Mediaboss Marketing

The First Amendment Foundation wants Republican Gov. Rick Scott to now also veto a third part of the 2017-18 budget over concerns of a lack of transparency: a priority bill of Senate President Joe Negron's that includes sweeping reforms affecting Florida's 12 public universities and 28 state colleges.

The formal veto request from the non-profit foundation -- of which the Miami Herald and the Tampa Bay Times are members -- comes after similar requests by the organization, which called on Scott toreject the main budget act (SB 2500) and a controversial $419 million K-12 schools bill (HB 7069).

The higher ed bill (SB 374), like the public schools legislation, was among a dozen or so budget-related policy bills that lawmakers negotiated and finalizedbehind closed doorsin the final days of session.

One aspect, though, drew particular criticism: A previously undiscussed change to benchmarks that make the state's top-tier, research-focuseduniversities eligible for millions of dollars in additional funding.Several lawmakers in the Tampa Bay area said they were blindsided when they learned the change would preventthe University of South Florida from reaching "pre-eminent" status -- and earn the bonus dollars -- as it had been on track to do.

In a letter to Scott, First Amendment Foundation president Barbara Petersen blasted the fact that SB 374was "decided in secrecyand seemingly in direct violation of the right of access to legislative meetings."

"The secretive process precluded any opportunity for public oversight or input on major changes to Floridas to (sic) post-secondary education policy," Petersen wrote. "We are extremely concerned that not only were university and higher education officials shut out, but also legislators from key committees were unaware of changes made to this critically important bill.

Read the foundation's full letter here.

After this post was published, Negron's office offered a statement to the Herald/Times in response to the foundation's criticism of the bill.

Over the 18 months that we have been discussing elements of higher education reform, I am not aware of the First Amendment Foundation ever contacting me personally, any other Senator, or any member of the Senate professional staff to express any concern with this legislation whatsoever," Negron, R-Stuart, said in the statement. " As a result, todays critique is completely ill-informed and inaccurate."

Negron said he has "been discussing many of the reforms contained in Senate Bill 374 since my designation in 2015" and that other ideas in the bill resulted from feedback he received while touring all state universities last year. He argued "every component of the bill was vetted by three Senate committees and amendments by senators were offered and incorporated at every step of the process."

"The only significant change to the legislation that occurred during the conference process was to delay the implementation of a four-year graduation metric for one year so that universities have extra time to plan," he said.

However, several lawmakers on the final day of session complained that they were not consulted and were actually left completely unaware of the change in graduation metrics that would cost USF millions of dollars -- that is, until those lawmakers received urgent callsfrom USF trustees and administrators the weekend before the Legislature voted on the budget package.

I was flat embarrassed, Sen. Tom Lee, R-Thonotosassa, said on the Senate floor on May 8. We should never learn about the impact of what we did from the people were impacting.

Scott on Wednesday received the main budget act (SB 2500), but none of the "conforming" bills -- such as SB 374 or HB 7069 -- have been officially sent to him yet.

Read the original:
First Amendment Foundation also wants veto of higher education bill - Tampabay.com (blog)

Here is reality pregnancy is a choice, other than for the most tragic, horrible (and criminal) of circumstances.

Reality, however, is not always a consideration in this age of American entitlement.

Disease and illness sometimes have nothing to do with choice or responsibility. For example, lung cancer can strike those who have never smoked.

However, other than in the most extreme of circumstances, pregnancy is a choice. And there are those who deem actions surrounding this choice at odds with their religious beliefs.

That is why the Trump administrations decision to consider rolling back a federal mandate for free birth control (part of the boondoggle of Obamacare) is welcome.

The free birth control debate boils down to this the constitutional rights of Americans to remain true to their religious beliefs versus the perceived right of women to have free contraception to prevent the consequences of a personal choice.

Logically, there is little debate as to which side holds up from a constitutional perspective.

And speaking of reality, contrary to what entitlement-supporters like Nancy Pelosi think, no one is denying women access to birth control. This is what Pelosi had to say (from http://www.huffingtonpost.com): The draft rule attempts to tear away womens control over their own private health decisions and put that control in the hands of employers and politicians.

Women can still obtain birth control; they should just pay for it themselves. This may be a foreign concept to some liberals people using their own money to pay for products and services but the concept works.

And we are not implying that employers should not be allowed to include contraception coverage in their health care plans for female employees. If businesses want to provide this benefit, that is fine. The problem is when the federal government forces employers and/or businesses to include this benefit with little to no regard for religious beliefs.

According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that states the federal government can force a private employer to provide insurance coverage for free birth control pills and prohibit someone from the free exercise of their religion.

See more here:
Editorial: Don't erase First Amendment - Amarillo.com

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

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

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