Mediaboss Marketing

justgrimes/FlickrSeattle homeowners are tired of being forced to contribute tax dollars to candidates they do not support, some of whom campaign to further restrict their property rights.

A Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit challenges Seattle's Democracy Voucher program, which has so far dispensed $233,175 in special tax contributions to fund vouchers of up to $100 for city voters to contribute to their favorite local political candidates.

"When you are forced to give a certain amount of money to someone who then uses it to contribute it to a candidate," Ethan Blevins, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, says, "that's compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment."

Blevins is representing Mark Elster, a Seattle homeowner and self-described "robust supporter of free markets," who objects to being made to underwrite any part of a campaign for candidates, none of whom warrant his support.

So far, the voucher program isn't quite as democratic as envisioned by its progressive sponsors. More than half of the total amount of contributions has gone to Jon Grant, a candidate for an open city council seat and someone who could charitably be described as left-of-center.

A former head of the Washington Tenants Union, Grant has endorsed a range of left-wing housing policies including rent control, mandating affordable housing units in new developments, caps on move-in fees, and giving collective bargaining privileges to tenants.

His opponent, Teresa Mosqueda, and the incumbent candidate for city attorney, Pete Holmes, are the only other candidates who have met the eligibility requirements for the vouchers.

Grant is a strong proponent of Democracy Vouchers, having received 93 percent of all his campaign donations from the program. Prior to the program, "only 1.5 percent of Seattleites donated to a local campaign. This lawsuit clearly demonstrates that the Pacific Legal Foundation is only interested in protecting the interests of the 1%," Grant wrote in a blogpost on his campaign website.

A good deal of his field outreach has been directed at getting homeless people to sign up for the vouchers, and then give that money to him, a practice his campaign manager assures Seattle Weekly is not "exploiting the homeless."

Grant has called the Foundation lawsuit "anti-democratic" and "desperate."

The voucher program, Blevins said, has allowed Grant to do something remarkable. He has "pretty much drawn all his campaign money from a constituency that is inherently opposed to his positions," Blevins said.

Few of the 410,000 registered voters in Seattle can make use of the Democracy Voucher program, even if there were candidates they wanted to support. The tax dollars that fund the vouchers is first come first serve, and not nearly enough is collected each year to ensure that each Seattleite gets a chance to participate.

The funding is capped at $3 million a year, meaning 30,000 or 7 percent of eligible Seattle voters are allowed to make campaign contributions in an election year. As the Seattle Times noted when it editorialized against the 2015 ballot initiative that created Democracy Vouchers, "the proposal counts on people not participating."

In this first election since the program launched, it remains to be seen whether Grant's manipulation of it will be followed by other candidates. The City Council designed the program for a review after 10 years.

Blevins hopes the court recognizing the vouchers for the constitutional abominations they are will end the program years before a review.

"When you are forced to become an unwilling vessel for a message you disagree with," Blevins says, "that violates human dignity and it certainly violates the First Amendment."

The rest is here:
Lawsuit Calls Seattle's "Democracy Vouchers" Compelled Speech ... - Reason (blog)

A federal judge has refused to dismiss a $100,000 lawsuitfiled by apolitical candidatewho claims his free speech rights were violated during the 2013 election campaign.

David J. Mongielo, who has a long history of run-ins with the town government, ran for Lockport town supervisor as a Conservative in 2013. He lost to the Republican incumbent, Marc R. Smith, who is now the town's economic development director.

During the race, Mongielo self-published a free newspaper that accused Smith of "ballot manipulation."

The paper also carried an advertisement for a fundraising event to benefit the South Lockport Fire Company, of which Mongielo was then a member.

But not for long.

According to the lawsuit, the fire company's then-president, Peter Smith - no relation to Marc Smith - suspended Mongielo on Election Day 2013 after Marc Smith threatened to cut the fire company's aid from the town. Mongielo immediately resigned from the fire company and has never been reinstated.

The town did not reduce its funding for the fire company.

His lawsuit contends his resignation was forced and resulted from retaliation for Mongielo's exercise of freedom of speech.

"He was suspended. That's the retaliation," said James M. Ostrowski, who's Mongielo's attorney. "Whether they carry out a threat doesn't matter."

Mongielo filed suit in U.S. District Courtlast November, three years after the allegedincident,against Marc Smith, Peter Smith and the South Lockport Fire Co., seeking $100,000 plus punitive damages.

U.S.District Judge Michael A. Telescarejected the defendants' effort to have the case dismissed in a May 16 ruling.

The case may turn on a text message Peter Smith sent to Mongielo on Election Day 2013.

According to the lawsuit,the textsaid, "I hate to do this but I feel I need to suspend u until Friday when we have a special ex meeting. I ts over the articles/ad in the community news. Judt got off phone with marc smith and his council is all over this. If we dont act Im afraid the situstion will only worsen. So for now please stay away per your suspension. We will discuss it further on Friday."

Peter Smith's lawyer, Eric M. Gernant, acknowledged in his written answer to Mongielo's complaint that Peter Smith sent a text to Mongielo, but denied that Smith told Mongielo that the supervisor had threatened the fire company's town funding.

Daniel T. Cavarello, attorney for Marc Smith, denied in a court filing thatthe then-supervisorthreatened South Lockport's funding.He argued that Smithcouldn't have taken unilateral action against the fire company, and at any rate, the fire company had a binding contract with the town to receive its annual stipend.

"The legal relationship between the Fire Company, Marc Smith, and the Town Board may ultimately foreclose (Mongielo's) claim against Marc Smith," the judge noted.

Link:
Judge refuses to dismiss Lockport candidate's First Amendment lawsuit - Buffalo News

Miami Herald

Do we still believe in free speech? Only until we disagree Miami Herald I do think the First Amendment tradition is under siege, said Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Pamela Geller, a firebrand commentator and founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, added, Freedom ... and more »

See the article here:
Do we still believe in free speech? Only until we disagree - Miami Herald

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute released the results of its State of the First Amendment survey, which examines Americans' views on freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition, and samples their opinions on contemporary First Amendment issues. The survey, conducted this year in partnership with Fors Marsh Group, an applied research company, has been published annually since 1997, reflecting Americans' changing attitudes toward their core freedoms.

The results of the 2017 survey show that, despite coming out of one of the most politically contentious years in U.S. history, most Americans remain generally supportive of the First Amendment. When asked if the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees, 69 percent of survey respondents disagreed.

However, there are ideological divisions in attitudes toward the First Amendment, with liberals and conservatives disagreeing on the amount of protection the First Amendment should provide in certain scenarios. Conservatives were more likely than liberals to believe that those who leak information should be prosecuted and that the government should be able to hold Muslims to a higher level of scrutiny. However, liberals were more likely than conservatives to think that colleges should be able to ban speakers with controversial views.

This year, 43 percent of Americans agreed that news media outlets try to report the news without bias a significant improvement from only 23 percent in 2016. However, a majority of Americans (53 percent) expressed a preference for news information that aligns with their own views, demonstrating that many Americans may not view "biased" news in a negative light. The 2017 survey also attempted to assessthe impact of the "fake news" phenomenon. Approximately 70 percent of Americans did not think that fake news reports should be protected by the First Amendment, and about one-third (34 percent) reported a decrease in trust in news obtained from social media.

Regarding freedom of religion, 59 percent of Americans believe that religious freedom should apply to all religious groups, even those widely considered as "extreme" or fringe. The age group least likely to agree with this is Americans between the ages of 18 and 29: Just 49 percent of them supported protection for all religious faiths, compared to over 60 percent for every other age group.

On free speech, 43 percent of Americans felt that colleges should have the right to ban controversial campus speakers.Those who strongly agreed or disagreed with this tended to be current students and/or activists (people who had participated in political actions over the past year, such as signing a petition or attending a protest) on both sides of the political spectrum.Other Americans even those in the 18 to 29-year-old millennial demographic were more lukewarm on this issue.

"We were glad to find that most Americans still support the First Amendment, although it's troubling that almost one in four think that we have too much freedom," said Lata Nott, executive director of the First Amendment Center. "It's also troubling that even people who support the First Amendment in the abstract often dislike it when it's applied in real life."

The 2017 survey was conducted and supported by Fors Marsh Group, and contributing support provided by the Gannett Foundation.

Click here to view the complete survey.

ABOUT THE NEWSEUM INSTITUTE'S FIRST AMENDMENT CENTERThe Newseum Institute's First Amendment Center is a forum for the study and exploration of issues related to free expression, religious freedom, and press freedom, and an authoritative source of information, news, and analysis of these issues. The Center provides education, information and entertainment to educators, students, policy makers, legal experts, and the general public. The Center is nonpartisan and does not lobby, litigate or provide legal advice. The Newseum Institute promotes the study, exploration and education of the challenges confronting freedom through its First Amendment Center and the Religious Freedom Center. The Newseum is a 501(c)(3) public charity funded by generous individuals, corporations and foundations, including the Freedom Forum. For more information, visit newseuminstitute.org or follow us on Twitter.

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/first-amendment-center-releases-2017-state-of-the-first-amendment-survey-results-300481542.html

SOURCE Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center

http://www.newseuminstitute.org

Here is the original post:
First Amendment Center Releases 2017 State of the First ... - PR Newswire (press release)

At a time in American politics when there is creeping advocacy for limits on offensive speech, it was reassuring to see a Supreme Court united in its reaffirming of the First Amendment.

The court ruled 8-0 that even trademarks considered to be derogatory are constitutionally protected forms of speech. The case before the court involved a musician who wanted to trademark his Asian-American rock bands name: The Slants.

The Patent and Trademark Office in 2011 declined the request, citing a federal law that prohibits the registration of any trademark that may disparage ... or bring ... into contempt[t] or disrepute any persons, living or dead.

The justices not only were unanimous in striking down the law and siding with the band, they did so on broad free-speech grounds, with Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy writing in robust support of the First Amendment and against government attempts to censor unpopular opinions.

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

Kennedy referenced the few categories of speech that the government can regulate or punish fraud, defamation or incitement before asserting: 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.

Kennedys points resound in this age of attempts on campuses to silence invited speakers, college students seeking safe spaces from opinions contrary to their own, and with some alarming constitutional ignorance from people who should know better.

For example, in 2015 CNN journalist Chris Cuomo, who has a law degree, tweeted out: Hate speech is excluded from protection by the First Amendment. In April, Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, presidential candidate and chair of the Democratic National Committee, tweeted: Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment (sic). In May, Ted Wheeler, the mayor of Portland, Oregon, urged the government not to issue permits to alt-right groups to demonstrate in public because hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech, no matter how bigoted or offensive, is free speech. Over the years it has upheld the rights of the Ku Klux Klan to march in public and the Westboro Baptist Church to picket the funerals of fallen soldiers with signs that display homophobic slurs. In order for speech to be lawfully banned, it must be a direct threat or inciting imminent lawless action.

The Supreme Courts decision almost certainly also applies to a more widely known case involving the NFLs Washington Redskins, whose trademarks were canceled in 2014 following complaints from Native Americans. But the justices struck a much larger blow against the pernicious idea that government can censor ideas based solely on their objectionable content.

This editorial was published by the Daytona Beach News Journal, a sister newspaper of the Daily News in Gatehouse Media.

Read the original post:
EDITORIAL: Court upholds free speech - The Northwest Florida Daily News