Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

A Conversation About First Amendment Rights with David L …

July is a special month for U.S. history because on the 4th of July, 241 years ago, our country declared its independence. Many Americans celebrate our nations birthday by gathering with friends and family to attend summer cookouts and watch fireworks. Others travel to the Capitol for even grander Independence Day festivities, filled with elected officials at the White House or at the Lincoln Memorial.

July is also a great month to reflect on the founding ideals of our country, the progress it has made, and how far it still has to go. In the midst of that reflection, some of us might even consider how our citizenship guarantees protections, which may not be accessible or practiced in other countries.

David L. Hudson Jr..

Advocacy and grassroots movements are key ingredients in affecting systemic change, but they are only possible because of the protections granted by the U.S. Constitution. Thats why we sat down with David L. Hudson Jr., First Amendment expert and law professor, to discuss some misconceptions about our First Amendment Rights. Hudson serves as First Amendment ombudsman for the Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center. He is an author, co-author or co-editor of more than 40 books, including Let The Students Speak: A History of the Fight for Free Expression in American Schools (Beacon Press, 2011), and The Encyclopedia of the First Amendment (CQ Press, 2008). He has served as a senior law clerk at the Tennessee Supreme Court, and teaches First Amendment and Professional Responsibility classes at Vanderbilt University School of Law and various classes at the Nashville School of Law.

David L. Hudson Jr. :My initial interest began in high school. I got in trouble for engaging in certain speech and felt the punishment was unfair. Later in life, my interest deepened after I joined the First Amendment Center. I got to speak at different schools and really enjoyed discussing student rights. Eventually, I took it up a notch by becoming personal friends with free speech activists like John and Mary Beth Tinker, and wrote books on the subject.

David L. Hudson Jr. :One misconception is that the First Amendment limits both public and private actors. Under the state action doctrine, the First Amendment limits only public actors. Another misconception is that many people dont realize that the First Amendment protects a great deal of obnoxious, offensive, or repugnant speech. Justice Brennan once referred to this as a bedrock principle of the First Amendment.

AGF NOTE: The protections you receive at a public park are much different from what you may be entitled to during working hours if you work at a private corporation. However, there is a grey area that exists in the law to ensure workers are not being exploited.Hate speech is, within reason, protected by the First Amendment. People are entitled to condemn religions, political parties, economic system, etc. The premise is that government should not control speech, whether it agrees or disagrees with what is being said.

David L. Hudson Jr. :Student organizers have to be carefuleven under the speech-protective standard articulated in the Tinker casebecause some courts have held that student walkouts are disruptive to the educational process. However, there is a healthy degree of protection for student political clubs and such. Advocacy should be protected but if it becomes substantially disruptive, then it becomes a problem.

AGF NOTE: The Tinker case refers to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). In the case, students in an Iowa public school organized a protest against the Vietnam War, where they wore black armbands as a symbol of their opposition to the war. Administrators found out and the Principal threatened to suspend all students who participated. After the protest, students were suspended and parents sued the school for violation of freedom of speech. The U.S District Court sided with the school, ruling the protest disrupted learning. The United States Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision in favor of the students in 1969. The court agreed that students, dont shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates. This has become known as the Tinker standard.

David L. Hudson Jr. :Students played a very significant role in the Civil Rights Movement. One of my favorite cases is Edwards v. South Carolina (1963). In that case, 187 African-American youth (and one white youth) were arrested for protesting and marching against segregation in Columbia, South Carolina.

David L. Hudson Jr. :It encompasses the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In a sense filing a lawsuit is a petition. But, when I think of petition in this context, I think of a list of signed student signatures, peacefully expressing their opposition to a school policy (like an overbroad or onerous dress code).

David L. Hudson Jr. :A key unanswered question concerns student rights online. Or asked another way how far does the arm of school authority extend to off-campus, online speech? We still dont know the answer.

As July comes to a close, we want encourage all of you to think about your advocacy and activism. In what ways are you an advocate and what causes do you champion with your everyday decisions? Whether you are currently a student or working professionally, consider the different protections and rights youre entitled to, depending on the context. Think about your ability to advocate for yourself and for others as a sacred component of your ability to move our country forward.

Kevin Hurtado is the Communications and Development Associate at Andrew Goodman Foundation. He graduated from Ramapo College of New Jersey with a Bachelors in International Studies and a minor in Human Rights and Genocide.Previously, Kevin worked as an Executive Assistant and Officer Manager at Newark Charter School Fund, a nonprofit dedicated to promoting educational equity in the city of Newark.

See the original post here:
A Conversation About First Amendment Rights with David L ...

First Amendment FAQ | Freedom Forum Institute

This is one of the most confusing and controversial areas of the current school-prayer debate. While the courts have not clarified all of the issues, some are clearer than others.

For instance, inviting outside adults to lead prayers at graduation ceremonies is clearly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court resolved this issue in the 1992 case Lee v. Weisman, which began when prayers were delivered by clergy at a middle schools commencement exercises in Providence, Rhode Island. The school designed the program, provided for the invocation, selected the clergy, and even supplied guidelines for the prayer.

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the practice violated the First Amendments prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion. The majority based its decision on the fact that (1) it is not the business of schools to sponsor or organize religious activities, and (2) students who might have objected to the prayer were subtly coerced to participate. This psychological coercion was not resolved by the fact that attendance at the graduation was voluntary. In the Courts view, few students would want to miss the culminating event of their academic career.

A murkier issue is student-initiated, student-led prayer at school-sponsored events. On one side of the debate are those who believe that student religious speech at graduation ceremonies or other school-sponsored events violates the establishment clause. They are bolstered by the 2000 Supreme Court case Santa Fe v. Doe, which involved the traditional practice of student-led prayers over the public-address system before high school football games.

According to the district, students would vote each year on whether they would have prayers at home football games. If they decided to do so, they would then select a student to deliver the prayers. To ensure fairness, the school district said it required these prayers to be non-sectarian [and] non-proselytizing.

A 6-to-3 majority of the Supreme Court still found the Santa Fe policy to be unconstitutional. The majority opinion first pointed out that constitutional rights are not subject to a vote. To the contrary, the judges said the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to place some rights beyond the reach of political majorities. Thus, the Constitution protects a persons right to freedom of speech, press, or religion even if no one else agrees with the ideas a person professes.

In addition, the Court found that having a student, as opposed to an adult, lead the prayer did not solve the constitutional dilemma. A football game is still a school-sponsored event, they held, and the school was still coercing the students, however subtly, to participate in a religious exercise.

Finally, the Court ruled that the requirement that the prayer be non-sectarian and non-proselytizing not only failed to solve the problems addressed in Lee v. Weisman, it may have aggravated them. In other words, while some might like the idea of an inclusive, nonsectarian civil religion, others might not. To some people, the idea of nonsectarian prayer is offensive, as though a prayer were being addressed to whom it may concern. Moreover, the Supreme Court made clear in Lee v. Weisman that even nondenominational prayers or generic religiosity may not be established by the government at graduation exercises.

Another thorny part of this issue is determining whether a particular prayer tends to proselytize. Such determinations entangle school officials in religious matters in unconstitutional ways. In fact, one Texas school district was sued for discriminating against those who wished to offer more-sectarian prayers at graduation exercises.

On the other side of this debate are those who contend that not allowing students to express themselves religiously at school events violates the students free exercise of religion and free speech.

Case law indicates, however, that this may be true only in instances involving strictly student speech, and not when a student is conveying a message controlled or endorsed by the school. As the 11th Circuit case of Adler v. Duval County (2001) suggests, it would seem possible for a school to provide a forum for student speech within a graduation ceremony when prayer or religious speech might occur.

For example, a school might allow the valedictorian or class president an opportunity to speak during the ceremony. If such a student chose to express a religious viewpoint, it seems unlikely it would be found unconstitutional unless the school had suggested or otherwise encouraged the religious speech. (See Doe v. Madison School Dist., 9th Cir. 1998.) In effect, this means that in order to distance itself from the students remarks, the school must create a limited open forum for student speech in the graduation program.

Again, there is a risk for school officials in this approach. By creating a limited open forum for student speech, the school may have to accept almost anything the student wishes to say. Although the school would not be required to allow speech that was profane, sexually explicit, defamatory, or disruptive, the speech could include political or religious views offensive to many, as well as speech critical of school officials.

If school officials feel a solemnizing event needs to occur at a graduation exercise, a neutral moment of silence might be the best option. This way, everyone could pray, meditate, or silently reflect on the previous years efforts in her own way.

Continue reading here:
First Amendment FAQ | Freedom Forum Institute

First Amendment – Institute for Justice – ij.org

Central to the mission of the Institute for Justice is reinvigorating the founding principles of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We seek to defend the free flow of informationinformation that is indispensable to our democratic form of government and to our free enterprise economy.

To protect free speech rights, IJ litigates to protect commercial, occupational and political speech. Because free markets depend on the free flow of information, IJ has long defended the right of business owners to communicate commercial speech to their customers. The Institute for Justice has also litigated groundbreaking cases in defense of occupational speech, protecting authors, tour guides, interior designers and others who speak for a living or offer advice from government regulations designed to stifle or silence their speech. Finally, we have been at the forefront of the fight against laws that hamstring the political speech of ordinary citizens and entrench political insiders. These laws include burdensome campaign finance laws and restrictions on grassroots lobbying.

Through IJs litigation, we seek to ensure that government regulation is constrained and that speakers and listeners are able to freely exchange information on the topics that matter most to them. Speakers and listeners should determine the value of speech, not the government.

See the original post here:
First Amendment - Institute for Justice - ij.org

First Amendment Center | Freedom Forum Institute

* { padding: 10px; flex: 1 100%;}.headerDiv { box-shadow: 0 0 4px 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3); background: #fff; color: #FFFFFF!important; background: #00baf2!important;text-align: center; margin: 0 auto; }.headerDiv a{color: #fae100!important;}.headerDiv ul{ list-style-type: none; font-weight: normal!important; font-size: 18px!important; margin: 0 10%; }.headerDiv p{font-weight: normal!important; font-size: 18px!important; margin: 0 10%;}.main { text-align: center; padding: 1%; margin: 1%; box-shadow: 0 0 4px 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);}.sections { padding: 0; margin: 0; list-style: none; display: -webkit-box; display: -moz-box; display: -ms-flexbox; display: -webkit-flex; display: flex; -webkit-flex-flow: row wrap; justify-content: center; }#primers { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/understanding-e1476278290453.png) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; }#primers.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9);}#topics { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/building-e1476276251199.jpg) center no-repeat;transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease;}#topics.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#faq{ background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/fac_faq_promo.jpg) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease;}#faq.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#podcast { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Podcast_share_TheFirstFive.jpg) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; }#podcast.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#survey { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/FAC_share_SOFA.jpg) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; }#survey.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#reportcard { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/News_FAC_Summer2017_ReportCard_sm-300x182.jpg) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; }#reportcard.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#column { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CuBx_vwXYAAJz5K-1.jpg) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; }#column.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#scotus { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/carousel_supreme-court-e1474319131299.jpg) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; }#scotus.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#moot { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FAC_MootCourt2016_Promo.jpg) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; }#moot.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#scholarship { background: url(https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FAC_publications_promo.jpg) center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; }#scholarship.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }.asset { font-size: 14px; text-align: center; box-shadow: 0 0 4px 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3); -webkit-transition: .125s linear; -moz-transition: .125s linear; -ms-transition: .125s linear; -o-transition: .125s linear; transition: .125s linear; position: relative; width: 250px; height: 180px;}.asset p {margin:1%;}.asset h3{font-weight: bold;}.asset a {position: relative; opacity: 0; text-decoration: none!important; color: #FFFFFF; text-align: center;} @media all and (min-width: 800px) { .main { flex: 2 0px; } .news { order: 3; } .headerDiv {order: 1;} .main { order: 2; } .footerDiv { order: 4; } width:30%; margin:auto 10%; } .textbox {display:block; background:rgba(0,0,0,0.8); color: #FFFFFF; position: absolute; bottom: 0; font-size: 16px;}#founder{ background: url('https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FAC_founder_promo.jpg') center no-repeat; transition: background-color 2s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 2s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 2s ease; } #founder.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }#fac { background: url('https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/News_Newseum_bldg_2017.jpg') center no-repeat; transition: background-color 1s ease; -moz-transition:background-color 1s ease; -webkit-transition:background-color 1s ease; }#fac.chameleon { background:rgba(212,15,125,0.9); }.footerDiv { background: #fff; box-shadow: 0 0 4px 1px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);}]]>

Our mission: providing resources to help the public understand how

work, and how these freedoms can be protected.

See the original post here:
First Amendment Center | Freedom Forum Institute

How the First Amendment Became a Tool for Deregulation | Time

Picking a Supreme Court nominee can be less a science than a kind of holy divination. Its an exercise not only in prophesizing a judges future decisions based on past actions, but also predicting which questions he or she might one day be asked. But one thing about Donald Trumps nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, is certain. If he is confirmed to fill Justice Anthony Kennedys seat, Kavanaugh will not only become a decisive vote on cases shaping the future of administrative agencies, religious liberties, gun and abortion rights, and environmental protections, he will also be joining a court whose conservative majority has redefined the First Amendment, making it a powerful deregulatory toola process Kavanaugh is poised to accelerate.

In its last term alone, the Supreme Court decided four landmark cases on First Amendment grounds. In one, conservative Justices overturned a California state law that would have required anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to disclose information about abortions. The Justices said that because the law compelled the organizations to speak against their will by posting a government notice, it violated the First Amendment. In another case, Janus v. AFSCME, the court overturned a 41-year-old precedent requiring public-sector employees to pay nonpolitical union fees. The Justices said that because the provision compelled employees to speak by paying dues, it too violated the First Amendment.

The courts sweeping definition of what constitutes free speech has alarmed some of its members. In her dissent in Janus, Justice Elena Kagan accused her colleagues of weaponizing the First Amendment. She warned that because almost all economic and regulatory policy affects or touches speech, judges can use expansive definitions of speech as a tool to unravel regulations and overturn precedents.

Its a project that court watchers say has been decades in the making. In the 1970s, liberal lawyers, acting on behalf of consumers, were the first to bring cases designed to expand the scope of the First Amendment. But conservative lawyers quickly saw an opportunity. By the end of that decade, conservative judicial organizations were launching an onslaught of First Amendment cases of their own, with the goal of deregulating and limiting government power, says Frederick Schauer, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, says he now advises lawyers to find free-speech arguments whenever they can. If a judge overturns a regulation or precedent on the grounds of government overreach, he explains, thats seen as controversial and partisan. If a judge reaches the same conclusion on the grounds of protecting free speech, its easier for people to accept.

The past decade has borne fruit for this conservative judicial strategy, with the 2010 Citizens United case acting as a bellwether. In that case, the court ruled not only that corporations were speakers protected under the First Amendment, but also that corporate campaign contributions constituted protected speechand therefore could not be limited. The decision triggered an avalanche of subsequent cases built upon similar logic. In 2011, the court struck down a Vermont law barring the sale of subscriber information to pharmaceutical companies. The Justices ruled that speech in aid of pharmaceutical marketing is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. A year later, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a rule requiring companies to post federal labor protections on the grounds that it compelled companies to speak against their will. The same court later overturned an FDA rule requiring graphic warning labels on cigarettes, saying they too violated free speech by compelling tobacco companies to speak.

As a D.C. Circuit judge, Kavanaugh has a record on First Amendment cases that is slim but suggestive. Last year he objected to his fellow judges refusal to rehear a challenge to the FCCs net-neutrality rule. The rule, which was repealed this year, would have required Internet-service providers to treat data from all websites equally. Kavanaugh wrote that the courts view violated the Internet-service providers First Amendment rights by restricting their editorial discretion. Kavanaughs decision in a 2010 case on federal limits on contributions to political parties also showed sympathy for free-speech arguments. While he upheld the limits in that case, citing a 2003 Supreme Court precedent, he left the door open to a future First Amendment challenge. As a Supreme Court Justice, Kavanaugh would have considerably more latitude to join fellow conservatives in redefining First Amendment protections.

Critics see the recent explosion of broad free-speech rulings as evidence of increasing judicial activisma term that describes court rulings that advance an ideological agenda. Historically, thats a charge leveled by the right against progressive judges. But Burt Neuborne, the founding legal director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, says the conservative Justices are now deliberately using the First Amendment as a deregulatory device. Kavanaughs confirmation to the court, he says, would cement that trend for the foreseeable future.

This appears in the July 30, 2018 issue of TIME.

See the article here:
How the First Amendment Became a Tool for Deregulation | Time