Atheists attack Ground Zero cross
Godless group takes token of peace to court Watch the video about Religion, Personal Freedoms, 911, Bill Of Rights, Christianity, Controversies, First Amendment, National Interest, Values, Edge, US.
By: Fox News
View post:
Atheists attack Ground Zero cross - Video
Ministers face fines, jail for balking at same-sex marriage
Are they guilty of discrimination or protected by the First Amendment? Watch the video about Shannon Bream, Happening Now, Personal Freedoms, Religion, Christianity, Controversies, First ...
By: Fox News
Read the original post:
Ministers face fines, jail for balking at same-sex marriage - Video
A New Jersey federal court allows the lawsuit brought by Paul Nichols, a Bergen Dispatch reporter who wants to interview one of the litigants to go forward, and seems sympathetic to Nicholss First Amendment argument, though the case is still at a preliminary stage and no declaratory judgment has been issued. Here are some excerpts from that opinion, Nichols v. Sivilli (D.N.J. Dec. 19, 2014):
Plaintiff Paul Nichols is a reporter for the Bergen County Dispatch who brings a First Amendment challenge to a gag order issued by Judge Nancy Sivilli in Myronova v. Malhan, a divorce and custody suit pending in the family division of the Essex County Superior Court. Nichols wishes to interview one of the parties in Myronova v. Malhan, but is unable to because the Gag Order restrains all parties to the litigation from discussing any aspect of the divorce proceedings.
In order to understand Nichols First Amendment challenge, the Court first must provide a brief overview of the divorce proceedings that are the subject of the Gag Order. In 2011, a New Jersey court granted full child custody to Alina Myronova and stripped all custody rights from her husband, Surrender Malhan, after Myronova alleged that Malhan was an unfit parent.
According to the [Complaint], the state court stripped Malhan of his custody rights on a mere two hours notice without affording him an opportunity to refute Myronovas allegations. For example, the court prohibited Malhan from cross examining Myronova or presenting physical evidence such as bank records or video recordings that would further demonstrate his parental fitness. The [Complaint] alleges that after the 2011 proceeding, Myronova retained sole custody of the children for sixteen months until she agreed to joint custody in June 2012; during that time, Malhan was never granted a plenary hearing.
Malhan, along with five other parents, subsequently filed a class action lawsuit in this District that is currently pending before the Honorable Freda Wolfson: Edelglass, et al., v. New Jersey, et al.. The class action suit alleges that the New Jersey family court system fails to provide adequate due process rights to parents in child custody proceedings. In February 2014, a New Jersey affiliate of a major news broadcasting company interviewed Malhan and two other Edelglass plaintiffs regarding their experiences in family court and their allegations that the family court deprived them of their constitutional rights. In response, Myronova initiated proceedings against Malhan, which resulted in Judge Sivilli entering the Gag Order. The Gag Order reads, in pertinent part:
All parties are hereby enjoined and restrained without prejudice from speaking with, appearing for an interview, or otherwise discussing, the parties marriage, their pending divorce, the within litigation, or the parties children or making any derogatory or negative statements about the other parties to any reporters, journalists, newscasters, or other agents/employees of newspapers or other media outlets on the grounds that it is not in the best interest of the children to have the parties divorce litigation discussed in a public forum or to have public disparaging statements made about any party by the other party.
In addition to restricting their ability to discuss their divorce or related litigation with other individuals, the Gag Order also prohibits the parties from conveying such information on social media. The Gag Order also instructs Malhan to remove all divorce-related information from his blog.
In May 2014, Malhan filed for a temporary restraining order in Edelglass seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Gag Order. In a May 8, 2014 Order, Judge Wolfson expressed her view that the Gag Order raises serious constitutional concerns and that Judge Sivilli failed to meaningfully weigh Plaintiffs First Amendment rights. She nonetheless denied Malhans motion because the relief he sought was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine [which limits federal intervention in state proceedings -EV]. Malhan suffered another defeat when the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey denied his application for an interlocutory appeal of the Gag Order.
After Malhan failed to enjoin enforcement of the Gag Order, Nichols filed the instant action in this Court.2 Nichols wishes to interview Malhan about his experiences in family court, which according to Nichols, are a matter of public interest. Nichols contends that that he is unable to interview Malhan because the Gag Order restricts Malhan from saying anything that relates to his divorce proceedings.
The [Complaint] alleges that Judge Sivilli entered the Gag Order without conducting any meaningful weighing of the First Amendment interests at stake. According to Nichols, Judge Sivilli did not hold a plenary hearing and made no specific findings as to why a gag order was required in this particular case; instead, she issued the Gag Order based on a generalized finding that publicity in family court is not in the best interests of children. Nichols seeks a declaratory judgment that the Gag Order is unconstitutional .
Go here to read the rest:
Volokh Conspiracy: First Amendment challenge to broad gag order on family court litigants
Do New York City police officers have a First Amendment right to protest Mayor Bill de Blasio?
In a CBS interview Sunday, Police Commissioner William Bratton said it was very inappropriate for officers to turn their backs on the mayor at a funeral for one of two slain officers.
While theres no indication that any officer who participated in the symbolic rebuke of Mayor Bill de Blasio will face sanction, some commentators have suggested that the protesting officers should be punished.
The speech rights of public employees can often be a legal gray area. The situation involving the back-turning cops is no exception, say legal experts.
The answer is nobody knows, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told Law Blog.
Mr. Volokh said he thinks the police officers were speaking as citizens not as part of their official duties about matters of public concern. Courts have said government employees have the right to speak freely as private citizens on matters of public concern, with some exceptions.
Courts also consider the potential of speech to disrupt government functions. Mr. Volokh said the value of the speech would have to be weighed against its disruptive potential.
Its potentially disruptive because it undermines the authority of management, he said.
Dennis R. Nolan, a retired labor law professor at the University of South Carolina, said he doesnt think its clear whether the police officers who turned their backs were speaking as citizens or acting in an official capacity. Organized activity by [uniformed] police officers mourning the deaths of their colleagues could look like it was work-connected, he said.
The Supreme Court has laid down broad guidelines for looking at the speech rights of public employees.
Go here to see the original:
Do NYC Cops Have a First Amendment Right to Protest De Blasio?
Originally Published: December 29, 2014 3:01 AMModified: December 30, 2014 5:48 AM
Update: Troy-based Emagine Entertainment Inc. on Monday offered details about its free showing of "The Interview." Up to 5,000 free tickets will be given on a first-come, first-serve basis beginning Dec. 31 at its Canton location. Emagine asks that guests attending a free showing make a donation to The Fallen and Wounded Soldiers Fund.
The controversy of The Interview is anything but over.
Chafing from Sony Pictures Entertainments plan, now, to release the movie at select theaters across the country and simultaneously on demand, as well as hacker attempts to interfere with Americans free speech, locally based Emagine theaters plans to show the movie for free.
Troy-based Emagine Entertainment Inc. cant open the picture this week, as the State Theater in Ann Arbor plans to do on Christmas Day, since its already made commitments for its movie screens to show other pictures, said Co-Founder and Chairman Paul Glantz.
But we plan to show it beginning a week from today at Emagine Canton free of charge.
We do not and cannot support simultaneous release with video on demand...it undercuts our industry, said Glantz, who is also President and CEO of Troy-based Proctor Financial Inc.
Those whove invested literally billions of dollars worldwide in building theaters believe they should have a unique and discreet ability to show first-run films.
Emagine will lose about $15,000 a week at five showings per day, Glantz said. And it will still pay Sony the same royalties it would if it were charging people to see the movie.
The bottom line is well do this as a public service to protect the First Amendment, he said.
Read the rest here:
Emagine plans free showings of 'The Interview' as a First Amendment statement