Mediaboss Marketing

It is Easter Sunday, and I cannot sit here on this most holy of Christian holidays without talking about the separation of church and state. More specifically, the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer and actions taken by our governor in an attempt to sway the court in favor of Trinity Lutheran.

For those of you unfamiliar with the case, here is the short summary: The Missouri Department of Natural Resources has a program that provides chopped-up used tire rubber to non-profits to help make playgrounds safer for the kids through a grant process. In 2012 Trinity Lutheran Church preschool made application for such a grant, and though "qualified," were denied based on Missouri constitutional law.

"That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship."

Trinity Lutheran is suing on First Amendment grounds. The guiding principle of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause has been made clear in case law and in the writings of those who helped draft the First Amendment to our Constitution that every person has the right to worship the way they feel is correct and the state will not interfere or support any established religion.

According to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, "While the preschool has an open admissions policy, it functions as a self-described 'ministry of Trinity Lutheran Church.'" The DNR believed that because Trinity Lutheran is a religious institution and they expound religious teachings as part of the daily instruction at the preschool, allowing the grant would be in violation of Article 1,Section 7.

Trinity Lutheran's position was that the position taken by the DNR is in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution more specifically, the Establishment Clause. They enlisted the Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious right-wing legal counsel, to represent them in this case.

The alliance claims that 14 other Missouri 501(c)(3) non-profits were awarded the grant for their playgrounds and that Trinity Lutheran, also a 501(c)(3) non-profit institution and otherwise qualified for the grant, was unfairly excluded from the program.

The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, Jeffrey Mittman,said of the case: "Its about settled constitutional law that protects individuals rights to practice their religion from government interference and ensures that tax payers are not forced to support any specific religion or religion over non religion."

Two federal courts have already ruled against the church. This week the case will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, including the newly confirmed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. It will be his first test as a justice to see if he will follow longstanding precedent established by the court or arrive at some other position.

We know that he sided with the religious institutions in two other high profile cases: Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and Little Sisters of the Poor v. Burwell.

Here's the rub. Last week, Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens issued a directive that allowed "religious organizations to apply for state Department of Natural Resources grants," and in turn the DNR is to consider such applications without prejudice. This appears to be an attempt to circumvent the state's long-established constitutional position and the First Amendment. In other words, it's an attempt to influence the court in its deliberations.

Former Missouri Supreme Court Justice Mike Wolff believes it does. He told St. Louis Public Radio that because of Greitens' directive, the court may have nothing to decide, seeing that the position of the state has been reversed.

Nothing can be further from the truth. The governor cannot change the state Constitution simply with a wave of his pen.

This is not a question of anti-Christian sentiment. I am sure that the DNR would have come to the same conclusion if the application came from a Muslim or Jewish preschool that includes the teaching of religious principles as part of the curriculum.

This is a question of state constitutional law concerning an amendment that is clear and direct: There is to be no action by the state to financially support a religious institution.

Original post:
DAVID ROSMAN: Supreme Court must uphold the First Amendment - Columbia Missourian

The 15th annual First Amendment Dayswill take place Wednesday through Friday to celebrate what is arguably the most revered amendment enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.

The First Amendment guarantees five natural rights to the American citizen. It protects freedom of speech and expression, keeps the government from establishing religion and likewiseprotects the free practice of one's religious beliefs. It ensures a free and openpress, thefreedom of association and freedom to petition the government.

Each right is regarded as an integral part of a free Americansociety.

These rights are not onlyestablishedin law,forbidding government infringement, but arealso an ideal to strive toward in widersociety.First Amendment Days celebrate those rights and freedoms.

Events will begin Wednesday with "Depth and Dialog Sessions." Discussion topics will range from "Free Speech vs. Hate Speech," "Free Speech considerations for Faculty and Staff," "Diversity and Inclusion and the First Amendment" and "Think Like a Journalist."

The day will close with "Freedom Sings!" celebrating provocative music.

Festivities will continue Thursday with the "Democalypse March" and "Feast on the First."

Closing the night, keynote speaker Glenn Smith will speak on the importance of individual journalists and news outletsexposing falsehoods, speaking the truth and giving a voice to those who would otherwise wouldn't have one in a time when news is hard to trust and many feel unrepresented.

First Amendment Days 2017 will close with the First Amendment Teaching Workshop seminar on Friday, where faculty and staff ofuniversitiesand high schools will be shown new ways to better teach their students about the value and importance of the First Amendment.

Read more:
First Amendment Day arrives at Iowa State | News | iowastatedaily.com - Iowa State Daily

A bad review on Yelp is an anathema to a business. No one wants to get trashed online. But the First Amendment protects both the reviewers opinion and Yelps right to publish it. A California appeals court ran roughshod over the First Amendment when it ordered Yelp to comply with an injunction to take down speech without giving the website any opportunity to challenge the injunctions factual basis. The case is on appeal to the California Supreme Court, and EFF filed an amicus brief asking the court to overturn the lower courts dangerous holding.

The case, Hassell v. Bird, is procedurally complicated. A lawyer, Dawn Hassell, sued a former client, Ava Bird, for defamation in California state court over a negative Yelp review. Bird never responded to the lawsuit, so the trial court entered a default judgment against her. The courtat Hassells requestnot only ordered Bird to remove her own reviews, but also ordered Yelp to remove themeven though Yelp was never named as a party to the suit. (If this kind of abuse of a default judgment sounds familiar, thats not a coincidence; it seems to be increasingly commonand its a real threat to online speech.)

Yelp challenged the order, asserting that Hassell failed to prove that the post at issue was actually defamatory, that Yelp could not be held liable for the speech pursuant to the Communication Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. 230 (Section 230), and that Yelp could not be compelled to take down the post as a non-party to the suit. The trial court rejected Yelps arguments and refused to recognize Yelps free speech rights as a content provider. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial courts decision, holding that Yelp could be forced to remove the supposedly defamatory speech from its website without any opportunity to argue that the reviews were accurate or otherwise constitutionally protected.

This decision is frankly just wrongand for multiple reasons. Neither court seemed to understand that the First Amendment protects not only authors and speakers, but also those who publish or distribute their words. Both courts completely precluded Yelp, a publisher of online content, from challenging whether the speech it was being ordered to take down was defamatoryi.e., whether the injunction to take down the speech could be justified. And the court of appeals ignored its special obligation, pursuant to California law, to conduct an independent examination of the record in First Amendment cases.

Both courts also seemed to completely ignore the U.S. Supreme Courts clear holding that issuing an injunction against a non-party is a constitutionally-prohibited violation of due process.

EFFalong with the ACLU of Northern California and the Public Participation Projecturged the California Supreme Court to accept the case for review back in August 2016. The court agreed to review the case in September, and we just joined an amicus brief urging the court to overrule the problematic holding below.

Our briefdrafted by Jeremy Rosen of Horvitz & Levy and joined by a host of other organizations dedicated to free speechexplains to the California Supreme Court that the First Amendment places a very high bar on speech-restricting injunctions. A default judgment simply cannot provide a sufficient factual basis for meeting that bar, and the injunction issued against Yelp in this case was improper. We also explained that the injunction violated clear Supreme Court case law and Yelps due process rights, and that the injunction violates Section 230, which prohibits courts from holding websites liable for the speech of third parties.

As Santa Clara University law school professor Eric Goldman noted in a blog post about the case, the appeals courts decision opens up a host of opportunities for misuse and threatens to rip a hole in Section 230s protections for online speechprotections that already seem to be weakening. If not overturned, as the already pervasive misuse of default judgments teaches, this case will surely lead to similar injunctions that infringe on publishers free speech rights without giving them any notice or opportunity to be heard. The California Supreme Court cannot allow this.

See the original post here:
EFF to California Supreme Court: Website Owners Have a First Amendment Right to Defend Content on Their Platform - EFF

GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCT) East Carolina University has come under fire from some who feel as if their First Amendment rights are being violated.

The First Amendment discussion intensified in the Fall after some members of the ECU marching band knelt during the national anthem at a football game. Since then, some students have spoken out about free speech on campus.

On Monday, controversial figure Tomi Lahren spoke to a sold out crowd of 700 people in Hendrix Theatre. The university made the decision to exclude media during the event, prompting more concerns about First Amendment rights.

Later, ECU released a statement on the incident saying, Contracts for speakers do not allow for recordings which is why we asked to have the media availability. Not having media in some events is not unusual at ECU especially for events in Hendrix because its a smaller venue. We did tickets because the venue is small. Our larger venue, Wright was already booked for this date. This event was sold out and requires a valid student ID and ticket to enter.

Lahren was speaking about the importance of free speech to the crowd.

Free speech isnt just saying what you want to say, its also hearing things you dont want to hear, and thats okay, she said before the event.

But some students feel as if this may just be the latest example in their rights being infringed on.

Weve been working with ECU since the fall semester to change these policies, said Giovanni Triana, director of ECUs Turning Point USA.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is national group focusing on maintaining, and expanding, individual rights at universities. They rank universities using a red, yellow and green light based on policies relating to individual rights.

ECU was given a yellow light by FIRE, due in large part because students have to get prior permission to assemble, and once permission is granted, are limited in where they can gather.

This really infringes on students rights to free speech because protests and demonstrations are often spontaneous, said Samantha Harris, VP of Police Research for FIRE. You know something happens and part of the message is the immediacy.

Under new regulations set to be released by the university this week, freedoms would be expanded on campus. ECU Provost Ron Mitchelson said one of the changes would deal with prior permission being required to assemble.

Student groups can in fact express themselves at any time, and anywhere on this campus, he said.

Mitchelson said there would be exceptions, especially if the movement turned violent or disrupted classes.

Free speech at universities is also being debated by state lawmakers. A RepublicanHouse Bill would ensure rights of students werent being infringed on.

To read more about FIRE and see how other schools rank, click here.

Read the original post:
Steps being taken to improve First Amendment rights at ECU - WNCT

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