Archive for the ‘First Amendment’ Category

Gov. Newsoms biggest critic might be this California congressman – Roll Call

Californians like to brag that their home has it all mountainous forests, cerulean lakes, otherworldly deserts and Kevin Kiley, the Republican representing the Golden States 3rd District, is no different.

But he rarely passes up the opportunity to express how loathsome he finds the actions of the states governor, Gavin Newsom. When you look at the fact that we lead the nation in poverty, in homelessness Ive seen why it is that these problems have gotten worse in California, says Kiley.

After an unsuccessful attempt to recall the Democrat from office in 2021, Kiley sees it as part of his mission to keep the flame alive and make the case in Congress that the brand of politics that has prevailed in the state is not where we want to go as a country.

The Yale Law graduate and former state assemblyman sat down earlier this fall to talk about his first year in Washington, his view from the DCCC target list and what he has in common with Rep. Jamie Raskin. This interview has been edited and condensed.

Q: Your district is nearly 450 miles long. Its massive. Do you have a favorite among the desert, the mountains and the lakes?

A: I dont I love all parts of my district. Total political answer, I know. But Im serious now, there really is no district like it in the country. From Lake Tahoe to Death Valley, who would have thought both of those would be in one district?

I spend a lot of time on the road. Of course, I have to spend a lot of time in D.C., but I try to be as present as possible.

As large as the district is, there is a commonality of concerns. From north to south, we have areas that have been affected by devastating wildfires, so that has been a top priority of mine. Everywhere in the district, the cost of living is a huge impediment to the quality of life, so thats been at the top of my priorities as well.

Q: You worked with Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland to reintroduce the PRESS Act, which was marked up in the Judiciary Committee this summer and got bipartisan support. Why do you care about a press shield law? Why did you pick this issue as a freshman?

A: Well, its about the First Amendment, and its about the ability of our democracy to function as the founders intended. Whats the quote from Madison? A popular government without popular information is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy, or perhaps both.

The founders put freedom of the press in the First Amendment because they understood how vital it was to have the ability to provide the public access to the information they need to participate in the great experiment of self-government. And when you have impediments to the exercise of that right, or when you have the potential for government compulsion of source material or communications or work product, then that can only serve to chill the exercise of those First Amendment freedoms to the detriment of our body politic.

As you can see from the bipartisan support its received [from 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats], its an issue where we can come together to advance First Amendment principles. And Im always looking for those kinds of opportunities.

Q: I think its fair to say that youre best known as a critic of Gavin Newsom. You were one of the GOP challengers who had your name on the ballot and tried to recall him from office in 2021. Why has he been a continued focus for you since youve come to Washington?

A: My first and foremost focus is representing my district and serving my constituents. Thats the core of the work we do.

Now, I spent time in our [state] legislature, and its true that I fought very hard against many of the actions that Gavin Newsom took, particularly during the COVID era. For example, he shut down schools longer than any governor in the entire country, which everyone now acknowledges was a mistake. And in fact, Newsom himself said just [a couple months ago] on Meet the Press that he would have done everything differently.

The brand of politics that has prevailed in the state is far outside the bounds of the normal parameters of either the left or the right. It has gone so far in one direction, and its not where we want to go as a country.

And so I feel like, having experienced that firsthand in California, it is important to share with my colleagues in Congress what the results have been.

Lets take a very clear example. The president has nominated Julie Su to be secretary of Labor. She was Gavin Newsoms secretary of labor in California. California has the second-highest unemployment in the nation right now and the highest poverty rate. As labor secretary, Julie Su aggressively enforced one of the worst laws that has ever passed when it comes to economic opportunity, AB 5 [that reclassified some independent contractors as employees], and she squandered $32 billion in unemployment fraud.

I felt like my experiences dealing with her and the administration in California prepared me to make the case against her ascension to lead the U.S. Department of Labor.

Q: Permit me a cynical follow up. It sounds like you want to run for governor, based on that response.

A: Im running for reelection to the House. Right now, my focus is on serving this vast district that I now have the great opportunity to represent.

Q: Youre on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committees target list, which means you can expect therell be some added help for your opponents next year. Are you worried about how your partys agenda will reflect on you as House Republicans keep pursuing an impeachment inquiry into President Biden?

A: You know, this is a constitutional process. Its not or at least its not supposed to be a product of politics. Its specifically the domain of the legislative branch to hold the executive branch to account in these matters. So my approach to the investigations that are underway now would be the same regardless of who the president was.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, which is ultimately the committee of jurisdiction for any impeachment, my guiding philosophy will be to follow the facts where they lead and then to assess whether they reach the constitutional threshold of a high crime or misdemeanor. That goes for this president, it goes for any other president, and it goes for any other administration official that is subject to that constitutional provision.

I view myself as a juror, and I want to be in a position to evaluate the facts as they are then presented against the standard set forth in the Constitution.

And just like a juror, I dont think you should go out and be announcing your conclusion before youve had an opportunity to evaluate the evidence or indeed, before the full breadth of the evidence has even been gathered.

Last book you read? Interstellar by Avi Loeb, about space exploration.

In politics, can the ends justify the means? To an extent. Were not elected to be philosophers, but rather to get a job done but its also important to have guiding principles and lines you wont cross. That is a balance you always have to keep in mind, between principles and pragmatism.

Your least popular opinion? Im a big Sacramento Kings fan, and I hold out hope that theyll win a championship, lets say within the decade.

One thing your friends know about you that your constituents dont? Im recently engaged.

One thing youve learned in Congress? There are a lot of different ways to make an impact, and its important to pursue every possible avenue. Sometimes that might mean introducing a bill and getting it passed. Sometimes it might mean pressing an administration official, participating in an oversight hearing or taking a stand on an issue within your community. Having that sense of flexibility and resourcefulness really pays dividends.

Go here to see the original:
Gov. Newsoms biggest critic might be this California congressman - Roll Call

Bleeding Heartland – Bleeding Heartland

AJ Jones is a writer. She is a creator of art and expresses herself across different mediums. She embraces her neurodivergence as a unique way to view the world and create a better future.

"No more apologies for a bleeding heart when the opposite is no heart at all. Danger of losing our humanity must be met with more humanity." -Toni Morrison

It isn't by mistake that I begin with a quote from an author whose books have been banned in more than a dozen Iowa school districts. Nor do I think it is a mistake that five women in Pella have been fighting a clean fight for democracy and have conducted themselves in a way that is neatly depicted in the second sentence of the quote.

These five women, driven by a sense of community, civil rights, civil liberties and fair play have been standing up for an American institution under attack within their community. They are encouraging Pella residents to Vote No for the public library, so that the library board can maintain exclusive authority to manage library affairs.

They have kept honorable methods of outreach and truth. They have focused solely on the idea of community and talking to each other, as neighbors do in a pristine, village-like community located in central Iowa. When a bait and switch measure ended up on the ballot, they responded by reaching out to EveryLibrary.org for guidance.

I had the pleasure of speaking with John Chrastka, founder of EveryLibrary.org, who has been assisting the Vote No campaign in Pella for the past eighteen months. "Vote Yes folks are a special interest group with a social agenda," Chrastka explained. In effect, the Vote Yes folks banked on the idea that Pella residents would automatically support giving the city council oversight of the library. They made that bet because when "library" and "yes" are on the ballot together, the usual assumption is that the measure would be good for the library. People who expect a "yes" vote to be something good are being deceived.

I was surprised to find out this is not the first time activists have used this bait and switch. EveryLibrary.org has been called in to help other libraries navigate through murky policy concerns. Chrastka offered up a community in Michigan (which like Pella has a large Dutch Reformed population) as an example. Their platform was about eliminating groomers and pedophiles, which is something we can all get behind. Except: it was actually about book banning.

Now, Patmos District Library in Jamestown Charter Township, Michigan, is in danger of closing. The library is not in compliance with state law, which has resulted in no funding. "It is a small place," Chrastka reflected. "There are subdivisions being built there now and they are wanting to build a school. They shouldn't be losing their library."

There is also Jonesboro, Arkansas, where 150 "frustrated banners" got together to get a measure on the ballot. Again, Vote Yes. People voted in good faith, and the "yes" side won by 54 votes. People who thought they were doing something good for their local library ended up shrinking the funds available to the facility by 50 percent.

Vote No campaigners moved from being a group of volunteers who have hope for their participation in the democratic process to being a group of volunteers who have come together to really form what I think is a very American thing, which is a local political action group, said Chrastka. "They are focused on maintaining the freedom to read...

He continued,

The First Amendment isnt just about the freedom of speech; part of the First Amendment is the freedom of assembly. You get together and you talk about the things that matter to you. You move public policy forward. And their right to assemble is as core is that freedom of speech. It's a nice thing to see that intersection point between those two freedoms in the First Amendment like that.

Libraries provide the space and location for both parts of the First Amendment to occur.Any assault on such a necessary institution is a direct assault on a communitys First Amendment rights.

Win or lose in Pella's election today, the Vote No volunteers have shown what it is to be American. They have done so using truth and honest dealings with their friends and neighbors. Isn't that what community is all about?

Top image of books in library is by GNT STUDIO, available via Shutterstock.

Continued here:
Bleeding Heartland - Bleeding Heartland

Hate speech is wrong, but it’s protected by the Constitution | Letters … – South Florida Sun Sentinel

All four writers of letters to the editor published in the Sun Sentinel on Friday, Nov. 3, were highly critical of your recent editorial that defended the speech of the pro-Palestinian student organizations that were recently banned at two public universities in Florida. The writers reactions are understandable, but their commitment to freedom of speech is too weak, I think.

One writer lists some of the judicially recognized exceptions to freedom of speech in America, but makes no attempt to connect any of those specific exceptions to the speech of these student groups and, in fact, none of those exceptions has any application here. The concept of defamation refers to demonstrably false factual statements about individuals. A punishable threat must, explicitly or implicitly, take the form of a statement of intention by the speaker to do harm. Its not enough that the speech may be perceived as threatening in some less direct way. And incitement is unprotected by the First Amendment only when a speaker advocates imminent lawless action that is likely to occur.

Speech does not lose constitutional protection in America merely because it expresses hate, or because it expresses approval of bad behavior by like-minded people. Nor does an association with such criminals change the analysis.

The only complication here is the fact that the speech at issue is speech by a student organization on a college campus. But my understanding is that every student organization must be treated equally, without penalty based on the groups viewpoint. If student organizations pursue this matter in court, I expect them to prevail.

Its a safe bet that some who read this will think, Well, if thats the law, then the law is wrong. I wish to persuade you otherwise. You may believe that speech should be punishable if it is hateful or dangerous, but you might come to regret the use of such elusive and manipulative standards.

The Sun Sentinel deserves praise, not vilification, for its courageous editorial.

Marc Rohr, Plantation

The writer is professor of law emeritus at Nova Southeastern University.

Re: A little girl hit by a bullet asks, Why? | Editorial, Nov. 2

Thank you to the Sun Sentinel Editorial Board for yet another well-written editorial, this time on the mass shooting in Maine and the ever-present pandemic of gun violence.

Kind regards. Stay healthy and safe.

Barney Agate, Tamarac

With the obvious open border crisis where illegal immigrants continue to arrive in the United States, I would like to propose that the first step in the assimilation process would be to have immigrants serve in the military for four years, after which they would be pre-qualified to become U.S. citizens. After an additional two years of proven gainful employment, they would then become fully qualified to be U.S. citizens.

This would solve the issue of paying for their existence in the U.S., and it would fulfill current recruiting shortfalls in the military.

Jack Conill, Fort Lauderdale

Its clear that the pro-Russian Republican chaos caucus does not care about our military or dealing with the many current national and international crises. The GOP-controlled Congress wont even pass a bipartisan Ukrainian aid bill. The GOP leadership in the Senate is allowing one senator to block military promotions.

Why doesnt the GOP just skip the middleman and select Vladimir Putin as Republican nominee for president?

Lanny Budd, Fort Lauderdale

View post:
Hate speech is wrong, but it's protected by the Constitution | Letters ... - South Florida Sun Sentinel

Albemarle vote 4-3 against drag amendment – The Stanly News … – Stanly News & Press

Published 9:00 am Tuesday, November 7, 2023

By a 4-3 vote Monday night, Albemarle City Council rejected a proposed text amendment that would have added a definition of drag shows to the citys code of ordinances, and which would have prohibited minors from attending such events.

The decision concluded a four-month trek for the highly-controversial proposal, which generated passionate and intense public comment at each consideration by appointed and elected officials.

The matter was on the citys planning board agenda on Aug. 3, but was tabled to the groups September meeting. When heard by the citys planning board before an overflow crowd on Sept. 7, the advisory group voted unanimously (9-0) against its adoption, and in turn passed the matter on to City Council for a final decision.

An Oct. 16 public hearing, conducted as part of that evenings regular City Council meeting drew another capacity crowd to City Hall, during which citizens expressed views both for and against adoption. However, with Councilman Bill Aldridge unable to attend the meeting, council members voted 5-1 to honor Aldridges request to delay the vote so that he could vote on the matter, as well as express his views in person.

Before another full house on Monday, council members discussed the matter prior to voting.

Five of my six fellow council members honored my request (to delay voting on the matter), and Id like to thank those who did, said Aldridge, who described the matter as a great opportunity for City Council.

We have the opportunity to show everyone that we are willing to do anything and everything to protect our children, he said. Im in no way against drag shows, those who participate in them, or even attend them, but what I do want to assure is that we protect our children until they reach an age of maturity when they will be able to choose whether to attend or not.

Councilman Chris Whitley expressed concerns with legal consequences that could arise from adoption of the text amendment, citing a play he had recently attended.

I saw a play in downtown Albemarle last week that fits that (referring to the wording of the proposed text amendment), he said. Under this (proposed) ordinance, if someone had a problem with that, they would complain, and the police department would have to address it.

Whitley also noted the recommendations of the planning board and city staff, as well as concerns over potential litigation relating to first amendment issues.

Noting that both Aldridge and Whitley had expressed valid points, Councilman Chris Bramlett cited personal freedoms in his reasoning for opposing the amendment.

I dont want to infringe on the freedom to have drag shows, because once we start taking freedoms like that away, then there are some freedoms that I cherish that you might want to take away also, he said. But I also dont want children under 18 in those (drag show) programs. Remember, we dont let you vote until youre 18, and theres a great deal of common sense in that kind of thinking. Its saying that youre not quite ready to take on the totality of adulthood.

I want to thank everybody, regardless of your position on the matter, who has come out and spoke during the public hearings, Councilman Dexter Townsend said. Ill take every comment thats provided to us as council members that will help us make our decisions. But, I also value the opinion of our planning and zoning board, which voted unanimously to deny this request, as well as the opinion of our professional staff, noting City Attorney Britt Burch had informed council members at the Oct. 16 meeting that no other municipality in North Carolina has an ordinance of this nature.

Mayor Pro-Tem Martha Sue Hall expressed that she believed protection of children was not the only issue behind those pushing for adoption of the amendment.

For 40 years Ive been protecting children, said Hall, who was employed by the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts prior to her 2014 retirement, but, I personally do not believe thats what this is all about. However, I do appreciate everybodys comments on this very divisive issue.

Upon vote, Aldridge, Bramlett and Hunt voted in favor of the text amendment, with Dry, Hall, Townsend and Whitley in opposition.

Toby Thorpe is a freelance writer for The Stanly News &Press.

More here:
Albemarle vote 4-3 against drag amendment - The Stanly News ... - Stanly News & Press

Rep. Jason Smith’s call for defunding colleges over protests raises … – Southeast Missourian

A student protest about the war in Israel/Gaza takes place at the University of California, Berkeley's Sather Gate on Oct. 16.

Michael Liedtke ~ Associated Press, file

U.S. Rep. Jason Smith is one of several politicians in recent days calling for punitive actions against colleges that allow anti-Israel protests on their campuses.

At protests across the country, students have rallied for different types of actions regarding the conflict between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip as civilian deaths climb.

Jason Smith

The protests and elected officials' reactions have ignited First Amendment concerns, while also sparking debate of what constitutes antisemitic speech and threats.

First Amendment experts say the sentiments to defund colleges or deporting student protesters don't pass muster of First Amendment precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Former President Donald J. Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and South Carolina U.S. Sen. Tim Scott all three of whom are candidates for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination were among those calling for stripping student visas of any foreign students protesting against Israel, a U.S. ally. Such protests have been interpreted by some as pro-Hamas or antisemitic. The anti-Israel sentiment falls on a spectrum, from demands for a cease-fire to the full support of Hamas, a terrorist organization, and further extends on the spectrum to hate speech. Some students are "against violence, but we're just asking for the lives of Palestinians to be acknowledged as well," Nadia Ali, a Columbia University student protester, told The Associated Press.

Meanwhile, Jewish students are seeking protection from universities.

NBC News reported that antisemitic incidents rose 388% since Oct. 7 when Hamas members entered Israel and killed about 1,400 people, mostly civilians adding that more than 100 colleges and universities nationwide had seen walkouts or planned walkouts in support of the Palestinian people.

In addition to calling for stripping students' visa status, several officials, including Smith, have said colleges should face financial punishments for such protests.

"The Ways and Means Committee, the panel with sole jurisdiction over tax policy, will call in these schools because it is unacceptable that tax-funded universities are allowing student organizations to support terrorists. It is un-American," Smith said on Fox Business on Oct. 20. "We're going to be looking at the tax-free status of billion-dollar endowments, for instance. We're going to make sure these universities are held accountable. Unfortunately, these schools are more focused on pushing woke, liberal ideas across this country and ingraining these views into future generations of Americans."

Smith doubled down on his comments in written form. In a column published in the Southeast Missourian on Oct. 25, he wrote, "Congress and the American people will not forget on what side these institutions stood the day the largest number of Jewish people were killed since the Holocaust, and they must be held to account for their implicit, vile support of Hamas terrorists and violence against the people of Israel. Many of these organizations currently enjoy tax-exempt status in the United States, and their statements call into question the academic or charitable missions they claim to pursue. As the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, I can promise that we will be looking further into what mission these universities are pursuing and will do everything we can to ensure our next generations are being educated not indoctrinated at the expense of American taxpayers."

Smith's office did not respond to a reporter's questions regarding how his suggestions would align with First Amendment protections or the newspaper's queries concerning enforcement of this policy, including how the government would determine which students were pro-Hamas vs. anti-war.

In his most recent column, published Oct. 31 in the Southeast Missourian, Smith wrote he was fighting for the First Amendment in other areas, focusing on his push against the government's efforts to "censor social media posts" regarding the government's efforts with social media companies to "fight misinformation".

Sign up for Daily Headlines

Get each day's latest first thing in the morning.

In the column, Smith stated "government officials shouldn't be able to decide what is acceptable speech." He said he hopes the Supreme Court, regarding the government's intervention in social media, "will do the right thing and rule that the federal government's actions were unconstitutional, and make sure these attacks on our freedom of speech never happen again. ... I will fight tooth and nail to stop the Left's nonstop efforts to force their radical beliefs and liberal values."

Southeast Missouri State University, the largest college in Smith's district, does not require students to state their cause during protests.

Citing the Missouri Campus Free Express Act, Southeast Missouri states "any person who wishes to engage in non-commercial expressive activity in the outdoor areas of the campus of the university shall be permitted to do so freely, as long as the person's conduct is not unlawful and does not materially and substantially disrupt the functioning of the university."

The policy covers many forms of demonstration, including rallies, speeches, sit-ins and more. The policy "encourages" providing prior notice to a campus office for scheduling purposes.

The Southeast Missourian requested comments through the university's assistant vice president for marketing and communications. The spokeswoman pointed the newspaper to the university's policy on protesting on campus, but did not respond to questions about whether the university had concerns about Smith's statements or whether the university was aware of any protests concerning the war.

While the pressures of government interference in social media are a fairly new phenomenon, protests of wars are part of the fabric of the United States' social history. The current war, like others before it, sparks strong emotions and opinions, especially now that videos of the war's human suffering are being shared on social media.

"I understand that what we're dealing with here is a legislator saying they would defund the university," said Kevin Goldberg, a First-Amendment attorney who works with the Freedom Forum, a not-for-profit organization that advocates for First Amendment freedoms. "I assume what he's thinking here is we have a much greater degree of control over the university as an educator rather than individual students or individual student groups. But I see all of these as First Amendment violations. The precedent from the Supreme Court on this is clear. You cannot punish students for what they say and what they believe in unless it falls categorically outside of the protection of the First Amendment. You can't single out one side of the debate vs. the other."

Goldberg cited two landmark decisions decided by the Supreme Court. The first is Healy vs. James, in which the court affirmed that college students' rights of speech and association apply to a state university campus like they do everywhere else. In that case, the school president had denied a left-wing student group its rights to protest, saying the group's philosophy was "antithetical to the school's policies". A year later, according to the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, the University of Missouri was hit with a similar lawsuit, in which the court ruled that the Healy case made "clear that the mere dissemination of ideas no matter how offensive to good taste on a state university campus may not be shut off in the name alone of 'conventions of decency'."

Goldberg also cited a 2010 case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. In that case, Goldberg said, the Supreme Court declared that "what is punishable is material support for terrorists and terrorist organizations, not expressions of support for terrorist organizations. Material support requires actions beyond speech. Taking those two (Holder and Healy) together it seems pretty clear that what's being proposed here will not fly, whether it's deporting students or defunding student groups."

Smith was not alone in high-ranking politicians and lawmakers in their support of stripping funding from colleges.

Scott wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, that "if the college coddles them, revoke their taxpayer funding. We must stand up against this evil anti-Semitism everywhere we see it especially on elite college campuses."

Added Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota, a candidate for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination: "Anti-semitism cannot be tolerated. Period. The students responsible should be held accountable and if the university fails to do so it should lose any federal funding."

The Biden administration has announced plans to combat both antisemitism and Islamaphobia. Many Jewish students have expressed fearing for their safety, and argued that protests cross over the line to a form of harassment. Likewise, Muslim groups and organizations have expressed concerns about reports of abusive and threatening behavior as well.

The response to the Gaza conflict has highlighted the gray areas in the United States between speech and threats.

Lara Schwartz, an American University professor who is Jewish, told The Hill, a publication that focuses on Congress, in response to the debate over protest language, "It is important to understand that as a matter of the First Amendment, having an idea is very different than taking an action and having an idea is generally protected and conduct is not," Schwartz said. "The vocabulary is extremely contested here. What constitutes antisemitism, and when critiques of Israel as a country and a government crosses over into antisemitism, is a highly contested area. And it was before Oct. 7."

Read more here:
Rep. Jason Smith's call for defunding colleges over protests raises ... - Southeast Missourian