Tag: 1st amendment

NYC agrees to pay $17.5 million after cops force Muslim women to take off their hijabs for mugshots

On Friday, New York City agreed to a settlement of $17.5 million for a class action lawsuit after the city forced Muslim women to remove their hijabs to take mugshot photos when they were arrested.

According to Fox News, the lawsuit was filed by Jamilla Clark and Arwa Aziz in 2018, who claimed their religious rights were violated when had to remove the head coverings after being arrested for violating orders of protection.

Clark said in a statement that she suffered trauma when forced to remove her hijab, which is worn by Muslim women in accordance with Islamic tradition. “When they forced me to take off my hijab, I felt as if I were naked,” she said.

“I’m not sure if words can capture how exposed and violated I felt,” Clark added. “I’m so proud today to have played a part in getting justice for thousands of New Yorkers.”

Lawyer for the ladies, Albert Fox Cahn praised the ruling as a win for privacy and religious rights. He told the New York Times, “The NYPD should never have stripped these religious New Yorkers of their head coverings and dignity.”

Keep reading

Maine lawmaker sparks fury as she asks ‘what did the Nazis do that was illegal’ while defending First Amendment rights of neo-Nazis to march through city

A Republican lawmaker has come under fire for defending Neo-Nazis’ right to assemble in Maine after Democrats shared a clip of her asking ‘what did the Nazis do that was illegal?’ 

Representative Laurel Libby made the comments on Wednesday in opposition to a bill that would ban unauthorized paramilitary training in the state, after a white supremacist tried to set up a Neo-Nazi training camp in the area last year.

Neo-Nazi groups staged several demonstrations, wearing all black, holding banners with racist slogans and giving ‘Heil Hitler’ salutes, in the state last year. 

Libby referred to their rallies, saying: ‘Let’s talk about the Nazis. I would like to know, although I’m not posing a question through the chair, I would like to know what they did that was illegal?’

Maine Democrats shared a clipped version of her speech online sparking outrage, with many accusing her of defending WWII Nazis and the Holocaust.

Libby said her comments on the floor of the State House were taken out of context ‘for fundraising purposes’ by Democrats.

She told DailyMail.com: ‘Even if I do not agree with an organization or person’s beliefs, it is my job to protect their constitutional right to free speech and association.’ 

Keep reading

Censorship on Trial at the Supreme Court

Billed as one of the most consequential lawsuits of the last century, Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v Biden) is a legal battle that stands at the intersection of free speech protections and social media companies. 

The plaintiffs, which include psychiatrist Aaron Kheriaty, and epidemiologists Martin Kulldorff and Jay Bhattacharya, cosignatories of the Great Barrington Declaration, allege the US government coerced social media companies to censor disfavoured viewpoints that were constitutionally protected by the First Amendment.

The US government denies coercing social media companies, arguing it was “friendly encouragement” in an effort to protect Americans from “misinformation” in a public health emergency.

The Constitution is clear – it forbids the US government from abridging free speech. But a private company such as a social media platform bears no such burden and is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment.

This case asks whether certain government officials impermissibly coerced social media companies to violate the First Amendment rights of social media users. The case now sits before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

The Case So Far

The case has seen several twists and turns since it was originally filed in 2022.

Discovery allowed plaintiffs to document nearly 20,000 pages showing platforms like Twitter (now X), Facebook, YouTube, and Google stifled free speech by removing or downgrading stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop, the 2020 presidential election, and various Covid-19 policies.

The plaintiffs described it as an “unprecedented, sprawling federal censorship enterprise.”

On July 4, 2023, US District Court Terry Doughty granted a motion to restrict federal government officials from communicating with social media companies over content it believed to be misinformation.

Specifically, they were prohibited from meeting or contacting by phone, email, or text message or “engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

Doughty indicated there was “substantial evidence” that the US government violated the First Amendment by engaging in a widespread censorship campaign and that “if the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

The Biden Administration appealed the decision in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the officials exercised a form of permissible government speech because they only pointed out content that violated the platforms’ policies to reduce the harms of online misinformation.

On September 8, 2023, the Fifth Circuit largely affirmed Judge Doughty’s order stating that US government officials were engaging “in a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social-media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government.”

It was determined that the harms of such censorship radiated far beyond the plaintiffs in the case, essentially impacting every social-media user.

Keep reading

Inmates will view solar eclipse outside as religious right in settlement victory

A group of inmates in upstate New York who sued for the right to view the solar eclipse on April 8 as part of their sincere religious beliefs are claiming victory after a settlement agreement was reached on Thursday.

As Law&Crime previously reported, the half dozen inmates, Jeremy Zielinski, Travis Hudson, Bruce Moses, Oscar Nunez, Jean Marc Desmarat, and David Haigh at the Woodbourne Correctional Facility in Sullivan County sued the New York Department of Corrections arguing that the natural phenomenon was part and parcel of their respective ways to honor their gods, or, in the case of the lead plaintiff, Jeremy Zelinski, an atheist, to observe the eclipse in the company of all who “gather to celebrate science and reason.”

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Chris McArdle, issued a statement after the agreement was reached late Thursday.

“We are pleased that, in response to our lawsuit alleging religious discrimination, New York State has entered into a binding settlement agreement that will allow our six clients to view the solar eclipse in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs,” the statement says.

The inmates had alleged that multiple requests submitted to officials at the facility in Sullivan County, including one starting as early as Jan. 28, were processed slowly and, at times, confusingly.

Keep reading

Colorado Amendment Addresses Concerns On Banning Social Media Marijuana Posts, But Questions On Psychedelics And Other Drugs Remain

Colorado lawmakers advanced an amended social media bill on Thursday that, as introduced, would have forced platforms to ban users for talking positively about marijuana online. But while the sponsor says the issue has now been “worked out” with recent changes, critics contend the revised legislation still fails to address concerns around statements regarding other substances, including state-legal psychedelics, certain hemp products and even some over-the-counter cough syrups.

The bill, SB24-158—a broad proposal concerning internet age verification and content policies—would require social media platforms to immediately remove any user “who promotes, sells, or advertises an illicit substance.”

Initially that provision would have applied to all controlled substances under state law, but an amendment from the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Chris Hansen (D), includes language saying that “a social media platform may allow a user to promote, sell, or advertise medical marijuana or retail marijuana to users who are at least twenty-one years of age” so long as the content complies with state cannabis laws.

Members of the Senate Committee on Business, Labor and Technology at Thursday’s hearing unanimously approved the amended bill, advancing it to the Appropriations Committee with a favorable report.

“We have worked out adjustment language with the MJ industry,” Hansen told Marijuana Moment in an email about the amendment last week, in response to questions about the potential consequences of the bill. “Those amendments will be distributed later today in preparation for the bill being voted on in committee on Thursday.”

But even before the amendment landed in committee this week, a fellow at the center-right think tank R Street Institute, said the changes leave major issues unaddressed.

“The updated version would still prevent users from from promoting NyQuil or anti-anxiety medications among many others, even though it exempts marijuana,” Shoshana Weismann, who first called out the potential problems in the bill’s drug-related language, told Marijuana Moment in an email. “And if you promote those medications, you will be reported to law enforcement. That is asinine.”

The amended bill also still specifies that its restrictions apply to certain hemp products with more than 1.25 milligrams THC or a CBD-to-THC ratio of less than 20 to 1, as well as most other hemp-containing products intended for human consumption that are not “a dietary supplement, a food, a food additive, or an herb.”

Keep reading

FBI Agent Says He Hassles People ‘Every Day, All Day Long’ Over Facebook Posts

The FBI spends “every day, all day long” interrogating people over their Facebook posts. At least, that’s what agents told Stillwater, Oklahoma, resident Rolla Abdeljawad when they showed up at her house to ask her about her social media activity. 

Three FBI agents came to Abdeljawad’s house and said that they had been given “screenshots” of her posts by Facebook. Her lawyer Hassan Shibly posted a video of the incident online on Wednesday.

Abdeljawad told agents that she didn’t want to talk and asked them to show their badges on camera, which the agents refused to do. She wrote on Facebook that she later confirmed with local police that the FBI agents really were FBI agents.

“Facebook gave us a couple of screenshots of your account,” one agent in a gray shirt said in the video.

“So we no longer live in a free country and we can’t say what we want?” replied Abdeljawad.

“No, we totally do. That’s why we’re not here to arrest you or anything,” a second agent in a red shirt added. “We do this every day, all day long. It’s just an effort to keep everybody safe and make sure nobody has any ill will.”

Keep reading

Porn industry asks Supreme Court to block Texas law requiring age verification before accessing sites

The adult entertainment industry will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to block a Texas law that requires porn websites to verify the age of users. The case presents the justices with a chance to opine on the legal protections afforded to pornography, particularly in the context of the internet.

The nation’s most conservative appeals court — the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — ruled on March 7 to overturn a district court injunction that blocked Texas H.B. 1181. The law requires internet companies whose content consists of more than one-third “sexual material harmful to minors” to “use reasonable age verification methods” to limit their distribution to adults, and to display a health warning before showing any such materials. Embattled Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton began enforcing the law in February, and shortly thereafter began a $1.6 million civil action against PornHub for noncompliance. The Free Speech Coalition, an association of the adult film industry, sued to block the Texas law, claiming that it both violated the First Amendment and conflicts with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 is the federal statute that protects internet platforms from liability based on third-party content that violates the law.

Keep reading

Florida bans social media for kids under 14. Will the bill hold up?

Florida has passed a bill to ban minors under 14 from having social media accounts, and online platforms will be forced to delete any accounts already owned by those under the legal age.

For people between ages 14 and 15, parental consent will be needed to register a social media account.

The bill, HB 3, is considered one of the most restrictive social media bans for minors in the U.S. and will take effect on Jan. 1, 2025. But some critics believe the law won’t stand up to a constitutional challenge, and argue it infringes on the First Amendment rights of young people in the state.

Proponents of the law, however, say it will protect children from online harm and risks to their mental health.

The bill was championed by Republican Speaker Paul Renner, who warned of social media’s “addictive technologies” at the bill-signing ceremony held at a Jacksonville school.

“A child in their brain development doesn’t have the ability to know that they’re being sucked into these addictive technologies and to see the harm and step away from it, and because of that we have to step in for them,” Renner said.

“Social media harms children in a variety of ways,” Gov. Ron DeSantis stated in a news release after signing the bill into law. “HB 3 gives parents a greater ability to protect their children.”

Meanwhile, Democrat Anna Eskamani, of the Florida House of Representatives, argues the law will do the opposite for parents.

“Though I agree more needs to be done in protecting our youth on social media, this bill goes too far in taking away parents’ rights and banning social media usage — and thus First Amendment Rights — for young Floridians,” Eskamani said in a news release.

Keep reading

‘Hamstringing the Government’: A Viral Narrative Distorts Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Understanding of Free Speech

“My biggest concern,” said Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Monday, “is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways.”

That comment came during oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, the case that asks if President Joe Biden’s administration violated the First Amendment when it sought to pressure social media apps to remove information it deemed harmful. It took almost no time for Jackson’s tidbit to set off the viral narrative that she doesn’t grasp basic constitutional principles, particularly when considering the point of the First Amendment is indeed to hamstring what the government can do in response to speech it may not like.

“Jackson raises eyebrows with comment that First Amendment ‘hamstrings’ government,” wrote Fox News. “Leftists want unlimited government — which is why they hate the Constitution,” lamented The Federalist. It was “literally one of the craziest things I’ve ever seen,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio).

But like so many viral narratives, Jackson’s comments were fairly benign in context, and were actually echoed by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Perhaps most ironically, her remark spoke fundamentally to the crux of the case: The government, of course, does not have the right to punish someone criminally for the vast majority of speech. But does it have the right to persuade?

Jackson may think it does. Her “hamstringing” comment came attached to a hypothetical scenario she posed to Benjamin Aguiñaga, Louisiana’s solicitor general, who argued the Biden administration had overstepped when it contacted social media platforms and attempted to pressure them to remove posts it found objectionable. Suppose a challenge circulated on social media concerning “teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations,” Jackson said. Could the government try to persuade those platforms to remove that content?

No, Aguiñaga said, because that’s still protected speech, no matter how dangerous.

That might very well be the correct interpretation. But Jackson’s take—that such a view could place too much restraint on the government—is one that’s held by many, including, it appears, some of her more conservative colleagues. Kavanaugh, for example, invoked his experience working with government press staff, who regularly call reporters to criticize them and try to influence their coverage. Would it be illegal for the feds to prosecute those journalists for pieces that cast them in a negative light? Absolutely. Is it beyond the pale for the government to express what it believes to be true in seeking better coverage? Not necessarily, Kavanaugh said.

That doesn’t mean they’re correct. But the great irony of the viral Jackson pile-on is that, based on oral arguments, her view may very well prevail.

Keep reading

Make Speech Free Again

Winston Churchill said, “Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.”

What has made America great are our basic tenets of individual rights which cannot be taken away by the state, and foremost among these is freedom of speech. Authoritarian regimes always try to control speech. This was true in the Soviet Union, and it is true today in Russia, China and Venezuela.

Mr. Scott Kalb, an elected Democrat on the BET, the town’s finance board, has been circulating a letter in support of the newly proposed Greenwich Speech Police, known by the rather malaprop name of The Greenwich Antisemitism and Anti-Hate Task Force (GAATF?). Presumably they mean the Greenwich Task Force to Combat Hate and Antisemitism. Of course, to deal with actual hate crime we already have the Greenwich Police Department, the State Police and the FBI, so the GAATF is not about crime, it’s about speech, and in this case, it’s about speech Mr. Kalb, Mr. Camillo and members of GAATF don’t like, sometimes found in these pages.

Speech suppression involves deciding what is hateful, and then banning it either directly or surreptitiously with indirect political pressure, “shadow bans” and online “blocking,” as we see in the case before the Supreme Court.

Mr. Kalb in his letter misleadingly cites the rise in antisemitic acts since the October 7th massacre of Israelis as a reason for instituting what amounts to a Speech Tribunal whose role must be to decide what is hate speech and what is antisemitism. Mr. Kalb and the DTC have been at it before, trying to stifle dissent by claiming that identifying Mr. Kalb as a “globalist” was antisemitic, though even the ADL acknowledges that “In some cases, its use [“globalist”] is more or less mainstream.”

Such accusations are invariably attempts to silence opposition.

GAATF is a continuation of Mr. Kalb and the DTC’s ongoing attempts to cover and deflect the actual hate and antisemitism coming from of the left, the evidence of which is incontrovertible and has led to the resignation of college presidents. But the hate from the left is also palpable, and unlike the occasional, laughable Nazi march, the hate from the left is massive and spreading.

Keep reading