# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Speech
April 21, 2017 The New York Times
What's Happening?
A Speech by Ann Coulter was cancelled by the University of California Berkley. The supporters of Coulter saw this as the university trying to silence opinions that defer from the values and opinions of Cal. This has become more frequent this year and even more after the inauguration of President Trump.
Why is this happening?
This is occurring because the demographic of the University of California Berkley is primarily a democratic population and avid republicans see the school as a target that can be swayed. The college is stuck between the interest of its own students and the first amendment.
Effect on Freedom:
the republicans see this as a violation of their freedom. They feel they are being silenced by democrats.
How I see it:
I see this as a clear violation of the first amendment. But I can see why the school is doing it. Cal was founded on democratic values and wants to protect what makes Cal, Cal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/us/berkeley-ann-coulter-speech.html?_r=0

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Religion

August 25, 2016 The Kansas City Star

What’s Happening

Kansas City officials was going to hand out $65,000 to Rev. John Modest Wiles’, a Baptist Minister, non profit organization to help him manage travel arrangements at a Baptist Convention in Kansas City under a tourism bill.

Atheists in the city claim the city is promoting Religion by providing funds to a Religious Convention using public tax dollars, while Rev. Wiles claims it will be bringing in business and economic support to the city, fufiling the requirements. The city told the courts that while yes that had been going give Rev. Wiles support, it was for his non-profit organization, not a religious entity, and that they had asked for assurance that the money would be used for a secular cause.

Other Baptists feel that they are being singled out and attacked.

Why is happening?

Atheists living in Kansas City feel that the Missouri constitution is being violated by providing funds to a religious event. Wiles claims that they are targeting

Effect on Freedom?

The separation on Church and state will continue. Money will no longer be used to support any Religious conventions or gatherings, and any monetary support of churches will cease.

My View

While I do not like the fact that Religious people, even those of different denomination, lost, I understand the need for separation of Church and State. Bad things have happened with out the separation of Church and state. I also feel that by not supporting the Christians, the Government supports the atheists, but there is no good way out for the government without looking bad to one side or the other.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article97808987.html

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Religion
January16th 2017
Huffington Post
Whats happening?
Extremist Muslims in the middle east want to ban Christmas because the birth of Jesus is seen as something that should not be celebrated. If they want to ,completely get rid of the holiday, they will have to murder all the Christians, and they aren't afraid to do so.
Why is this happening?
This is happening because muslim extremists do not want any Christians in their territory, let alone anyone celebrating Christmas.
Effects on Freedom:
This act against Christians is completely destroying the right to religious freedom. No freedom is being permitted in this circumstance.
How I see it:
I recognize that it is not all islam people who are against Christians and the practice of Christmas. It is only extremists who are so against the Christian faith who want to be destroyed. Everyone should get the chance for religious freedom, especially those who experience persecution.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/needed-a-tolerant-islam-w_b_14204230.html

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Religion
November 15, 2016
Stanford Law School Press
What's Happening?
Recently, the Religious Liberty Clinic at Stanford Law School reached a settlement with the trucking company J.B. Hunt that will allow Sikh truckers to keep their hair long in accordance with their religious law. Several Sikh truckers also received financial compensation for this victory.
Why is this happening?
Previously, this company required its applicants and drivers to provide a hair sample for drug testing. Sikh tradition requires that observers (both male and female) wear their hair long; it is very important to them. Coupled with the fact that other drug-testing methods are available, the Sikh employees saw this mandatory hair cutting as unconstitutional. Thus, the issue was taken to court and the Sikhs won.
Effects on Freedom of Religion:
The discrimination these people experienced under this company was unconstitutional, and forced these Sikhs to commit sacreligious acts. Now that the matter is resolved, this trucking company is  operating within the Constitution and is protecting the First Amendment rights of its workers.
How I see it: I am very pleased that theses Sikh truckers won this case. Many people do not know much about Sikhism, and as a result many of their religious observances have been suppressed or discriminated against. For example, I knew a Sikh girl who was forced to remove her iron bangle in gym class, despite the fact that they are not supposed to remove the bracelet. It was very disheartening to me to see someone receive this treatment. I'm happy that it is becoming easier for all people of faith to participate in their religion in the US, just as Christians do.

https://law.stanford.edu/press/stanford-clinic-vindicates-religious-freedom-for-sikh-clients/

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Religion
April 20, 2017
Los Angeles Times
What's Happening?
After being denied government funding to renovate it's playground to make it safer due to religious affiliation, Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, MO has filed a lawsuit claiming that their religious rights are being infringed upon by the state of Missouri.
Why is this happening?
Trinity Lutheran Church was denied funding because Missouri's constitution forbids the expenditure of state funds in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion.  Only nonreligious organizations are eligible for the grants.
Effect on Freedom of Religion:
By denying Trinity Lutheran Church state funds, the state of Missouri is discriminating against a religious institution. Missouri's refusal to consider the application is a clear burden on a constitutional right.
How I see it:
I believe that Trinity Lutheran Church should not have been denied state funds to renovate it's playground. The allocated funds were only to be used to make the playground safer. Religion should have no factor in the determination whether the organization, church, or school should receive funds. By using religion as a determining factor, Missouri is clearly discriminating against the church and violating constitutional rights.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-scotus-playground-20170420-story.html

# data[].attributes.body
April 19, 2017, CNN
What's Happening?:  Students at Auburn are protesting against a speaker named Richard Spencer. Richard Spencer is a white nationalist who spent $700 to hire security and to speak.
Why is this happening?: The topics that Richard Spencer spoke about were controversial. There were also equal amounts of supporters and protesters that have been arguing against each other.
Effect on Freedom of speech: The protestors are not violating the freedom of speech because they are speaking their opinions around the campus. The main effect that is starting up is the dispute between the protestors and the supporters. Violence is starting to occur on the campus.  Two people were arrested for a fistfight and three people were arrested during a peaceful protest.
How I see it: The protestors have the right to protest around their campus and they should not be punished for speaking their opinions. I also think that the violence should stay at a minimum and that the arguments should not get too intense.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/politics/auburn-richard-spencer-protests/

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Press
February 24, 2017
What's Happening?:
President Trump has been quite a burden on the press since he's been in office. Essentially, he has been keeping certain journalists out of some conferences, as well as directly pointing out some of the journalists he finds controversial.
Why is this happening?:
The press has been a problem for some ever since it was a thing. This is very true for the current President of the U.S.A. President Trump has no doubt said many controversial things in his short time in office. The problem occurs when either the press doesn't report what Trump wants, or the press reports something inaccurate. Either way it causes turmoil between the two parties.
Effect on Freedom of Press:
This happening has had a rather important effect of the freedom of press. Although most people don't seem to think this, it has had a very direct effect. This situation has kept some news stations from reporting, effectively eliminating their freedom of press.
How I see it:
I personally don't quite understand how this hasn't gotten more attention. This is a very direct violation of press. Whether or not it's just Trump not wanting things reported the way they are, or the way the reporters may be misconstruing words doesn't matter. This is a problem that needs to be brought to more people's attention.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/us/politics/white-house-sean-spicer-briefing.html

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Press
February 25, 2017
What's happening?
The author of this opinion piece is expressing his stance that President Trump trying to disallow anonymous sources is equivalent to other countries (Turkey) who have imprisoned and stifled their journalists. They are also trying to prove the point that there are instances when anonymous sources are needed for the protection of their lives. The major theme of the article is that President Trump is trying to use his supporters to become even more anti media for their mainly  democratic stances.

Why is this happening?

Since the campaign started, President Trump has been in a battle with the mainstream media over what is considered "fake news". Journalists are stating that repressing how stories are reported is the same as restricting the information that is passed along to the population (i.e China internet censorship) and that it violates freedom of the press.

Effects on Freedom of Speech

Stifling the free press is not good for Freedom of Speech. However, the media should also not have the right to print misleading and half true information in order to sway to their agenda or their perceived readership/viewership Care and balance should be taken to maintain a free press that is responsible and true in its reporting of only facts, and not inflamatory opinions.

My View

I can see both sides of the argument quite frankly. While I do agree that the mainstream media leans liberal, there are instances when for safety reasons, sources should remain anonymous . But when it comes to matters of opinion or National Security, the country and its population should come first. I also feel that in todays 24 hour news cycle, and instant news media on Twitter, etc, that many times stories are run without all the facts and that opinions are shaped and formed carelessly by the media. There should be a careful  balance in order to preserve the First Amendment freedom of the press rights on which this country was founded.

/www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/opinion/trump-is-damaging-press-freedom-in-the-us-and-abroad.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FFreedom%20of%20The%20Press&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=collection

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Speech
April 17, 2017, Burlington Free Press
What's Happening?
On March 2, students at Middlebury College shouted down guest speaker, Charles Murray. Similar events like this at other , where students are shouting over someone else's speech, have students and faculty debating the definition of free speech.
Why is this happening?

Effects of Freedom of Speech:

How I see it...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

Events at Champlain College and the University of Vermont had students and faculty talking about free speech and who is responsible for deciding the rules of engagement.

"From grade school onward, people use free speech as an excuse when they say ignorant or hateful things in a classroom," junior Jade Ye, a public relations major and student ambassador at Champlain College, said last week.

Ye's April 6 talk focused on the responsibilities of the students in the classroom.

Following the shouting down of author Charles Murray at a scheduled talk March 2 on the Middlebury College campus and the violent confrontation as Murray left, students and faculty are debating the definition of free speech.

The discussion reaches beyond Vermont. Recently, author Heather Mac Donald was shouted down by college students at University of California at Los Angeles. Boston College students were disciplined in January for unregulated protests following the election of President Donald Trump.

But the trend for protesting has been ongoing for at least a few years. In the Berkshires In 2014 International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde withdrew from speaking at Smith College's commencement because of planned protests by faculty and students.

UVM had in the past two months two forums - Black Board Jungle, a symposium to discuss free speech and hate speech, and a professor round table that centered on the students who protested Murray.

Round table co-organizer Meaghan Emery mentioned in her introduction that a reason many faculty members chose not to attend was the continuing controversy surrounding Murrray's talk. Assistant professors were feeling too vulnerable without tenure to express their opinions on the topic.

Moderator Helen Morgan-Parmett began by asking who gets to define racism and the conversation jumped from there to free speech.

Middlebury College professor Erik Bleich argued that, even in countries with more regulations on free speech, Murray's talk would still have been protected.Bleich's colleague David Miranda

Hardy countered that perhaps Murray's talk wasn't illegal but asked if the administration did a disservice to the student body by validating the speaker with a platform.

"No one is saying remove [Murray's] books from the syllabus. I see our students of color engage in the most difficult questions on a daily basis. To pretend that students of color don't face ideas of white supremacy on a daily basis is ridiculous," Hardy said after a Middlebury professor who attended the talk brought up The Atlantic's September cover story " The Coddling of the American Mind," in which the authors describe college students demanding protection from ideas they don't like.

"I don't see it. I see a movement from right to co-opt the right of free speech," Hardy said in defense of his students' abilities to broach difficult subjects. Bleich agreed.

Nevertheless, the argument came back around to the beginning.

"Charles Murray should have been allowed to speak. That is sacrosanct on a college campus. I really believe in freedom of speech even if unethical," UVM professor Major Jackson said from the audience.

A student who identified herself as a UVM social psychology graduate student brought the conversation back to the classroom.

"When you say give me your gut level reaction you are liable to hear everything. That's when the safe classroom becomes unsafe and you lose control of the classroom and students," she said. "Maybe this isn't about free speech, it's about creating a coherent argument.

Ye at Champlain College took a similar stance.

"Both on the part of the school and on the part of the students, we have a responsibility to empower students, so they feel like they can seek out reliable sources and take responsibility for things they say in the classroom," Ye said.

Ye offered her own guidelines: Always stand up for what you think is right. You can learn a lot if you sit back and listen.

"The most important thing is the listening side of communication," Ye said.

The talks at UVM and Champlain College will be shared online as soon as they are edited, according to the schools.
Contact Nicole Higgins DeSmet at ndesmet@freepressmedia.com or 802-660-1845. Follow her on Twitter @NicoleHDeSmet.
Read or Share this story: http://bfpne.ws/2oPNjf5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
After Middlebury incident, UVM discusses free speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE Events at Champlain College and the University of Vermont had students and faculty talking about free speech and who is responsible for deciding the rules of engagement. "From grade school onward, people use free speech as an excuse when they say ignorant or hateful things in a classroom," junior Jade Ye, a public relations major and student ambassador at Champlain College, said last week.

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of press
April 18, 2017, teleSUR
What's Happening?
Today, another Mexican reporter was found dead, the 5th in the last 7 weeks. The man, Juan Jose Roldan, was a reporter who previously worked for a local TV station and newspaper. Also, Roldan is an activist with the LGBTQ and a freelance reporter. Roldan was assumed to be tortured by the way his body was found. It is also assumed that he was killed based on his beliefs in the LGBTQ rights.
Why is this happening?
This is happening because some people in Mexico get really fired up when an opposing article is sent out and these reporters and journalists become criminals to them because what the reporters think is a threat to the way the people live their daily lives.
Effects on freedom of press:
I think this onslaught will affect what reporters say and do in the near future. This will restrict what is said in papers, news stations, and blogs in the Mexican area.
How I see it:
These extremist people will and have made their threat known to any reporter or journalist that if they post something in the opposing viewpoint, that they will be hunted down. I definitely do feel that these people are taking it way too far. Killing someone based on their opinion? That is just pathetic. When people act like this to change, it is a thought as if they are being threatened by something that will ruin their lives. It will definitely change some aspects of their life, but it will surely not alter their entire life. In conclusion, I do agree with these people that the LGBTQ rights are morally wrong, but I do not agree with the way these people are responding to it.
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/War-on-Press-Rages-on-5th-Mexican-Journalist-Killed-in-7-Weeks-20170418-0007.html

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Speech
March 1, 2017, Slate
What's happening?
Several years ago, North Carolina introduced a law prohibiting registered sex offenders from using all "commercial social networking sites". Under this law, any website that a minor could access and included a comments section was forbidden to sex offenders. This case has since then risen into prominence as infringing upon the First Amendment rights of sex offenders to express any opinions online, and even goes as far as to make Google searches illegal for sex offenders.
Why is this happening?
Lester Gerard Packingham Jr. made an innocent Facebook post about five years ago. When the county sheriff spotted it, however, he was arrested and jailed for the use of a social media network. North Carolina lawmakers intend for the law to protect children from online predators, but it has been taken so far as to nearly limit sex offenders access to the internet altogether.
Effects on freedom of Speech:
This law prohibits sex offenders from exercising any freedom of speech online and keeps them from using any website or network with the remote potential of contacting another person.
How I see It:
Although sex offenders have made a terrible mistake in their lives, they are still people. Despite their mistakes, all people deserve to have their First Amendment rights protected. I think that sex offenders should have rights to make online profiles, and that restrictions should be on communicating with minors electronically.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Illustration by Natalie Matthews-Ramo. Icon by Thinkstock.

On April 27, 2010, Lester Gerard Packingham Jr. posted a Facebook status:

"Man God is Good! How about I got so much favor they dismiss the ticket before court even started. No fine, No court costs, no nothing spent. . . . Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks JESUS!"

This post appears entirely ordinary-something that might show up on your own Facebook feed without raising any questions. But when Durham, North Carolina's Police Cpl. Brian Schnee discovered it, he applied for and obtained a search warrant for Packingham's home. A few months later, Packingham was indicted on a felony charge and in May 2012, he was convicted.

A registrant could be sent to prison for simply trying to read this article.

The felony charge was not for the traffic ticket he'd avoided-it was for posting about it. In 2002, when he was a 21-year-old college student, Packingham was indicted on two counts of statutory rape for having sex with a 13-year-old girl that he said he was dating without knowing her age. He was convicted on one lesser count-"taking indecent liberties with a minor." Packingham, who had no prior criminal record, received the shortest allowable sentence (10-12 months), though the judge suspended that in favor of 24 months of supervised release, which Packingham completed without incident. Packingham was also required to register as a sex offender. By the time he celebrated the dismissal of his traffic ticket, Packingham had been not in prison, on parole, or on probation for several years.

He was, of course, still required to register as a sex offender. In 2008, North Carolina made it a felony for any person on the state's sex offender registry to "access" any "commercial social networking website" that the person "knows" does not restrict usage to legal adults. Although the state claims that this law, NCGS §14-202.5, is intended to prevent sexual predators from gathering information about minors, Section 202.5 and related restrictions go far beyond that ostensible purpose and instead, as 's Mark Joseph Stern has observed, work to drive an unpopular and politically powerless group of people out of public life altogether. The approximately 20,000 people on North Carolina's sex offender registry include people who have been convicted of offenses that do not involve minors or the internet as well as people who, like Packingham, have otherwise served their sentences. But the law does not take this into account. If you're on the list, and you're also on Facebook, you can be charged with a felony. There have been more than 1,000 convictions under this law.

The phrase "commercial social networking web sites" likely telegraphs sites like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube, but the law also prohibits a registrant from "accessing" any site that (1) "derives revenue from advertising"; (2) has functions that "facilitate the social introduction of two or more people"; (3) allows users "to create personal profiles, e-mail accounts, or post information on message boards"; and (4) permits access to minors. The result is that virtually any website that has a comment or review function and allows minors to use it may be off limits. Under this definition, a registrant could commit a felony by checking basketball scores on ESPN.com, looking up cold remedies on WebMD, posting a résumé on LinkedIn, or listening to Chopin nocturnes on Pandora. A registrant could be sent to prison for simply trying to read this article, regardless of whether she attempts to engage any other readers in discussion, on the merits of North Carolina's efforts to banish registered sex offenders from public life-a topic on which the public would likely benefit from receiving the views of registered sex offenders. The class of prohibited sites is so broad and vague that when Packingham's arresting officer was cross-examined as to how he might advise a confused registrant, Cpl. Schnee testified: "If you have a question about whether you can or can't do something, don't do it. The best way for them-for somebody not to get in trouble is to not do something." In other words, perhaps it's better for registered sex offenders to avoid the internet altogether.

The Supreme Court recognized the importance of the internet to public life more than 20 years ago. (If you want to enjoy waves of nostalgia, read Justice John Paul Stevens' description of the internet in a 1997 case, Reno v. ACLU, which includes marvelous references to "computer coffee shops," "mail exploders," Prodigy and CompuServe, and "newsgroups."). And even if the ban were just confined to sites commonly thought of as "commercial social networking sites," such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, the law would exclude registrants from engaging in some of the most important political conversations and social movements in the world today-think Black Lives Matter, the Tea Party, Indivisible, and the Standing Rock protests (not to mention the vital political communications coming from @realdonaldtrump.)

The parties to this case have not disputed that North Carolina is pursuing a legitimate purpose in protecting children from sexual predators trolling the internet. Nor have they disputed that the state's internet restriction is "content-neutral"-the law prohibits access to websites without regard to the particular ideas or viewpoints expressed. But to the extent the state infringes on the expressive rights of people affected by these protective measures, the First Amendment requires that the law be "narrowly tailored" to achieve the state's purpose. It cannot bar a substantial amount of expression unrelated to the protection of minors from sexual predation.

"So you mean that there's a constitutional right to use Snapchat, but not to use Twitter?"

Packingham made an unsuccessful challenge to the validity of Section 202.5 before his trial and was subsequently convicted by a jury of criminally accessing Facebook. But in August 2013, the North Carolina Court of Appeals overturned his conviction on First Amendment grounds, ruling that the law swept far too broadly. It noted that the internet restriction applies regardless of whether an offender had been convicted of a sexual offense involving a minor, previously used a social networking site to target children, or presented a continuing threat of harm to minors. Equally important, the Court of Appeals held that the internet restriction was vague and overbroad, observing that registered sex offenders "may be prohibited from conducting a 'Google' search, purchasing items on Amazon.com, or accessing a plethora of Web sites unrelated to online communication with minors." To borrow an analogy from Justice Stevens' opinion in Reno, prohibiting all registrants any access to vast portions of the internet because there's a threat that a subset of dangerous registrants might use that access improperly "burn[s] down the house to roast a pig."

But in November 2015, the North Carolina Supreme Court disagreed. It held Section 202.5 "constitutional in all respects."

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision to review this case on Oct. 8-which now feels like a lifetime ago-under circumstances generally indicating an intent to strike down Section 202.5. The tone of Monday's oral argument revealed that in the interceding months, the merits of North Carolina's case have not improved. In fact, as Justice Elena Kagan observed, access to commercial social networking sites may now be nothing less than a civic imperative, given the president's preference for communicating with the public over Twitter.

The justices also worked over the state's counsel on the vaguely worded statute and its confusing exceptions. At one point, Kagan asked Robert Montgomery, counsel for North Carolina: "[S]o you mean that there's a constitutional right to use Snapchat, but not to use Twitter?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor also challenged the flimsy evidentiary basis for applying the social networking restriction to all sex offenders, noting that generalized evidence that some sex offenders may be prone to recidivism under some circumstances does not justify an inference that "every sexual offender is going to use the internet to lure a child."

Looming in the background of the court's consideration of this case are the Trump administration's recent attacks on the First Amendment, minority rights, judicial independence, and the rule of law itself. Though it's a much different First Amendment context, President Trump's executive order restricting travel by Muslims from seven countries is also a grossly overbroad restriction on a politically vulnerable minority that was enacted thanks to fearmongering, not evidence. As lower federal courts enjoined the executive order, President Trump attacked the legitimacy of those judges-who then received threats to their safety -while members of his administration implied that the courts had no right to question the president's judgment on matters of national security. Factor in Trump's claim that he was championing free speech when he threatened to withhold federal funds from UC-Berkeley after it canceled an event featuring Milo Yiannopoulos, and his promise to "open up our libel laws" to permit more lawsuits against the press, and it's clear that the president's guiding mode of constitutional interpretation is not originalism, but solipsism. The president thinks the First Amendment protects speech and beliefs he likes, but not those he doesn't. This case thus provides an opportunity for the Supreme Court to brace the judiciary for its upcoming battles with the Trump administration and to provide a nervous country with some assurance that the protections of the First Amendment remain as robust as ever and available to all.

Go to any protest these days and you're sure to see a sign invoking the words of Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran pastor who opposed the Nazis during the Second World War by famously stating, "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-Because I was not a Socialist." The message is simple but powerful: Speak up for the rights of those on the margins of society or you might yourself on the other side.

Court battles over the First Amendment have been frequently fought on behalf of unpopular groups as a means of preventing encroachment upon the rights of the rest. Justice Stephen Breyer recalled this heritage during argument when he pointed to criminal laws directed at prohibiting communists from advocating for the overthrow of the United States government that had been struck down 60 years ago. It is difficult to imagine a less popular group than registered sex offenders. But speaking up for their rights now is critical at a time when the administration has shown its eagerness to brand people with whom it disagrees as "enemies" and to strip rights from politically vulnerable groups like transgender students. And it has the fringe benefit of being a good strategy for making sure "they" don't come for you too.

Disclosure: The author of this post is also one of the authors of an amicus brief filed in this case on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, and Center for Democracy & Technology in support of Packingham.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why SCOTUS Must Rule to Defend the First Amendment Rights of Sex Offenders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On April 27, 2010, Lester Gerard Packingham Jr. posted a Facebook status: "Man God is Good! How about I got so much favor they dismiss the ticket before court even started. No fine, No court costs, no nothing spent. . . . Praise be to GOD, WOW! Thanks JESUS!"

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Speech
March 28, 2017
Patch.com
What's Happening?
Kevin Shaw, a student at Pierce College in Los Angeles, California was distributing Spanish copies of the US constitution outside of the college's "free speech zone." However, a school official asked him to stop, otherwise Shaw would be removed from the campus. He filed a lawsuit against Woodland Hills community college for policies that restrict student free speech rights to tiny zones on campus and for infringing on his First Amendment rights (speech).
Why is this happening?
The community college does not want to start violent debates, riots, or fights on campus. Therefore, they set "free speech zones" in which Kevin Shaw is against.
Effect on Freedom of Speech
Since the college is not supporting/accepting Kevin Shaw's freedom of expression, they are violating his first amendment rights.
How I see it
I believe that the school is violating Keven Shaw's freedom of speech because he is not allowed to speak and act as he wishes.  Even though they have the "free zones," Kevin wants his voice to be heard and he is acting upon it appropriately. He is peacefully distributing papers and is not harming his peers in any way. He was trying to get students thinking about our founding principles and to inspire discussion of liberty and free speech. This is all supported in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the school's policies should amended.
https://patch.com/california/woodlandhills/pierce-college-student-sues-over-free-speech-zones

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Speech
April 17, 2017, Burlington Free Press
What's Happening?
On March 2, students at Middlebury College interrupted guest speaker, Charles Murray, in a protest against racism. Similar events like this at other , where students are interrupting someone else's speech in protest. These events have students and faculty debating the definition of free speech.
Why is this happening?
This is happening because of the ignorance students have when it comes to free speech and when protest is acceptable. In terms of the events at Middlebury College, the students were carelessly interrupting someone else's speech for an arrogant protest.
Effects on Freedom of Speech:
I think the events Middlebury and similar events at other universities and colleges will have faculty and students correct their use of free speech in an acceptable manor that does not disrespect someone else's presentation or speech, like what is being seen.
How I see it...
I feel that these acts of protest and free speech were ignorant and arrogant in the lines of disrespecting and offending the guest speaker Charles Murray. I do think this event will help educate college students on acceptable free speech in line with the First Amendment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

Events at Champlain College and the University of Vermont had students and faculty talking about free speech and who is responsible for deciding the rules of engagement.

"From grade school onward, people use free speech as an excuse when they say ignorant or hateful things in a classroom," junior Jade Ye, a public relations major and student ambassador at Champlain College, said last week.

Ye's April 6 talk focused on the responsibilities of the students in the classroom.

Following the shouting down of author Charles Murray at a scheduled talk March 2 on the Middlebury College campus and the violent confrontation as Murray left, students and faculty are debating the definition of free speech.

The discussion reaches beyond Vermont. Recently, author Heather Mac Donald was shouted down by college students at University of California at Los Angeles. Boston College students were disciplined in January for unregulated protests following the election of President Donald Trump.

But the trend for protesting has been ongoing for at least a few years. In the Berkshires In 2014 International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde withdrew from speaking at Smith College's commencement because of planned protests by faculty and students.

UVM had in the past two months two forums - Black Board Jungle, a symposium to discuss free speech and hate speech, and a professor round table that centered on the students who protested Murray.

Round table co-organizer Meaghan Emery mentioned in her introduction that a reason many faculty members chose not to attend was the continuing controversy surrounding Murrray's talk. Assistant professors were feeling too vulnerable without tenure to express their opinions on the topic.

Moderator Helen Morgan-Parmett began by asking who gets to define racism and the conversation jumped from there to free speech.

Middlebury College professor Erik Bleich argued that, even in countries with more regulations on free speech, Murray's talk would still have been protected.Bleich's colleague David Miranda

Hardy countered that perhaps Murray's talk wasn't illegal but asked if the administration did a disservice to the student body by validating the speaker with a platform.

"No one is saying remove [Murray's] books from the syllabus. I see our students of color engage in the most difficult questions on a daily basis. To pretend that students of color don't face ideas of white supremacy on a daily basis is ridiculous," Hardy said after a Middlebury professor who attended the talk brought up The Atlantic's September cover story " The Coddling of the American Mind," in which the authors describe college students demanding protection from ideas they don't like.

"I don't see it. I see a movement from right to co-opt the right of free speech," Hardy said in defense of his students' abilities to broach difficult subjects. Bleich agreed.

Nevertheless, the argument came back around to the beginning.

"Charles Murray should have been allowed to speak. That is sacrosanct on a college campus. I really believe in freedom of speech even if unethical," UVM professor Major Jackson said from the audience.

A student who identified herself as a UVM social psychology graduate student brought the conversation back to the classroom.

"When you say give me your gut level reaction you are liable to hear everything. That's when the safe classroom becomes unsafe and you lose control of the classroom and students," she said. "Maybe this isn't about free speech, it's about creating a coherent argument.

Ye at Champlain College took a similar stance.

"Both on the part of the school and on the part of the students, we have a responsibility to empower students, so they feel like they can seek out reliable sources and take responsibility for things they say in the classroom," Ye said.

Ye offered her own guidelines: Always stand up for what you think is right. You can learn a lot if you sit back and listen.

"The most important thing is the listening side of communication," Ye said.

The talks at UVM and Champlain College will be shared online as soon as they are edited, according to the schools.
Contact Nicole Higgins DeSmet at ndesmet@freepressmedia.com or 802-660-1845. Follow her on Twitter @NicoleHDeSmet.
Read or Share this story: http://bfpne.ws/2oPNjf5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
After Middlebury incident, UVM discusses free speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE Events at Champlain College and the University of Vermont had students and faculty talking about free speech and who is responsible for deciding the rules of engagement. "From grade school onward, people use free speech as an excuse when they say ignorant or hateful things in a classroom," junior Jade Ye, a public relations major and student ambassador at Champlain College, said last week.

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Speech
January 20, 2016, Global Freedom of Expression

What's happening?
Taylor Bell, a high school rapper, had accused two of his teachers of having sexual misconduct with female students. The student felt that if he told the administration nothing would happen, so he posted his song to Facebook and youtube to bring more attention to it. The school felt as if Taylor was harassing, intimidating, and threatening teachers. He got suspended, then sent to another school and later filed a lawsuit towards the board, the school’s superintendent, and principal
Why is this happening?
This is happening because the school believes that Taylor Bell is harassing, intimidating, and threatening the school teachers.
Effects on freedom of Speech:
The school is infringing upon the students rights to say what is true and openly put it out there. This will make rappers and schools be very careful about crossing any lines.
How I see It:
I feel that if it is this important of a subject that the student should have addressed a teacher, but he should not have gotten in trouble for telling the truth in a song. I feel as if the school did something wrong by quickly suspending. Especially at a public school where it is most definitely legal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Can a public school high school student be suspended for critically rapping about teachers outside of school? A case heading toward a Supreme Court private conference early nextyear could draw a new First Amendment boundary.

The case of Bell v. Itawamba County School Board has been in the court system since 2011, when aspiring student rapper Taylor Bell appealed his punishment for rap lyrics that school officials believed were threatening to the teachers.

Several high-profile rappers have jumped into the case involving the former Mississippi high school student. On Sunday, the New York Times' Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak profiled the case and gave readers an advance look at a brief filed by rappers such as Killer Mike and T.I. with the Supreme Court.

Killer Mike, said Liptak, argues the First Amendment permits expression, no matter how uncomfortable some people are with language used in rap music. "I see a kid who saw wrong happening and was outraged about it," the rapper said. "He wrote a poem about it over a beat."

But in a broader legal sense, observers have been watching the case and its appeals process for some time, because a core issue is about where is boundary the limits student free speech - inside the school or outside of school in the world of Facebook and YouTube.

In his brief to the Supreme Court, Bell and his attorneys outline how Bell, then a high school senior in 2011 at Itawamba Agricultural High School, received a suspension and was sent to another school. Bell claimed he was told by several female students that they were being sexually harassed by two male teachers who were also sports coaches. The aspiring rapper composed and performed two songs confronting the teachers about the accusations, using rap language that was perceived as vulgar, profane and rhetorically threatening. The songs were posted on Facebook and YouTube, and composed and performed outside of school.

School officials were alerted to Bell's activities, and they determined there were four instances of "threatening, harassing, and intimidating language against the two coaches" in his performances. The school board upheld the punishment and the legal appeals process started.

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, with three judges hearing arguments, ruled 2-1 against the school district and for Bell in December 2014 on his First Amendment claim, citing the famous 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines decision.

"Contrary to the district court's conclusion, the Supreme Court in Tinker did not hold that the substantial-disruption test applies to off-campus speech," wrote Judge James L. Dennis. "The Tinker Court did not intend that its holding would allow a public school to regulate a student's freedom of speech at home and off campus."

In dissent, Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale strongly disagreed with some points in the decision. "School administrators must be afforded wide latitude in proactively addressing language that reasonably could be interpreted as a threat, harassment, or intimidation against members of the school community," Barksdale said, referencing a more current ruling that took mass shootings at schools into account.

Barksdale also argued that modern technology redefined the arguments about off-campus speech. "Bell's intent for the speech to reach members of the community ...evinced by his posting the recording publicly to Facebook and YouTube, makes Bell's speech the functional equivalent of on-campus speech."

The case was then heard by the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the three-judge panel's ruling, with Barksdale writing the majority opinion, and Dennis (and several other judges) dissenting.

Barksdale said that the primary issue was "the almost 50-year-old standard for restricting student speech, based on a reasonable forecast of a substantial disruption" and the school board acted within that standard. Dennis again argued that the Tinker precedent didn't apply to off-campus speech, and that the school district didn't prove there was "a substantial disruption of school activities or justified a reasonable forecast of such a disruption by school officials."

In Bell's appeal to the Supreme Court, filed in November, his attorneys want the nine Justices to settle two questions: can public schools discipline students for off-campus speech and if so, to what extent consistent with the First Amendment?

It will take four of the nine Justices to agree to accept Bell's case at one of the Court's private conferences. One point of discussion will be if there are true splits in the lower courts on this issue. Edward C. Prado, a Third Circuit judge who dissented in the most-recent appeal, wrote that the Supreme Court needed to define online, off-site speech in these cases.

"Bell's speech does not fit within the currently established, narrow categories of unprotected speech, and I would wait for the Supreme Court to act before exempting a new category of speech from First Amendment protection," Prado wrote in August.

Judge Gregg Costa, who had concurred with the majority, voiced similar concerns. "Broader questions raised by off-campus speech will be left for another day. That day is coming soon, however, and this court or the higher one will need to provide clear guidance for students, teachers, and school administrators that balances students' First Amendment rights that Tinker rightly recognized with the vital need to foster a school environment conducive to learning," Costa wrote in August.

Recent Historical Stories on Constitution Daily

Looking at the idea of third-party challenge to Trump

Landmark Cases: Roe v. Wade

The mysterious death of George Washington

The Supreme Court's 'worst decision' lives on in 2016 campaign

Filed Under: First Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A free speech and student rap case is at the Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Can a public school high school student be suspended for critically rapping about teachers outside of school? A case heading toward a Supreme Court private conference early nextyear could draw a new First Amendment boundary. The case of Bell v.

# data[].attributes.body
Religion
May 4, 2016, The Pulse
What's happening?
In Pensacola, Florida, there is a cross which has been in a public park on city property for over half a century. Recently, non-religious groups have called for it to be removed because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Why is this happening?
A number of people in a predominantly Christian area argue that the cross unfairly favors Christians and violates the 1st amendment right of those who are not Christian.
Effects on Freedom of religion:
There have been similar court cases like this, and those have typically gone in favor of removing the religious symbol, or sometimes in favor of allowing other religions to add their own symbols. This case has yet to be ruled on, but ruling to keep the cross there by itself would serve to alienate non-Christians and make them think that the government does not truly represent them or respect their religious beliefs.
How I see it:
I think this case is certainly an example of infringing on the rights of non-Christians. Even though private citizens are allowed to worship freely, the government should not decorate government property with a particular religion's religious symbols. The Establishment Clause forbids the government to endorse any religion, and the cross should be removed from the public park to end this unjust endorsement of Christianity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With the help of the American Humanist Association (AHA) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), four Pensacola residents are suing the city government and challenging the longstanding 25-foot cross in Bayview Park.

The four plaintiffs, including longtime cross opponent David Suhor, Andre Ryland, and Amanda and Andreiy Kondrat'yev, are asking a federal court to order the cross's removal.

The cross - which the lawsuit describes as "towering" over the park - has stood for at least 50 years. A plaque at the base of the cross indicates that it was donated by the Junior Chamber of Commerce - now called the Jaycees - in 1949. The cross has long been the site of sunrise religious services at Easter, and the plaque also notes that the cross was dedicated in honor of a C. Frasier Phelps, listed as the chairman of an Easter Sunrise Committee in 1941.

The American Humanist Association says the city has received requests from citizens to remove the cross for at least the past 15 years. In July 2015, the FFRF and AHA warned city officials that the public display and maintenance of the cross was a form of religious endorsement by the government, but the city did not respond.

In addition to seeking the removal of the cross, the suit also asks the court to issue a permanent injunction barring the display of crosses on public property in Pensacola.

AHA, FFRF argue cross unconstitutional

"Federal courts have made abundantly clear that the government's display of a Christian cross on public land violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment," said Monica Miller, senior counsel with the AHA's Appignani Humanist Legal Center. "This cross sends a clear and exclusionary message of government preference for Christianity over all other religions."

"Pensacola's cross is a clear violation of the separation of state and church," said FFRF Legal Fellow Madeline Ziegler. "We're thankful to be working with courageous Pensacola residents to end the city's unconstitutional religious favoritism."

"A Christian cross on public land marginalizes the growing numbers of non-Christian Americans while wasting taxpayer dollars on maintaining a divisive display," said AHA executive director Roy Speckhardt. "The government should treat all theist and nontheist groups in the community equally. Favoring one over others is clear discrimination."

"There are tax-free churches throughout Pensacola where this pinnacle symbol of Christianity may be appropriately displayed," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president. "But when a city park serving all citizens - nonreligious, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim and Christian - contains a towering Latin cross, this sends a message of exclusion to non-Christians, and a corresponding message to Christians that they are favored citizens."

Many want to keep cross in place

Mayor Ashton Hayward's office said last year that it had no plans to remove the cross. Reached Wednesday afternoon, Hayward said that he hadn't yet seen the suit, but that he would take a look at the issue.

"We respect all religions without showing preference to any," said Hayward. "I hope there is always a place for religion in the public square. We certainly respect everyone's opinion and they are entitled to express these opinions. Last year, citizens mobilized in a big way for the cross and it will be interesting to see how all this plays out."

City officials also claimed in a statement last year that city residents "overwhelmingly" support leaving the cross in place. A Facebook group previously called "Keep Bayview Cross" and since renamed "Keep Religious Freedom" has garnered more than 5,000 likes. The group posted the following statement to the page on Wednesday afternoon:

Reached Wednesday, Pensacola city councilman Larry Johnson - in whose district the park and cross are located - said he thinks the cross should stay. "I just think there are so many more important issues we could be dealing with," said Johnson.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pensacola residents sue over Bayview Park cross

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With the help of the American Humanist Association (AHA) and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), four Pensacola residents are suing the city government and challenging the longstanding 25-foot cross in Bayview Park. The four plaintiffs, including longtime cross opponent David Suhor, Andre Ryland, and Amanda and Andreiy Kondrat'yev, are asking a federal court to order the cross's removal.

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Speech
March 10, 2017, The Indianapolis Star
Whats Happening?
The "Teens for Life Club" at Carmel High School put up a poster in the lunchroom about abortion, but was forced to take it down due to "school rules." This caused a major argument as to whether or not the school was violating the club's first amendment right of free speech.
Why is this happening?
This happened because a student came to the school complaining that the poster was "offensive," causing a major debate to keep it up or take it down.
Effect on Freedom of Speech:
The school violated the club's freedom of religion and freedom of speech laws by telling them they were not allowed to put the poster up in the cafeteria.
How I See It:
I think the school is at fault here as they were not allowing the club to express their beliefs publicly. They were not trying to offend anyone so they should have been allowed to keep the poster up.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/03/10/ideological-battle-abortion-erupts-carmel-high-school-cafeteria/99018512/

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Speech
January 11, 2017,
Supreme Court
What's happening?
A child with autism could not be taught well at a public school so he went to a private school and asked the public school to pay for his private school because they could not help him.
Why is this happening?
It happened because the public school system was not strong enough to help this young autistic boy out.
Effects on freedom of speech:
The boy was disabled which because he could have not had a good education it could have handicapped his freedom of speech but court decided it did not violate their laws so the public school would not have to pay for the child's private education.
How I see it:
How i see it is the child should have received money from the public school to pay for his private school because he was going to public school but they could not help him out so they sent him to private school where he was greatly improving. His parents were now paying for both the public school through taxes and private school directly because of the sole purpose that the public school failed the child.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-827_0pm1.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Speech
August 31, 2016 U.S. News
What's Happening?
The University of Chicago has brought up the debate over safe safe spaces which are areas where a group of people feel as if they won't be discriminated against or harassed by another group, and from this they state that they do not condone the creation of said places.
Why is this happening?
The idea of safe spaces will restrict some freedoms so that the group they defend will not become exposed to words or actions that would offend said group. The debate concerns how this type of action censors people's freedom of speech.
Effects on freedom of speech:
With these  spaces as mentioned, by creating these areas, the institution limits the people's speech for the protection of others.
How I see it:
While there is a good intention behind the creation of the safe spaces, it also hinders others in one of their rights given to them by the constitution. A majority of the people on a campus may or may not be protected by these safe spaces created. If the majority are not protected, these safe spaces are just a flat out violation of the constitution. If a majority are protected, it is fine to some degree but a harsh comment or two will not affect the directed individual in an extreme way. Over all, these safe spaces are rarely beneficial since they violate our constitution.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-08-31/university-of-chicago-spotlights-debate-over-safe-spaces-trigger-warnings

# data[].attributes.body
Speech
February 21st, 2017, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
What's happening?
William Lacy Clay plans to file a lawsuit stating that the rights of a former St. Louis student, David Pulphus were violated by the Architect of the Capitol. Pulphus had created a controversial painting that depicts the injustice, inequality, and unrest in Ferguson. It also depicts police officers as animals. The painting was taken down by the Architect of the Capitol because it "Depicts police officers as pigs and distorts of the police shooting death of Michael Brown."
Why is this happening?
Critics see the painting as a false depiction of the problems in Ferguson.
Effects on freedom of speech:
The taking down of the painting infringes on the rights of Pulphus. If the painting is not put back up, people will feel like their freedom of expression is not present anymore and they will lose motivation to express themselves.
How I see it:
Personally, I think that this is a violation of Pulphus's rights. I think that this painting is trying to raise awareness about injustice and is not attempting to cause violence. This shows that in the United States it is hard to really voice your opinion without backlash, but that should not discourage people from trying.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/taking-down-student-painting-violated-st-amendment-clay-claims-in/article_8ab33e1b-3a56-5b77-93fb-45ef7d06b628.html

# data[].attributes.body
Religion
March 27, 2017, WJCT
What's happening?
A bill was passed to protect the religious freedom of public schools in Florida. The bill is aiming to create the "Florida Student and School Personnel Religious Liberty Acts." The bill stops "a school district from discriminating against students, parents, or school personnel."
Why is this happening?
Florida's Education Department does not have standards for teaching religion, unlike with math and science. However, Florida really wants religion back but they more specifically want Christianity back in their schools.
Effects on Freedom of Religion:
By allowing students to exercise any religion they choose the teachers are instituting the first amendment in a positive way.
How I see it:
While they have the right intentions I do not truly believe they want everyone to practice a religion that is not Christianity. For example, the article said that students could preform satanic rituals and that the teachers would have to keep a close eye on those students and possible stop them if the students go to far. Even though I do think that they should keep an eye on those students if it infringing upon their freedom of religion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A bill seeking to protect the freedom of religious expression in public schools cleared Florida Senate on Thursday in a vote that largely cleaved along party lines.

The bill, aiming to create the "Florida Student and School Personnel Religious Liberties Act," passed by 23-13 vote on the floor. It intends to unify existing religious rights in a single legislation that would be simple to implement and heed.

Introduced by Sen. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, the bill prohibits "a school district from discriminating against students, parents, or school personnel on the basis of religious viewpoints or expression."

It also permits student-led religious groups and initiatives - such as prayer during the school day - on school premises and allows staff to partake in them as long as doing so does not encroach on their official duties.

The bill has a companion in the House of Representatives. Many of the rights the two bills aim to buttress are already safeguarded under federal and state law.

There is the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religious expression; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religiously motivated discrimination against employees; the 1984's Equal Access Act, which authorizes the formation of faith-based extracurricular clubs; the U.S. Department of Education's guidance on constitutionally protected prayer in schools; and a state law Gov. Rick Scott signed in 2012 to recognize prayer in schools.

"What this does is take all the case law that has happened and kind of fit it to the ground in a format that is workable and uniform so we do not have varying interpretations of what is appropriate," said Baxley in a committee discussion.

Opponents consider the measure undue. Sen. Gary Farmer, D-Fort Lauderdale, is one of them.

"The right to religious belief is not being taken away if we don't pass this bill," he said.

Nonetheless, the pending legislation may interfere with secular education, said Jonathan Smith, president of Florida Citizens for Science.

"It is just smoke and mirrors to have religion an alternative to science, taught in the science classroom," Smith said. "And if this goes through, it is going to be devastating for good science education."

Florida's standards for science - guidelines for teaching the subject - were last updated in 2008. As the field constantly evolves, Smith said, students in Florida are stuck with outdated material.

As of next academic year, if the bills turn into law, the issue may worsen, as scientific facts would collude with contradicting religious beliefs, Smith said.

"So, you go into a science classroom and the teacher says, 'Ok, we have the value of pi. It is 3.14159,' " he said. "And the student says, 'Well, I do not agree with that because my religious book says it is exactly three.' So, where does that leave us?"

Another probable recourse to resolve the possible collision of religion and science in schools is through enhanced educational standards, said Andrea Messina, executive director of Florida School Board Association that works with 64 school boards.

"Typically when issues like that are in conflict what happens ... is at that point the State Board of Education or the state Department of Education would create standards and the standards will tell you what you are supposed to teach with regards to climate change or whatever," Messina said. "But besides that, many times, teachers teach one scientific position and then they would say, 'But some other scientists believe two, three or four.' "

Steve Lyons, who heads the science department at Ponte Vedra High School, acknowledged some teachers fail to properly delineate and reconcile science and religion when confronted by students, but he does not think the bills would degrade science education.

"I would not be threatened at all by somebody bringing into my science class a religious belief about the shape of the earth or whatever," he said. "I would then use that as a springboard to describe what science is as compared to what religion is in a non-threatening way."

Currently, Florida's Department of Education does not have standards for teaching religion, the same way it has for math and languages.

The bills would enable students to practice all faiths - including satanism and any self-created creeds - in schools before, during and after class hours. But Smith of Florida Citizens for Science is cautious about the intentions of the bills' sponsors.

"They want religion back in school and it is not any religion," he said. "It is their particular religion. They want Christianity - the foremost religion - taught and used and acted upon in the school system."

Baxley served as executive director of the Christian Coalition of Florida, while Rep. Kimberly Daniels', D-Jacksonville, who brought up the House bill, is a pastor, religious author and, according to her website, founder of Spoken Word Ministries, Kimberly Daniels Ministries and World Bible College.

While largely identical, the Senate and House bills diverge when it comes to what is called a "limited public forum" or ceremonies and activities where students can address their peers.

The Senate version calls for letting student speakers voluntarily focus on religious themes within such events, but the House bill had the requirement struck out. Thus, if the House passes the latter in its current form, a legislature-wide agreement will be needed to integrate the bills.
is a contributor to WJCT. She can be reached at dima93vitanova@gmail.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jacksonville Representative Pushes For Bill To Bolster Religious Freedom In Florida Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A bill seeking to protect the freedom of religious expression in public schools cleared Florida Senate on Thursday in a vote that largely cleaved along party lines. The bill, aiming to create the "Florida Student and School Personnel Religious Liberties Act," passed by 23-13 vote on the floor.

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of Religion
February 22, 2017, The New York Times
What is happening?
The muslim group in Michigan City won the right to build a mosque.
Why is this happening?
The Muslim group in Michigan city planned to build a mosque but the city denied the group to do so. Shortly after, the muslim group filed a lawsuit against the city for this denial. In the case the Muslim group claimed that denying access to build a mosque in the city is discrimination against religion and violated the freedom of religion. The city however, claimed that they did this due to zoning problems in the city. The City of Michigan eventually lost the case and the mosque was built with some modified measurements.
Effects on Freedom of Religion:
By not allowing the construction of the mosque, the city denies access and opportunity for people of the muslim religion to worship and participate in religious activities.
How I see it:
In this situation I believe that the city had a good reason to not allow the mosque to be built but on the other hand I believe that denying the ability to construct a mosque infringes upon the freedom of religion. By not allowing a mosque to be built in the city but perhaps allowing other constructions to take place in the future, may make people feel that they are being discriminated against and not given the same number of opportunities to worship as other religions in the area.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Over the objections of some residents, a Muslim group won the fight to build a mosque in Sterling Heights, Mich., after the city on Tuesday settled a lawsuit by the Justice Department that accused officials of religious discrimination.

The group, the American Islamic Community Center, applied to Sterling Heights, about 16 miles from downtown Detroit, to build the house of worship in August 2015. The planning commission rejected the application, citing concerns over the height of the building, parking and noise.

But the lawsuit, filed in December - and the anti-Muslim language used by many residents who spoke at public meetings about the mosque - suggested that the rejection and the uproar were more about religion than by-the-book zoning details.

The government quoted a person who said "Remember 9/11" and others who claimed that Christians would face difficulty trying to build a church in Iraq.

"We are alleging that Sterling Heights discriminated against the American Islamic Community Center on the basis of religion and placed a substantial burden on the community's ability to exercise its religion by denying approval to build a mosque," Barbara L. McQuade, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, said in a statement in December.

The City Council unanimously approved the settlement on Tuesday, prompting some residents to shout "terrorists" at council members and another to urge the officials to "fight against a political ideology whose goal is death to America," according to Fox 2 Detroit.

Ms. McQuade said at a news conference on Wednesday, "It's important to remember, in our pluralistic society, that religious minorities are entitled to the same protections as all of the rest of us."

The lawsuit contended that the city had discriminated against the Muslim group, which has about 300 members in the Detroit suburbs, because of its religion and imposed undue burdens on its ability to build the mosque. It noted that, despite the commission's concerns about height, churches in the city had higher steeples.

As part of the settlement, the mosque will shrink to a height of 61 feet from a planned 66 feet. The Muslim group also agreed to have no outdoor amplification or street parking.

Mayor Michael C. Taylor of Sterling Heights said in an interview on Wednesday that despite the anti-Muslim rhetoric of some residents, the rejection really was about zoning. The city is home to two previously built mosques, as well as a Sikh temple and a Buddhist temple.

"The perception was that the city is denying a mosque because the city is not welcoming to mosques, and nothing could have been further from the truth," he said. "We are very welcoming to the A.I.C.C., but there were legitimate zoning and planning issues that had to be worked out."

Many of the irate residents, however, made clear they were not motivated by parking concerns. Mr. Taylor said much of the resistance to the mosque came from the city's large population of Chaldean Christians, some of whom were refugees who fled religious persecution in Iraq. They see putting a mosque in their neighborhood as a provocation, he said.

Throughout the process, anti-Muslim sentiments flared. One public commenter held up a photograph of a woman wearing a garment that covered her head and said he did not want to "be near people like this," according to the Justice Department complaint. Another resident suggested that weapons might be hidden in the mosque. Still another said officials should screen the American Islamic Community Center's members because "they're cutting people's heads off; they kill our soldiers."

The Muslim group sought to build the house of worship after it outgrew its current mosque in nearby Madison Heights. About 70 percent of its members live in Sterling Heights, and many have lived there for decades longer than those opposing the mosque, said Azzam Elder, the lead lawyer for the community center.

He called the decision "a victory for all Americans, especially vulnerable Americans." The group's members, he said, "feel very relieved, because the city of Sterling Heights finally realized who they are: They're veterans who have served in the U.S. military; they're professionals; they're everyday Americans."

Mohammed Abdrabboh, another lawyer representing the Muslim group, said at the news conference, "Ignorance coupled with government power can be very difficult to overcome."

"Today, however, it really is a victory for pluralism, tolerance and basic human decency," he added.

When a reporter asked why the group would want to build in a place where neighbors were unwelcoming, Ms. McQuade intervened.

"Because America says you get to be where you want to be," she said. "If you own land, you don't have to leave because your neighbors don't want you there."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Muslim Group Wins Right to Build Mosque in Michigan City

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the objections of some residents, a Muslim group won the fight to build a mosque in Sterling Heights, Mich., after the city on Tuesday settled a lawsuit by the Justice Department that accused officials of religious discrimination.

# data[].attributes.body
Religion
April 17, 2017, The Telegraph
What's happening?
A Christian prayer writer, Callahan, posted a prayer on the telegraph on April 3rd. Someone wrote a letter to the editor saying that the prayer “’fueled division’” and was directed to Islamic people. The letter also stated that the payers should be censored.
Why is this happening?
People see publicized prayers as ways to target other groups and deem them wrong.

They think that allowing writings like prayers to be published without censorship can eliminate peace.

Effect on freedom of religion:
People are discouraged to publicly practice their religions. They cannot excercise their religions the way that they should be able to.
How I see it:
The ability to publish prayers without censorship brings more value to the freedom of religion. I think the suggestion to censor prayers before publishing completely imposes on religious freedom. I think this is why many people are afraid to express their religion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Question

How can we as citizens depend on our duly elected officials of this country when all they do is point fingers at each other? I don't know how we can trust them to lead us.

Prayer for today

In a recent letter to the editor, Yvonne Miller of Macon, alluded to my "Prayer for today" published April 3. She said my prayer "fueled division" and implied that editors should censor prayers if they do not meet her standards. Furthermore, she stated that my prayer was sectarian, bigoted and directed towards the Islamic world. I plead "Not guilty" to all three charges.

My prayer called for Christians to come together "...so we can stand and fight against the forces of evil which seek to destroy us." She concluded that I was calling Islam part of the "forces of evil." Therefore, I must respectfully respond to her allegations. My prayer was directed to Jesus because I am a Christian minister and he is my Lord and Savior. My intention was to offer a prayer on behalf of Christians of all denominations.

Miller used her "imagination"(her words) to assume that I equated "forces of evil" with Isalm. Nothing could be further from the truth. How she can pretend to know my heart and mind is a great mystery to me.

I believe there are many "faces of evil" working against Christians and their values today. Some are secular and some have a political or religious basis. We remember the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and the Jewish Holocaust to name a few. Hitler, Stalin and Mao killed millions of innocent people because they did not accept their political philosophies.

As a retired chaplain I served in the military, prison and hospice settings. My ministry included Protestants, Catholics, Jews and Muslims. None of those persons ever accused me of being sectarian, bigoted or Islamophobic. As a prison chaplain I insured that Muslim inmates could attend Jumah Prayer, and their Ramadan Fast. I attended a Feast of Eid which was a celebration at the end of their fast.

My worship teacher in seminary taught us the basics of prayer. He would critique our prayers by making helpful suggestions but he would not give them a letter grade. He said that God is the only one who can grade our prayers. I "imagine" that I might get a grade of F by Miller on my prayer.

Our Bill of Rights include: "freedom of speech," "freedom of the press," and the "free exercise of religion." I am thankful to The Telegraph for allowing persons of all faith groups to submit a "Prayer for today" without censorship. Perhaps Miller will submit a prayer for publication and will be open to our feedback.

Town hall cowards

I would encourage all of you as Americans and taxpayers to be skeptical of these chicken hawks in Congress and the White House. Virtually none have served to see the horror of war or its aftermath, with many veterans with PTSD and destroyed lives, as many of us know with family members, including mine.

They want military expansion but are unwilling to meet with constituents in town halls about health care. They believe others should be brave enough to defend our beliefs, but not them. Has your congressman held a town hall or has he/she avoided it via a conference call instead? Is that the kind of coward you want in Congress?

No disappointment

I was pleased to be in attendance for Theatre Macon's production of "The Drowsy Chaperone." I attended the original production in New York some 15 years ago. I remember vividly that within 10 minutes after the raising of the Act One curtain, I couldn't wait to see Theatre Macon's production with Jim Crisp playing the lead. I was not disappointed. If there was ever a theatrical experience that was tailor made for someone, it is Jim in the role of, simply, (the man in the chair).

For all of you that have worked with Jim over the many years he has directed shows, not only at Macon Little Theatre, Theatre Macon and the Civic Club but many other venues in and around Macon, I invite you to come and and experience his performance. But not just his, the entire production was wonderful. And you will be bedazzled by Shelley Kuhen's spectacular costumes. It was so sad to see so many empty seats. So I challenge you to come down and support Theatre Macon, Jim Crisp and the entire cast of "The Drowsy Chaperone." I promise, you will not be disappointed.

Gospel music from her heart

What a great inspiration it was to read of Noveline Sorrell's triumph in spite of "Eyes failing, music comes from heart" on The Telegraph's Easter's front page by Ed Grisamore. I still have one of her piano CDs which I play in my shop from time to time. Bless her and all who keep using the talents they have left. She is a living example of the value of storing up useful things in our brains and hearts when young. Thank you, and to Mrs Sorrell.

Obstacles to the wall

It is gong to cost more than estimated to construct a wall along the southern border. It is gong to take longer to construct the wall than projected. Some of the required land is on private property. There are thousands of individual parcels. The government will have to use imminent domain to condemn the property and take it from its owners. The owners will fight this in court and it will eventually end up at the Supreme Court. This will be a costly and prolonged legal battle. The land owners will demand top dollar for their confiscated property. The government will have to build access roads.

Some of the required land is on an Indian reservation. I do not know how the government can take land from the Indians. Some of the required land is in federal and state parks. There are restrictions on what can be built in those parks. There are environmental regulations protecting wetlands and river beds. Congress will have to approve any changes. The wall cannot be built in a flood plain. Therefore, it will have to be away from the Rio Grand or any other rivers or streams. Since Mexico is not providing any funds, Congress has to appropriate the money for construction and pay the land owners for their property.

I fully support boarder security. I hope the government develops a realistic approach for building the wall.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This is Viewpoints for Tuesday, April 18, 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How can we as citizens depend on our duly elected officials of this country when all they do is point fingers at each other? I don't know how we can trust them to lead us. In a recent letter to the editor, Yvonne Miller of Macon, alluded to my "Prayer for today" published April 3.

# data[].attributes.body
Speech/Assembly
March 15, 2016
What's happening?
Protesters at Trump rallies during his campaign last year were removed from the crowds of people. It started to become so bad that Trump had to cancel one of his rallies in Chicago. One of these protestors was even punched in the face as he was leaving the rally.
Why is this happening?
People against Trump want to speak their mind and believe they have the right to go to these rallies and protest against him.
Effect on freedom of speech/assembly:
By removing and escorting these people from Trump events, it strips them from the right to assemble and the right to have free speech at that particular event. Many protestors insist that what they were doing was peaceful and not disruptive, but in the eyes of police, they were doing harm to others which allowed them to remove the protestors from the event. Through this action by the police, protestors believe their rights were being violated.
How I see it:
I partially agree with the view of how people are being disruptive at these rallies. If someone or a group is being disruptive and harmful to others, then yes, they should be escorted from the event. And in some cases this is the issue. But I believe that in several other cases, people are not being disruptive or harmful and are still being removed for their peaceful protest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One protester was punched as he was led out of a Donald Trump rally in North Carolina. Another rushed the stage at an event in Ohio. In Chicago - a city rocked by political riots in the 1960's - escalating clashes between Trump supporters and demonstrators forced the Republican front runner to cancel an event Friday night.

Protest has been a part of politics since the nation's birth. But at Trump's packed events they have become a prominent - and increasingly violent- staple. Both anti-Trump demonstrators and Trump supporters have said loudly that their First Amendment rights are being violated at these rallies. In the midst of the Chicago fracas, Trump went from one television network to another saying his supporters' rights were being trampled by demonstrators. Closer to home, about 30 African American Valdosta State University students are contemplating a lawsuit alleging their rights were abridged when they were escorted out of a Trump rally at their school last month.

And since campaign rallies for other presidential candidates, such as Hillary Clinton, have been disrupted by protesters, accusations of free speech violations have rung out as loudly as cheers from the crowds. But were they all violations?

It's not so cut-and-dried. As several first amendment attorneys pointed out, it can be murky. Let's start with the clearest point:

"The First Amendment is a protection or restriction on what government can do," said Peter Canfield, an Atlanta attorney who has worked on libel cases including one involving former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and a Georgia gun dealer.

So if a person is removed by government agents, law enforcement, then it's a First Amendment violation, right? Not necessarily, said attorneys. It depends upon whose orders the police are acting on, whether the rallies are public or private events and who tells the police to remove protesters.

If it's a private event at a private venue, a person can be ejected without violation of the First Amendment, as was the case with a young Black Lives Matter protester who interrupted a $500 a ticket fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in Charleston, S.C.. The woman unfurled a sign calling out Clinton for her 1990s-era stance on criminal justice, particularly concerning communities of color. The young woman, identified in media reports as Ashley Williams, was escorted out by Clinton's security detail.

"These are private forums and accordingly the host has the right to admit or refuse anybody as long as it is not done on legally inadmissible grounds," said Augusta attorney David Hudson.

"If it's on private property and then you do something, then it's probably going to be private security that removes you and it's probably not a First Amendment issue because by entering you've kind of entered into a contract," said Canfield.

But what if the event is in a public venue and protesters are kicked out? Surely that's violation of free speech, correct? Again, there are variables, attorneys said. If a campaign rents out a public venue, the campaign essentially becomes the lessee of the venue and can dictate conduct, attorneys said. Even if the campaign opens the event to the public and issues free tickets.

"Even on public property, there can be layers to this as a First Amendment issue," said Gerry Weber, an Atlanta attorney and senior staff counsel for the Southern Center for Human Rights. "If the ejection is done by government officials or police officers acting on the request of [campaign] organizers and they're doing it because of [the protesters] views, that presents a First Amendment problem. If it's because of their conduct, then they can be ejected."

But Weber cautioned there can be other mitigating issues, such as if other attendees are impacted by an attendee's actions, like holding up a large sign that blocks the view of others.

"It becomes pretty murky and it really depends upon the context," Weber said.

In the case of the Valdosta State students, the students told media outlets that they were not rowdy but standing quietly in the bleachers of the school's athletic complex. Valdosta Police Chief Brian Childress, however, contested that account in a statement saying some of the students had been cursing and being disruptive and were escorted out.

"This and only this reason was why they were asked to leave the complex," Childress said. "But to suggest that this incident was racially motivated is unfair and simply not factual."

The students were wearing black shirts, which was a form of speech, said Hudson.

"What you're wearing can be a form of speech, but if you're there otherwise not causing a disturbance, I would say you ought to be left alone," Hudson said. "If your sign isn't blocking the view of other people, if you aren't causing a disturbance either by noise or obstructing the view, then you have a First Amendment right to be there."

It's important, however, to keep in mind the very nature of political rallies and the purpose of protest, say political scientists.

"Dissent is part of the American tradition," said Michael Leo Owens, an associate political science professor at Emory University. "When a person goes to a rally with a sign to protest, they don't expect the candidate to actually stand there and debate them right there on the floor. The idea is to disrupt, displease all in the name of political action and expression. The ejection is what brings the attention, and the ejection equals the triumph. They want to confront the candidate that they believe has bad policies."

Then there is the issue of staying on message, said Andra Gillespie, also an associate political science professor at Emory University. That goes for the rally audience as well as the candidate, said Gillespie.

"These are staged events and because they are staged, candidates want to control the message," Gillespie said. "These are carefully scripted and if they think there's some kind of grassroots expression that's going to run counter to that, they shut it down."

Gillespie, who has attended rallies this campaign season for most of the presidential candidates, described two instances. One at a Ted Cruz rally in Kennesaw where audience members, quietly and directly asked a handful of white protesters to put away a small Black Lives Matter sign they had brought to the rally. The protesters did and the rally was not disrupted, Gillespie said. That's a case that did not constitute a First Amendment violation because at no point was law enforcement involved.

The incident involving the two Georgia State students at a Clinton rally, however, seems to edge closer to a free speech violation. In an interview the Atlanta Journal Constitution Meagan Mwanda and Ashona Husbands said they were escorted away from a Clinton rally at Atlanta's City Hall after they wrote on the back of official Clinton campaign signs handed to them at the rally. The students wrote the names of African American's whose deaths have been rallying points for the Black Lives Matter movement. Plainclothes Atlanta police officers ejected Mwanda and Husbands from the crowd.

"You don't target people because you're afraid of their message," said Atlanta attorney Cynthia Counts. "If you want to control the message, [the campaigns] need to make it clear that you only want your signs. But you can't use police in an arbitrary way to do it. Once you bring the police in there better have been a crime, otherwise you're opening yourself up to liability."

The student protesters from Valdosta and Atlanta are weighing lawsuits over their treatment.

"These students are first time voters and we're creating a censorship around speech and it's concerning," said Maya Dillard-Smith, executive director of the ACLU of Georgia, which is representing the students. "We have to be resolute in our defense and understanding of the First Amendment."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Removing protesters from Trump rallies; 1st Amendment violation?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One protester was punched as he was led out of a Donald Trump rally in North Carolina. Another rushed the stage at an event in Ohio. In Chicago - a city rocked by political riots in the 1960's - escalating clashes between Trump supporters and demonstrators forced the Republican front runner to cancel an event Friday night.

# data[].attributes.body
Speech
April 12, 2017, The Collegian
What's happening?
The governor of Colorado signed a bill that will ban free speech zones from colleges. Previously, colleges could restrict students free speech and freedom of expression to just certain designated areas, but with this bill in place, students will have unlimited free speech all over campus.
Why is this happening?
The state was concerned that students were having their free speech restricted by colleges. They wanted to make sure free speech wasn't censored by colleges.
Effect on freedom of speech:
This will make it so that college students will be able to freely speak their minds on campuses without being censored. This law will protect the rights of the college students.
How I see it:
I completely agree with this bill being passed. I think that freedom of speech is a big part of our country, and its a big part of learning as well. We need to be able to debate and learn other opinions so that we can grow as a society. Freedom of speech should never be limited just because some people are afraid of having their feelings hurt.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gov. Hickenlooper signed Senate Bill 62, which will eliminate free speech zones on Colorado college campuses last Tuesday. The bill is set to go into effect Aug. 9.

This bill gives college students the right to express their ideas in public areas of their campus. Previously, colleges were allowed to limit free speech to designated zones on campus.

Expression includes peaceful assemblies, protests, political speech, petitioning, holding signs, distributing written materials and voter registration activities. It does not include soliciting activities.

According to the bill, administrators can still limit expression that disrupts prescheduled activities, including classes. Any other limitations cannot be instigated with any reference to the content of the expression being limited.

The bill was unanimously passed through the Colorado Education Committee of the state senate in February. Juan Caro and Emily Faulkner, students at Colorado State University, visited the Capitol Building in Denver to lobby for the bill.

Faulkner, a CSU senior biology major and vice chair of the Conservative Interest Group of Colorado, said free speech zones limit the ability for students to speak their minds.

"We recognize that free speech is not a bipartisan issue," Faulkner said. "Without (the amendment) we have no right to speak our minds. Free speech zones limit when and where you can speak your mind, and that infringes on the first amendment."

Faulkner, also the president of CSU Students for Life, filed a free speech lawsuit in January against CSU when the University denied a diversity grant to the group to bring an anti-abortion speaker to campus. Faulkner said she is excited the bill was passed.

"I hope looking to the future that this happens in all states, not just Colorado," Faulkner said. "Campus is a marketplace of ideas and if we take those away, what are we really? If we take away free speech, then we aren't exposed to different ideas and can't grow."

Some students at Colorado State University have mixed feelings about the passing of the bill.

"I like it because it flows with the constitution and the rights we're supposed to have," said Hannah Thorndyke, a freshman biology major at CSU. "I can see both pros and cons. For pros it's good for people to be exposed to different opinions because it enlightens you. (A) con is some people could get their feelings hurt by (what they experience)."

"If you allow it to be expanded to everywhere it could cause some disruption," Karina Valadez, a freshman biology major said. "Also, if people want to hear ideas, they won't know where to go to look for (them)."

Senior math major Madison Rhodes said the bill threatens marginalized people.

"You no longer have an area you can avoid to not hear hate speech disguised as free speech," Rhodes said. "Marginalized people will have a voice, but people who have dominant identities will be able to push their privilegefurther. Now policing of campus is going to be a lot harder in terms of hate speech."

Collegian reporter Jym Cox can be reached at news@collegian.com or on Twitter @jym2233.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gov. Hickenlooper signs bill banning 'free speech zones' from college campuses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gov. Hickenlooper signed Senate Bill 62, which will eliminate free speech zones on Colorado college campuses last Tuesday. The bill is set to go into effect Aug. 9. This bill gives college students the right to express their ideas in public areas of their campus.

# data[].attributes.body
Religion
July 22, 2016, The New York Times
Whats Happening?: Masood Syed was suspended without pay from work at the New York Police Department for refusing to shave his beard during the fasting month of Ramadan. A lawsuit against the police department aims to change the no-beard policy which Masood's lawyers say infringes upon the rights of more than 100 officers who want to practice their religious rights freely.
Why is this Happening?: The police department says that the no-beard policy is for the protection of the officers during an emergency when a gas mask is needed and is only excused for officers whose faith requires beards or officers with medical conditions as long as the beard is less than one millimeter in length. The Department, however, has repeatedly told several officers that they must shave their beards that are worn for religious reasons. The Department has even fired officers for refusing to shave their beards in observance of their faith.
Effect on Freedom of Religion: By instituting a no-beard policy and failing to accommodate officers who grow beards in observance of their faith, the police department has violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Free Exercise Clause prevents the Government from stopping the practice of any particular religion. Growing a beard is part of Masood's religion.
How I See it: I see this issue as a violation of the freedom of religion and specifically as a violation of the free exercise clause. The New York Police Department cannot force an officer to shave their beard if the beard is worn for religious or medical purposes no matter the length that the beard becomes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/nyregion/muslim-officer-sues-new-york-police-dept-over-no-beard-policy.html?ref=topics&_r=0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the debate over beards in business settings, the New York Police Department officially stands opposed, with limited exceptions for officers seeking a medical or religious accommodation.

The department's no-beard policy, as it is known, is at the center of a federal class-action lawsuit filed on Wednesday on behalf of a Muslim police officer who says he was suspended during the fasting month of Ramadan for refusing to shave his one-inch beard. The lawsuit, brought by Masood Syed, 32, aims to force the Police Department to change a policy that his lawyers say infringes on the rights of more than 100 officers seeking to exercise their religious freedoms without fear of discrimination or retaliation.

Officer Syed, a 10-year veteran assigned to the office that handles disciplinary proceedings against officers, was suspended without pay on Tuesday. At an emergency hearing on Wednesday in Federal District Court in Manhattan, Judge P. Kevin Castel ordered the department to continue paying Officer Syed until his next court date on July 8, when the court will decide whether he can return to work.

"It's frustrating because it's a city that's supposed to represent us," Luna Droubi, a lawyer for Officer Syed, said. "This is New York City. Yet here they are telling people of different faiths that they can't protect and serve, that they can't be officers of the law because they're different."

The Police Department has said that the rule is necessary for the safety of its officers. Lawrence Byrne, the department's deputy commissioner for legal matters, said the policy helped prevent officers from being overcome in physical confrontations and met federal guidelines for the gas masks that officers would use in a chemical or biological attack.

"We remain the No. 1 terrorist target in the world," Mr. Byrne said. "And we need to have all 36,000 of our officers able to respond."

Officer Syed, of Queens, is a Pakistani-American who wears a beard in obeisance to his Sunni Islamic faith. He joined the department as a transit patrol officer in 2006, and was granted an exception to the no-beards policy, according to his complaint.

The exception allows police officers, like those with skin conditions worsened by shaving or whose faiths require facial hair, to grow the hair up to one millimeter in length. But there are officers who wear their beards longer, including some assigned to undercover roles.

Officer Syed said he wore his beard at lengths between a half-inch and one inch without incident until 2015, and was allowed to wear it in a photo taken for his official identification.

He enrolled in New York Law School in 2010 and became a law clerk in the office of the deputy commissioner of trials at the Police Department. In 2011, he was required to sign a form agreeing not to wear his beard longer than one millimeter, but he continued to wear it longer.

According to the complaint, he was not reproached until August 2015, when he ran into Captain James F. Kobel, the second-in-command of the department's Equal Employment Opportunity office, at work. Captain Kobel told him he was not in compliance with the department's no-beard policy. What followed, Officer Syed said, was a series of meetings with officials, who repeatedly instructed him to shave his beard.

But he refused, and in December he sent a letter to Captain Kobel's boss, Deputy Commissioner Neldra M. Zeigler, requesting a "reasonable accommodation" for himself and other officers who wear beards longer than the current exception in observance of their faith.

On June 20, while his request was still pending, Officer Syed received a letter from Captain Kobel ordering him to shave by the end of the next day or face suspension, according to the complaint. When he did not comply on June 21, according to the complaint, he was ordered to turn over his gun and shield and was escorted from the building as his colleagues looked on.

"Every officer knows what that means," Officer Syed said, adding, "I was extremely humiliated."

Officer Syed's complaint cites a 2013 ruling in Federal District Court in favor of a Hasidic Jewish police officer who was fired during his probationary period for refusing to shave his beard. The officer, Fishel Litzman, was reinstated in 2014 and remains on the job.

The complaint also describes another 2013 case of Mohsin Aftab, a Muslim police officer who was suspended and ultimately agreed to leave the department after 10 years of service rather than shave his beard. Mr. Aftab, according to the complaint, has not been able to work in law enforcement since his departure, and his family has had to accept food stamps.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Muslim Officer Sues New York Police Dept. Over No-Beard Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the debate over beards in business settings, the New York Police Department officially stands opposed, with limited exceptions for officers seeking a medical or religious accommodation. The department's no-beard policy, as it is known, is at the center of a federal class-action lawsuit filed on Wednesday on behalf of a Muslim police officer who says he was suspended during the fasting month of Ramadan for refusing to shave his one-inch beard.

# data[].attributes.body
Speech
Oct 13, 2016, Times
Whats happening?
Universities are restricting students freedom of speech and are not allowing them to voice their opinions outside the "free-speech zones".
Why is this happening?
This is happening because Universities have taught a generation of Americans that if you don't agree with someone, you feel uncomfortable with an idea, or you don't find a joke funny, then their right of freedom of speech should be suppressed.
Effects on freedom to assemble:
With these University rules it doesn't allow the freedom to gather together and protest an idea. This also only allows students to pray in the "Free-speech zones" and any prayer outside these small zones is prohibited.
How I see it:
I think this should not be allowed, even though the students pay to attend the universities and are required to follow the rules this is and un- Constitutional rule and should be stopped immediately. If we didn't allow the people to voice their opinions, society would be terrible. No one would fix our problems because they wouldn't even know what our problems are, since we can't voice them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Colleges Have No Right to Limit Students' Free Speech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Colleges legislating free-speech zones and punishing students for how they talk should remember the history and purpose of higher education

# data[].attributes.body
Speech
March 28, 2017, Reuters
What's Happening?
A former University of New Mexico student wrote an essay demonstrating that she is against lesbians. She was not able to persuade the federal court she was trying to persuade that the school rejected her essay for having anti- lesbian remarks in the essay. The records show that he school eventually refunded the student her tuition.
Why is this happening?
This is happening because the student believes that the school rejected her article that she wrote for her film class because it contained anti-lesbian remarks and she believed that infringed on her freedom of speech.
Effect on Freedom of Speech:
If the school did not accept the student's essay on the fact that it contained anti- lesbian remarks, then that would be violating the freedom of speech which states in the Bill of Rights that written words are protected.
How I See It:
I see this case as being a violation of the freedom of speech if the school rejected the essay just because it contains anti- lesbian remarks because in the Bill of Rights, the first amendment says that all written and spoken words are protected from prosecution. However, if the school has a policy against those remarks in a handbook of some sort that the student should know about, then the school had all the rights in the world to reject the essay that the student wrote.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lawsuit-censorship-idUSKBN16Z2RN

# data[].attributes.body
Assembly
February 4th, 2017, National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444596/berkeley-riots-sedition-laws
What's happening?
At the University of California at Berkeley, students engaged in a violent riot. These activist students were not prosecuted and were largely left unchallenged despite the damage they did to property and person. This being only the first of a series of riots at Berkeley is a demonstration that people no longer fear the consequences of their actions.
Why is this happening?
Law enforcement is refusing to handle the situation and ones similar to it. Rather than making proper arrests, the students are allowed to continue rioting. The entire situation in this specific case was started when some students were outraged that a conservative speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos, was arranged to give a talk.
Effect on freedom of assembly:
The freedom to assemble is being equated with rioting. As people are more enraged by the riots, they end up against assemblies altogether. What could have been a viable peaceful protest was turned into a precedent for terrible riots. The twisting of this freedom into a destructive force will only destroy the true freedom of assembly as legislatures are forced to act.
How I See It:
Violent riots, no matter the cause, must be put down. If force is required so be it. We cannot allow childish groups of people to throw fits and break their play toys. Peaceful assembly is under threat by these destructive rampages, and the damage is only spreading. Once people see that there will be no consequences for riots, more and more riots will occur. It is time that we assemble for the freedom to assemble and do something about the threats to our display of free thought.

# data[].attributes.body
Speech
April 26, 2016
Whats Happening?
Jeffery Heffernan, A detective for the police force of Paterson, New Jersey was seen picking up lawn signs from a local distribution center that supported the candidate challenging the mayor that was currently in office. Heffernan, who was not a supporter of the candidate did this as a favor for his mother, who was. Other police officers in the same force witnessed the act and told the chief officer. The chief officer was very against the candidate and demoted Heffernan from his original position as a detective. Heffernan brought the case to court saying it violated his First Amendment rights.
Why is this happening?
This is happening because Jeffery Heffernan believes that being demoted for carrying the opposing candidates sign is a violation of his First Amendment rights of Protected Speech.
Effect on freedom of speech:
Jeffery Heffernan believes his freedom of speech had been violated and that what he was seen doing is protected speech under the rights of the first amendment. If he had lost this case, it would had led to many similar cases violating the First Amendment.
How I see it:
I think that what Jeffery Heffernan was doing was completely protected under the First Amendment and firing someone for carrying a lawn sign supporting the opposing candidate that you dislike is completely violating the First Amendment and makes protected Speech unprotected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On April 13, 2006, Jeffrey Heffernan, a high-ranking detective in the Paterson, New Jersey, police department, picked up a lawn sign from the Lawrence Spagnola mayoral campaign. Spagnola, a former Paterson police chief, was a friend of Heffernan's; the incumbent, Jose Torres, was supported by the police chief at the time, James Wittig. Another officer, passing by, saw Heffernan pick up the sign and talk to Spagnola's campaign manager. When Heffernan went to work the next day, he was told he'd been reassigned to nighttime foot patrol as punishment for supporting Spagnola.

Heffernan sued the city in federal court, claiming that it had violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and free association. This would appear to be a straightforward case: since 1976, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects non-political public employees, like police officers, from retaliation based on political affiliation. Yet Heffernan lost. He had testified that the sign wasn't for him; he was picking it up as a favor for his bedridden mother. His punishment, in other words, was based on the mistaken belief that he was expressing support for Spagnola.

The trial judge ruled that because Heffernan didn't mean to get involved in the campaign, he hadn't actually exercised any First Amendment right, so he couldn't bring a First Amendment claim. The Third Circuit affirmed that ruling on appeal. On Tuesday, the case was argued at the Supreme Court, which will decide whether a public employer violates the Constitution when he punishes an employee for something the employee didn't actually say. (The city denies that Heffernan was reassigned in retaliation for apparently supporting Spagnola, but at this stage in the litigation, it accepts Heffernan's account for argument's sake.)

Heffernan argues that the First Amendment not only grants individuals the right to speak freely but also prevents the government from trying to control people's beliefs. Mark Frost, who represented Heffernan at oral arguments, told me last week, "The First Amendment bars a government supervisor from demoting an employee for the purpose of suppressing political affiliation, whether or not the employee works on the campaign or takes a political position." He continued, "When the government's motive is to suppress association and beliefs, then the government should be held accountable." As Ginger D. Anders, a Justice Department lawyer who also argued on Heffernan's behalf, put it yesterday, even if Heffernan wasn't politically active, the city still violated one of his rights: the "right not to have adverse action taken against him by his employer for the unconstitutional purpose of suppressing disfavored political beliefs."

In its briefs, the city has responded that, "by definition, the government cannot 'abridge' a 'right' of an employee who does not even seek to exercise it." In other words, if Heffernan did not mean anything by holding the sign, Wittig's motivation in punishing him is irrelevant under the First Amendment. That argument, however, leads to some weird consequences. As Justice Elena Kagan put it, under the city's logic, a newly elected Democratic official could "identify every person without a well-known political view, every couch potato out there," fire them all, and replace them with Democrats. Tom Goldstein, the lawyer representing Paterson, told Justice Kagan she was right. "The Constitution doesn't fix everything," he said.

The reason this seems intuitively wrong is that the First Amendment is clearly aimed at preventing government from trying to control or censor political opinions. Justice Kagan, when she was still a law professor, argued, in an influential 1996 law-review article, that most First Amendment doctrine is best explained as a way to root out impermissible government purpose. In the 1992 case R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, for example, the Court held that a St. Paul, Minnesota, ordinance criminalizing "fighting words" based on race, religion, or gender was unconstitutional because it penalized only certain messages. "The government," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "may not regulate [speech] based on hostility-or favoritism-towards the underlying message expressed."

As Justice Kagan pointed out, however, fighting words-speech likely to provoke a violent reaction-are never considered speech covered by the First Amendment, so the defendant couldn't claim to have exercised any First Amendment right. Yet he won anyway. The only explanation for that outcome is that a law can't have the purpose of singling out particular viewpoints, whether or not the people it affects engaged in any protected activity.

The issue in yesterday's arguments was whether that's the right way to interpret the First Amendment. What's odd, though, is that, based on the facts of this case, that question should really be beside the point. By all accounts, Heffernan was reassigned because of the words on the sign he was carrying and the person he was talking to. He did speak, he did associate, and he was punished for it. His boss may have misinterpreted his intent, but that doesn't mean his conduct wasn't protected.

The fact that the lower federal courts came to the opposite conclusion illustrates an underappreciated aspect of First Amendment doctrine: the Supreme Court has said a lot of things about it that can't possibly be true. And, when judges rely on those statements uncritically, they can reach results that make no sense. Here, the main culprit is a line from a 1974 case, Spence v. Washington, in which the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a college student for displaying an upside-down American flag, with a peace sign taped over it, to protest the U.S. invasion of Cambodia and the Kent State massacre. Even though his use of the flag wasn't literally "speech," the Supreme Court held that it was covered by the First Amendment because "an intent to convey a particularized message was present, and in the surrounding circumstances the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it." Applying that standard to Heffernan's actions, the lower courts held that his picking up the lawn sign didn't count as speech, because he didn't intend to communicate anything by it.

There's a saying among lawyers that "hard cases make bad law." Spence proves that, sometimes, easy cases do, too. As Robert Post, the dean of Yale Law School and a leading First Amendment scholar, has written, the Spence criteria "have been used ever since by lower courts to guide their decisions about whether to apply First Amendment protection." (I took Post's course on free speech as a law student.) Post continues, "What is curious, however, is that the doctrine is transparently and manifestly false."

When he says the doctrine is "false," Post means that it doesn't actually explain what typically counts as speech under the First Amendment. Many acts that meet all the Spence criteria don't get First Amendment coverage; hurling a brick through a mosque window, for example, would communicate a pretty strong message. At the same time, plenty of speech that is clearly protected doesn't pass the Spence test. The Supreme Court itself noted, in a 1995 case, that if a " particularized message " were necessary for First Amendment protection, the government could censor "the unquestionably shielded painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schoenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll." The "intent" portion of the test leads to equally absurd results: if someone unfamiliar with U.S. politics wore a shirt with a donkey on it, the Spence test would seem to allow the police to arrest him for supporting the Democratic Party, because he couldn't have intended to communicate that message. Yet the Spence test has never been overruled.

The lower courts dismissed the freedom-of-association claim using the same logic that they did for speech: Heffernan didn't exercise his right to free association, they held, because he didn't intend to be identified as part of the Spagnola campaign. That idea is nearly as puzzling as the idea that he didn't speak. Freedom of association, which protects, for instance, the right to register as a Democrat or Republican, is an extension of the First Amendment's guarantee of "the right to peaceably assemble." Yet under Paterson's theory, any public employee (any citizen, really) could be punished for attending a campaign rally-literally "assembling"-if it turns out he or she was there not to support the candidate but just for the entertainment.

To see how strange the lower court rulings are, imagine if Wittig had told Heffernan, "Look, I know you weren't trying to support Spagnola. I know you were just doing a favor for your mom. I'm punishing you for helping a Spagnola supporter." It would be remarkable to say that that's allowed by the First Amendment. As District Judge Kevin McNulty observed, "From a First Amendment standpoint, Heffernan's position was not so different from that of the printer who manufactured the sign, or the trucker who delivered the signs to campaign headquarters." He meant that as support for the claim that Heffernan didn't exercise his rights, but he could have drawn the opposite conclusion: it surely would be unconstitutional for the state to punish truckers for delivering signs to certain campaigns.

To be clear, the question of whether Heffernan's carrying the sign was speech or association under the First Amendment is off the table at the Supreme Court. The Justices stressed that they took the case "on the proposition that he wasn't engaging in speech at all," as Chief Justice John Roberts put it. But there were hints that they were forcing themselves to suspend disbelief.

"The question in this case seems to me to be highly artificial," Justice Samuel Alito said at one point. "It's sort of-it's like a law-school hypothetical." He continued, "How often will it be the case that an employee will be unable to allege any expression or any association that is protected by the First Amendment? It seems to me quite rare."

But Heffernan did allege expression protected by the First Amendment. He lost because two federal courts actually ruled that picking up a political campaign sign doesn't count as speech under the First Amendment unless you really mean it. By playing along with the fiction that Heffernan didn't exercise a First Amendment right, the Supreme Court may miss an opportunity to make sure that cases like his really are rare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Heffernan v. Paterson and an Absurd First Amendment Doctrine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On April 13, 2006, Jeffrey Heffernan, a high-ranking detective in the Paterson, New Jersey, police department, picked up a lawn sign from the Lawrence Spagnola mayoral campaign. Spagnola, a former Paterson police chief, was a friend of Heffernan's; the incumbent, Jose Torres, was supported by the police chief at the time, James Wittig.

# data[].attributes.body
Speech
October 27, 2016, U.S. News
What's happening?
A college student is being thrown out of a nursing program for writing unprofessional posts on Facebook during his free time. The student was removed from the University and its Nursing program.
Why is this happening?
This is happening because the student chose to write about substance abuse and threatened to give someone a hemopneumothorax on Facebook; a hemopneumothorax is when the chest cavity is filled with blood and air.
Effects on freedom to speech: This certain situation might provoke an angry crowd to protest its' rights to posting on social media on a persons free time. This might also effect freedom of speech because people might think that what they say on social media in their free time will be censored and used against the; however if there are certain University rules that say writing vulgar posts is instituted then the effect on freedom of speech is not a big effect.
How I see it:
I agree and disagree with what happened to the college student. It clearly states in the Universities Nursing program guidelines that an individual must uphold the image of the school on and off campus, they must establish boundaries between the school and their personal free time, and many other rules and guidelines that clearly state what the student did was wrong. I also disagree with the process of how the student was kicked out of school. The article tells us that the university has a certain process for reprimanding students and in this instance the proper process was not used.

# data[].attributes.body
Assembly
February 4th, 2017, USA Today
What's happening?:Over ten-thousand people took part in organized rallies that occurred across the United States with the largest ones being in New York and Washington D.C. on Saturday, February 4th. While some blocked traffic and caused minor inconveniences, others caused fights and violence.
Why is this happening?:
People are not pleased with President Trump's agenda, more specifically the wall. By voicing their disapproval, the protesters said they were trying to protect more vulnerable communities.
Effect on freedom to assemble: There have been many protests throughout the United States since President Trump took office. If they continue on the same path of violence, the government will most likely attempt to intervene with fines and laws limiting the right to assemble for safety reasons.
How I see it: I think that people should have the right to come together and voice their opinion. There is nothing wrong with the protests over the wall; the issue is the violence that comes with it. To prevent the violence, it is not fair for everyone to have their right to assemble limited. The certain individuals who abuse it and cause violence should be dealt with separately to ensure the freedoms entrusted to the people in the Constitution remain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
CLOSE

DENVER - Tens of thousands of protesters again took to streets across the country and around the world Saturday to criticize President Trump's executive orders, cabinet picks and overall agenda.

Some of the biggest protests took place in New York City and Washington, D.C., with large rallies planned in San Francisco and Los Angles later in the day.

Organizing under the social media hashtag #NoBanNoWall, protesters said they wanted to again demonstrate their commitment to protecting vulnerable communities.

Demonstrations also took place in St. Louis, Denver, Toronto, Salt Lake City, Austin and Philadelphia, and a large gathering clogged streets in front of the U.S. embassy in London. The protests, while at times blocking traffic or inconveniencing tourists, remained peaceful by Saturday afternoon.

In New York City, a large crowd gathered at the Stonewall National Monument, prompting Mayor Bill DeBlasio to tweet a picture of the crowd and a blunt statement: "New Yorkers don't care how you love, worship, or identify. If they come after you, they'll need to get through every one of us."

It was the third Saturday in a row since Trump's inauguration that protesters flooded streets, public parks and plazas to express displeasure with the new president's agenda.

Many protesters say they're particularly worried about the potential loss of rights for LGBTQ people, and for refugees from war-torn Muslim countries subject to Trump's travel ban. Many were heartened Saturday by a federal judge's ruling Friday that temporarily halts the ban nationwide.

Small protests also took place at airports around the country.

"Beautiful scene today," Toronto protestor Alex Mazer posted on Twitter. "Marching against hate, intolerance, & Islamophobia."

Saturday evening, an estimated 2,000 protestors gathered in front of the Trump Tower in West Palm Beach for a march that would take them near Trump's Mar-a-Lago club, which has become known as the Winter White House. The president and first lady Melania Trump are expected to attend a Red Cross ball at the club Saturday night.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/2kAsVNq

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Protests erupt globally over Trump actions for third Saturday in a row

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLOSE DENVER - Tens of thousands of protesters again took to streets across the country and around the world Saturday to criticize President Trump's executive orders, cabinet picks and overall agenda. Some of the biggest protests took place in New York City and Washington, D.C., with large rallies planned in San Francisco and Los Angles later in the day.

# data[].attributes.body
Religion
Nov. 26 2016
What's happening?: Bill Levin founded a church named the First Church of Cannabis, claiming that, due to his freedom of religion, he had every right to smoke weed so long as it was for religious purposes. For a short period of time the police and government needed to check the legality and freedoms he did or did not have.
Why is this happening?:
Levin opened the church claiming that marijuana was their form of communion and that he had a right under the first amendment to smoke marijuana. Some agree with him in the fact that it is his religion and is not directly harming others, however others believe he is only using the church as a cover to smoke. Law enforcement are not sure precisely whether or not he is violating any rights and at the time prevented people from entering the property.
Effect on freedom of religion:
I believe that if police stop this they are not violating the first amendment due to the fact that he created the church prior to the illegalization of marijuana.
How I see it:
I believe that the church should be shut down and he should be arrested for possession, distribution, and use of marijuana. The reason I believe this is because the laws were preexisting and therefore were not made to discriminate against him, or his religion, also his religious practices are outside of the law and therefore should not be practiced.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/11/27/first-church-of-cannabis-bill-levin-legalized-marijuana-medical-marijuana/93883862/

# data[].attributes.body
April 16, 2017, NBC News
What's happening?
Trinity Lutheran, a church in Missouri, is not being given assistance by the state government to help renovate their playground because the playground is affiliated with a Church.
Why is this happening?
This is happening because the state said that the Missouri constitution does not allow for public money to go to anything related to a Church or a religious institution.
Effect on freedom of religion:
It could be argued that by giving money to a religious institution, the state is showing favoritism for one religion over another. The other side of the argument is that the funds in question are supposed to go to make playgrounds safer, regardless of if a religious institution is involved or not.
How I see it:
I feel that people should feel more concerned with the safety of children on playgrounds, rather than if the playground itself it a part of a Church or religious institution. I don't see why there is a violation of religious freedom if you are not showing favoritism for one religion over another.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A plan to make a playground safer for preschoolers is at the center of one of the most important legal battles in decades over the separation of church and state, to be heard Wednesday by the U.S. Supreme Court.

But an 11th hour change in policy by the state at the heart of the dispute could blunt the impact of the case.

At stake are bans in well over half the nation that prohibit spending tax dollars to support churches.

The states say they're necessary to keep the government from meddling in religious affairs.

But to the challengers, they're nothing more than a form of discrimination.

The court's newest justice, Neil Gorsuch, will take part in hearing and voting on the case. As an appeals court judge, he was receptive to arguments that government programs can violate religious freedom.

Five years ago Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Missouri applied for money from a state program that helps non-profits cover their gravel playgrounds with a rubber surface made from recycled tires. The church wanted to improve the playground at its preschool and daycare center.

Though Trinity Lutheran qualified under the program's terms, the state rejected the application, citing a provision in the Missouri constitution that says "no money shall ever be taken from the treasury, directly or indirectly, in any of any church, sect, or denomination of religion."

The church sued but lost in the lower courts. Now it's asking the Supreme Court to rule that it cannot be excluded from a program that benefits other schools except those run by churches.

But late Thursday, Missouri's newly elected Republican governor, Eric Greitens, said religious organizations must be permitted to apply for and be eligible for state grants.

Their request for state money will be "judged on the merits like any other applicant," a statement from his office said.

Related: Sikh Americans Launch Ad Campaign That Looks to Push Back on Hate

It was a clear reversal of the policy under his predecessor, Jay Nixon, a Democrat. In response, the Supreme Court directed lawyers for both sides to submit letters by Tuesday on how the policy change affects the case.

A group that sided with the state's earlier position, Americans United For Separation of Church and State, said the court should now dismiss it.

"The governor made Trinity eligible to receive this grant," said Richard Katskee, the group's legal director. "The church no longer has anything to ask of the Supreme Court."

In legal briefs filed earlier with the court, lawyers for the church said the state's denial of funds for the playground project was unconstitutional.

"This religious exclusion wrongfully sends a message that some children are less worthy of protection simply because they enjoy recreation on a playground owned by a church," said David Cortman of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative organization representing Trinity Lutheran.

He argues that government should be neutral toward religion and that blocking the church from a widely available public program "imposes special burdens on non-profit organizations with a religious identity."

That amounts to "an undeniable hostility to religion," Cortman said.

Missouri responds that the constitutional provision does nothing to interfere with a church's religious activities.

Related: Texas Bill Allows Recusals for Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses

"Trinity Lutheran remains free, without any public subsidy, to worship, teach, pray, and practice any other aspect of its faith however it wishes. The state merely declines to offer financial support," said James Layton, Missouri's solicitor general.

The US Constitution prevents the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, Layton said. "It does not guarantee churches opportunities for public financing."

Both sides will say that a 2004 Supreme Court decision helps them. The court ruled that Washington state did not violate the Constitution's free exercise clause when it declined to provide financial aid for students studying theology.

Trinity Lutheran says there's no such religious obstacle in its case, because the state grant would be used for an entirely secular purpose. "The surface that children play on as they enjoy recess is about as far as one can get from the devotional training of clergy," ADF's David Cortman said.

Not so, the state counters. "Money is fungible, and a dollar saved on capital improvements is an extra dollar that can be spend for religious teaching, salaries for church staff, or other religious purposes," said Missouri's James Layton.

The case has attracted widespread attention among groups defending religious liberties. Some claim that state bans like Missouri's are rooted in anti-Catholic bigotry and modeled after an effort by Rep. James G. Blaine, who unsuccessfully proposed a federal constitutional amendment in 1875 to ban government aid to churches.

A group representing Christian schools says a victory for Missouri could jeopardize government-funded loans to students who attend religiously affiliated colleges, including BYU, Georgetown, and Yeshiva University.

A total of 39 states have restrictions that either, like the Missouri provision at issue, ban state support for churches or forbid taxing their citizens in order to aid churches.

A decision is expected by late June.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SCOTUS to hear important dispute over the separation of church and state

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A plan to make a playground safer for preschoolers is at the center of one of the most important legal battles in decades over the separation of church and state, to be heard Wednesday by the U.S. Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.body
April 16, 2017, CNN
What's happening?
In Berkeley, California, Trump supporters and Trump protesters were speaking their minds in organized rallies. Eventually,  the protests became violent when supporters of  each side began to fight with one another.
Why is this happening?
Anti-Trump protesters wanted to get together and protest to show their stance against President Trump.  Meanwhile, Pro-Trump citizens wanted to show their support for President Trump.
Effect on freedom to assemble:
This violent protest and others alike it around the country may lead to national or state governments instituting laws that prohibit or limit a citizen's freedom to assemble. California, where these protests occurred, has already suggested and is continuing to ponder instituting laws such as these. They may do this to ensure the safety of people and their property.  Also, governments may even institute penalties such as fines to punish people who exercise their First Amendment right.
How I see it:
I believe that citizens should be able to assemble and express their opinions in a non-violent, organized manner. However, protesters who become violent and commit crimes during protests should be dealt with under the rules of the law. I believe that  California state legislature or any state is in the wrong if they institute laws that suppress the right citizens have to assemble because this right is given to the people through the base of our government, the constitution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Eleven people were injured, with seven transported to the hospital in unknown condition, Berkeley Police spokesman Byron White told CNN.

"A large number of fights have occurred and numerous fireworks have been thrown in the crowds," Berkeley police said in a statement. "There have also been numerous reports of pepper spray being used in the crowd."

CNN affiliate KPIX reported that Trump supporters planned a "Patriot Day" rally at noon and counter-protesters showed up a few hours earlier.

Hundreds of people had gathered in Civic Center Park. Police set up a barrier of orange mesh fence to separate the two sides but it quickly fell down as protesters started fighting, KPIX said.

Video showed crowds spilling into nearby streets. Scuffles broke out, fireworks, bottles and traffic cones were thrown into crowds and dumpsters and trash cans were hauled into streets. One man set afire a red "USA" hat and held it overhead.

Police donned gas masks as they used pepper spray on the crowd. A Berkeley station for BART, the mass transit system, was shut down because of the disturbance, CNN affiliate KRON said.

Police said they confiscated prohibited items including hand-held flagpoles, a knife, a stun gun, helmets and signs, and flags attached to poles, KRON reported.

A police officer was treated and released from a hospital after someone threw either pepper spray or tear gas into the crowd, White said. He added that a person in the crowd was treated and released after being sprayed with "bear spray," an irritant spray used to deter aggressive bears in wilderness areas.

An even larger protest erupted in February when people took to the streets to protest an appearance by right-wing commentator Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Berkeley. The university said more than $100,000 in damage was done.

In early March, 10 people were arrested when pro- and anti-Trump groups fought in Berkeley.

Protests were held in dozens of cities across the United States on Saturday for the anti-Trump "Tax Day," but the Berkeley rally was about free speech, according to local news reports.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
anti-trump protesters clash in berkeley - cnn.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump supporters, opponents clash in Berkeley

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eleven people were injured, with seven transported to the hospital in unknown condition, Berkeley Police spokesman Byron White told CNN. "A large number of fights have occurred and numerous fireworks have been thrown in the crowds," Berkeley police said in a statement. "There have also been numerous reports of pepper spray being used in the crowd."

# data[].attributes.body
January 18, 2017, RedState
What's happening?
A rock group, whose members are Asian, called, "The Slants" ("slant" being a derogotory term to refer to the eye-shape of those of Asian decent), looked for trademark protection in order to "take back" the term.
Why is this happening?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied the rock group of the trademark under the disparagement clause, but Michelle K. Lee, the Petitioner, has appealed and wants to take this case further, most likely because she does not want this derogatory term being used and trademarked.
Effect on freedom of speech:
This rock band believes that under the First Amendment's freedom of speech, they should be able to name and trademark their band "The Slants". If they cannot use this name for their band, their free speech is being taken away.
How I see it:
Although the name of their band may be controversial, it is still protected. Unprotected speech includes obscenity, defamation, child pornography, perjury, and fighting words, and "The Slants" does not fall into any of those categories in my opinion. If their band is ready to deal with the controversiality of their name, it is their choice to have that name.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Can the United States government refuse to give you a governmental benefit because it thinks your speech disparages a group of people, or even a belief? That is the issue that will be argued this morning in the Supreme Court.

The Court will hear argument today in Lee v. Tam, a major First Amendment case. Michelle K. Lee, the Petitioner (who is appealing) is the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (I'll call them the USPTO in this post). Simon Shiao Tam, the respondent (defending the judgment below) is a member of The Slants, a rock group whose members are Asian. The group sought trademark protection for the name "The Slants" as an effort to "take back" the term, much as many black Americans have done with another racially ugly word. The USPTO denied the trademark, citing the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act.

The case has significance, not just for speech generally, but also for the Redskins trademark, which has also been rejected by the USPTO pursuant to the disparagement clause.

You can read the brief filed by the Respondent (the Slants) here. It presents the issue in this way:

The disparagement clause in section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), prohibits the registration of a trademark that "may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute."

The question presented is whether the disparagement clause is contrary to the First Amendment.

The names on the brief include Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy, and my own pro bono lawyer Ron Coleman, about whom more below.

The answer to the question presented to the Court should seem obvious. The central purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from engaging in viewpoint discrimination - and viewpoint discrimination is precisely what the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act is all about. Sure, this may seem benign to some - who wants to see Asians or Native Americans disparaged? But it's not benign, at all. First of all, this provision would allow the term "Scientology" to be approved as a trademark, while anti-Scientology trademarks could be rejected. When the government puts its imprimatur on the trademark of a cult, but refuses one to people who seek to expose the cult, that is not benign. But in addition, it's simply not the business of government to be doling out privileges, or refusing them, based on the viewpoint of the people seeking the privilege.

We should get a sense today of how the justices feel. I'm cautiously optimistic.

A side note: today's oral argument will be heard by eight justices, not nine. Donald Trump is two days from his inauguration, and while he has been meeting with potential replacements for Supreme Court nominees, he has not yet chosen one. This raises the issue whether Trump's new justice, who is likely to be confirmed before this case is decided, could participate in the decision, even though he or she will not have participated in the arguments. A January 12 piece in the American Bar Association Journal notes that, in the past, cases have been decided only by justices who participated in oral argument. This is a matter of tradition, not law, and it could be broken:

The new justice could rule after reading briefs and listening to the oral arguments. But, in the past, new justices have ruled in argued cases only when they are reargued.

One of the experts who spoke with Supreme Court Brief is William Suter, the former clerk of the Supreme Court. "I know of no statute or rule that would prohibit a new justice from participating in such a case," he said.

Suter nonetheless had misgivings about a new justice deciding cases already argued. "I think the 'common sense rule' would be that a new justice would not participate," he told Supreme Court Brief. "It would look fishy, especially if the newbie voted with the majority in a 5-4 decision."

The article notes that the Supreme Court has not scheduled arguments in some cases that usually would have been argued at this point. The court appears to be waiting for a new justice who might prevent a 4-4 split.

This tends to suggest that the Slants case is considered by the existing justices to be one of the less controversial cases on the docket. I hope so, and cautiously expect that to be the case. While I do not want to jinx Ron Coleman (one of the lawyers for the Slants), it would not surprise me to see a lopsided vote striking down the disparagement provision, such as 8-0, or 7-1. But we should know much, much more after today's oral argument. Many of the justices tend to signal strongly in oral argument how they will vote. Time permitting, I'll provide an analysis of the oral argument as soon as I can get to it.

Finally, three cheers for Ron Coleman. In 2015, he became a partner this year at Archer & Greiner, a firm which has definitely had its profile elevated by virtue of Ron's involvement in the Slants case - and I know they appreciate him for that. In addition to his work for The Slants and in running the Likelihood of Confusion blog, Ron, along with the excellent and reliable Bruce Godfrey of Jezic & Moyse LLC, is still defending me in a censorious lawsuit brought by convicted bomber and perjurer Brett Kimberlin. Not to mention that Ron - along with Kenneth P. White of Brown White & Osborn LLP and the essential Popehat blog - achieved an excellent result from me in another silly case in which I was sued, in which the plaintiff dismissed the claims without getting a cent or any other concession from me.

All three of these gentlemen are excellent lawyers, and they work for pay in addition to their copious and admirable pro bono work. Please keep them in mind.

[ Disclaimer]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Major First Amendment Case Will Be Argued Today at the Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Can the United States government refuse to give you a governmental benefit because it thinks your speech disparages a group of people, or even a belief? That is the issue that will be argued this morning in the Supreme Court. The Court will hear argument today in Lee v.

# data[].attributes.body
March 20, 2017, The Huffington Post
What's happening?: At Liberty High School in the Frisco School District in Texas, students use an empty classroom for prayer time. A Texas Attorney, Deputy Attorney General Andrew Leonie, seemed to find fault with this as he seemed to believe that that the classroom was only being used by Muslim students. To him, the action was violating the Free Exercise Clause of the freedom of religion in the First Amendment.
Why is this happening?: The Texas Attorney believes that only Muslim's were using this room. It may have appeared that way due to the fact that Muslim students would miss almost two hours of school to attend their weekly service. So, they now use the classroom instead.
Effect on freedom to religion: If only Muslims were using the classroom, and other religions were being excluded (like the attorney seemed to believe), this would be a violation of the free exercise clause of the first amendment because the public school would be stopping students from practicing the religion of their choice. The state-run public high school would not be giving students the religious liberty described in the first amendment.
How I see it: The attorney cannot assume that because those practicing the Muslim religion are using the room that other religions are not allowed to be practiced in the spare classroom as well. Of course, I believe that all religions are allowed to be practiced as long as no one is making the students practice a particular religion, no one is establishing a religion for the students (establishment clause), and no one is stopping them from practicing a religion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton learned that Muslim students at a high school in Frisco were using an empty classroom to pray, his office raised the alarm.

Liberty High School has set aside a spare classroom for students to pray in for the last seven years. Muslim students use the room to observe Friday prayers.

In a letter sent to Frisco school district superintendent Jeremy Lyon on behalf of Paxton's office on Friday, Deputy Attorney General Andrew Leonie raised concerns that the prayer room was reserved only for Muslim students to the exclusion of those from other faiths.

"It appears that students are being treated differently based on their religious beliefs," Leonie wrote. "Such a practice, of course, is irreconcilable with our nation's enduring commitment to religious liberty."

Paxton's office issued a press release claiming the prayer room "may violate the First Amendment's protection of religious liberty." Texas Governor Greg Abbott also tweeted that the attorney general was "looking into" these concerns ― which, according to school district spokesman Chris Moore, were largely non-existent before Friday.

The Texas Attorney General is looking into the Public School Prayer Room issue many of you have questioned. #txlege https://t.co/21oyrgPKI1
- Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) March 17, 2017

Leonie's letter referenced an article published by the school news outlet, Wingspan, which centered around the prayer room's use by Muslim students but also noted that the room is used by students of other faiths.

"We have other religious student groups that meet maybe before school or maybe after school," Liberty High principal Scott Warstler told Wingspan. "As long as it's student-led, where the students are organizing and running it, we pretty much as a school stay out of that and allow them their freedom to practice their religion."

Moore further clarified to The Washington Post that "all sorts of folks" use the prayer room. "Muslims pray, Baptists pray, Catholics pray, Buddhists pray, Hindu students pray."

Warstler set up the prayer room in 2009 after noticing that many Muslim students would leave campus on Fridays to drive with their parents to the local mosque for prayers. Sometimes they'd miss up to two hours of school to observe the weekly service, he told NPR member station KERA.

"It gives us a way to pray in a classroom and then go straight back to class," junior Sarah Qureshi said in the Wingspan article. "It takes five minutes instead of having to leave school, get in the car, and go with my parents to the actual masjid and then coming back."

Leonie stated that his letter was a follow up to an "initial inquiry" which "left several questions unanswered."

Lyon responded to Leonie on Friday, noting that the deputy attorney general's letter was the first he was hearing of the office's concern. "What initial inquiry are you referring to? To Frisco ISD's knowledge, it has not received any inquiry from the OAG on this issue," Lyon wrote.

Without any evidence of this "initial inquiry," Lyon argued, the actions of the attorney general's office constituted little more than a "publicity stunt...to politicize a non-issue."

Marc Rylander, director of communications for Paxton's office, told The Huffington Post he was in contact with the school district's attorneys who had assured him "that students of all faith, or no faith, may now use this meeting room during non-instructional time on a first-come, first-served basis for student-led activities."

The Texas attorney general, who filed an amicus brief in support of President Donald Trump's travel ban in February, recently won a different kind of religious liberty battle.

In December, a middle school principal in Killeen, Texas ordered the school nurse's aide to take down a six-foot poster with a biblical quote from the animation special "A Charlie Brown Christmas" that read: "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior which is Christ the Lord." Paxton helped the nurse's aid sue the district, the principal, the superintendent and the school board, and they won the case.

"Religious discrimination towards Christians has become a holiday tradition of sorts among certain groups," Paxton said in a statement following the court's ruling. "I am glad to see that the court broke through the left's rhetorical fog and recognized that a commitment to diversity means protecting everyone's individual religious expression."
This post has been updated to include additional comment from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's office.

BEFORE YOU GO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas Attorney General's Office Invents Controversy Over High School Muslim Prayers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton learned that Muslim students at a high school in Frisco were using an empty classroom to pray, his office raised the alarm. Liberty High School has set aside a spare classroom for students to pray in for the last seven years.

# data[].attributes.body
April 3, 2017, Press TV
What's happening?: States are introducing bills in their legislatures that place restricts and penalties on the right to assemble and protest. Bills suggesting to increase penalties for protesters who block highways, cause riots, continue to assemble after directed to disperse, etc.
Why is this happening?: States are concerned with the increase of undemocratic, violent behavior during protests since Trump took office.
Effect on freedom to assemble: These laws would infringe on the freedom to assemble and protest. They would result in discouraging people from exercising this right.
How I see it: I do not agree with limiting and punishing those that assemble to voice their postion. We need to deal with individual violent protesters and punish them for causing violence or harm. We should not discourage an entire group from assembling and sharing their perspectives because of individual inappropriate behavior.  This will lead to oppression.