Larry Flynt and the First Amendment
The controversial creator of Hustler Magazine, Larry Flynt, gives his views on the First Amendment and free speech, in conversation with Newseum Institute Fi...
By: Newseum
Read the original:
Larry Flynt and the First Amendment - Video
Let me start out by admitting my bias. I'm a strong supporter of the First Amendment. With very few exceptions (like child sex abuse images and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), I believe that free speech is an absolute right for people of all ages and it makes me feel good when I learn that others, especially young people, tend to agree.
The reason I love it when young people support free speech is because they are our future.
If people grow up believing in something, they're more likely to continue to hold those beliefs as they get older. So, I'm especially pleased that high school students are even more supportive of free speech than adults, according to a new survey from the Knight Foundation.
The foundation conducted a national study of 10,463 high school students and 588 teachers to coincide with the celebration of Constitution Day, which took place Wednesday. Several of the questions were identical to those of a Newseum Institute survey of adults, which enabled researchers to compare results across age groups.
What the study found is that students are more supportive of free speech rights than adults, with the heaviest consumers of social media showing the strongest support. The study found that only 24 percent of students agreed that the "First Amendment goes too far" compared to 38 percent of adults who responded to similar questions. This is a major shift from most previous surveys such as in 2006 when 45 percent of students felt that way compared to 23 percent of adults.
The study also found that today's students are more likely to agree that people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions with 88 percent agreeing this year compared to 76 percent in 2007 and 83 percent in 2004. There is also increased agreement that "newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of a story," up from 51 percent in 2004 to 61 percent this year.
I was fascinated by the finding that students who more frequently use social media are more likely to support people's right to express unpopular opinions. Among those who use social media more than once a day, 62 percent support other people's rights to express unpopular opinions compared to 54 percent who use it just once a day or several times a week and 49 percent of youth who use social media weekly or less often. More than 7 in 10 students who read news online more than once a day support other people's right of speech, compared to 53 percent of those who read online news weekly.
Of course, correlations don't prove causation. There could be other factors at play, but the fact that social media use does correlate to first amendment support is encouraging, considering how many young people are using social media.
The study looked at such issues as free speech, surveillance and privacy. There is also a correlation between studying about First Amendment rights and support for free speech. Since 2004, the percentage of students who say they have taken First Amendment classes increased from 58 percent to 70 percent, according to the report.
In an interview, Eric Newton, senior adviser to the president of the Knight Foundation, said that interviews with journalism faculty confirmed that "what's really important is news and media digital literacy being taught more significantly in high school. Just mentioning the First Amendment in a social studies class isn't' enough." He said that "the flip side of freedom and responsibility is that you need to not ban digital media but actually teach students all about digital media in school. How to create it, how to navigate it and how to use it."
Continue reading here:
Magid: High school kids show strong support for First Amendment
In honor of Constitution Day on Wednesday, Sept. 17, University of Texas at Austin School of Law Distinguished Teaching Professor David Rabban 71 gave a lecture at Olin Library titled Free Speech, Academic Freedom, and the American University. The Friends of the Wesleyan Library sponsored the lecture, with Library Assistant Jennifer Hadley spearheading the eventsorganization.
The talk centered on the First Amendment rights of students, professors, and universities as institutions. Rabban led the audience through the history of legal cases on free speech and academic freedom from the1950s.
Rabban addressed the hotbed issues surrounding the First Amendment today. He allotted a significant amount of time to the recent case of Professor Steven Salaitas lack of consideration for a job at the University of Illinois following several anti-Israel posts on his Twitteraccount.
Furthermore, Rabban covered the constitutional validity of university-implemented speech codes, student and professorial expressions of political affiliations, and the extent to which the university as an institution may control when First Amendment rights apply to itsstudents.
In an interview with The Argus, Rabban explained why he chose this particular subject for a Constitution Daylecture.
I thought that Wesleyan students would have interest in free speech topics, Rabban said. I wanted to recognize how many important cases dealing with First Amendment issues have arisen in American universities. The university has been an important place for Constitutional debate and litigation. I also thought that the notion of First Amendment freedom as differentiated from the First Amendment in general might be an interesting topic for the audience to thinkabout.
Rabban began his talk with a staggering list of cases in which the First Amendment rights of a student, professor, or university were the subjects of major legal contention. In this historical dialogue, he alluded to specific legal cases, including state legislatures compelling universities to include discussions of creation science in classroom settings, whether or not universities can refuse to reappoint a professor fired on the grounds that he was a communist, and a universitys right to fire a professor on the grounds of specific works that zepublished.
Rabban emphasized that the First Amendment to the Constitution applies only to stateaction.
I think that many Americans believe that the First Amendment protects citizens against private action as well as state action, Rabban said. But this common belief is incorrect. Private violations on speech do not violate constitutional rights. Translated into the university context, private universities, including their faculty and students, as well as public universities, are protected against the government. Wesleyan, as well as the University of Connecticut, can obtain relief from legislation that violates the FirstAmendment.
Rabban explained that when university trustees or administrators take action against faculty or students, the First Amendment applies only at state universities. Therefore, Rabban pointed out that faculty and students at the University cannot make First Amendment claims against the University and the Board of Trustees. Rabban further acknowledged that this formal constitutional distinction does not always apply in practice because private universities can voluntarily accept the limitations that the First Amendment imposes on publicuniversities.
See the original post here:
Annual Constitution Day Lecture Addresses Student First Amendment Rights
With his First Amendment challenge pending before the Florida Supreme Court, GOP political consultant Pat Bainter issued a rare statement calling out the court after oral arguments today in which he urged the court to keep secret his emails related to redistricting.
Bainter is now suggesting that the "institutional integrity of the court is at stake" in how they rule.
Here's the statement:
Statement on behalf of Pat Bainter, president and owner of Data Targeting, Inc.
Todays Supreme Court hearing is the culmination of a legal assault and press sensationalism as to whether or not I, a private citizen, have the right to petition my government without fear of a political inquisition into my private matters. After today's hearing, it is clear to me that, as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court, Amendments 5 & 6 are unconstitutional because they criminalize political speech based upon its content.One only need to read theAmendments to see that even its authors knewthey could not stifle a citizen's free speech when they applied the Amendments only to the Legislature, the Amendment title reading Standards for the Legislature in redistricting.
The very institutional integrity of the Florida Supreme Court is at stake in this matter.
The Democratic Party has poured tens of millions of dollars into this legal assault. The Democrats have manipulated a more than willing legal system to coerce me by legal threat to reveal my private internal political opinions, analysis, expertise and even trade secrets, even though I am neither elected to office nor employed by the Legislature.
Read more:
GOP consultant threatens court that its 'intrigity is at stake' over his case
Im delighted to report that yesterday the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals handed down Ex parte Thompson (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 17, 2014) (8-to-1, with Judge Meyers dissenting without opinion). This was a UCLA First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic case, in which my student Samantha Booth and I wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. (Many thanks again, by the way, to Cam Barker (YetterColeman LLP) for all his help as local counsel.)
The courts opinion is a victory for the right to take photographs in public even when a statute barring such photograph is limited to photography of people without their consent and with intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire, but of course equally when the photographs lack such an intention. The court struck down the Texas improper photography statute, which read,
A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records a visual image of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room:
(A) without the other persons consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.
Heres a quick summary of the courts reasoning:
1. Taking photographs in public places is generally constitutionally protected, because photographs regardless of their artistic merits are generally protected expression, and the act that creates the end product is likewise protected:
The camera is essentially the photographers pen or paintbrush. Using a camera to create a photograph or video is like applying pen to paper to create a writing or applying brush to canvas to create a painting. In all of these situations, the process of creating the end product cannot reasonably be separated from the end product for First Amendment purposes. This is a situation where the regulation of a medium inevitably affects communication itself. We conclude that a persons purposeful creation of photographs and visual recordings is entitled to the same First Amendment protection as the photographs and visual recordings themselves.
2. This First-Amendment-protected conduct doesnt lose its protection even when the photographer is intending to arouse or gratify sexual desires:
See the original post:
Volokh Conspiracy: Texas highest criminal court strikes down improper photography statute