Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

Austin Peay State University dean, Bowling Green professor release new book on First-Amendment rights in schools – Clarksville Online

Clarksville, TN In December 1965, five Des Moines teenagers were kicked out of school for wearing armbands. The students slipped on black fabric strips that morning to protest the Vietnam War, and once their suspension made headlines, a few legal experts wondered about the teenagers freedom of speech.

A long court battle ensued, with the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case eventually reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.In a landmark 1969 decision, the court ruled in favor of the students, with Justice Abe Fortas writing in his majority opinion, It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.More than 50 years later, with the First Amendment once again inspiring contentious political debates, a new book co-edited by Dr. Prentice Chandler, dean of Austin Peay State Universitys Eriksson College of Education, is taking a fresh look at the rights of students and teachers in the 21st century.

At the Schoolhouse Gate: Stakeholder Perceptions of First Amendment Rights and Responsibilities in U.S. Public Schools, is now available from Information Age Publishing as part of its Teaching and Learning Social Studies series.

It is clear that in order to prepare children for participation in a democracy, democratic ideals and practices should be a part of their education, Chandler said. It is not an add-on to democratic education; it is democratic education. And, this education unfolds in the context of political upheaval, racial inequity and economic uncertainty. The mission of our schools is to prepare young people for entry into the world as itisnot the one that we wish existed.

Under Chandlers leadership, the Eriksson College of Education has earned a national reputation for its innovation in teacher preparation and recruitment. In January, Austin Peay State University and the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System began offering the first federally registered apprenticeship program for teaching in the country.

Dr. Nancy C. Patterson, Bowling Green State University (BGSU) professor of education, co-edited the book with Chandler. Patterson, the recipient of BGSUs 2020 Professor of Teaching Excellence Award, is known on her campus as a staunch advocate for social studies education who seeks to constantly improve the middle childhood and young adult education curricula.

Her research focuses on democratic classroom and school pedagogies and structures, along with academic freedom and equity in assessment regimes.

The book is divided into three sections Foundations, Case Studies of Rights in Schools and Choices to Act and it features essays from leading education and legal scholars.

At the Schoolhouse Gate is available through the Information Age Publishing website or at Amazon.com.

Read the original post:
Austin Peay State University dean, Bowling Green professor release new book on First-Amendment rights in schools - Clarksville Online

Political ads are allowed to mislead you and are often designed to do so – WRAL News

By Dan Haggerty, WRAL anchor/reporter

Election season is upon us with the primary election set for May 17 and the general election held on Nov. 8.

With it, comes all kinds of advertisements from candidates running for political office.

Earlier this month, I received an email from a WRAL News viewer named James.

Hey Dan, Im a big fan of what you do with your pieces, James wrote. It would be nice to some of us viewers if WRAL could give us a 10 second heads up that a political ad is imminent so we can hit the MUTE button.

North Carolina famously loves its political ads. Sometimes, we run more than any other state, which is ironic considering many of us dont really care for them.

Los Angeles Times staff reporter Noah Bierman published a story in October 2020 entitled Everyone is sick of watching: Political ads overwhelm North Carolina.

As we approach next months primaries political ad spending has surged here boosted by outside groups which reminded my WRAL executive producer Ashley Talley of one of her favorite political ads.

The advertisement reads: Don't let out-of-state money buy your vote. Guess where the money came to pay for that ad? Out of state! Its actually kind of funny until you remember youre being manipulated by people vying for power.

To clarify for any reader, listener or viewer, here is something that I hope you already know. Political ads are allowed to mislead you. In fact, many of them are designed to do just that.

I recently met with Raleigh-based attorney Michael Weisel whose job it is to review ads before theyre published.

I asked Weisel the following question: Would you say that people making these ads often try to push the language as far as they possibly can before breaking the law?

Well, of course, breaking the law is sort of a fuzzy term too, right? Weisel said. Theres not a statute that says, Thou shall not lie.' Maybe exaggeration is an appropriate way of saying something.

I also asked Weisel whether people flat out lie in political ads

Well, certainly, they can and they have, he said.

When people have a problem with the lies, its explained in the First Amendment, in which free speech is protected. A candidate has free speech, meaning they can say anything they want.

However, if they say something thats factually and provably untrue, they can be sued in civil court for slander, but thats extremely expensive and very hard to prove.

Like Weisel said, Its fuzzy territory.

Free speech in general is not entirely free, like in ads. For instance, Coca-Cola cant say its new product dubbed Coke Eternal will make you live forever. This would be an example of deceptive language, which is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. Its called Truth in Advertising.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law Professor William Marshall explained why speech is regulated when someone is selling products for profit and not someone selling ideas for power.

Political speech is different than commercial speech, Marshall said. Sometimes, figuring out the line between the two, as you can figure, might not always be that easy, but there is a basic difference in the way the court views restrictions on political speech as opposed to commercial speech.

Here we are, back to square one. Politicians can say whatever they want and youre tired of hearing it what can we do?

Another viewer named Les wrote an email to me.

Hey Dan, please work with the producers of WRAL to stop all these negative political ads, Les wrote.

Ah, the greedy TV stations. Why dont we just stop playing the political ads? Well, its because we cant, at least not entirely.

There are two types of political ads:

When it comes to candidate ads the rule is simple we cant say no. They can say anything they want and we must air it anything. They could literally make a commercial that says their opponent is a werewolf who kills cattle at night, and we would have to run it. The Federal Communications Commission has a rule that says broadcasters can't censor that content. Also, if a TV station sells airtime to one side, the station must also offer equal time to the other side.

However, PAC ads are different. A TV station doesnt have to air them, and we have lawyers look at them for potential legal issues.

Generally, those are the rules. However, the rules differ between networks and cable stations. For social media websites, and some sites like Twitter censor people, and other places dont. Its confusing.

There is not one set of rules across the board. Some people may feel there should be.

"Of course, then you get into censorship and the First Amendment, and I think we all believe, particularly these days, the First Amendment is a really important right, and the ability to criticize, Weisel said. I mean, one persons lie, which is not really a lie, is somebody elses truth.

One persons lie, which is not really a lie, is somebody elses truth. Thats politics, baby.

Any viewer curious about a specific ad can always check out the PolitiFact Truth Meter on WRAL.com.

Dan Haggerty is a reporter and anchor for WRAL. Hes won four regional Emmy awards for his anchoring and reporting in in Fort Myers, Florida; Cleveland; San Diego; Dallas; Portland, Oregon and Raleigh, North Carolina. He is proud to call the Triangle home.

Anyone who has an idea for In Depth with Dan can email him at dan@wral.com.

Read more from the original source:
Political ads are allowed to mislead you and are often designed to do so - WRAL News

Why a bill to stop firearms industry boycotts could backfire for Republicans – The Arizona Republic

Opinion: I sued and won when Arizona tried to ban boycotts on Israel. It's still a bad idea when applied to the firearms industry or (insert your issue here).

Mikkel Jordahl| opinion contributor

I received news with alarm last month thatHouse Bill2473 won passage in the Arizona House.It would ban state or local governments from granting contracts to companies unless they pledge that they wont boycott the firearms industry.

On March 29, the legislationpassedthe Senate Appropriations Committee, and is poised to pass the Senate.

The bill is based on a previous Arizona law that we challenged in court and was ruled unconstitutional.

In 2016, Arizona adopted legislation thatprohibitedthe state from contracting for services unless the contractor signed a certification that they wouldn't boycott Israel. The anti-boycott law (amended in 2019)was supportedby all Republicans and six Democrats in the ArizonaHouse.

My law practice hadbeen providing services to local Arizona government, such aslegally advising inmates in Coconino County.Not signing the certification would have endangered my livelihood.

I thoughtabout recent experiences visiting Israel and the West Bank. The structural discrimination of Palestinians that I witnessed amounted to apartheid, as has been recently confirmed byAmnesty International.

I believe in boycotting apartheid but I also believe in protecting Americans First Amendment rights.As an attorney, Ive sued Arizonafor my clientson multiple civil rights issues. So, instead of signing the pledge, I sued Arizona again this time as a plaintiff.

Boycotting is affirmed as a First Amendment rightby the U.S. Supreme Court.Its integral to our American story, from boycotting British teatotheMontgomery bus boycott.

The Supreme Court also long-prohibited awarding government contracts based on political speech.Consequently, states have been losing cases that challengedthese anti-boycott laws.

Inmy case, U.S. District Court JudgeDianeHumetewa banned enforcement of Arizonas law.Instead of addressing the laws unconstitutionality, however, Arizona legislators amended it to applyonly to companies with 10 or more employees and onlyto contracts of more than$100,000.

With this change, the Legislature succeeded in making my case moot.

Just Visions new documentary "Boycott" chronicles my story alongside others challenging their states anti-boycott laws. Participating in this documentary opened my eyes tothe funding pipeline from the Israeli government to evangelical and pro-Israel lobbying organizations.

It also revealed how the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council drafted this model bill for nationwide use; there are34states with laws penalizing individuals, companies or organizations' boycotts of Israel.

Its increasingly clear that Arizonas Israel anti-boycott law was a prelude to quell our rights on multiple issues.HB 2473 banning boycotts of gun makers uses almost precisely the same language as the law I challenged.

Theres legislation cropping up in Arizona and elsewhere, modeled after the Israel anti-boycott law, prohibitingbusinesses contracting with the state to require COVID-19 vaccinations.

This suppression extends beyond Arizona. Texas banned contracts with entities thatboycott firearmsand fossil fuels.There areat leasteight blatantly unconstitutional bills nationwide cutting the word Israel and pasting in other issues.

All of Arizonas House Republicansvoted forHB 2473. All Democrats voted against it.

I wonder, however, about those six Democrats who voted for the Israel anti-boycott law. Do they realize the extent to which supporting that law damaged our freedom of speech? Perhaps they thought our special relationship to Israel justified abrogating theFirstAmendment.

But there can be no sacred cows when it comes to constitutional rights. Those Democrats opened a Pandoras box of political patronage that may be imposed by whichever party wields power.

Republicans would be wise to remember that party power shifts; the same model legislation used to penalize boycotts of Israel and firearms today, could be used to punish contractors who boycott Planned Parenthood tomorrow.

This dangerous trend has no end.

If government contractors are required to sign away their free speech today, will government employees be required to sign it away tomorrow? Will Americans need to pass political litmus tests before receiving government assistance, or attending state universities? It smacks of despotism more than democracy.

Before the Senate votes onHB 2473, I hope my fellow Arizonans will join me in sending this message: Government has no business using their purse strings to silence us.The more they try, the louder well speak out.

MikJordahlis a practicing attorney in Arizona and a protagonist of the Just Vision film "Boycott." He was represented by the ACLU. Reach him atmikkeljordahl@yahoo.com.

See the original post:
Why a bill to stop firearms industry boycotts could backfire for Republicans - The Arizona Republic

In Call Before Jan. 6 Riot, a Plea to Descend on the Capitol – The New York Times

One week before an angry mob stormed the Capitol, a communications expert named Jason Sullivan, a onetime aide to Roger J. Stone Jr., joined a conference call with a group of President Donald J. Trumps supporters and made an urgent plea.

After assuring his listeners that the 2020 election had been stolen, Mr. Sullivan told them that they had to go to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021 the day that Congress was to meet to finalize the electoral count and descend on the Capitol, according to a recording of the call obtained by The New York Times.

While Mr. Sullivan claimed that he was not inciting violence or any kind of riots, he urged those on the call to make their presence felt at the Capitol in a way that would intimidate members of Congress, telling the group that they had to ensure that lawmakers inside the building understand that people are breathing down their necks.

He also pledged that Mr. Trump was going to take action on his own; the president, he said, was going to impose a form of martial law on Jan. 6 and would not be leaving office.

Biden will never be in that White House, Mr. Sullivan declared. Thats my promise to each and every one of you.

The recording of the call, which took place on Dec. 30, 2020, emerged as the Justice Department has expanded its criminal investigation of the Capitol attack. It offers a glimpse of the planning that went on in the run-up to the storming of the Capitol and the mind-set of some of those who zeroed in on Jan. 6 as a kind of last stand for keeping Mr. Trump in office.

It also reflects the complexities that federal prosecutors are likely to face as they begin the task of figuring out how much or even whether people involved in the political rallies that preceded the assault can be held accountable for the violence that erupted.

After more than a year of focusing exclusively on rioters who took part in the storming of the Capitol, prosecutors have widened their gaze in recent weeks and have started to question whether those involved in encouraging protests like the one that Mr. Sullivan was describing can be held culpable for disrupting the work of Congress.

Mr. Sullivans remarks during the call appeared to be an effort to motivate a group of people aggrieved by the election to take direct action against members of Congress on Jan. 6, presaging what Mr. Trump himself would say in a speech that day. While it remains unclear whether anyone on Mr. Sullivans call went on to join the mob that breached the Capitol, he seemed to be exhorting his listeners to apply unusual pressure on lawmakers just as they were overseeing the final count of Electoral College votes.

In a statement provided by his lawyer, Mr. Sullivan played down the nature of the call, saying he had merely shared some encouragement with what he described as people who all felt their votes had been disenfranchised in the 2020 elections. Mr. Sullivan said he had been asked to participate in the call by a group of anti-vaccine activists or what he called health freedom advocate moms who were hosting a small, permitted event at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

I only promoted peaceful solutions where Americans could raise their voices and be heard as expressed in our First Amendment, Mr. Sullivan said in the statement. I in no way condone the violence of any protesters.

Still, in the recording of the call, Mr. Sullivan can be heard telling his listeners that the lawmakers inside the Capitol need to feel pressure.

If we make the people inside that building sweat and they understand that they may not be able to walk in the streets any longer if they do the wrong thing, then maybe theyll do the right thing, he said. We have to put that pressure there.

As the Justice Department widens its inquiry, federal prosecutors are using a grand jury in Washington to gather information on political organizers, speakers and so-called V.I.P.s connected to a series of pro-Trump rallies after the 2020 election. One prominent planner of those rallies, Ali Alexander, received a subpoena from the grand jury and said last week that he intended to comply with its requests.

In the run-up to Jan. 6, Mr. Alexander publicly discussed a pressure campaign against lawmakers that was meant to stop the final electoral count, saying he was working with Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama and Representatives Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar of Arizona, all Republicans.

We four schemed up of putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting, Mr. Alexander said in a since-deleted video on Periscope. The plan, he said, was to change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body, hearing our loud roar from outside.

It is unclear if the Justice Department is aware of Mr. Sullivans conference call; the department declined to comment. The House committee investigating the events of Jan. 6 was provided with a copy of the recording some months ago by the woman who made it, Staci Burk, a law student and Republican activist from Arizona.

Shortly after the election, Ms. Burk became convinced that phony ballots had been flown in bulk into Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. She eventually submitted an anonymous affidavit concerning the ballots in an election fraud case filed in Federal District Court in Phoenix by the pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell.

Debating a criminal referral. The Jan. 6 House committee has grown divided over whether to make a criminal referralto the Justice Department of former President Donald J. Trump, even though it has concluded that it has enough evidence to do so. The debate centers on whether a referral would backfire by politically tainting the expanding federal investigation.

A Trump ally agrees to cooperate. Ali Alexander, a prominent organizer of pro-Trump events after the 2020 election, has agreed to cooperatewith the Justice Departments newly expanded investigation of the attack on the Capitol last year.

The effort to disqualify insurrectionists. New lawsuitswere filed against three Arizona officials, including Representatives Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs, to bar them from office under the 14th Amendment. This is part of a larger legal effort to disqualify G.O.P. lawmakers from re-election if they participated in events surrounding the Jan. 6 attack.

Contempt charges. The House voted to recommend criminal contempt of Congress chargesagainst Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino Jr., two close allies of Mr. Trump, after the pair defied subpoenas from the special committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

After becoming involved with Ms. Powell, Ms. Burk said she had been approached by several members of a right-wing paramilitary group, the 1st Amendment Praetorian, which was associated with a former legal client of Ms. Powells, Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trumps first national security adviser.

Ms. Burk said that members of the group then placed her under unwanted surveillance, insisting on moving into her home in what they described as an effort to protect her from people who might want to retaliate against her for coming forward about voter fraud.

It was a member of the 1st Amendment Praetorian, Ms. Burk said, who had joined the conference call that featured Mr. Sullivan. Ms. Burk said she recorded the call, much like she recorded other activities by the 1st Amendment Praetorian, because she felt threatened and unsafe by the groups presence in her home.

At one point during the call, Mr. Sullivan was asked by an unknown questioner whether Mr. Trump intended to impose martial law on Jan. 6. That explosive notion had been raised publicly two weeks earlier by Mr. Flynn during an appearance on the right-wing television network Newsmax.

Mr. Sullivan answered the question by telling the man that he foresaw Mr. Trump putting in place a limited form of martial law on Jan. 6.

I dont see any other way around it, because hes not going to allow an election fraud to take place, Mr. Sullivan said. Its not going to happen.

A social media consultant who calls himself the Wizard of Twitter, Mr. Sullivan worked for a political action committee run by Mr. Stone, a longtime confidant of Mr. Trumps, during the 2016 presidential campaign. According to Reuters, one of the projects he did for Mr. Stone was a strategy document describing how to use Twitter swarms to amplify political messages.

More recently, Mr. Sullivan has taken an active role in promoting the QAnon conspiracy theory, which holds that prominent liberals belong to a cult of Satan-worshipping pedophiles. At a public appearance last year with Ms. Powell and Mr. Flynn, Mr. Sullivan called Hillary Clinton a godawful woman and then made a gesture suggesting she should be hanged.

On the conference call ahead of Jan. 6, Mr. Sullivan told his listeners that he was an expert at making things go viral online, but that it was not enough to simply spread the message that the election had been stolen.

There has to be a multiple-front strategy, and that multiple-front strategy, I do think, is descend on the Capitol, without question, he said. Make those people feel it inside.

Luke Broadwater contributed reporting.

Excerpt from:
In Call Before Jan. 6 Riot, a Plea to Descend on the Capitol - The New York Times

Police don’t need extra protection against citizens videotaping their actions – The Arizona Republic

Opinion: HB 2319 is an attempt to silence unwanted speech against police officers. The problem is, filming police activity by citizens is a right recognized by U.S. appellate courts.

Editorial board| Arizona Republic

It is almost a given in this post-George Floyd era that in volatile police encounters, some bystander will have their cellphone out, camera rolling.

Many do so in the name of holding law enforcement officers accountable, others in case something extraordinary happens.

A few use the opportunity to harangue and bait police.

The new normal apparently isnt sitting well with some in law enforcement and the Arizona Legislature, which is contemplating a proposal, HB 2319, that would severely restrict the close-up videotaping of police.

Thebill passed the House along party lines. Its now pending in the Senate.

Lawmakers would be wise to nix it.

The proposed law is simply bad policymaking, both in optics and in practice.

It may be unconstitutional as well.

HB 2319 purportedly takes aim at bad actors by giving officers broad powers to prohibit videotaping police activity within 8 feet. The powers include arresting anyone who refuses orders to stop taping on a misdemeanor charge punishable up to 30 days in jail.

The bills sponsor, Rep. John Kavanagh, said the legislation is needed against hostile community activists who hover dangerously close to film officers as they work potentially volatile situations, sometimes from 1 to 2 feet away.

The intrusion, he said, distracts officers, opens them up to assaults by the people theyre arresting and makes them vulnerable to losing sight of evidence that suspects try to ditch or destroy. HB 2319, the thinking goes, would stop that interference.

The logic is faulty.

Officers already have broad authority to carry out their work unimpeded, including arresting those who obstruct government operations on a charge that carries an even stiffer penalty (up to 6 months in jail) than the one under HB 2319.

More to the point, the aggressive community activiststargeted by Kavanaghs legislation whose filming is uploaded onto YouTube and accompanied by verbal assaults at officers and expletive-filled commentary can be dealt with using disorderly conduct and harassment laws.

Kavanaghs contention that the legislation has been narrowly tailored to limit when officers can invoke the 8-foot rule, is similarly disingenuous.

Under HB 2319, officers could forbid filming whenever theyre questioning or arresting a person, issuing a summons, or simply enforcing the law. That accounts for virtually all police activity.

And thats to say nothing about the difficulty of enforcing the proposed statute.

The 8-foot perimeter is borrowed from a law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court that sets a buffer zone separating anti-abortion protesters armed with leaflets and posters from clinics and their patients. It works with fixed locations the likes of an abortion clinic; at a police scene thats fluid, including a rally or protest that turns volatile, it begs for inconsistent, capricious interpretation.

The impact would needlessly chill the work of journalists in particular. The legislation, in fact, may well run afoul of First Amendment rights.

Federal appellate courts, including the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2011 case, have affirmed the right by citizens to film police officers in public.

Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs, the court ruled in Glik v. Cunniffe.

The adverse effects of a ban would carry greater implications today.

HB 2319 comes at a time when police interaction with communities of color is, understandably, under heavy scrutiny. Police critics see citizen video as a counterweight to official accounts a check-and-balance tool against narratives that police largely get to shape for the public.

It is folly to assume citizen videos showing questionable action by individual officers stand as an indictment of all law enforcement. It is equal folly to assume video shot within 8 feet triggers threats against officers safety or their ability to do their jobs.

If there is a parallel to be drawn from the 8-feet buffer zone established around abortion clinics and the proposed one around police activity, it is the proponents motivation: the desire against unwanted speech.

Police advocates like Kavanagh believe they have a right to regulate the time and place of such speech intruding on officers.

Theyre wrong.

Videotaping police amounts to neither an imposition of unwanted speech nor a threat to police work. It needs not to be restricted, especially at the discretion of the very officers being recorded.

HB 2319 serves no purpose other than to create further tensions between law enforcement and the community it serves. It deserves to be voted down.

This is an opinion ofThe Arizona Republics editorial board.What do you think?Send us a letterto the editorto weigh in.

Originally posted here:
Police don't need extra protection against citizens videotaping their actions - The Arizona Republic