I Think Outside My Box: A Movement for Artistic Expression
Street art may seem like just that, but this community-driven sculpture has become a movement for the First Amendment.
By: Skyler Bouchard
The rest is here:
I Think Outside My Box: A Movement for Artistic Expression - Video
First amendment Interview with Miss Wilkinson
By: marina ruiz
Follow this link:
First amendment Interview with Miss Wilkinson - Video
The First Amendment doesnt stop companies from cracking down on their employees speech. So your boss can ban you from using work e-mail to share funny cat gifs, or organize a bake sale, or mourn the passing of your favorite celebrity. But now your boss cant ban you from using work e-mail to organize a union.
In a party-line 3-2 decision (pdf), the National Labor Relations Board ruled Thursday that employees who use company e-mail to do their jobs can also use it to organize to improve them. That includes trying to form a union as well as other forms of collective action at work. Under the new ruling, companies can still impose some restrictions on the kind of e-mails they allow on their servers (such as no gigantic attachments), and they can still keep tabs on their employees e-mail activities, though they cant single out union activism for scrutiny. But outside of rare exceptions, companies cant prohibit e-mailing your co-workers to try to transform your workplace.
That new decision overturns a precedent from just seven years ago, when Republicans who then had a majority on the labor board wrote (pdf) that it would be kosher to allow e-mail solicitations for the Salvation Army but not for a labor union. The consequences of that error are too serious to permit it to stand, the three Democrats who now hold a majority on the NLRB wrote. Neither the fact that e-mail exists in a virtual (rather than physical) space, nor the fact that it allows conversations to multiply and spread more quickly than face-to-face communication, reduces its centrality to employees discussions, including their [National Labor Relations Act] Section 7-protected discussions about terms and conditions of employment, they argued. If anything, e-mails effectiveness as a mechanism for quickly sharing information and views increases its importance to employee communication.
In siding with employees yesterday, the NLRB rebuffed arguments that allowing pro-union e-mails would increase the risk of computer viruses; that employees dont need to organize over work e-mail because they have Facebook (FB) and Twitter (TWTR); and that forcing companies to let their Internet servers be used to spread pro-union messages they disagree with would violate employers First Amendment rights. E-mail users typically understand that an e-mail message conveys the view of the sender, the majority wrote, not those of the e-mail account provider.
The NLRBs new approach to organizing over work e-mail accounts echoes a series of decisions in recent years that protect workers right to use Facebook and Twitter to talk about how to improve their jobs. For most other speech, companies have free rein to punish their employees for what they say online, even if they do it on their day off. Chatter about banding together and organizing is one of the only things companies are legally prevented from silencingeven if its something they would most like to choke off.
Visit link:
Your Company E-mail: OK for Union Organizing, Not for Bake Sales
Police repression / First Amendment Violations in Buffalo, NY
By: Ignite The Youth
Read the original post:
Police repression / First Amendment Violations in Buffalo, NY - Video
by Maurice Bobb 4 hours ago
The adult entertainment industry has been arguing against a law that would require porn actors to wear condoms, but they suffered another setback when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles rejected their First Amendment argument on Monday (Dec. 15).
Simply put, the adult entertainment industrys position revolves around the idea that condomless sex is part of their right to free speech. Vivid Entertainment and the other plaintiffs in the suit were seeking relief from the 2012 law (Measure B), which was voter-initiated, in response to the widespread transmission of sexually transmitted diseases among porn industry workers.
While the entertainment industry is indeed content-based though, the 9th Circuit ruled that speech that is sexual or pornographic in nature earns an exception to free speech when the primary motivation behind the regulation is to prevent secondary effects like STDs, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
Vivid also argued that condomless sex onscreen is essential because it projects a particular fantasy for viewers, one where sex doesnt have real-life consequences like disease or pregnancy.
But ninth Circuit Judge Susan Graber saw the safe-sex precaution a different way, and explained in part in the ruling:
To determine whether conduct is protected by the First Amendment, we ask not only whether someone intended to convey a particular message through that conduct, but also whether there is a great likelihood that the message would be understood by those who viewed it. Here, we agree with the district court that, whatever unique message Plaintiffs might intend to convey by depicting condomless sex, it is unlikely that viewers of adult films will understand that message. So condomless sex is not the relevant expression for First Amendment purposes; instead, the relevant expression is more generally the adult films erotic message.
The federal courts decision means that the law requiring porn actors wear condoms during their onscreen expressions doesnt conflict with their First Amendment rights.
Outside of the legal ramifications of the ruling and the effect it will have on the porn industrys fanbase, the question we have to admit to wondering about is: Did the justices have to actually watch porn to rule on this matter?
What do you think? Should condomless sex be protected under the First Amendment?
Follow this link:
Los Angeles Court Says Condom-less Sex Isnt Protected Free Speech