Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

Sofia Vergara’s Ex Nick Loeb Now Claims She Violated His First Amendment Rights – Latina

Sofia Vergara's ex Nick Loeb has officially taken thingsto new levels.

MORE: Sofia Vergara's Ex Nick Loeb Says He Didn't Like It When She Spoke Spanish

The Modern Family star's former fiance has now accused her of violating his first amendment rights by trying to get him to stop the lawsuit on their frozen embryos battle. Loeb will reportedly appear in court in May to fight this most recent development, claiming Vergara tried to "chill" and "punish" his attempts at becoming a father.

The two have been in an ongoing legal battle since 2014 regarding the actress's frozen embryos, which Loeb wants access to. In December, Loeb formed a trust in Louisana on behalf of the embryos, and named them Emma and Isabella. The former couple created the embryos together in 2013, just before ending their relationship.

PLUS: Sofia Vergara's Frozen Embryo Battle with Nick Loeb Isn't Going Away

In February, the actress filed documents attempting to permanently block Loeb's access to file any future lawsuits on the case. In the documents, she explains that she believes Loeb will continue to try to get access to her embryos and, therefore, she must take a "declaratory judgement" against him. More recently, Loeb gave an update on the case, saying, "We've been through the depositions and now we are waiting for a court date to be set, it should be sometime this summer." He also attempted to squash the rumors that he's simply trying to steal Vergara's baby, adding, "A lot of people think I'm trying to steal her eggs and they don't realize that an embryo is half mine - half my DNA and half her DNA. It's actually a human being."

Follow this link:
Sofia Vergara's Ex Nick Loeb Now Claims She Violated His First Amendment Rights - Latina

Eighty-four Years After the Twenty-first Amendment, Are North Carolina’s Liquor Laws Ready for the Twenty-first Century? – The Independent Weekly

On a recent Friday night at Durham's Fullsteam Brewery, founder Sean Lilly Wilson is pointing to a color-coded menu, helping three customers on the opposite side of the bar decide what to order.

"I'm partial to this one," he says, recommending the Brumley Forest porter, "because we all went out and foraged these nuts to make this beer."

Fullsteam is packed with young couples, families, and dogs. And that's just how Wilson, who until recently was president of the N.C. Craft Brewers Guild, wants it. Before opening Fullsteam in 2010, he helped organize the Pop the Cap movement that in 2005 increased the limit on alcohol content in beers brewed and sold in North Carolina from 6 percent to 15 percent, part of a further-reaching effort to make the state's laws more brewery-friendly in order to foster the kind of community that has grown up around his Rigsbee Avenue business.

It's easy to tell here that North Carolina's craft beer scene is alive and well. Since Fullsteam opened, the number of breweries in the state has grown from 45 to 204, making North Carolina eleventh in the nation for beer production. Albeit with less clamor, the state's craft distilling industry has surged as well, from 13 establishments in 2013 to 46 now.

Some craft brewers and distillers, though, say the state's distribution laws are keeping their industries from reaching their full potential. Two bills currently in the General Assembly could change that by putting more leverage in the hands of alcohol producers. HB 500 would increase how much beer breweries can sell without bringing in an outside distributor; SB 155 would give distilleries more opportunities to directly sell liquor to customers. The debate over these bills pits North Carolina's Bible Belt roots against its more progressive metropolitan centers, entrenched political interests against the conservative cry for small government, and the way things were against the way things can be.

"It's economic development, it's innovation, it's tourismit's all the things that North Carolina loves to celebrate," Wilson says. "But at the same time, it comes down to yet another battle between red state, blue city."

In 1908, North Carolina became the first state in the South to ban the sale of alcohol, eleven years before the Eighteenth Amendment was ratified, and it didn't give counties the option to allow liquor sales until two years after Prohibition ended. In fact, when the Twenty-first Amendment came before the states in 1933, North Carolinaalong with South Carolinarefused to ratify it.

It was out of this post-Prohibition era that our current alcohol-control system originated. And like many octogenarians, it does not take kindly to change.

Like most states, North Carolina has a three-tier distribution system for beer sales. Producers and importers are the first tier, distributors the second, and retailers the third. North Carolina breweries that sell fewer than twenty-five thousand barrels of beer per year can get a wholesaler permit and distribute their own product. Once a brewery hits 25,001 barrels, though, it must sell all of its beer through a wholesaler and sign a distribution agreement giving that wholesaler exclusive rights to sell the product in a given territory. HB 500 seeks to raise the cap on self-distribution to two hundred thousand barrels per year, which state representative and bill sponsor Jon Hardister, R-Guilford, says is the middle ground among the fifteen states that allow limited self-distribution.

HB 500 marks the ninth attempt to raise the cap since it was set at twenty-five thousand in 2003. (Before that, it was ten thousand barrels.) With the support of a brewer-backed campaign called Craft Freedom and some suds-loving legislators, HB 500 appears to have momentum. The House Alcohol Beverage Control committee was expected to vote on the bill Wednesday morning.

When the cap was last raised, there were about twenty breweries and one hundred wholesalers to serve them, says Margo Metzger, executive director of the N.C. Craft Brewers Guild. Today, she estimates, there are about forty independent beer wholesalers that each markets about 980 products. For small breweries, this means competing with larger brands for a wholesaler's attention, and therefore tap and shelf space.

Wilson says the barrel cap is "always on my mind" as he projects his company's growth. Fullsteam, which is on track to brew about seven thousand barrels of beer this year, self-distributes and uses a wholesaler, both locally and in three other states.

"The more successful we are as a self-distribution brewery, the more we're actually going to need a wholesaler as well." Wilson says. "Even in our local market, we rely on a wholesaler to penetrate deep because we just don't have those relationships."

For those rallying to raise the cap, HB 500 is a free market issuebreweries should be allowed to decide if and when they want to hire a distributor, not be forced to retool successful business models to make sure the middle tier gets a cut. Indeed, the John Locke Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, and the Civitas Institute have all voiced support for raising the cap, if not eliminating it altogether.

Hardister, the House majority whip, argues that there should be no cap at all.

"Our laws are outdated," he says. "Obviously our laws are not completely terrible, because then there would be no growth in the industry. But there is potential to make these businesses more successful, and that involves getting the government out of the way."

Just three breweries in the stateNoDa Brewing Company, Olde Mecklenburg Brewery (both in Charlotte), and Red Oak Brewery in Whitsettare pushing the current barrel cap. But given the industry's growth, that likely won't be the case for long.

"All you have to do is look at the curvature and the time it takes to change these different complex laws with a lot of entrenched interests to know that you have to be thinking about the future," Wilson says.

Read the original:
Eighty-four Years After the Twenty-first Amendment, Are North Carolina's Liquor Laws Ready for the Twenty-first Century? - The Independent Weekly

The ACLU is trolling Trump with Arabic ‘First Amendment’ signs – StepFeed

In 2016, abillboard on a highway near Dearborn, Michigan mocked the then-presidential candidate. Using Arabic, the billboard addressed Trump, saying:

"Donald Trump, he cant read this, but he is scared of it anyway."

The location was chosen because of the large Arab-American population in the area.

Michigan is home to the second largest Arab-American population in the United States, and the largest mosque in North America is located in Dearborn.

Commenting on the billboard, Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told Detroit News:

"It is stating a feeling ... that Donald Trump has been a fear-monger about communities he really doesnt know. What Ive been hearing on the streets of Detroit and Dearborn ... I have not spoken to a person yet that theyre going to vote for (Trump) in this upcoming election.

The general statements are hes just a racist bigot and not just against people of the Islamic faith, but he made comments against Latinos and women."

Link:
The ACLU is trolling Trump with Arabic 'First Amendment' signs - StepFeed

Texas lawmaker takes aim at journalists and the First Amendment – Huntsville Item

AUSTIN A state lawmaker wants to make it easier for public figures and officials to sue newspapers and to force reporters to disclose sources, but opponents say his bills would chill important coverage.

Critics of House Bill 3387 and House Bill 3388, authored by Rep. Ken King, R-Canadian, also argued in a State Affairs committee hearing that the proposals, if enacted, would violate the First Amendment.

HB 3387 would require that news reports explain how a particular story on a public official relates to the persons public duties.

King said that his bill would allow public officials to seek justice, but press advocates argued that such a rule would not only make it easier for the subject of the story to win a libel suit, but ultimately cause newspapers not to cover public officials for fear of costly legal judgments.

The bill would make the question of who is or is not a public figure less clear cut, giving officials the opportunity to argue that they were acting as private citizens, not in their official capacity in a particular situation: for example, a county official who protested his tax valuation.

The public/private distinction is important because even if news reports contain false statements, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public figures and officials cannot collect libel damages newspapers without proving actual malice.

Courts have for over 50 years held that actual malice means that a newspaper knew the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth.

Salem Abraham testified in support of the HB 3387.

Abraham was a Canadian, Texas, school board trustee who in 2012 unsuccessfully sued an Internet blog for libel.

Abraham, who supported King in a race for state representative, argued that making him prove actual malice without showing a connection between his board position and the story had nothing to do with free speech.

But, David Donaldson, an attorney who represented the Texas Press Association and the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, said that whether or not plaintiffs are public figures is an issue that has to be determined as a matter of law, by courts.

HB 3388 would alter Texas reporter shield laws, which protects journalists from being forced to testify or turn over sources and materials.

Stacy Allen, an attorney who represented the Texas Association of Broadcasters at the hearing, said that the states reporter shield law is considered a model.

Donnis Baggett, executive vice president of the Texas Press Association, said that as drafted, Kings bill violates the First Amendment.

Under the bill, reporters who had contributed to or worked for political campaigns within the previous five years would be unable to claim the shield protection.

The same rule would apply to reporters who work for media companies or newspaper owners who have made campaign contributions within the five years.

If enacted, it would also penalize those who claim the reporters privilege, but who are subsequently found not to be journalists.

Opponents noted that media companies may well have owners or shareholders who make political contributions, a fact that would limit what their reporters could shield under the law.

As for resolving who is or isnt a journalist, that is best left to the courts, Allen said.

King said that bill is aimed at those who go buy an iPad and call themselves journalists.

He was working on a committee substitute for the bill, King said at the hearing.

But Baggett said that we have grave concerns about where were starting from.

John Austin covers the Texas Statehouse for CNHIs newspapers and websites. Reach him at jaustin@cnhi.com.

Read more from the original source:
Texas lawmaker takes aim at journalists and the First Amendment - Huntsville Item

The First Amendment Looks Especially Beautiful in Arabic – BillMoyers – BillMoyers.com

Our Constitution in every language is our greatest defense against bigotry.

The First Amendment Looks Especially [...]

(Photo courtesy of the ACLU)

This post originally appeared at the American Civil Liberties Union website.

In 2006, a human rights advocate, who is a friend, wasprevented from boarding his flight from New York to California because of Arabic.

My friend was wearing a T-shirt with the words We will not be silent in both Arabic and English. He was told he could not fly until the offending Arabic script was covered. And lest we think our issues with Arabic have resolved themselves in the last decade, remember that simplyspeaking Arabic on an airplanewas grounds for removal from a flight just last year.

How we got to this point is a complicated matter, but the path forward doesnt have to be.

Lest we think our issues with Arabic have resolved themselves in the last decade, remember that simplyspeaking Arabic on an airplanewas grounds for removal from a flight just last year.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Arab-Americans and American Muslims have come to be viewed by some of our fellow citizens and our own government as either victims of hate or potential perpetrators of violence. The latter view dictates we should be seen through a securitized lens and has produced profiling and surveillance of our communities,watch lists and special registry programs, to name but a few programs targeting us.

However, both oversimplifications fail to capture the experience ofbeing Arab or Muslim in post-9/11 America, and last years presidential campaign demonstrated that with extraordinary clarity. We have heard condemnation of thesurge in hate crimesbut little discussion on how the rhetoric during the election contributed to that hate, particularly by leading policy makers and candidates. Instead of challenging bigoted misinformation, some candidates furthered it.

At aNew Hampshire town hall, a voter declared to then-candidate Trump,We have a problem in this country. Its called Muslims. He concluded by asking, When can we get rid of them? Mr. Trumps answer: We are going to be looking at a lot of different things.

One could reasonably suggest President Trumps Muslim bans, inboth incarnations, were the logical continuation of that conversation in New Hampshire. The Muslim ban is a candidate delivering on a campaign promise unlike any we have seen in our lifetime.

Thankfully, it is not that simple in our country.

Standing in the path between bigotry and policy is our Constitution. In this case, specifically the First Amendment.

Standing in the path between bigotry and policy is our Constitution. In this case, specifically the First Amendment.

Among the five freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment are freedom of speech and the right to religious freedom. Thus far, numerous judges have found the bans to be in violation of our First Amendment and their implementation has been stalled. In the guise of keeping us safe, Trump has proposed unnecessary, ineffective policies that sow fear. Americans know it, and responded by showing up at our nations airports with banners and legal pads to defend our Constitution and protect the people most impacted, including those who speak the feared language of Arabic. In addition to winning the first stay of the ban, the ACLU has launched a We the People campaign that features the First Amendment translated into other languages, including Arabic, and is displaying it in ads and billboards. Seeing the First Amendment in Arabic is particularly satisfying at this moment as a fitting reminder that those words apply to all of us.

I worked on Capitol Hill on Sept. 11, and I was in the room when Attorney General John Ashcroft first presented the Patriot Act to congressional leadership. Many at the time asked: Are we striking the right balance between protecting our national security and our civil liberties? We should always remember that if we are told we must choose one or the other, we are being offered a false choice and a shortsighted remedy that will provide neither. The same goes for bigoted, undemocratic policies demanding that we choose between freedom or safety.

Like those who advance them, policy remedies can either move our country forward or take us back.

The slogan on my friends shirt belonged to a resistance campaign led by theWhite Rose, an extraordinary group of young people who were brutally executed for distributing leaflets in opposition to Nazi policies in Germany during World War II. The phrase We will not be silent is how they concluded theirfourth resistance flyer.

Our fear of Arabic or more specifically, of Arabs and Muslims remains a problem for some, including those who currently hold some important positions in our government. It is driving anincrease in incidents of hateand bad policies. We hope they will soon get over that irrational fear but until they do, we too will not be silent and are protected by the words of our Constitution and the judges sworn to uphold them.

After all, remember that my friend who was targeted for the two words of Arabic on his T-shirt is protected by the 34 words of Arabic or 45 in English appearing on a billboard near you.

Daily Reads: Former Goldman Sachs President Enjoys New White House Influence; Is Trump Dropping Big Bombs to Boost Popularity?

Margaret Atwood Reflects on The Handmaids Tale

See more here:
The First Amendment Looks Especially Beautiful in Arabic - BillMoyers - BillMoyers.com