Mediaboss Marketing

Bidens inauguration as the 46th President of the United States promised not only a shift in U.S. domestic policies but also a return to Obamas chapter in Washingtons foreign strategy. Bidens victory in the 2020 elections was especially anticipated in Teheran, which had experienced years of relentless economic pressure by the previous administration in Washington. However, more than a year has passed since Biden arrived into the White House, but the JCPOA still lies on the verge of a complete collapse.

Despite experts remaining consistently optimistic about the ongoing negotiations in Vienna, fewif anytangible results have been delivered so far. But, while the negotiations have more or less been stalled, the simultaneous advancement of Irans nuclear program has been very much active, approaching the milestone of accumulating enriched uranium enough for a functioning nuclear device with every passing week.

Therefore, the U.S. faces a dilemma as it has to decide just how many concessions it is ready to offer to Teheran to convince it that the JCPOA is worth another try. Iran, however, is not very inclined to soften the position of its own.

Time is not on Washingtons side

There is a good chance that the U.S. will have to take a more flexible stance on the JCPOA and related issues, since time is working against Washington. The previous administration had vastly miscalculated the economic implications of the maximum pressure campaign it unilaterally imposed upon Iran. Trumps administration in its typical manner believed that upon facing significant financial damage, the leadership in Teheran would choose to compromise rather than persist in its ambitions in the Middle East. Likewise, Washington seemed to believe that should the government insist on maintaining its policy despite the economic pressure, the countrys population would eventually overthrow the regime in Teheran or put enough domestic pressure on it to agree to certain concessions in the very least (although U.S. officials formally denied seeking a regime change in Iran).

However, this assumption proved to be completely disconnected from reality on the ground. Not only did Iran manage to hold the domestic unrest in check, but also the nation was very much capable of maintaining a functioning economy even under the maximum pressure campaign. Subsequently, the U.S. practically failed to force Iran to cave in through economic pressure, while lacking a feasible plan B to walk out of the crisis on acceptable terms. Right now, Washington is finding itself between a rock and a hard place as it can no longer expect the sanction regime to do the job and force Iran to make concessions, but the White House is still very reluctant to start even a limited military campaign in the Middle East to effectively destroy some of Irans nuclear capabilities.

Meanwhile, Teheran is not sitting idly. Instead, the country is gradually developing its nuclear potential, both increasing its weight in the Vienna negotiations and approaching the amount of radioactive resources it needs to create a nuclear weapon. As of May 2022, the U.S. continues to refuse to look at the situation realistically and seems determined to force Teheran to withdraw some of its demands. Eventually, however, Biden will have to see that the situation is hardly developing in his favour, and the current political climate in the world is only making it easier for Iran to continue standing its ground.

Dealing with Iran in the shadow of the Ukrainian crisis

The prospects of the JCPOAs salvation are largely informed by the current crisis in Ukraine, which can both complicate and accelerate the renegotiation of the nuclear deal. For the U.S., the developing conflict has become the primary concern in its foreign policy, forcing Washington to pay less attention to both Teheran and Beijing. Washingtons most burning objectives are currently twofoldcurtailing Moscows economic power as much as possible and ensuring Ukraine manages to preserve its sovereignty. Both are hugely dependent on the U.S. ability to manipulate the world petroleum prices and the amount of Russias oil and gas exports.

Economic pressure on Moscow is (among other factors) largely sustained by the prices of gas and oil, whose export is a crucial component of Russias economy. Therefore, one of Washingtons primary efforts is centered around minimizing the amount of petroleum Moscow can offer to the global market, while lowering the oil prices simultaneously, which had recently experienced an abrupt surge.

While there are several ways of doing that, Iran probably offers the most straightforward option. Should the JCPOA become a reality again in its 2015 form and the sanctions on Teherans resources be lifted, the world market will receive a substantial influx of Irans resources. As a result, even if the amounts of petroleum Moscow sells worldwide remains roughly the same, it will not be able to receive the same revenue due to the global price changes. Of course, it is hard to expect this to happen swiftlyeven if the parties reach an agreement on the nuclear issue in the near future, it will still take some time to reintegrate Iran back into the world petroleum market. However, the market is quick to react to such developments, and the shift in oil prices could very well occur much sooner than the actual transfer of resources.

Moreover, the huge reserves of gas and oil Iran boasts of can become a viable alternative for the EU countries, many of which are having doubts about the prospects of importing petroleum from Russia and are actively looking for other sources. Thus, the demand of the EU countries could potentially be met with the offer of the Islamic Republic, which is very eager to find new partners it could sell its oil and gas to. Prior to the imposition of the sanction regime by the U.S., Iran enjoyed a number of trading partnersboth in the EU and in the Middle Eastthat are looking forward to diversifying their gas and oil supply by trading with Teheran. The only thing they need is the lifting of the sanctions by Washington. This could fractionally offset the damage done by the partial stop of the petroleum delivery to the EU countries from Russia as well as accommodate their aim of gradually decreasing their reliance on Russias gas and oil.

JCPOA or war

Moreover, the ongoing conflict significantly decreases the amount of options Washington has in dealing with Teheran and its nuclear program. Should they fail to reach compromise in the coming months, Iran could very well set its cause on developing a full-blown nuclear weapon as fast as possible. In that case, the U.S. will have two options onlyeither let it happen, essentially triggering another regional (or even global) crisis of nuclear proliferation, or opt for a military operation against the countrys nuclear facilities. However, a limited military operation is almost impossible to imagine: To effectively curtail nuclear developments in Iran, the U.S. and their allies would have to conduct a full-scale campaign involving the use of aircraft and missile strikes.

In this scenario, the conflict is unlikely to stay solely within Irans borders, but will almost inevitable spill over to the entirety of the Middle East with largely unpredictable consequences. Such a war would not only constitute a giant burden to everybody involved but will also spark a financial crisis for the entire world. Needless to say, the U.S. fully understands this and is not likely to engage in direct warfare against Iran even as a last resort to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Americas resources and attention being held up in Ukraine right now only complicates the prospects of Washington undertaking any military action in the Middle East.

However, one should mention that there is a possibility of the U.S. being dragged into the conflict against its own will. Israel views Iran as an existential threat, and the development of a nuclear weapon in the Islamic Republic is a redline many believe Tel Aviv will not let Teheran cross. Seeing that the country is dangerously close to accumulating enough radioactive materials for a bomb, Israel might opt to carry out several military strikes against Irans nuclear infrastructure or try to sabotage it in another way. This in turn will force Teheran to respond, sparkling a regional conflict the U.S. will have to become a part of in one way or another.

However, this scenario is much less likely to happen today than it was a year or two ago. Both Israel and the U.S. have gone through a change of leadership, and their bilateral ties as well as foreign policies are not the same they were before the 2020 elections. With Netanyahu leaving office, Tel Aviv is no longer as radical in its policies against Iran and is far more reluctant to use a military option of curtailing Irans nuclear program. Likewise, Bidens perception of Israels role among the U.S. allies has experienced a negative change as well and Washington is no longer bound to support Tel Aviv in any military campaign it decides to embark upon against the Islamic Republic. Israel has a clear understanding of this and is unlikely to regard a war against Iran as a favourable option.

Who will have to take responsibility?

Another point for the U.S. to consider are the implications of the complete failure of the JCPOA and its consequences to Biden and, more importantly, to the Democratic Party. While it is true that the collapse of the deal should mostly be attributed to Trumps administration, since it was their strategy to renegotiate the deal, today the responsibility largely lies with the Democratic Party. Bidens election campaign promises included the salvation of the JCPOA, which is not as imminent now as it used to be a year ago. Besides, should any kind of conflict take place between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic, it will almost certainly be blamed on Bidens administration and their failure to find a compromise with Teheran, even despite the previous administration creating the conditions for such failure.

The Democrats are already standing in for a lot of criticism for their domestic and foreign policies, with the current crisis in Ukraine set to only complicate both. The revival of the JCPOA at least in some form that would prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon is likely to be presented to the public as a huge political victory that has made it possible to avoid another catastrophic conflict in the Middle East. Failing to achieve this will be a significant setback for Democrats chances of winning the 2022 and 2024 elections. All the consequences of this fiasco will be attributed to them, and if Iran manages to construct a nuclear weapon, the Republicans will use it as a talking point in proving their aggressive strategy against Teheran to be the only possible way of dealing with it. Thus, reanimating the nuclear deal is crucial for the Biden administration even if it will eventually have to make some painful concessions.

The ball is still in Washingtons court

Despite the situation getting more and more urgent with every passing week, the U.S. still looks reluctant to make more concessions to Teheran. For Washington giving in to any new significant demands would be catastrophic mainly from the political point of view. Delisting IRGC as a terrorist organization is more of a symbolical move that is not very likely to significantly empower the militant organization. Likewise, accepting Irans quest of revenge for the death of Soleimani, Irans assassinated top general, probably wont take the shape of any real moves against the U.S. on Irans part. Teheran simply cannot afford to give up on their promise of retaliation since that would be a political suicide. However, it is very unlikely they will ever actually attempt what they threaten.

Nevertheless, conceding to either will be a huge blow to Biden and his administration from the political perspectiveboth the general population and many Congressmen will accuse the White house of being too weak in dealing with Iran to the point of agreeing to delist a terrorist group just to appease Teheran. That is a price Biden is not yet willing to pay, hoping Teheran will eventually drop some of the demands and allow him to save face. This hesitation, however, can cost the world dearly, since the ball is currently in the U.S. court with Biden refusing to acknowledge it.

The general idea in Washington seems to be that Iran is not really planning to create a nuclear bomb, but rather uses its nuclear program as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the U.S. to extract more concessions. This might be true, but it is also a risk the world cannot afford to take.

The intentions of the leadership in Teheran might as well be completely opposite, especially in the light of the assassination of an Iranian general carried out by the U.S. in early 2020. That operation demonstrated Washingtons total disregard for its adversaries as long as they didnt have nuclear weapons for a potential retaliation. Whence Iran could actually be embarking on a path to obtaining a nuclear weapon and prolonging the negotiations to be able to accumulate more radioactive materials to the point of becoming a nuclear threshold state. Therefore, it is crucial for the U.S. to reach some sort of agreement with Teheran as soon as possible in order to minimize the chances of Iran turning nuclear in the near future.

Since the strategy pushing Iran to drop some of its demands is apparently not working, agreeing to some symbolic, although politically painful concessions, might be the only way for the U.S. to make sure the Islamic Republic does not acquire a nuclear weapon. While being far from what Washington had initially expected, this would answer the main concern the world has today about Iranprevent it from going nuclear. This will not be an ideal agreement, but Washington has to set its priorities straight. The risk of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons should overrule most other concerns of the U.S. regarding the Islamic Republic and its policies.

From our partner RIAC

Related

Read the original:
The West Gives Ukraine What It Denied to Libya - Modern Diplomacy

The visit by Minister Najla M. El-Mangoush is one that symbolises the strong relationship that Malta and Libya have and will see that it is further strengthened in all areas, Foreign MinisterIan Borg said following an official meeting he had with Libyas Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation.

Minister Borg said that Malta embodies important values in Maltese foreign policy, such as those of cooperation, friendship,and active participation. These values were also noted in the strong vote that Malta managed to achieve a few days ago so that from next year it will form part of the United Nations Security Council.

During the bilateral meeting, several topics of interestforboth countries, primarily the Mediterranean region, were discussed in order to ensure stability and security. Other important topics were discussed such as irregular immigration and human trafficking.

The Maltese minister for foreign affairs stated that during the official meeting, the current situation in Libya was also discussed, and how Malta can contribute to this process of stability.Once again I reiterated Maltas position and urged all parties to refrain from taking any action that would undermine peace and security in the country. I believe that a political solution is needed as soon as possible through fair and inclusive elections, said Ian Borg.

Minister Borg said that Malta will continue to move forward and give its support to Libya also on a European and international basis.

From her end, Libyas Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Najla M. El-Mangoush said that this meeting is important because the good relations and the friendship that Libya has with Malta could be further strengthened. She also stressed the significance of todays dateJune 11 asit was this dayin 1965 that marked the beginning of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Originally posted here:
Government committed to further strengthen relationship with Libya Minister Ian Borg - Malta Independent Online

First Amendment Resources | Statements & Core Documents | Publications & Guidelines

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.

One of the ten amendments of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment gives everyone residing in the United States the right to hear all sides of every issue and to make their own judgments about those issues without government interference or limitations. The First Amendment allows individuals to speak, publish, read and view what they wish, worship (or not worship) as they wish, associate with whomever they choose, and gather together to ask the government to make changes in the law or to correct the wrongs in society.

The right to speak and the right to publish under the First Amendment has been interpreted widely to protect individuals and society from government attempts to suppress ideas and information, and to forbid government censorship of books, magazines, and newspapers as well as art, film, music and materials on the internet. The Supreme Court and other courts have held conclusively that there is a First Amendment right to receive information as a corollary to the right to speak. Justice William Brennan elaborated on this point in 1965:

The protection of the Bill of Rights goes beyond the specific guarantees to protect from Congressional abridgment those equally fundamental personal rights necessary to make the express guarantees fully meaningful.I think the right to receive publications is such a fundamental right.The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers. Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 U.S. 301 (1965).

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the right to receive information is a fundamental right protected under the U.S. Constitution when it considered whether a local school board violated the Constitution by removing books from a school library. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that the right to receive ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipients meaningful exercise of his own rights of speech, press, and political freedom. Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)

Public schools and public libraries, as public institutions, have been the setting for legal battles about student access to books, the removal or retention of offensive material, regulation of patron behavior, and limitations on public access to the internet. Restrictions and censorship of materials in public institutions are most commonly prompted by public complaints about those materials and implemented by government officials mindful of the importance some of their constituents may place on religious values, moral sensibilities, and the desire to protect children from materials they deem to be offensive or inappropriate. Directly or indirectly, ordinary individuals are the driving force behind the challenges to the freedom to access information and ideas in the library.

The First Amendment prevents public institutions from compromising individuals' First Amendment freedoms by establishing a framework that defines critical rights and responsibilities regarding free expression and the freedom of belief. The First Amendment protects the right to exercise those freedoms, and it advocates respect for the right of others to do the same. Rather than engaging in censorship and repression to advance one's values and beliefs, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis counsels persons living in the United States to resolve their differences in values and belief by resort to "more speech, not enforced silence."

By virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech and intellectual freedom also applies to state and local governments. Government agencies and government officials are forbidden from regulating or restricting speech or other expression based on its content or viewpoint. Criticism of the government, political dissatisfaction, and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are nearly always protected by the First Amendment. Only that expression that is shown to belong to a few narrow categories of speech is not protected by the First Amendment. The categories of unprotected speech include obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words. Deciding what is and is not protected speech is reserved to courts of law.

The First Amendment only prevents government restrictions on speech. It does not prevent restrictions on speech imposed by private individuals or businesses. Facebook and other social media can regulate or restrict speech hosted on their platforms because they are private entities.

Clauses of the First Amendment | The National Constitution Center

First Amendment FAQ | Freedom Forum

Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition: Common Interpretations and Matters for Debate | National Constitution Center

First Amendment - Religion and Expression | FindLaw

Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that some individuals, groups, or government officials find objectionable or dangerous. Would-be censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove information they judge inappropriate or dangerous from public access, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone. It is no more complicated than someone saying, Dont let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it!

Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. Article 3, Library Bill of Rights

Challenged Resources: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (2019)A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others.ALA declares as a matter of firm principle that it is the responsibility of every library to have a clearly defined written policy for collection development that includes a procedure for review of challenged resources.

Labeling Systems: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (2015)The American Library Association affirms the rights of individuals to form their own opinions about resources they choose to read, view, listen to, or otherwise access. Libraries do not advocate the ideas found in their collections or in resources accessible through the library. The presence of books and other resources in a library does not indicate endorsement of their contents by the library. Likewise, providing access to digital information does not indicate endorsement or approval of that information by the library. Labeling systems present distinct challenges to these intellectual freedom principles.

Rating Systems: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (2019)Libraries, no matter their size, contain an enormous wealth of viewpoints and are responsible for making those viewpoints available to all. However, libraries do not advocate or endorse the content found in their collections or in resources made accessible through the library. Rating systems appearing in library public access catalogs or resource discovery tools present distinct challenges to these intellectual freedom principles. Q&A on Labeling and Rating Systems

Expurgation of Library Materials: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (2014)Expurgating library materials is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights. Expurgation as defined by this interpretation includes any deletion, excision, alteration, editing, or obliteration of any part(s) of books or other library resources by the library, its agent, or its parent institution (if any).

Restricted Access to Library Materials: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (2014)Libraries are a traditional forum for the open exchange of information. Attempts to restrict access to library materials violate the basic tenets of the Library Bill of Rights.

Complete list of Library Bill of Rights Interpretations

Library Bill of Rights (1939)Adopted by ALA Council, the Articles of the Library Bill of Rights are unambiguous statements of basic principles that should govern the service of all libraries. (printable pamphlets)

Freedom to Read Statement (1953)A collaborative statement by literary, publishing, and censorship organizations declaring the importance of our constitutionally protected right to access information and affirming the need for our professions to oppose censorship.

Libraries: An American Value (1999)Adopted by ALA Council, this brief statement pronounces the distinguished place libraries hold in our society and their core tenets of access to materials and diversity of ideas.

Guidelines for Library Policies (2019)Guidelines for librarians, governing authorities, and other library staff and library users on how constitutional principles apply to libraries in the United States.

Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q&A (2007)

Social Media Guidelines for Public and Academic Libraries (2018)

These guidelines provide a policy and implementation framework for public and academic libraries engaging in the use of social media.

Intellectual Freedom Manual (2021)Edited by Martin Garnarand Trina Magi with ALAs Office for Intellectual FreedomThe 10th edition manual is an indispensable resource for day-to-day guidance on maintaining free and equal access to information for all people

Journal of Intellectual Freedom and Privacy (2016 - present)Edited by Shannon Oltmann with ALA's Office for Intellectual FreedomPublished quarterly, JIFP offers articles related to intellectual freedom and privacy, both in libraries and in the wider world.

True Stories of Censorship Battles in America's Libraries (2012)By Valerie Nye and Kathy BarcoThis book is a collection of accounts from librarians who have dealt with censorship in some form. Divided into seven parts, the book covers intralibrary censorship, child-oriented protectionism, the importance of building strong policies, experiences working with sensitive materials, public debates and controversies, criminal patrons, and library displays.

Beyond Banned Books: Defending Intellectual Freedom throughout Your Library (2019)By Kristin Pekollwith ALAs Office for Intellectual FreedomA level-headed guide that uses specific case studies to offer practical guidance on safeguarding intellectual freedom related to library displays, programming, and other librarian-created content.

Lessons in Censorship: How Schools and Courts Subvert Students' First Amendment Rights (2015)By Catherine J. RossLessons in Censorship highlights the troubling and growing tendency of schools to clamp down on off-campus speech such as texting and sexting and reveals how well-intentioned measures to counter verbal bullying and hate speech may impinge on free speech. Throughout, Ross proposes ways to protect free expression without disrupting education.

The staff of the Office for Intellectual Freedom is available to answer questions or provide assistance to librarians, trustees, educators, and the public about the First Amendment and censorship. Areas of assistance include policy development, minors rights, and professional ethics. Inquiries can be directed via email to oif@ala.org or via phone at (312) 280-4226.

Excerpt from:
First Amendment and Censorship | Advocacy, Legislation & Issues

Dress codes are typically implemented by school districts and employers to promote learning, safety, and image.Although such regulations face First Amendment challenges by students, parents, and employees, the courts generally support the schools and employers. In this 2013 photo, Mary Beth Tinker, 61, shows an old photograph of her with her brother John Tinker to the Associated Press during an interview in Washington. InTinker. v. Des Moines Independent Community School District(1969) the Court affirmed students First Amendment rights to free speech.Although the Courts decision upheld students right to express themselves through certain items they wear, the Court has never specified whether that right bars uniforms, dress codes, or grooming requirements.(AP Photo by Manuel Balce Ceneta, used with permission from the Associated Press)

Dress codes are typically implemented by school districts and employers to promote learning, safety, and image.Although such regulations face First Amendment challenges by students, parents, and employees, the courts generally support the schools and employers.

School dress codes that merely exclude types of clothing, such as gang colors or provocative attire, tend to be enacted without controversy. When codes require uniform-like attire, however, many parents and children object.

The Supreme Court has never directly addressed school dress codes. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), which involved high school students wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, the Court affirmed students First Amendment rights to free speech. Although the Courts decision upheld students right to express themselves through certain items they wear, the Court has never specified whether that right bars uniforms, dress codes, or grooming requirements.

Faced with increasing student-discipline problems, particularly from gang violence (involving gangs whose members often identified themselves through items of clothing) and a rise in more prurient clothing in the 1980s and 1990s, school systems in the 1990s began to introduce dress codes, school uniforms, and uniform-like dress codes.

In two State of the Union addresses, President Bill Clinton advocated public school uniforms, similar to those in parochial schools and many public schools overseas. The number of schools that adopted uniforms is not known, but in California, where they were first mandated, at least 50 schools abandoned their uniform requirements between 2000 and 2002.

Short of restricting pure political expression that does not disrupt learning, school officials have much constitutional latitude.The law in this area is far from settled, and the courts frequently side with the schools when dress requirements are challenged by students and parents.

In practice, however, the bitterness and the cost of litigation have reduced the practical maneuvers of school administrators and school boards.

If school officials attempt to punish students who exercise their expressive rights by wearing buttons, writing on fingernails, or protest messages on shirts, they could find themselves slapped with protected-speech or petition action lawsuits. In addition, in districts that have imposed incentives to increase participation in voluntary uniform and uniform-like dress codes, threats of or actual lawsuits have quickly emerged to halt this allegedly coercive practice.

Opponents of dress codes and uniforms are often fall into a few categories:

Similarly, the motives of advocates of mandatory uniforms or uniform-like dress codes vary from those who want to de-emphasize clothing and promote the egalitarianism implicit in similar clothing to those who primarily wish to avoid fights with their children over what to wear.

School administrators and teachers are divided on the issue. Some, particularly those in underperforming or less disciplined school environments, welcome uniforms and uniform-like dress codes. Supporters also argue that uniforms help identify intruders on school property.

Opponents contend, however, that uniforms also make it more difficult to identify distressed students, who may reveal symptoms of psychological disorders by wearing unusual clothing. They also point out that teachers often waste the first minutes of class trying to determine which of their students who are not in uniform have waivers and which are violating the code.

In addition, friction and discipline problems may worsen as rule breakers crowd the principals office. Over time, students may simply stop wearing the uniform or uniform-like dress, or they may mock the policy by wearing the uniform in a revealing way.

Scholars have studied the effects of uniforms and dress codes on discipline and academic performance, but their findings have been mixed: Researchers, including sociologist David L. Brunsma at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, have concluded that no relationship exists, that the uniform or dress code is much less important than most other factors, or even that uniforms lower test scores.

Employers are entitled to enact dress codes, including uniforms, if there is a rational basis for the requirement, such as fostering a particular business image, encouraging harder work, or complying with public safety and health standards. They can ban anything reasonably deemed to be distracting from work, including body art.

Employers may also offer alternative dress codes, such as minimum requirements for casual Fridays. Although employees do not have a First Amendment right to dress in any way they choose to express themselves, they do have rights under the First Amendment to contest a dress code in a civil manner without fear of employer retribution.

The courts generally defer to employer judgments and have thus upheld prohibitions of torn clothing, sweat pants, short skirts or blouses, and hats.

Provided that the dress code is written clearly, is not excessive or onerous, is applied in a consistent fashion, and does not obviously discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, and perhaps ethnicity, the code is constitutionaland does not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

A dress code that discriminated on the basis of gender would be struck down. However, dress codes that are consistent with social customs can be upheld. Thus, in Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment (11th Cir., 1998), the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a rule requiring shorter haircuts for male employees.

This article was originally published in 2009. Henry F. Carey is Associate Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University.

Read this article:
Dress Codes | The First Amendment Encyclopedia

Roe v. Wade was decided per a right to privacy based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, but there is another, perhaps at least equally compelling, way to look at the abortion issue and that is through the lens of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

The establishment clause first asserts freedom from state religion or theocracy. This is a consequence of our Enlightenment heritage opposition to feudal state-imposed religion. The establishment clause only secondarily asserts freedom of religion, setting it within the demarcations of constitutional rejection or denial of state religion.

But the abortion question is also an Enlightenment question of self-determination versus determination of self by other. In this case, that other, the prohibitor of abortion, would be a religious form of the state; the state having been captured, unconstitutionally, by a theocracy. Legal limitation, suppression or criminalization of abortion on religious grounds would smuggle in a theocratic state, one which adheres to one doctrine and excludes all others.

In the United States today, Roman Catholicism and Christian fundamentalism would legally institutionalize their anti-abortion doctrine, thus violating the First Amendment dictum that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. But Catholicism and Christian fundamentalists stake their anti-abortion claims on the existence of the soul at conception.

In religious contexts, ensoulment is thought to take place when the soul comes into the body.

In Catholicism the moment of ensoulment has doctrinally varied over time. About 150 years ago, the church taught that ensoulment occurred at quickening, the moment when the pregnant person could feel the fetus moving in their body. (In their first pregnancy, a person typically feels fetal movement at about 18-20 weeks.

If they have given birth at least once, they will typically feel movement around 15-17 weeks.)

The churchs contemporary view is that the soul enters at the moment of conception. This view is shared by Christian fundamentalism, which claims that personhood occurs at the moment of conception. Christian fundamentalists oppose abortion by claiming that fetuses (which they term the preborn, or unborn children) have souls. Along with the Roman Catholic church, these fundamentalists contend that the moment of conception is so singular because it is when human life, personhood and ensoulment occur.

Before the Vatican reversed course on the subject of Limbo in 2007, Catholics believed a soul may not be admitted to heaven unless its body was baptized. Some Catholics may still believe that since fetuses are not baptized, their souls may not go straight to heaven but must hang around in Limbo, which is itself a speculative concept. For some Catholics, abortion causes there to be lost and wandering souls.

Christian fundamentalists claim that aborted fetuses, which they term unborn or preborn children, go straight to heaven because they are innocent and know nothing of original sin and are too young to be saved.

Other religions have different takes on the ensoulment question. The Mormon churchs position is that human beings have 3 stages of life: Pre-existence as spirit children, a time of probation on earth, Eternal life with the Heavenly Father. The Mormon church allows exceptions to its abortion ban due to pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, when the parents health is medically determined to be in serious jeopardy, or when it is medically determined that the fetus is so defective as not to be able to allow the baby to survive past birth.

In Judaism there is no fully developed theory of the timing or nature of ensoulment. This could be because Judaism does not include a strict separation of soul and body. However, the Talmud does speculate on when ensoulment might occur. But it appears that the Talmud dismisses [the ensoulment] question as both unanswerable and irrelevant to the abortion question.

Islam, meanwhile, traditionally did not hold that ensoulment occurred at conception. Currently, there are three views of when ensoulment occurs in Islam: at 120 days, at 40 days or when there is voluntary movement of the fetus ranging from the 12th to the 20th week of gestation.

For Hinduism and Buddhism, the eternal soul is ever being reborn unless and until Moksha or Nirvana is attained. Per Hindu doctrine, and similar to Catholic and Christian fundamentalist views, many Hindus believe that, The soul and the matter which form the fetus are joined together from conception. Still, in Hinduism, If a foetus is aborted, the soul within it suffers a major karmic setback and is deprived of the opportunities its potential human existence would have given it to earn good karma. So, this soul is then, returned immediately to the cycle of birth, death and rebirth.

The 14th Amendment tells us that constitutional rights may only be conferred on persons born or naturalized in the United States. At this point, modern science shows us that these persons must have been in the womb for at least 24 weeks, and they must be born. We must not substitute theocratic law for constitutional law.

Given this, legislation such as Alabamas outright abortion ban, (which has been delayed by litigation), or other restrictive ordinances recently passed in Texas, Oklahoma and Mississippi enshrine in law select religious views of the question, namely Catholic doctrine and Christian fundamentalist doctrine.

It may be said that such laws would create a specific state establishment of religion, (echoing the Christian nationalist mantra that the U.S. is a Christian country) and simultaneously prohibit to birthing people and people of other faiths or no faith at all the free exercise of their beliefs. As such, abortion bans are violations of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and must be struck down. Choice in abortion matters is about: 1.) freedom from state religion; 2.) self-determination, not determination of self by other and 3.) freedom of religion.

Denial of abortion exemplifies theocratic or reactionary forces domination of the state. The same reactionary state control used to force birth could also be exercised to prohibit pregnancies among specific categories or groups of people. This has already occurred in U.S. history with respect to the sterilization of the feeble-minded, and more recently sterilization of Puerto Rican women.

White supremacist and anti-Semitic Great Replacement ideology (in a word: fascism) claims that a declining birth rate of white Americans, coupled with the increased fertility rate of people of color and increased immigration, heralds their eclipse as the majority group in our country. Actually, fertility rates for all major racial/ethnic groups in the U.S. have fallen since 1990 by different amounts. Data from 2019 showed lower total fertility rates for non-Hispanic white women and Asian women than for African American women and Latinas. Still, it is demographically predicted that the U.S. will become majority non-white somewhere between 2040-2050. In this view, abortion bans are not only a theocratic strategy; they are also a strategy for preserving the white majority.

Its a strategy weve seen used by fascists before. A memorandum to SS Officer Adolf Eichmann from Nazi-occupied Poznan, Poland, noted that all the Jewish women, from whom one could still expect children, should be sterilized so that the Jewish problem may actually be solved completely with this generation. Simultaneous with the sterilization of Jewish women, German women were awarded the Mothers Cross for having four or more children for the Third Reich.

Ultimately, what the First Amendment argument affords is not just a defense against opposition to abortion and forced sterilization, but a fresh look at adjudication of questions pertaining to religious bans on other intimate matters, such as contraception use, when viewed as attempted theocratic intrusions within our society.

More here:
The First Amendment Could Provide a Fresh Legal Approach to Defending Abortion - Truthout