Mediaboss Marketing

GREEN COVE SPRINGS, Fla. -

A warning Tuesday night to Clay County leaders from their attorney. End the ban on adult establishments or face a pricey lawsuit.

The Clay County Planning and Zoning Department held a meeting to discuss ways that would allow sex shops to open while keeping residents happy.

The county placed a ban on all forms of adult businesses in 1985. County attorney Mark Scruby told a heated crowd that if that ban remained in place, the county could face a First Amendment lawsuit from someone trying to open such a business because it would violated their constitutional right to free speech.

Many people at the meeting did not agree.

"I'm a mom and I don't think that type of industry brings positive growth," said Joie McGee, a resident who founded the Concerned Citizens Against Adult Entertainment. "The county has stated this will increase crime rate and decrease property taxes. So, we're just very concerned as to why they think it's necessary to make these initiatives.

The initiatives are a three-pronged approach county officials would have to propose to regulating adult businesses in Clay County.

Scruby said the first would be a regulatory ordinance which would regulate how a sex-themed business would operate. The second is a public nudity ordinance which would restrict public nudity. The third is a locational ordinance that would regulate where adult entertainment establishments would be allowed to locate.

One county planner worked along with Scruby and recommended 28 sites that are just south of Fleming Island on U.S. Highway 17, to be designated for these shops.

Clay County Commissioner Ronnie Robinson disagrees with ending the ban.

Continued here:
County could face First Amendment lawsuit

Twitter has filed a lawsuit againt the US Department of Justice yesterday, alleging that the restrictions on what the company can report publicly about the governments national security requests for user data violate the firms First Amendment rights.

In the suit filed in the US District Court Twitter argued that the current rules prevent it from even stating that it has not received any national security requests for user information.

Twitter said the restrictions violate the Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

Tech companies have sought to clarify their relationships with law enforcement and spying agencies in the wake of revelations by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden that outlined the depth of US spying activities.

Twitter's lawsuit follows an agreement between companies like Google and Microsoft with the government about court orders they receive related to surveillance.

The agreement freed the companies to disclose the number of orders they received, but only in broad ranges. A company that offers email services, for example, would be able to say it received between zero and 999 orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court during a six-month period for email content belonging to someone outside the United States.

"The US government has taken the position that service providers like Twitter are even prohibited from saying that they have received zero national security requests, or zero of a particular type of national security request," Twitter said in its complaint.

The Justice Department responded to the lawsuit with a statement on how it has worked with other companies.

Earlier this year, the government addressed similar concerns raised in a lawsuit brought by several major tech companies," Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Pierce said. "There, the parties worked collaboratively to allow tech companies to provide broad information on government requests while also protecting national security."

The American Civil Liberties Union praised Twitter's action, saying in a statement that the company was doing the right thing by "challenging this tangled web of secrecy rules and gag orders."

More here:
Twitter sues US Justice for right to disclose surveillance requests

Twitter has launched a suit against the US Government. The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court of Northern California, demands that Twitter's full transparency report about law enforcement requests be published in its entirety, and that restrictions placed on what may be disclosed are illegal under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Conditions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) prevent companies from disclosing exact numbers of requests it receives in anything but the broadest ranges. Twitter not only wants to disclose more specific numbers, but also wishes to be able to say that they received none, if applicable. The company filed its report, and wanted input on what the government considered classified in July -- in September, the US Government declared that "information contained in the [transparency] report is classified and cannot be publicly released." Twitter disagrees.

Vice President of Twitter Legal Ben Lee wrote that "It's our belief that we are entitled under the First Amendment to respond to our users' concerns and to the statements of U.S. government officials by providing information about the scope of U.S. government surveillance -- including what types of legal process have not been received. We should be free to do this in a meaningful way, rather than in broad, inexact ranges."

Lee goes on to say that "the Defendants' position forces Twitter either to engage in speech that has been preapproved by government officials or else to refrain from speaking altogether." Additionally, the Twitter-filed complaint says that the restrictions are "an unconstitutional prior restraint" and "government viewpoint discrimination" against Twitter's right to discuss what it has received for legal process claims.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, also serving California, is examining the same issue from a different complainant this week. A ruling may not come in this week's similar case for some time.

Justice Department spokeswoman Emily Pierce said of the suit that "earlier this year, the government addressed similar concerns raised in a lawsuit brought by several major tech companies." Referring to the current system of transparency, Pierce claimed that "the parties worked collaboratively to allow tech companies to provide broad information on government requests while also protecting national security."

Twitter FISA complaint to US District Court

By Electronista Staff

Read more:
Twitter rails at transparency report conditions, files suit against US

first amendment bitches
http://youtu.be/ykljw6bFPgo http://youtu.be/twAzQ2Kjq78 http://youtu.be/rcil3XSW8Kk http://youtu.be/jZ95i7PE-kA.

By: Gary Wishon

Go here to see the original:
first amendment bitches - Video

Religious Liberty, 1st Amendment Rights Unlawful Searches: A look ahead for the 2014 Supreme Court
Will the Supreme Court grant religious rights to prison inmates? Does the first amendment freedom of speech protect you from posting violent language on Facebook? Are police subject to the...

By: AnneElise Goetz

See the original post:
Religious Liberty, 1st Amendment Rights & Unlawful Searches: A look ahead for the 2014 Supreme Court - Video