Sacramento Bee | Who will veto the hecklers? Sacramento Bee Where local and state officials fail to protect the First Amendment right to speak, as on a public university campus, it's incumbent upon federal authorities to step in. Colleges and universities receive millions of dollars in federal aid, often with ... |
Visit link:
Who will veto the hecklers? - Sacramento Bee
1st Amendment, 1st 100 days By Whitney McDonald | 6 hours ago
Digital searches and discrimination are surfacing as citizens and non-citizens are being searched at the U.S. border.
The Knight First Amendment Institute of Columbia College is suing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security over the practice.
The Knight First Amendment Institute suspects that Homeland Security is stopping and searching travelers who have Muslim names on their documents. A red flag was raised when Homeland Security refused to hand over the list of who is stopping at the border.
If it is the case that people of the Muslim faith or with Muslim sounding names are getting different treatment, that could be a constitutional problem because it could be seen as a way of the government being in favor of those who are not Muslim, said Okemos attorney and First Amendment expert John Fraser.
The purpose of the lawsuit is to expose the DHS and release the documents of whose electronics are being searched. The Knight First Amendment Institute filed a Freedom of Information request for the names on the search list, but Homeland Security has not complied.
The list was a public record until 2013.
There was a list of names that the DHS would keep and they would stop people at the border who had those specific names. My brother has the same name as a suspected terrorist that was on that list. When he was a 10-year-old kid he would get stopped at the border, Sakina Abedi 20-year-old Michigan State University student said. I remember growing up, every time we were going to Canada to visit family they would stop us and we would have to go and pull over because his name was on the list.
Along with Muslims, journalists electronics are also being searched at the border. Their devices contain work-related information that is being confiscated and investigated.
One photojournalist, Ed Ou, was stopped and searched at the border in late 2016. His cell-phone was confiscated and he was denied entry into the United States. Ou, who is Canadian, describes himself as having a culturally ambiguous identity. Ed has been working as a global journalist since his teen years. He has covered Hezbollah in Lebanon, the fall of the courts in Mogadishu and he has lived in Kazakhstan.
Over the past two years, electronic searches have nearly doubled. In 2016, between October and March, 8,383 searches of electronic devices w ere conducted. During the same months in 2017, 14,993 searches were recorded.
Devices are being searched before travelers enter the country because of a loophole. A 2014 Supreme Court ruling said that a warrant must be issued before a cellphone can be searched. If only applied to people already in the United States.
Border patrol does have the right to search individuals, however it does not have the right to discriminate against people based on their names, religion or occupation.
The Fourth Amendment says that you have a constitutional right to be free from illegal searches and seizures and that searches and seizures require probable cause, Fraser said.
Tablets, laptops and cellphones are being searched. Enforcers have gone as far as asking for usernames and passwords to social media accounts.
My family knows people who have been asked to give up their social media so it could be looked through, Abedi said. Now, every time we cross the border just as a precaution we delete the Facebook app off of our phones just in case we do get stopped and asked. We dont have social media on our phones, just in case one of us posted a political opinion.
When we are talking about the freedom of religion in the First Amendment, we are talking two different components, Fraser said. The first is that your free exercise of your religion cannot be restricted and also the government cannot give a preference to one religion over another.
Muslim Americans are discouraged from crossing the border.
My brother and I were coming back from my grandparents house in Canada and we were stopped at the border for a good three hours, Abedi said. We were stopped because they thought we were ISIS. We had to explain why we were there and now my brother doesnt even bother crossing the border.
I am a student studying Journalism at Michigan State University. I am currently writing news concerning the "First Amendment". I aspire to report on politics and news as I continue on in my career.
This Michigan State journalism project looks at how First Amendment freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition are exercised and tested during the first 100 days of the Trump administration.
See the original post here:
Knight First Amendment Institute questioning digital border searches - Spartan Newsroom
Lindsey Grayzel and Deia Schlosberg had never met, but on October 11, 2016, the documentary filmmakers were each arrested while filming#Shut It Downclimate activists who turned off all pipelines carrying Canadian tar sands oil into the U.S.as part of a direct action protest.
Though Schlosberg was in North Dakota and Grayzel was in Washington, the two filmmakers quickly found themselves in remarkably similar situations. Along with two other filmmakers, they were arrested and charged with the same felonies as the climate activists, charges carrying penalties of up to 40 years in prison. Since then, their charges have been dropped/suspended and they have joined forces to bring Grayzels feature film, The Reluctant Radical,about Ken Ward, one of the #ShutItDown activists, to fruition.
On April 27, as part of The Portland EcoFilm Festival at the historic Hollywood Theatre, director/producer Grayzel, co-producer Schlosberg, the films subject, Ken Ward, andGrayzels attorney Braden Pence, were on hand to screen works-in-progress clips from The Reluctant Radical, Schlosbergs award-winning short Backyard, and to discuss the essential protection that the First Amendment provides for documentary filmmakers.
In introducing the guests of honor, Dawn Smallman, director of The Portland EcoFilm Festival, said, If they could arrest Lindsey and Deia, they can arrest pretty much every filmmaker we show here at the EcoFilm Festival. This is a huge chilling thing if you work in media, if you work in film and if youre taking on big issues like climate change and the big corporations.
When asked what brought the filmmakers together, Schlosberg, producer of Josh Foxs How to Let Go of the World and Love All the Things Climate Cant Change,said, Jail. Lindsey and I had never experienced anything like that: being arrested for doing our jobs, charged with felonies for doing our jobs. So we got in touch, discussed legal strategy,confided in each other and realized we were on the same page about a lot of things. After Grayzel sent her a few scenes from The Reluctant Radical, Schlosberg said she was struck by how powerful it is and signed on as co-producer.
Regarding the prosecutors attempt to define press, Pence explained the protections granted under the first amendment:
The most important thing about the freedom of speech and of the press is that the Constitution simply and categorically prohibits the government from limiting the topic at all: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .This simple language precludes any attempt to limit the definition of what constitutes speech or who constitutes press. Thus, these terms, and the protections associated with them, are necessarily entitled to the broadest possible interpretation.
The second thing to understand is that the freedoms of speech and of the press are inextricably linked to one another, by both the text of the Constitution and by practical necessity: an idea is powerless to affect change when it is whispered alone into the darkness; press is powerless to affect change when it lacks substance. It is at the juncture of speech and press where the promise of the first amendment is found, a place as diverse as the newspaper editorial room, the sidewalk soapbox, and the social media mobile phone app. Thus, we are all members of the press protected by the Constitution, and anyone who wants to exercise the freedom of speech must be willing to fight for the freedom of press.
Following the event, Grayzel shared tips for other filmmakers who plan to film protests and hope to avoid landing themselves in jail. She recommended CMSIs report Dangerous Documentaries: Reducing Risk when Telling Truth to Power. Though, of course, filmmakers need to adjust to the specific circumstances they are anticipating, Grayzel developed the following general best practices for filming protests:
1. Maintain separation of actions between yourself documenting and your subjects protesting. Do not help protests with logistics, help facilitate their actions, give suggestions, etc. Be an observer, not a participant. Avoid sharing transportation with your subjects to the protest site.
2. Identify yourself as media to law enforcement in the field. If practical, wear an identifying media badge, outfit your gear with the name of your film/company/news organization, etc. Have identifying business cards with your gear. Have an internet trail documenting your work on the project, and colleagues who could testify on your behalf that they were aware of your work on the subject.
3. If your camera allows for recording on two cards simultaneously, use it. If things look they are going awry, hand off one of the cards to someone else who is trustworthy and wont be arrested, or hide it somewhere you can come back and retrieve it later.
4. Plan ahead. If there is reason to believe you might be arrested, arrange ahead of time for someone to bail you out, and an attorney who is licensed in the state you are filming in.
5. Dont be intimidated to do your job! You have a right to film on public property. If the police tell you to move, you need to move, but dont move before you are told you have to. Often, they wonttell you to move and then you have a better shot. Heck, the police officer arresting Ken at the Exxon station was downright excited at the prospect of seeing himself on YouTube.
6. Get permission.Make sure the people who are protesting want you to be filming them. If its a public protest, I think we can assume this to be the case, but in other scenarios make sure you have permission from the subjects. Be prepared to fight subpoenas for your raw footage that could be used against your subjects. (Know the shield laws of the state you are working in.)
Meanwhile, as The Reluctant Radical wraps up post-production and prepares to shoot Wards unexpected second trial (after his first ended in a mistrial) the team has turned to Kickstarter to raise money forpost-production needs including final editing, a musical score, post production sound mix, and color correction. Portland-based film composer Mark Orton (Nebraska, Box Trolls) has already signed on to do the score.
Find out more about The Reluctant Radical here.
View post:
Lessons from The Reluctant Radical: How The First Amendment Protects Filmmakers - Filmmaker Magazine
McKesson files motion to vacate Judge Griffen's temporary restraining order, dismiss case
Michael Buckner, KTHV 3:35 PM. CDT May 03, 2017
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (KTHV) - After the Arkansas House of Representatives passed a resolution allowing for legislators to consider an impeachment, Judge Wendell Griffenhas responded to what he says is an effort to impeach him.
The resolution was introduced Tuesday and was passed on Wednesday changed the House rules to consider impeachments. State Senator Trent Garner (R-El Dorado) has called Griffen'sruling on the McKesson case and his subsequent appearance outside the Governor's Mansion a "mockery of our judicial process." Garner thinks the judge should be removed from his duties due to what he calls "gross misconduct."
In response, Griffenwrote a post on his personal blog on the passing of the resolution to change House rules which he alleges is in relation to him. He began his post by quoting Frederick Douglass, a famous black abolitionist. The quote reads, "There is no Negro problem. The problem is whether the American people have loyalty enough, honor enough, patriotism enough to live up to their own Constitution."
"Now, as when Douglass made that statement," Griffen said, "there appears to be a huge gap between what some politicians claim to believe about freedom and their conduct."
Throughout the blog post, Griffenasserted that his critics are attacking his First Amendment right which gives citizens the right to free speech, freedom to express their religion, and the right to peacefully assemble. He claimed Arkansas legislators and other politicians are "outraged" because he decided to express his First Amendment rights at a Good Friday prayer vigil the same day he granted a temporary restraining order on the use of one execution drug.
"The First Amendment guarantees my freedom to be a follower of Jesus, whether politicians like how I follow Jesus or not," Griffen said. "The First Amendment guarantees my freedom to assemble peaceably with other persons, whether politicians approve of what I think."
Griffen said his critics took an oath to uphold and support the United States Constitution and that their actions should emulate the oath they took.
"We have no right to use our offices to punish or threaten people for exercising their right to disagree with us," Griffen said.
The Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission are currently investigating Griffen's conduct from April 14 to see if violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Griffen then filed his own ethic complaint against Attorney General Leslie Rutledge and Arkansas Supreme Court. He said neither the court nor Rutledge gave him an opportunity to respond to the effort to disqualify him. The commission will look into that complaint at the same time as they look into Griffen's conduct.
House Speaker Jeremy Gilliam during the passing of the resolution said there aren't any plans to impeach Griffen. During the debate, several legislators disagreed strongly with the change. State Representative Vivian Flowers (D-Pine Bluff) said the commission investigating Griffen already has the authority to discipline him.
To read Griffen's full blog post, click here.
2017 KTHV-TV
KTHV
Sen. Garner calls for impeachment of Judge Griffen, House votes to amend rules
KTHV
Judge Griffen files ethic complaint against AG Leslie Rutledge, Ark. Supreme Court
KTHV
State of Arkansas asks court to remove Judge Griffen from restraining order case
See the original post:
Judge Griffen says critics, politicians are attacking his First Amendment rights - THV 11
There was plenty of Trump-related news for Stephen Colbert to get to on Tuesday night: the GOPs latest attempt to pass the American Health Care Act, that call with Vladimir Putin (You know things are bad when Putin is the voice of restraint), the rolling back of Michelle Obamas healthy school lunch program. But the biggest news for the Late Show host continued to be the presidents proud dismissal of the Constitutionin this case, the First Amendment.
They want to get rid of the First Amendment? Colbert asked, after playing a tape of Reince Priebus saying the administration was looking at changing national libel laws. Stop the presses! Seriously: Stop the presses. In fact, the Late Show exclusively revealed a draft of the administrations proposed change, and it was, lets say, quite Trumpian:
Read the rest here:
Stephen Colbert Previews Trump's Proposed Changes to the First Amendment - Slate Magazine (blog)