Forbes | The First Amendment Red Herring In The Net Neutrality Debate Forbes Since the transition in January, progressive tech policy groups have worked overtime to shield the Obama Administration's net neutrality rules from President Trump's deregulatory scythe. These rules, adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in ... |
Continue reading here:
The First Amendment Red Herring In The Net Neutrality Debate - Forbes
[EDITORS NOTE: The following is a Letter to the Editor, written by a Reader. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The B-Town Blog nor its staff:]
Honarable Mayor Lucy Krakowiak Councilman Austin Bell Burien City Council et al
Please present, for your consideration, at the next city council meeting.
In regards to; Minor Amendments to BMC Titles 9, 17 and 19,esp. 9.105.400 Noise.
(c) Yelling, shouting, whistling or singing on or near the public streets, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. or at any time and place as to unreasonably disturb or interfere with the peace and comfort of owners or possessors of real property.
The text or at any time and place which negates the particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m is a clear violation of the freedom of speech amendment to the constitution of the United States and should be struck.
Also, the term unreasonably disturb has not been clearly defined to decibel level or is the issue content driven? Both The National Endowments of the Arts and The Washington State Arts Commission supports street music and busking. What would New Orleans be without its street music? New York, to San Francisco has its revered street musicians. Seattle has its famous Pike Marketplace musicians. The Burien ordinance had no restrictions on street music. The laws must take into account all the citizens of Burien. This amendment appears to be placating to the comfort of owners or possessors of real property who are not sentient citizens, but merely property owners.
Street music is a demonstration that a city has musical culture and refinement.This change appears to be more than it is and is clear violation of the First Amendment which protects freedom of speech, the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint. and that includes music.
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely, Joe Moldovan
[Have an opinion or concern youd like to share with our ~80,000+ monthly Readers? Please send us your Letter to the Editor via email. Include your full name, please cite your sources, remain civil and pending our careful review well consider publishing it.]
Posted by Scott Schaefer on Friday, March 10, 2017 at 10:03 am Filed under Burien News, Headlines, Letters to the Editor, Opinion, Politics Tagged with Burien, burien city council, city of burien, first amendment, Law, Legal, letter to the editor, news, noise, Opinion, ordinance, Politics
Read the rest here:
LETTER: Resident claims Burien's Noise Ordinance violates First Amendment - The B-Town Blog (blog)
When the group Support Portsmouth Public Art asked Sue Landerman to make a First Amendment sculpture, she knew exactly what it should look like: Virginian-Pilot columnist Ida Kay Jordan's old desk.
The metal and stone sculpture, "Our First Freedom," will be installed on a pillar on the landing in front of the Portsmouth Public Library on Court Street. The artwork will be unveiled on March 22.
"We chose the site in front of the library also as a symbol; much in the way as the lady of justice is blindfolded in front of a courthouse," said Dr. John Joyce, president of the public art group's board. "There would be no library, no books or newspapers, without this amendment. We also believe that freedom of artistic expression ... originates from this same freedom."
Support Portsmouth Public Art uses grants and donations to commission art throughout the city. Barbara Vincent, the group's secretary, said the funds for Landerman's statue came from a Portsmouth Museum and Fine Arts Commission grant and a donation provided by Friends of the Portsmouth Public Library.
"If we didn't have people contributing to the arts for our city, we wouldn't be able to do this," Vincent said.
Landerman, a local artist, did a lot of research before she started the sculpture. She read the Constitution and a letter that George Washington wrote to Congressabout the first amendment.
"Of course, my creativity wheels started spinning," she said.
She pictured longtime friend Jordan's desk. When she was a reporter at a Pilot bureau in Portsmouth, Landerman said, her desk was in the corner and had a typewriter and big stacks of newspapers. That's what the artist wanted to replicate.
"Ida Kay, she's like legendary in Portsmouth," Landerman said.
The sculpture, which is 45 inches tall and just under 4 feet wide, took several months to complete. Landerman enlisted Newport Newssculptor Jon Ware to help construct the desk.
The finished work also features a typewriter, Washington's letter and a stack of papers topped by an issue of Currents,in which Jordan has a recurring column.
"I feel very, very honored," Jordan said, although she was abit embarrassed to have her desk immortalized.
"Oh my goodness, I hope it's not realistic because I'm a mess; a typical old-fashioned reporter."
Landerman said it's the perfect time to honor the First Amendment.
"(It) has certainly been challenged more lately," Vincent said. "We hope that this sculpture will make people think about the value of (the First Amendment) because it's certainly what separates us from other societies."
And the artwork itself beautifies the city, she said.
"Public art has many functions. It creates conversation, it inspires imagination, it can make a city a destination."
Landerman wants this piece of art to inspire action.
"I hope that (viewers) go home, go online, Google the Constitution and read it," she said. "And share it with your children and grandchildren. They'll never forget it."
See original here:
Ida Kay Jordan's former desk at the Pilot immortalized in First Amendment sculpture - Virginian-Pilot
Protecting free speech can be challenging. Consider Bill S2493, passed last June and again last week by the New York state Senate.
The bill would withhold state university funding from any student group calling for a boycott of Israel or other "allied nations." Supporters say it's a way to show solidarity with Israel during a time of increasing anti-Semitism.
To be sure, that's a noble cause. The anti-Semitic acts being committed around the state and nation are reprehensible.
But Bill 2493 quite likely violates the First Amendment. It should be rejected by the Assembly, where it currently is in the Government Operations committee.
The bill specifically would bar state universities, city universities, and community colleges from funding any student organization that promotes, encourages, or permits boycotts against certain nations or permits intolerance or hate speech. Besides Israel, the anti-boycott bill would cover other NATO countries, South Korea, Japan, Ireland and several Pacific and Latin American treaty signatories.
The bill is unconstitutional.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a group founded in 1999 to defend and sustain individual rights at Americas colleges and universities, explains it this way: "The bills language is broad, encompassing both actual boycotts and merely encouraging others to boycott, and would compel New York universities to distribute their funding on a viewpoint-discriminatory basis. That is, New York universities could fund groups that discourage boycotts of Israel (or other allied nations), but not those that encourage it."
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Southworth (2000), held that When a university requires its students to pay fees to support the extracurricular speech of other students, all in the interest of open discussion, it may not prefer some viewpoints to others.
State Sen. Joseph Griffo, R-Rome, voted for defunding student groups; Assemblyman Anthony Brindisi, D-Utica, is co-sponsor of a similar bill in the Assembly.
We condemn this pattern of deplorable threats that has spread fear within the Jewish communities across our state, and New York will not turn a blind eye to such intolerance, Griffo said. We reaffirm our commitment to work with our state and federal law enforcement agencies to hold accountable the people who perpetrate these acts of hate.
No argument. By all means, hold the criminals accountable. Anyone convicted of hate crimes should be punished to the fullest extent allowed by law.
But don't pass bills that violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
That's what this legislation does, and it should not become law.
See the article here:
OUR VIEW: State Bill S2493 means well but likely violates First Amendment - Utica Observer Dispatch
BENTON COUNTY -- - Your children versus the constitution. Facebook versus the First Amendment. It's an argument currently under consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court and involves registered sex offenders.
"The U.S. Currently allows each state to decide whether or not a sex offender can have social media accounts, or access to the internet at all. But sex offenders argue it's their Constitutional right to surf the web."
Shannon Jenkins, Sergeant, Benton County Sheriff's Office, "People are going to complain if they can't have something that they want but the law is the law. It could be a condition of their probation or parole that would not allow a sex offender to have any kind of social media or internet access period."
Until the Supreme Court decides on sex offenders' access to the internet, the Benton County Sheriff's Office has an entire cyber division and super computer that monitors the web to stop sex offenders from getting to your kids.
"We do have a group that's actively out there searching for violations or people that are not supposed to be on certain sites. There's ways of finding offenders that are using other names," said Jenkins.
Jenkins says very few police departments have this type of cyber division. Moreover, the techniques they use to find sex offenders online are so secret that they don't share them with the public.
"We have a sex offender division that that keeps up with each offender and they are looking for any social media accounts...Ghost accounts that have been created by sex offenders. They do this everyday. I think it's a pretty unique division. As far as full time -- we have a full department that is fully invested in nothing but cyber crime," said Jenkins.
The Supreme Court has not decided whether it's a right of free speech for sex offenders to be on social media. Its ruling will likely come in May or June. But the Benton County Sheriff's Office will continue to monitor all internet activity.
More:
Sex Offenders Argue They Have First Amendment to Facebook - KNWA