Mediaboss Marketing

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

Texas highest criminal court struck down part of a law banning upskirt photos on Wednesday, arguing that photos taken without permission in public are entitled to First Amendment protections. Outlawing improper photography or visual recording, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals panel ruled, would be a violation of federal free-speech rights and a paternalistic effort to regulate the photographers thoughts.

The camera is essentially the photographers pen and paintbrush, Judge Sharon Keller wrote in the courts 8-1 opinion. A persons purposeful creation of photographs and visual recordings is entitled to the same First Amendment protection as the photographs and visual recordings themselves.

According to the Houston Chronicle, the case involved Ronald Thompson, who was charged with 26 counts of improper photography in 2011 after taking underwater pictures of swimsuit-clad children at a San Antonio water park. Thompson challenged the constitutionality of the improper photography ban before his case even went to trial, claiming that a plain reading of the law would place street photographers, entertainment journalists, arts patrons, pep rally attendees and even the harmless eccentric at risk of incarceration.

Prosecutors argued that the laws intent element for example, trying to do something unlawful like taking an illicit photo of someone without their consent should place the expressive activity outside the bounds of First Amendment protection. But, according to the appeals panel, protecting citizens from being made the subject of expressive surreptitious photography unknowingly or without permission is actually the governments way of protecting them from being thought of sexually, which runs the risk of infringing upon other peoples First Amendment rights.

Protecting someone who appears in public from being the object of sexual thoughts seems to be the sort of paternalistic interest in regulating the defendants mind that the First Amendment was designed to guard against, Keller wrote. We also keep in mind the Supreme Courts admonition that the forms of speech that are exempt from First Amendment protection are limited, and we should not be quick to recognize new categories of unprotected expression.

A legal scholar told the Chronicle that the court issued a sound ruling, saying that it cannot be made a crime in the United States to look at someone in public and think lascivious thoughts about them. But such an analysis fundamentally misunderstands the difference between looking at someone in a public space and photographing them without consent. The thinking of lascivious thoughts is irrelevant, because thats not what laws against taking upskirt photos and other illicit creepshots are meant to prevent. They are meant to prevent the violation of peoples physical autonomy in public spaces; they are meant to prevent sexual harassment. Apparently, though, its not harassment when its just a surreptitious photo thats art.

Original post:
Texas court throws out upskirt photo law, because banning creepshots is paternalistic

Growing Together: Mexico and the United States
On September 12, 2014, The McCain Institute co-hosted Growing Together: Mexico and the United States with the Center for American Progress at The First Amendment Forum at The Walter Cronkite...

By: The McCain Institute

See the original post:
Growing Together: Mexico and the United States - Video