protected under the First Amendment. Even if Plaintiffs public nudity at political rallies was entitled to First Amendment protection, however, we hold that the challenged ordinance is a valid, content-neutral regulation as applied to Plaintiffs expressive conduct under United States v. OBrien (1968). OBrien is the applicable test here because the ordinance is aimed at the conduct itself, rather than at the message conveyed by that conduct.

The challenged ordinance satisfies [the] OBrien factors. [T]he ordinance furthers San Franciscos important and substantial interests in protecting individuals who are unwillingly or unexpectedly exposed to public nudity and preventing distractions, obstructions, and crowds that interfere with the safety and free flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. San Franciscos interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, because the ordinance regulates public nudity whether or not it is expressive. [And] the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. The ordinance prohibits only exposure of ones genitals, perineum, or anal region, during daily activities in the streets of San Francisco, which is essential to meet the Citys goals of preventing distraction and offense to citizens not expecting to be confronted with such private parts of other persons anatomy.

Plaintiffs [also requested] leave to amend [their] Complaint in order to plead additional facts relating to the expressiveness of their nude rallies and demonstrations. Because we conclude that San Franciscos public nudity ordinance is a valid regulation under the OBrien test, even if we assume that more of Plaintiffs conduct was likely to communicate a message to those who saw it, Plaintiffs complaint would not be saved through further amendment.

Recall that, despite the occasional talk of the First Amendment protecting nude dancing, the Supreme Court has held that a ban on public nudity and even one that extends into strip clubs is constitutionally permissible, see Barnes v. Glen Threatre, Inc. (1991). On the other hand, if a city does allow public nudity for some political events, then it might not be able to deny the same rights to people who want to participate in other events (see, e.g., this post); the 9th Circuit opinion did not deal with this issue.

Go here to see the original:
No First Amendment right to political public nudity even in San Francisco - Washington Post

Wheeler this morning announced that he has asked the federal government to revoke permits for a June 4 "free speech" rally in downtown Portland, saying the city was raw and angry in the wake of two slayings on a MAX train Friday.

Wheeler's announcement today drew immediate criticism from civil-liberties advocates. Shortly before 2 pm this afternoon, the ACLU of Oregon released its statement, in a series of tweets.

"The government cannot revoke or deny a permit based on the viewpoint of the demonstrators," The ACLU said. "Period.

"It may be tempting to shut down speech we disagree with," the statement continued, "but once we allow the government to decide what we can say, see, or hear, or who we can gather with, history shows us that the most marginalized will be disproportionately censored and punished for unpopular speech.

"We are all free to reject and protest ideas we don't agree with. That is a core, fundamental freedom of the United States. If we allow the government to shut down speech for some, we all will pay the price down the line."

The mayor's spokesman, Michael Cox, said Wheeler was not trying to muzzle far-right speechbut to break up a scheduled altercation between the "alt-right" and antifascist groups. Those groups had been regularly confronting each other, even before the Friday slaying of two men who confronted hate speech on a Portland MAX train.

"The mayor is not seeking to limit the content of speech," Cox said on Twitter. "He is seeking to prevent violence."

Read the original:
ACLU of Oregon Says Mayor Ted Wheeler's Attempt to Quash Alt-Right Rallies Violates the First Amendment - Willamette Week

During a heated exchange on Thursday, Fox News Tucker Carlson of Tucker Carlson Tonight calledco-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) Dan Barkera bully who runs a highly aggressive interest group, after Barkers group shut down a before-school Bible study group for first- and second-graders.

The Altruria Bible Club met at Altruria Elementary School in Bartlett, Tennessee, before classes in the morning, with dozens of students attending the meetings, according to WMC-TV. The groupsent a letter tothe schooland told them to investigate the club to see to it that teachers or staff were not taking part in it, citing the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.

The school shut down the club, causing outrage among parents. The FFRF said ina statement to WATN-TV in Memphis that this development is a victory not only for reason and the law but for the inviolable right of a captive audience of first- and second-grade students to be free from indoctrination in a public school setting.

Carlson and Barker exchanged opinions over the matter of the club being shut down. Carlson asked Barker if he felt good about shutting down a Bible study for children.Barker told Carlson that his group did feel good about it, and that the school did the right thing by shutting down the illegal Bible club.

Well, you bullied them into it, Carlson said. Bullied them into canceling a club for first graders.

Carlson then asked Barker what the Constitutional problem was with what the club was doing, stating that school district employeeshave their right to free speech. Barker disagreed, saying that the teachers are the government.

Theres a difference between free speech and governmentspeech, he said. When those teachers are at the school, they are the government.

There are families who wish to protect their children from the depravity and the violence thats in the Bible, Barker said.

Carlson and Barker arguedover First Amendment rights. Barker refuted Carlsons statement that teachers do not give up their First Amendment rights just because they are teachers.

You dont forfeit your First Amendment rights, or any of your Constitutional rights, just because you work for the government. You know that, Carlson said.

Yes, you do, Barker replied.

Carlson finished the segment by calling Barker a zealot who flexes his muscles because children reading the Bible bugs him, and said Barkers pride in shutting down the Bible study group weird.

The Supreme Court ruled that schools are required to allow religious groups to meet after hours on campus, if they allow similarly situated non-religious groups to do soin a 6-3 decision in the The Good News Club v. Milford Central Schools case in 2001. The Milford School in upstate New York claimed that allowing the private Christian group for children, The Good News Club, to hold meetings on school grounds after school was the equivalent of religious worship.

The Good News club claimed that the school was discriminating against the club due to their religious beliefs, while allowing other groups to teach their definition of morality, such as the Boy Scouts of America, and the 4-H club. The Supreme Court found that the school allowing other groups to meet on school grounds, but not the Good News Club, was indeed discrimination on the basis of religion, and made their ruling allowing religious groups tomeet on school grounds after hours.

When Milford denied the Good News Club access to the schools limited public forum on the ground that the club was religious in nature, it discriminated against the club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the free-speech clause of the First Amendment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.

Visit link:
Watch: Tucker Carlson verbally pummels atheist activist with the ... - TheBlaze.com

Huffington Posts senior culture writer, Zeba Blay, blasted Vice President Mike Pence on Monday for perverting the idea of free speech itself during his recent commencement address at the University of Notre Dame. However, her own editors had to correct her faulty understanding of the First Amendment.

The original version of Blays piece apparently contained an argument that the Bill of Rights doesnt protect hate speech. The websites editors later added a correction at the end of post: An earlier version of this story indicated that the First Amendment never protects hate speech. It does.

Even with the correction from her editors, Blay still attempted to defend the speech codes, safe spaces, tone policing, [and] administration-sanctioned political correctness that the Vice President singled out for criticism during his commencement address.

The Huffington Post writer underlined that Pences pristine ideal of free speech' is too often used to dismiss legitimate criticism of language and policies that harm marginalized communities. She cited how figures like Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, and Bill Maher have invoked the free speech argument when theyve been called out, criticized, or boycotted for their rhetoric.

Blay continued by dubiously claiming that none of them, however, have actually had their speech curtailed, and set up a straw man.

They have never been thrown in jail for things like inciting racist and sexist abuse against comedian Leslie Jones, or complaining about Jews in America, or suggesting Muslims are inherently violent. Indeed, it wasnt until Yiannopoulos started speaking positively about pedophilia that he actually faced any tangible repercussions.

Of course, individuals right to free speech can be restricted without being thrown in jail. Coulters planned speech at the publicly-funded University of California, Berkeley was cancelled because activists threatened to disrupt the event. The left-wing ACLU criticized the institution for this move, and outlined that the hecklers veto of Coulters Berkeley speech is a loss for the 1st Amendment. We must protect speech on campus, even when hateful.

The Huffington Post culture writer later emphasized that contrary to popular belief, free speech, in the context of the Constitution, actually does have limits. The First Amendment does not protect speech that incites violence, fraud, or child pornography, or certain forms of obscenity. It puts limits and restrictions on slander, and intellectual property.

Blay also asserted that safe spaces do not suppress anything they level the playing field in a landscape where so many of those who bemoan political correctness do so at the expense of already marginalized communities.

Near the end of her piece, the author lambasted appeals to free speech as ultimately just a rhetorical ploy to normalize ideas that oppress others. And complaining when those who are oppressed call out these ideas, as is their right, is another petty ploy.

Blays column isnt the first time that this sort of interpretation of the First Amendment has appeared in media circles. Back in May 2015, CNNs Chris Cuomo, who has a law degree, made an identical argument on Twitter: hate speech is excluded from protection. dont (sic) just say you love the constitutionread it.

Conservatives on the social media outlet sparred with Cuomo over his assertion. The CNN anchor even got some flak from the left, as Salon took him to task for his gaffe about the First Amendment.

[image via screengrab]

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

Link:
Huffington Post Apparently Doesn't Understand How The First Amendment Works - Mediaite