Mediaboss Marketing

The arrest of a cop watcher by Texas police raises serious questions about the rights of citizen journalists and the state of the First Amendment. We examine the unlawful detention of cop watcher David Boren within the context of the right to film police and to document the actions of public officials.

Host & ProducerTaya Graham is an award-winning investigative reporter who has covered U.S. politics, local government, and the criminal justice system. She is the host of TRNN's "Police Accountability Report," and producer and co-creator of the award-winning podcast "Truth and Reconciliation" on Baltimore's NPR affiliate WYPR. She has written extensively for a variety of publications including the Afro American Newspaper, the oldest black-owned publication in the country, and was a frequent contributor to Morgan State Radio at a historic HBCU. She has also produced two documentaries, including the feature-length film "The Friendliest Town." Although her reporting focuses on the criminal justice system and government accountability, she has provided on the ground coverage of presidential primaries and elections as well as local and state campaigns.

taya@therealnews.com@tayasbaltimore

Host & Producer

Stephen Janis is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work has been acclaimed both in print and on television. As the Senior Investigative Reporter for the now defunct Baltimore Examiner, he won two Maryland DC Delaware Press Association Awards for his work on the number of unsolved murders in Baltimore and the killings of prostitutes. His in-depth work on the city's zero-tolerance policing policies garnered an NAACP President's Award. As an Investigative Producer for WBFF/Fox 45, he has won three successive Capital Emmys: two for Best Investigative Series and one for Outstanding Historical/Cultural Piece.

He is the author of three books on the philosophy of policing:Why Do We Kill? The Pathology of Murder in Baltimore; You Can't Stop Murder: Truths About Policing in Baltimore and Beyond;andThe Book of Cop: A Testament to Policing That Works.He has also written two novels,This Dream Called DeathandOrange: The Diary of an Urban Surrealist. He teaches journalism at Towson University.

Visit link:
Cops told him the First Amendment doesnt apply, then they arrested him to prove it. - The Real News Network

Kent County Council has begun legal proceedings against the Home Office after it said its children's services have reached "breaking point".

Since the beginning of the year, a total of 242 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) have reached Kent's shores and the authority's director of children's services has said "enough is enough".

There are currently nearly double the number of UASC children in care in the county than the government says it is safe to care for.

Following a similar plea last year, the Home Office and Department for Education promised to reform the national system so that Kent services would not be put under the same strain this summer.

But, the council says that in the intervening nine months, although it welcomed government support in the transfer of some children out of Kent, assistance with age assessments and additional funding, the substantive changes needed to the National Transfer Scheme (NTS) to prevent a repeat have not been made, the council says.

A statement from the council said: "Once again Kent services are at risk of being overwhelmed by the number of new UASC arrivals by boat, which already stands at 60 more children than at the same time last year.

"Kent's services have reached breaking point for the second time in under a year."

The council has now taken the first steps in legal proceedings which is says is designed to "implement a long-term solution that will prevent this crisis from occurring again".

The proposed Judicial Review asks the home secretary to use her existing powers to direct local authorities other than Kent to "receive their fair share of UASC".

Roger Gough, the authority's director of children's services says the current pace of arrivals and strain on care services is likely to mean he will soon no longer be able to safely accept any further new UASC arrivals in Kent.

Border Force will then be asked to place new arrivals directly into other local authorities around the country from the port, as they did for three months last year.

Mr Gough said: "I am deeply saddened that we are now seeing a repeat of the same crisis of nine months ago.

"While there have been a number of welcome measures from government - to the benefit of the Kent council taxpayer - we have not seen what is most needed: a robust National Transfer Scheme that prevents port authorities such as Kent coming under unmanageable pressure.

"Over this past year we have argued consistently and repeatedly this must be done through a mandatory system."

"Enough is enough. A robust, long-term solution is well overdue and critical for the future welfare of all children supported by KCC, whatever their background, and the continuation of the excellent services that support them."

Between 1 January and 1 June this year 242 unaccompanied children arrived on Kent's shores and been passed to its Children's Services.

Of these, only 52 have been transferred to other local authorities under the voluntary NTS.

A statement from the Home Office said it recognised the "longstanding role that Kent County Council has played in supporting unaccompanied asylum-seeking children" and that is was "extremely grateful for their contribution".

It added: "We continue to encourage more areas to join the National Transfer Scheme and do their part.

"We have already consulted on how to improve the Scheme to make it fairer - the outcome of which will be published very shortly."

Read the original here:
'Enough is enough': Kent begins legal proceedings against Home Secretary as migrant children crisis threatens to 'overwhelm them' - Sky News

The arrival this term of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald J. Trump's third appointee, has transformed a Supreme Court with a slight conservative majority into one that tilted right by a 6-to-3 margin. Justice Barrett has also left Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. with a sharply diminished ability to guide the courts direction in cases on health care, voting, religion and gay rights.

According to a recent survey from researchers at Harvard, Stanford and the University of Texas, the public is divided nearly evenly on those key cases.

Covid Restrictions and Religion

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, the court ruled that New York could not prohibit in-person attendance at worship services because it violated the Constitutions protection of religious liberty.

Where the public stands

Question wording: Many states have prohibited large in-person gatherings due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Some people think that states cannot prohibit in-person religious gatherings because of the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Other people think that states can prohibit inperson religious gatherings. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Life Sentences for Juvenile Offenders

In Jones v. Mississippi, the court ruled that juvenile offenders need not be deemed incorrigible, or beyond hope of rehabilitation, before a judge sentences them to die in prison.

Where the public stands

Question wording: There are states that reserve the ability to sentence juvenile criminal defendants to life sentences without the possibility of any parole. Some people think that such juvenile defendants must be found to be incorrigible or impossible of being reformed before being sentenced to life without parole. Other people think that juveniles can be sentenced to life sentences without parole without states having to make such a determination. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Affordable Care Act

In California v. Texas, the court will decide whether a key provision of President Barack Obamas health care law is constitutional and, if it is not, whether the entire law must fall.

Where the public stands

Question wording: Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there is a tax penalty for not buying health insurance. This is called the individual mandate. Recent legislation has set the tax penalty for not buying health insurance to $0. Some people believe that, because the tax penalty is $0, this means that the penalty is actually not a tax and it exceeds the federal government's power to tax and is unconstitutional. Other people believe that it does not exceed the federal government's power totax and is constitutional. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Question wording: Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there is a tax penalty for not buying health insurance. This is called the individual mandate. Some people think that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional then the entirety of the ACA must also be unconstitutional. Other people disagree and think that if the individual mandate is unconstitutional, that should not affect the rest of the law. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Religion and Gay Rights

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the court will decide whether Philadelphia may bar a Catholic agency that refuses to work with same-sex couples from screening potential foster parents.

Where the public stands

Question wording: There are some religiously affiliated foster agencies that refuse to place foster children with same-sex couples. Some people think that governments can prohibit such agencies from participating in the foster care systems they operate unless the agencies allow children to be placed with same-sex couples. Other people think that doing so would violate the agencies' First Amendment rights to religious freedom. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Where the public stands

Question wording: In Arizona, if a voter arrives at a polling place and is not listed on the voter roll for that precinct, the voter may still cast a provisional ballot. After election day, Arizona election officials review all provisional ballots to determine the voter's identity and address. If officials determine that the voter voted outside of their precinct, the ballot is discarded in its entirety, even if the voter was eligible to vote in most of the races on the ballot. Some people believe that discarding entire ballots in this manner is unlawful. Other people believe that it is lawful. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Question wording: Arizona offers in-person voting at a precinct or vote center either on election day or during an early-vote period. Many voters particularly racial minorities who vote early rely on another person to collect and drop off voted ballots. However, the Arizona legislature made it illegal to collect and deliver another person's ballot. Some people think that voters should be able to rely on another person or third party to collect and drop off ballots. Other people think that states can forbid this. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Where the public stands

Question wording: To detect possible fraud, the attorney general of California requires private nonprofit organizations to report the names and addresses of their major donors to the state, which keeps this information confidential. Some people think that this violates nonprofit organizations' First Amendment rights to free association because it might deter people from financially supporting them. Other people do not think that this violates nonprofit organizations' First Amendment rights to free association. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Students First Amendment Rights

In Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the court will decide whether schools may punish students for social media posts and other off-campus speech.

Where the public stands

Question wording: Some people think that public school officials can punish students for things they say or write off campus, including on social media, without violating students' First Amendment rights to free speech. Other people think that such punishments violate students' First Amendment rights to free speech. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Where the public stands

Question wording: The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) strictly limits colleges and universities from providing paid compensation to college athletes. Some people think the NCAA's strict limits on paid compensation for college athletes in this manner is an unlawful form of coordination against athletes. Others disagree and think that the NCAA should be able to strictly limit colleges and universities from providing paid compensation to college athletes. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

Union Access to Workplaces

In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the court will decide whether a California regulation that allows union representatives to meet with farmworkers at their worksites amounts to government taking of private property.

Where the public stands

Question wording: California law requires that employers allow union representatives to enter a company's private property to meet with employees and solicit support for labor organizing. Some people believe that this is akin to the government taking companies' private property without compensation. Other people argue that the law is acceptable, and is not the government taking companies' private property without compensation. What do you think? | Source: SCOTUSPoll

See the original post:
What the Public Thinks About Major Supreme Court Cases This Term - The New York Times

The debate over migrant workers in recent times and their invisibility in government data and in policy discourse has led to a series of responses from state and central governments. While the number of returning migrants is lower in the second wave ofCovid-19, nothing much has changed for the migrants on the ground. This past year has seen state governments, such as Haryana and Karnataka, move to give preference to local persons over migrants, even as a draft national migrant policy is under consideration. Is there a constitutional right to migrate within India? What, if any, are the duties cast upon governments and employers? These questions must be considered if the current migrant crisis is not to result in deprivation of the fundamental right to internal migration.

The images of returning migrant workers due toCovid-19 lockdown triggered widespread public debates on the invisibility of migrant workers in normal times, their absence in policy discourse, and the need for a robust legal framework to protect migrants (ILO2020). In the midst of this pandemic, pressure has been brought upon governments to ensure minimum dignity and rights of migrant workers. Yet, disturbingly, some governments such as Karnataka had sought to restrict migrant workers right to return to their home states, while others such as Haryana sought to replace them with local workers (Poovanna 2020;PRS2021). A draft policy on migrant workers is reportedly under discussion at the national level. The question whether there is a right to migrate within India, and what, if any, are the duties cast upon the central government, the employer and state governments involved, must be considered so that the current migrant crisis does not result in depriving workers of their right to internal migration.

Right to Internal Migration

Read the original:
The Fundamental Freedom to Migrate within India | Economic and Political Weekly - Economic and Political Weekly

During the Nixon administrations Watergate unraveling, Henry Kissingers mordant jest was, The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer. But not long, todays congressional Democrats say. Their For the People Act (FTP) is 800-plus pages of provisions convenient for them and their party, some constitutionally dubious, others patently unconstitutional.

All laws regulating campaigns are enacted by people with conflicts of interest interests in advantaging themselves and disadvantaging challengers. FTP would dictate sweeping changes to all 50 states election laws, contravening the Constitutions stipulation that the times, places and manner of congressional elections are to be determined by state legislatures. Granted, the Constitution says Congress may alter such rules, but dictating, for example, how congressional districts are drawn doesnt pertain to the manner of elections. FTP reflects the perennial progressive desire to reduce the states to appendages of the federal government.

FTP sweeps beyond elections by expanding regulation of electioneering communication to include any communication that mentions a federal official, even if only to urge support for a policy, not influence an election. Unsatisfied with their advantages in the mainstream media, Democrats aim to impede alternative forms of advocacy, especially by requiring disclosure of even small-dollar donors to organizations involved only in issue advocacy, not elections. This is sinister, given the ferocious vindictiveness of todays virtual mobs that hound people associated with controversial causes. Soon, the Supreme Court might issue a ruling strengthening its defense of the First Amendment right to speak anonymously. (In 2020, Joe Bidens allies spent six times the amount of contributions from anonymous donors what Democrats tendentiously call dark money that Donald Trumps campaign received.)

The parties should insist that presidential candidates make public 10 years of their tax returns. But by making this a legal requirement, FTP would add a new qualification for the presidential office. In 1995, the Supreme Court, striking down a state law imposing term limits on Arkansas national legislators, held that the Constitution sets the maximum, not a minimum, of qualifications. Neither Congress nor state legislatures can augment them.

FTP would compel states to count mail ballots received 10 days after the election, on the infantilizing assumption that voters cannot be expected to meet an Election Day deadline. Also, FTP would give voters 10 additional days to correct mistakes on mailed ballots, further prolonging possible uncertainty about elections outcomes. Nationally, 73% of 2020 voters cast their ballots before Election Day. Almost 44% of Florida ballots were cast by mail, yet the state tabulation was completed on election night, which should be a national norm.

Although 43 states and the District of Columbia allow early voting for between four and 45 days, Democrats propose to give federal government employees, a significant component of their partys base, paid Election Days off at an estimated cost of $800 million every two years. Although New Hampshire has no mail-in voting and requires voter IDs and in-person voter registration, it has been among the top five states in voter turnout in the five previous presidential elections. Actually, a modicum of inconvenience is a civic benefit if, by drawing voters together in public places on a solemn day central to the national liturgy, election arrangements emphasize that more than just private considerations are at stake.

For generations, there has been judicial enforcement of constitutional and statutory protections of voting rights. And in 2020, the states rose to the challenge of conducting elections compatible with pandemic-related public health protocols. And as Democrats rightly insist, the voting, which shattered turnout records, was without significant malfeasance. So, why 800-plus pages of revisions to electoral procedures and political practices? See above the first sentence of the second paragraph.

FTP reflects an appetite for constitutional vandalism that was displayed seven years ago when 54 members of the Democratic Senate caucus voted to amend the First Amendment to empower Congress to regulate the quantity, content and timing of campaign speech. They thereby implicitly acknowledged that the amendment (Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech) is, by its text, and Supreme Court rulings, incompatible with their desire to strictly control campaign spending, all of which directly or indirectly funds political advocacy.

Unable to alter the Constitution, Democrats now propose, with FTP, to ignore it. In the unlikely event that the For the People Act is passed, the Supreme Court will have multiple occasions for reacquainting its authors with what they ignored.

Read this article:
Ignoring the Constitution, Democrats want to dictate sweeping election changes in all 50 states - Bowling Green Daily News