Guy trying to Stop Looters is Brutally Hit in the Face with a Hammer While Protesters Shou
Protesting peacefully is protected under the first amendment; looting and assault is not and.
By: Darlene Ortega
Read more:
Guy trying to Stop Looters is Brutally Hit in the Face with a Hammer While Protesters Shou - Video
A piece of art displayed for less than four hours on the University of Iowa campus has sparked national attention. A seven-foot-tall, sculpted set of Klu Klux Klan robes composed of articles depicting the history of racial tensions in America was on display at the university's free speech zone, the Pentacrest on Dec. 5, inciting outrage across the campus.
Serhat Tanyolacar, a visiting assistant professor at the University of Iowa and artist of the work, said the meaning of the piece was misunderstood.
"The intent was to raise awareness on contemporary issues on racism and create open discussion on those issues," Tanyolacar said.
University of Iowa officials were able to remove the display because Tanyolacar did not acquire the correct permits to display the piece. The university went on to say in a memo that it "considers all forms of racism abhorrent and is deeply committed to the principles of inclusion and acceptance."
"It's hard to start dialogue about something upsetting without showing something upsetting," said Frank LoMonte, executive director of University of Iowa's Student Press Law Center.
LoMonte said the University of Iowa was not in the wrong by removing the artwork due to Tanyolacar's inability to obtain a permit for the work.
"The government does have the ability to enforce reasonable permit conditions, so long as they are not selectively enforcing," LoMonte said.
LoMonte also said it is hard to start a conversation on something considered disturbing without showing something that is itself disturbing. The university was within its rights in removing the statue so long as the permit qualifications were the only reason they removed the piece.
"Picking and choosing who is okay to hate is a violation of First Amendment rights," LoMonte said.
The First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech, does not address hate speech, nor protect citizens against encountering it.
Excerpt from:
Clothed in controversy: Statue sparks First Amendment debate
The Westboro Baptist Church and First Amendment
UNL Journalism 189H project. *Correction: the gentleman at 7:50 actually said "That wouldn #39;t surprise me." Thank you to all of our gracious participants!
By: Zo Hatfield
Here is the original post:
The Westboro Baptist Church and First Amendment - Video
CHICAGO (FOX 32 News) -
A new eavesdropping bill is generating some First Amendment concerns before it even becomes law.
The law will replace the previous one, which was declared unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court. However, some nebulous language is causing concerns among some groups who fear it could have a chilling effect on people videotaping the police.
The law makes it illegal to record any conversation unless everybody in the conversation consents or no one in the conversation has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Well, what does it mean to have a reasonable expectation of privacy? This law doesn't tell you how to know that, said Jacob Huebert, Sr. Attorney with the Liberty Justice Center.
But the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois said those concerns are misguided.
When you see a police officer having an interaction in public, and you can hear what they're saying, you can record it, said Ed Yohnka, Communications Director with the ACLU of Illinois
Yohnka said people who have been marching in the streets of Chicago to vent their frustrations over the Eric Garner death in New York City should not have to worry about recording their interactions with police, or any other public interaction with law enforcement, as long as it's in a public place.
That right was established by the decision issued by the Illinois Supreme Court back in the spring when it ruled the old eavesdropping law was unconstitutional, according to the ACLU.
Yohnka said the new law would put the onus on police officers to take steps to have any private conversations in places where they could clearly expect privacy. He added prosecutors and police need to make it clear to their officers that people do have the right to record them doing their job in public.
They have a right, under the First Amendment, to gather that kind of information, you know to try to redress wrongs, to try to correct a situation, to make a complaint about the actions of a particular public official, Yohnka said.
Continued here:
Illinois eavesdropping legislation focuses on 'private' dialogue
Nov. 25, 2014 front page of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. (Newseum)
Something more than fires and rage has been sparked in the streets of Ferguson. There is a growing awakening and reawakening of hundreds and thousands of protesters to their First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I saw it firsthand as I talked to men and women, young and old, black and white, before and after a grand jury decided not to indict former Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown.
Before this sleepy suburb in my hometown of St. Louis morphed into an international flashpoint for race relations and police tactics in America, for many of the protesters the 45 words in the First Amendment had as much interest or meaning as the Yellow Pages. Now, the First Amendment, like Ferguson, is a rallying cry, a hashtag, ammunition they can use to protect themselves from any government authority that tries to quell their voices.
Voices like Thomas Bradley. The 24-year-old barber works on the stretch of West Florissant Avenue in Ferguson that suffered the most damage. A week before Brown was killed, Bradley said he was physically and verbally harassed by a Ferguson policeman. In the aftermath of Browns death and the grand jurys exoneration of Wilson, Bradley has taken a place beside other young demonstrators on the citys streets.
I didnt know anything at all about the First Amendment, at least not as much as I should have, he said. Now I do. This is not just about Mike Brown but everybody who has ever been abused by the police department.
Voices like 63-year-old Beverly Adams of University City, Mo., who knew about her constitutional rights but hadnt exercised them in years.
I was enraged when [Browns body] was left out in the street for four and a half hours, she said. I started marching on Canfield, the street where Brown died. Thats where I always go, by myself. I think when all is said and done, there will be a special law in his name against police brutality.
Voices like Ericka Hughes, 42, a business owner in Jennings, Mo., who made some of the T-shirts worn in the Ferguson protests. She took to the streets within the first few days of Browns shooting.
This is not the first time I have marched for a cause, she said. Browns death hit so close to home in so many ways. I have nephews and cousins and stepsons. This affects everybody.
The rest is here:
#Ferguson, #FirstAmendment