Tag: 1st amendment

Texas school bans all-black clothing because colour ‘associated with depression’

A school in Texas has changed its dress code to forbid “black tops with black bottoms” citing concerns about mental health and criminality.

The principal of Charles Middle School in El Paso, Nick DeSantis, wrote in a letter to parents that an all-dark ensemble can be “associated with depression and mental health issues and/or criminality.”

The school is “eliminating a look that has taken over on campus with students wearing black tops with black bottoms, which has become more associated with depression and mental health issues and/or criminality than with happy and healthy kids ready to learn,” read the letter, obtained by KVIA.

“I understand that it is a concern, but keep in mind that students’ safety is our number one priority, and so anytime there are concerns that are brought forward about student safety, it’s important for us to take those seriously,” Sarah Venegas, executive principal of the El Paso Independent School District (EPISD), told the outlet.

She explained the school allowed black pants last year but going forward, students will only be allowed to wear khaki pants and blue jeans.

“Wearing your uniform is a part of the school rules, at every campus,” she added. “If they’re in uniform violations it can be a disciplinary infraction but that is up to every administrator.”

Keep reading

Tim Walz Was Dead Wrong About Misinformation and Free Speech

Now that Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz has become Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, it is ostensibly time for the media to scrutinize his record and past statements. (Emphasis on ostensibly.)

To say the mainstream coverage of Walz has been fawning thus far would be quite an understatement; The New York Times described him as “a one-man rejoinder to the idea that the Democrats are the party of the cultural and coastal elite.” The Atlantic‘s Charlie Warzel merrily aided media efforts to portray Walz as a lovable, folksy paternal figure, writing that “dad is on the ballot.” CNN proclaimed the Harris-Walz team as “an antidote to Trump’s American carnage.”

“Kamala Harris and Tim Walz want to make America joyful again,” wrote CNN’s Stephen Collinson.

The task of scrutinizing Walz will clearly fall to other interested parties. (See Reason‘s Eric Boehm on his overall record, and this piece by me on his COVID-19 policies.)

Conservatives on social media did manage to dig up an old clip of Walz making an alarming and false claim: “There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.”

Walz is wrong, of course: The First Amendment, which vigorously protects Americans’ free speech rights, does not distinguish between good information and misinformation. Moreover, so-called hate speech—an arbitrary category, as different people find different sorts of speech to be hateful—is quite obviously protected.

But that clip of Walz is only eight seconds long, and I am wary of taking people out of context. So I looked for the rest of the clip, which is available here.

Keep reading

Nassau County Criminalizes Masks To Counter Far-Left Mask-Wearing Activists 

Nassau County Republicans passed the “Mask Transparency Act” on Monday, making it a misdemeanor for anyone 16 and older to wear a face mask in public spaces except for health and religious reasons. This move aims to curb criminals or violent protesters who exploit mask-wearing to conceal their identities. 

Nassau County Legislator Mazi Pilip proposed the Mask Transparency Act after one of her constituents was attacked by a mask-wearing protester.

“Having them covering their faces, thinking they can do whatever they want. This is absolutely unacceptable,” Pilip told NBC New York.

Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman shared a similar view… 

“Unless someone has a medical condition or a religious imperative, people should not be allowed to cover their face in a manner that hides their identity when in public.” 

Violators of the bill could be slapped with a fine of up to $1,000 and even jail time. The bill had unanimous support from all 12 Republican legislators in Nassau County. 

Keep reading

How America Gave Up Press Freedom and Nobody Noticed

Did you notice that we’ve lost the press freedom that is essential in our democracy? If you’re like many people, probably not.

Do you believe that a free press is a Constitutional guarantee? Most people likely think it is indeed guaranteed. Actually, it is not.

Here’s the real story as I see it:

“Freedom of the press is an implicit and essential right of the people. It is not just freedom of speech for journalists. If a democracy is going to work, citizens have got to make informed political choices. The media are the people’s primary means for keeping informed. Many believe that press freedom exists if the media are free of governmental control and that pluralism prevails. That view misses the main point. A good share of the media has got to be free to serve the people.”

Those were my opening comments when the World Association of Newspapers invited me deliver the Keynote Address at the Press Freedom Forum of its 2006 World Congress.

Separately, a published report from the US Agency for International Development tells us of another vital point. It is that the press “serves a ‘checking function’ by ensuring that elected representatives uphold their oaths of office and carry out the wishes of those who elected them.” Often this is called being a “watchdog.”

Now, here in 2024, much of our news coverage is devoid of those fundamental principles. Tune in to CNN or MSNBC and you’ll hear people serving their audiences with bias and persuasion, forthrightly favoring their preferred political candidates. Switch to Fox News and you’ll hear the same thing, but with an opposite political twist.

These biased or dishonest news services are not violating any law. They are free to do what they’re doing. But in those cases voters are not being served consistently honest, unbiased information on which to base reasonable choices of leaders or to detect failures in existing leadership. Real news seeks to report, not persuade.

Network news has bias too. But it is not as consistent as cable news, and not as intense. Nonetheless it is still not a consistently reliable source for honest news.

As to a constitutionally guaranteed free press? Many believe we have that guarantee. For example, a free speech center at an American university states flatly, “Freedom of the press is a Constitutional guarantee contained in the First Amendment, which in turn is part of the Bill of Rights.” That might be a good fundraising line for the university. But it’s not true.

Keep reading

Newsom Threatens Laws Against Deepfakes After Kamala Harris Parody Video Goes Viral

In a clash between Gov. Gavin Newsom and tech magnate Elon Musk, the California governor promoted his intention to endorse a law targeting what he calls the misuse of AI in political advertising.

This decision escalates the ongoing dispute between the two influential figures. Newsom criticized a parody video shared by Musk, which seemed to showcase a campaign ad for Vice President Kamala Harris with a synthetic voiceover, by posting, “Manipulating a voice in an ‘ad’ like this one should be illegal. I’ll be signing a bill in a matter of weeks to make sure it is.”

Musk retorted sharply on social media, emphasizing the legality of parody in the United States.

Keep reading

Trump Calls for Jailing Flag Burners

In reaction to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress on Wednesday, raucous anti-Israel protests erupted across Washington, D.C. Protesters vandalized statues outside D.C.’s Union Station with phrases like “Hamas is comin” and “long live the resistance.” At one point, protesters replaced the American flag with a Palestinian flag and then burned the American flag.

In response to the flag burning, former President Donald Trump told Fox and Friends on Wednesday that he believed those who burn or damage the American flag should face jail time. Trump also brushed off those who would point out that flag desecration is First Amendment-protected speech.

“You should get a one-year jail sentence if you do anything to desecrate the American flag,” said Trump. “Now, people will say, ‘Oh, it’s unconstitutional.’ Those are stupid people. Those are stupid people that say that.”

“We have to work in Congress to get a one-year jail sentence,” Trump continued. “When they’re allowed to stomp on the flag and put lighter fluid on the flag and set it afire, when you’re allowed to do that—you get a one-year jail sentence, and you’ll never see it again.”

This isn’t the first time Trump has called for imprisoning flag burners. 

“We ought to come up with legislation that if you burn the American flag you go to jail for one year,” Trump said during a 2020 rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. “We oughta do it. We talk about freedom of speech…but that’s desecration,” he added.

However, Trump is simply wrong. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning is protected speech. While you can still face property destruction-related charges for burning someone else’s flag (as occurred Wednesday), burning a flag you own is protected political expression.

Keep reading

Anti-Deepfake Porn Bill Unanimously Passes the Senate

The anti-Deepfake porn bill, otherwise known as the Disrupt Explicit Forged Images and Non-Consensual Edits (DEFIANCE) Act, passed the U.S. Senate unanimously on Thursday with 100 votes.

Introduced by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) while being sponsored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) from the U.S. House, the bill would essentially allow victims of Deepfake porn to “sue anyone who knowingly creates, receives, or distributes non-consensual, sexually explicit content made with artificial intelligence,” per Gizmodo. Victims will have a 10-year statute of limitations.

“The bill is one of the first to address the damages caused by AI, which is currently a self-regulated industry,” the outlet noted. “It doesn’t allow for criminal prosecution, but hopefully, it’s a first step towards more federal oversight.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said she pushed the bill after falling victim to Deepfake porn online, which become a significant problem in recent years.

Keep reading

Man Who Was Arrested for Flipping Off Cop Settles for $175,000

A man who was arrested and charged for flipping off a Vermont State Police (VSP) officer settled his case last month for $175,000.

“Far too often, police abuse their authority to retaliate against and suppress speech they personally find offensive or insulting,” Lia Ernst, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Vermont, tells Reason about the case. “This settlement demonstrates that violating these rights does not come without a cost.”

Through the settlement, Gregory Bombard will receive $100,000 in damages. The ACLU of Vermont and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which both represented Bombard in his suit, will receive the remaining $75,000.

All told, Bombard spent “about a year fighting the criminal charges and more than three years seeking declaratory relief,” a spokesperson for FIRE tells Reason.

Jay Riggen, the officer who arrested Bombard, “retired from VSP effective May 31, 2024,” a spokesperson for the Vermont State Police tells Reason. “We have no additional comment on this case.”

In February 2018, Bombard was stopped by Vermont State Trooper Riggen, who believed Bombard had given him the finger while driving—an allegation Bombard denies. However, after Riggen walked away from the car, Bombard flipped Riggen off and swore at the officer in frustration for having been pulled over.

In response, Riggen pulled Bombard over again and arrested him for disorderly conduct. “The first one may have been an error,” said Riggen during the arrest, referring to the reason for the initial stop, but “the second one certainly was not.”

Keep reading

California teachers were right to severely punish girl, 7, for writing these words under Black Lives Matter drawing she gave to friend, judge rules

A California judge has ruled that teachers were right to punish a seven-year-old girl over a Black Lives Matter drawing because ‘she’s too young to have First Amendment rights.’

The first grader was banned from recess and drawing pictures at Viejo Elementary in Orange County after she added the words ‘any life’ below Black Lives Matter on a picture she drew and and gave to a black friend.

The picture showed the words ‘Black Lives Matter’ with four round shapes in various different tones of brown, beige and yellow, which was intended to ‘represent her friends’ who were ‘racially-mixed’. 

The girl’s family filed a lawsuit last year against the Capistrano Unified School District, claiming her First Amendment Rights were violated during the 2021 incident.

But US Central District Court Judge David Card ruled that ‘Students have the right to be free from speech that denigrates their race while at school’. Card added that the drawing was not protected by the First Amendment because of the age of the girl, named B.B. in the suit, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. 

Judge Card wrote: ‘An elementary school … is not a marketplace of ideas… Thus, the downsides of regulating speech there is not as significant as it is in high schools, where students are approaching voting age and controversial speech could spark conducive conversation.’

Moreover, Judge Card wrote, ‘a parent might second-guess (the principal’s) conclusion, but his decision to discipline B.B. belongs to him, not the federal courts.’

Card added that ‘Undoubtedly, B.B.’s intentions were innocent… B.B. testified that she gifted the Drawing to M.C. to make her feel comfortable after her class learned about Martin Luther King Jr.’

B.B. was punished by her school after her friend, known as M.C. in the suit, took the picture home, where a parent saw it and found it offensive, emailing the school and demanding they take action.

This prompted principal Jesus Becerra to tell B.B. the drawing was inappropriate and racist. He then punished B.B. by making her publicly apologize on the playground to her classmates and teachers. B.B. was also banned from recess and from drawing pictures for two weeks.

Keep reading

Tennessee Woman’s ‘Fuck Em’ Both 2024′ Sign Is Protected Speech, Rules District Court

A federal judge has ruled a Tennessee woman can’t be fined for saying what we’re all thinking, even if it’s in the form of a yard sign.

This past week, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee ruled that the town of Lakeland, Tennessee, violated resident Julie Pereira’s First Amendment rights when it fined her for placing a “Fuck Em’ [sic] Both 2024″ sign in her yard.

According to her First Amendment lawsuit filed last month, Pereira’s sign “simply and cogently” expressed her own opinion that neither major party candidate was an acceptable choice for president. A Lakeland code enforcement official disagreed, slapping Pereira with daily fines of $50 for violating the city’s prohibition on “obscene” signs.

The city only stopped fining Pereira after she covered the u on her sign with tape. By that point, she’d wracked up $688 in fines and other fees because of her sign.

But, unwilling to either pay those fees or dilute the “potency” of her message, Pereira sued the city of Lakeland for violating her First Amendment rights.

“In the interest of protecting not only my rights, but all citizens in the state of Tennessee this case has been taken to the next level because of its constitutional impacts,” she wrote on Facebook, per the New York Post‘s reporting.

In a brief, three-page ruling, the U.S. district court agreed with Pereira. The court barred the city from taking any further enforcement action over her sign and instructed the city to reimburse Pereira for the fines she’d paid, plus $31,000 in attorneys fees, and $1 in nominal damages for having her constitutional rights violated.

Keep reading