Tag: 1st amendment

SCOTUS Makes It Easier for Victims of Retaliatory Arrests To Vindicate Their First Amendment Rights

When someone claims to have been arrested in retaliation for constitutionally protected speech, what sort of evidence is necessary to make that case? Five years ago in Nieves v. Bartlett, the Supreme Court held that an arrest can violate the First Amendment even if it was based on probable cause, provided the claimant can present “objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been.” Today in Gonzalez v. Trevino, the Court said that showing does not require “very specific comparator evidence” indicating that “identifiable people” engaged in very similar conduct but were not arrested.

“This is a great day for the First Amendment and Sylvia Gonzalez, who has courageously fought against retaliatory actions by government officials,” says Anya Bidwell, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represents Gonzalez, a former Castle Hills, Texas, city council member who says her political opponents engineered her arrest on a trumped-up charge of tampering with a government document. The document in question was a petition that Gonzalez herself had spearheaded, calling for the replacement of City Manager Ryan Rapelye. Gonzalez had run for office on a promise to seek Rapelye’s removal, and she claimed his allies were determined to punish her for that position.

During a May 2019 city council meeting that addressed complaints about Rapelye’s performance, Gonzalez picked up the petition, which had been presented to the council, and placed it in her personal folder. She says she did that accidentally. But Mayor Edward Trevino, Police Chief John Siemens, and Alexander Wright, a “special detective” assigned to investigate Gonzalez, accused her of deliberately removing the document to avoid scrutiny of alleged improprieties in collecting signatures for the petition.

As a result, Gonzalez was briefly jailed and suffered the attendant damage to her reputation. Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales, according to Gonzalez’s Supreme Court petition, “dropped the charges as soon as he learned about them.” Trevino et al. nevertheless achieved what Gonzalez says was their goal all along. “Gonzalez was so hurt by the experience and so embarrassed by the media coverage of her arrest,” the petition says, that “she gave up her council seat and swore off organizing petitions or criticizing her government.”

In July 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected Gonzalez’s First Amendment claim against Trevino, Siemens, and Wright, saying it was doomed by her failure to cite other cases in which people had not been arrested for conduct like hers. “Were we writing on a blank slate,” Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt wrote in the majority opinion, “we may well agree” that “the Constitution ought to provide a claim here, particularly given that Gonzalez’s arrest was allegedly in response to her exercise of her right to petition.” But “Nieves requires comparative evidence,” he said, “because it required ‘objective evidence’ of ‘otherwise similarly situated individuals’ who engaged in the ‘same’ criminal conduct but were not arrested. The evidence Gonzalez provides here comes up short.”

Keep reading

Louisiana becomes first state to require that Ten Commandments be displayed in public classrooms

Louisiana has become the first state to require that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom under a bill signed into law by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry on Wednesday.

The GOP-drafted legislation mandates that a poster-sized display of the Ten Commandments in “large, easily readable font” be required in all public classrooms, from kindergarten to state-funded universities. Although the bill did not receive final approval from Landry, the time for gubernatorial action – to sign or veto the bill – has lapsed.

Opponents question the law’s constitutionality, warning that lawsuits are likely to follow. Proponents say the purpose of the measure is not solely religious, but that it has historical significance. In the law’s language, the Ten Commandments are described as “foundational documents of our state and national government.”

The American Civil Liberties Union said Wednesday it was joining Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation to file a lawsuit challenging the new Louisiana legislation.

“The law violates the separation of church and state and is blatantly unconstitutional,” the groups said in a joint statement. “The First Amendment promises that we all get to decide for ourselves what religious beliefs, if any, to hold and practice, without pressure from the government. Politicians have no business imposing their preferred religious doctrine on students and families in public schools. “

In April, State Senator Royce Duplessis told CBS affiliate WWL-TV that he opposed the legislation. 

“That’s why we have a separation of church and state,” said Duplessis, who is a Democrat. “We learned the 10 Commandments when we went to Sunday school. As I said on the Senate floor, if you want your kids to learn the Ten Commandments, you can take them to church.”

The displays, which will be paired with a four-paragraph “context statement” describing how the Ten Commandments “were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries,” must be in place in classrooms by the start of 2025.

The posters would be paid for through donations. State funds will not be used to implement the mandate, based on language in the legislation.

The law also “authorizes” – but does not require – the display of the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance in K-12 public schools.

Keep reading

House Probes NewsGuard’s ‘Fact-checking’ Operations, Citing Federal Funding

NewsGuard, a “fact-checking” firm that provides “journalist-produced ratings and ‘Nutrition Labels’ for thousands of news and information websites” to advertisers hoping to steer clear of sites that publish “misinformation,” is under congressional scrutiny for its practices.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Accountability, last week launched an investigation into the fact-checking firm, a recipient of federal funding.

The probe will examine “the impact of NewsGuard on protected First Amendment speech and its potential to serve as a non-transparent agent of censorship campaigns,” the committee said.

In a letter to NewsGuard co-CEOs Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz, Comer highlighted federal funding NewsGuard received “and possible actions being taken to suppress accurate information.”

The letter also questions the potential political bias of NewsGuard’s editorial team.

OD) in 2021 awarded a contract to NewsGuard. The contract raises questions about the involvement of federal agencies in potential censorship campaigns, according to Comer’s letter.

The $749,387 contract was directed to NewsGuard’s “Misinformation Fingerprints” database. According to NewsGuard, the database is “a catalogue of known hoaxes, falsehoods and misinformation narratives that are spreading online.”

The DOD funding led The Federalist, in a November 2023 article, to report that “NewsGuard is selling its government-funded censorship tool to private companies.”

Also in November 2023, Lee Fang, one of the journalists involved with the “Twitter Files” release called NewsGuard a “surrogate the Feds pay to keep watch on the Internet and be a judge of the truth.”

Although not mentioned in Comer’s letter, other federal agencies also provided support to NewsGuard.

For example, an August 2020 NewsGuard press release states the firm won a “Pentagon-State Department contest for detecting COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation.”

The contest, known as the Countering Disinformation Challenge, sought “to offer solutions to hoaxes related to the COVID-19 pandemic” by helping the U.S. Department of State and the DOD “evaluate disinformation narrative themes in near real time” and to flag “hoaxes, narratives, and sources of disinformation as they emerge.”

NewsGuard, which received $25,000 as part of the contest, worked with the State Department’s Global Engagement Center “to scope and develop a test in support of the DoD’s Cyber National Mission Force.’’

According to a March 2023 “Twitter Files” release, Twitter — now known as X — worked with the Global Engagement Center to brand numerous accounts that posted “legitimate and accurate COVID-19 updates” but which “attacked” U.S. and European politicians as “Russia-linked.”

In December 2023, the State of Texas, The Daily Wire, The Federalist and the New Civil Liberties Alliance sued the State Department, alleging it was using and promoting technology intended to “covertly suppress speech of a segment of the American press.”

In May, a federal judge rejected the State Department’s efforts to dismiss the case.

Keep reading

What Happened to the First Amendment, Sandy Hook?

A simple search relating to any news coverage of Sandy Hook would show that the Sandy Hook families who lost their children didn’t sue Professor James Tracy. In addition, it is noteworthy to understand that Professor James Tracy’s legal attempts to have the Supreme Court review his case under the first amendment were rejected, Why? Professor Tracy wasn’t fired because of what he said, but the fact he didn’t disclose his outside activities that apparently violated his contract. – food for thought.

It is true Alex Jones questioned the official narrative the day Sandy Hook mass shooting was being covered live by the National News with the involvement from the FBI, and State Police.

Jones certainly wasn’t incorrect about the FBI agent showing up to a crime scene ill prepared and without the proper equipment, that shocking fact came directly from the FBI agent himself on the stand at the Alex Jones trial. The same FBI agent who is currently profiting off the Sandy Hook crime scene by suing Alex Jones. This agent failed to produce the FBI waiver that is required by FBI ethics and protocols to obtain approval to profit off such crime scenes. This official FBI waiver was clearly missing at the Connecticut trial of Alex Jones. An FBI agent suing relating to a crime scene for profit? This just might be a first.

Keep reading

The “Antisemitism Awareness Act” Poses A Real Danger To The First Amendment

Totalitarianism rarely shows its true face when it arises. Instead, it often pretends to stand for good and decent values. A new bill claims to fight antisemitism, something all decent people oppose. But antisemitism—that is, bias and discrimination against Jews because of their religion or ethnic identity—is already barred under civil rights law. The real goal of the so-called “Antisemitism Awareness Act” is to suppress free speech.

This dangerous bill was already passed by the House of Representatives and now awaits a Senate vote. It outsources some of our constitutional rights to an outside organization, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, whose arbitrary definition of antisemitism poses a threat to civil liberties. It could be used to crush legitimate debate about Israel, its policies, and American policies toward it—policies that have given rise to one of the greatest acts of genocide since the Holocaust.

This bill could suppress historical research and ban the mention of facts that have been verified by international organizations. It could initiate lawsuits, funding cuts, and disciplinary action across all American “education programs or activities, and for other purposes.” (Those “other purposes” are not defined.) Student protesters, professors, writers, and even elected officials could face political repression and become legal targets.

It turns the USA’s much-celebrated sense of liberty into a funhouse mirror, a grotesque and distorted reflection of everything this country claims to see in itself. Its passage would make a travesty of everything America’s leaders claim to believe in.

The implications are enormous. The federal government spends more than $100 billion per year on education, including $85.3 billion for kindergarten through high school, $24.6 billion in federal student aid assistance, and $1.3 billion in congressional earmarks for colleges (for projects that range from equipment purchases and airport runways to prison education programs). All these expenditures could be used as leverage to stifle legitimate debate.

Despite its “antisemitic” branding, the bill targets Jews as well as non-Jews. As literature professor Benjamin Balthasar writes, it would effectively ban the teaching of “much Jewish history and culture.” Balthasar observes that Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein, Ed Asner, and “countless other Jews would now be considered ‘antisemitic’ under the new law.”

Keep reading

Attorney General Garland Targets “Conspiracy Theories” After Launching “Election Threats Task Force” with FBI, Sparking Censorship Concerns

Some might see US Attorney General Merrick Garland getting quite involved in campaigning ahead of the November election – albeit indirectly so, as a public servant whose primary concern is supposedly how to keep Department of Justice (DoJ) staff “safe.”

And, in the process, he brings up “conspiracy theorists” branding them as undermining the judicial process in the US – because they dare question the validity of a particular judicial process that aimed at former President Trump.

In an opinion piece published by the Washington Post, Garland used one instance that saw a man convicted for threatening a local FBI office to draw blanket and dramatic conclusions that DoJ staff have never operated in a more dangerous environment, where “threats of violence have become routine.”

It all circles back to the election, and Garland makes little effort to present himself as neutral. Other than “conspiracy theories,” his definition of a threat are calls to defund the department that was responsible for going after the former president.

Ironically, while the tone of his op-ed and the topics and examples he chooses to demonstrate his own bias, Garland goes after those who claim that DoJ is politicized with the goal of influencing the election.

The attorney general goes on to quote “media reports” – he doesn’t say which, but one can assume those following the same political line – which are essentially (not his words) hyping up their audiences to expect more “threats.”

“Media reports indicate there is an ongoing effort to ramp up these attacks against the Justice Department, its work and its employees,” is how Garland put it.

And he pledged that, “we will not be intimidated” by these by-and-large nebulous “threats,” with the rhetoric at that point in the article ramped up to refer to this as, “attacks.”

Keep reading

Seventh Grader and Sisters Expelled from School Following Principal’s Controversial Decision to Limit Free Speech Over Use of the Word ‘Patriotism’

A California seventh-grade student, Jimmy Heyward, who recently went viral after his principal censored his patriotic speech, has now been banned from attending the school next year.

The Gateway Pundit reported last month that Heyward was a student at Saint Bonaventure Catholic School, where Principal Mary Flock reportedly told him to edit his campaign speech for the role of Commissioner of School Spirit and Patriotism, instructing him to remove “all parts about patriotism.”

The incident was first shared by LibsofTiktok, who wrote, “This is Jimmy. A middle schooler in California… His principal allegedly made him change his speech and remove all mention of patriotism. When he refused, she reportedly didn’t allow him to give the speech and he was forced to sit there humiliated, and watch the other contenders give their speeches…”

Keep reading

Appeals Court Upholds Ban on Student Wearing ‘Only Two Genders’ Shirt

A U.S. appeals court on June 9 upheld a ban preventing a Massachusetts middle school student from wearing a shirt reading “There are only two genders.”

Another prohibition by school administrators, this time blocking the same student from wearing the shirt with “only two” covered by tape, on which was written “censored,” is also allowed under court precedent, according to the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

“The question here is not whether the t-shirts should have been barred. The question is who should decide whether to bar them—educators or federal judges. Based on Tinker, the cases applying it, and the specific record here, we cannot say that in this instance the Constitution assigns the sensitive (and potentially consequential) judgment about what would make ‘an environment conducive to learning’ at NMS to us rather than to the educators closest to the scene,” U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron wrote for a unanimous panel of the court.

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 ruled that a ban on students wearing armbands in protest against the Vietnam War violated the students’ First Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani cited the ruling when in 2023 she ruled in favor of the administrators at the John T. Nichols Middle School (NMS) and Middleborough School District in Massachusetts against Liam Morrison (L.M.), the boy who wore the “two genders” shirt to school.

“[The school] permissibly concluded that the shirt invades the rights of others,” Judge Talwani said before quoting Tinker. “Schools can prohibit speech that is in ‘collision with the rights of others to be secure and be let alone.’”

Keep reading

Maryland Elementary School Tries To Force Students To Say The Pledge

It’s been over 80 years since the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that schoolchildren can’t be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. One Maryland elementary school, however, has yet to get the memo.

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a First Amendment nonprofit, Twin Ridge Elementary School officials sent an email on April 26 informing staff that state law requires “all students and teachers are required ‘to stand and face the flag and while standing give an approved salute and recite in unison the pledge of allegiance.'” 

But the email failed to note that there is a clear exception to this requirement encoded in state law—not to mention a decades-old Supreme Court ruling. Maryland law explicitly states that “any student or teacher who wishes to be excused from the requirements” of the pledge law would be excused.

“While non-participation may upset others who believe the pledge is an important expressive act, that reaction cannot overcome the First Amendment’s protection of those who decide to abstain,” Stephanie Jablonsky, a senior program officer at FIRE, wrote in a legal letter to the school last week. “Peaceful refusal to endorse a specified viewpoint cannot be grounds for punishment. The same holds for teachers and staff.”

FIRE has called on Twin Ridge Elementary to “correct its April 26 directive and notify staff of their rights and their students’ rights” to not recite the pledge.

Unfortunately, this is far from the first time that public schools have attempted to force students and staff to say the Pledge of Allegiance in recent years.

In 2018, officials in a Texas school district settled with a student who was expelled for refusing to stand for the pledge. But before the case was over, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton publicly took the school’s side and attempted to intervene on their behalf in the federal case.

Keep reading

Mistrial declared after jury in case of tiki torch carrier from 2017 Unite the Right rally could not reach verdict

A mistrial has been declared in a Charlottesville, Virg. trial after a jury couldn’t reach a verdict to convict a Unite the Right attendee for carrying a tiki torch at the 2017 far-right rally.

Prosecutors accused Jacob Joseph Dix of committing a state felony by burning the tiki torch, which intimidated others. Three jurors voted guilty, eight said not guilty, and one did not make a decision after almost 12 hours of deliberating.

The prosecution argued that because Dix was part of a group where one of the participants broke the law, he must be found guilty. The defense claimed that Dix should be judged on his actions alone and saying “You will not replace us” was protected speech under the First Amendment.

Prosecutor Shannon Taylor said she intends to re-try the case. “It is our commitment to retry this matter,” Special Prosecutor Shannon Taylor told CBS.

Keep reading