After Saturday’s white supremacist riots and violence against counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, community members in the city and people nationwide are still reeling. Reported Nazi sympathizer James Alex Fields, Jr., plowed his gray Dodge Challenger through a group of counter-protesters, killing 32-year-old legal assistant Heather Heyer and injuring at least 19 others. Fields has been charged with second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding, and one count of hit and run.

Fields’ attack was only one piece of the violence on Saturday. White supremacists, neo-Nazis, and neo-Confederates beat counter-protesters and marched through the streets of Charlottesville with Nazi flags, white supremacist images, and anti-Semitic chants. Following the weekend’s attacks, people are passing around the blame for the white supremacists’ acts of terror in Charlottesville.

In an interview with NPR’s David Green, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe explained that the city of Charlottesville had tried to relocate the rally to a more open park about a mile and half away from Emancipation Park, outside of downtown Charlottesville. However, the ACLU of Virginia joined a lawsuit against Charlottesville after the city refused to allow “Unite The Right” organizer Jason Kessler and his supporters to access Emancipation Park on Saturday for the previously approved demonstration.

“That rally should not have been in the middle of downtown – to disperse all those people from the park where they dispersed all over the city streets,” McAuliffe told NPR. “And it became a powder keg. And we got to look at these permits, and we got to look at where we put these rallies and protesters. I got to protect public safety.”

The ACLU of Virginia’s Executive Director Claire G. Gastanaga fired back at McAuliffe on Monday, condemning the violence that took place in Charlottesville but defending her organization’s involvement in the lawsuit against the city.

“We asked the city to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and ensure people’s safety at the protest,” Gastanaga said. “It failed to do so. In our system, the city makes the rules and the courts enforce them. Our role is to ensure that the system works the same for everyone.”

She said the city had failed to present sufficient evidence to the judge that moving the location of the rally would in fact result in no demonstration in downtown Charlottesville, instead of creating a situation in which the city would have to deal with two demonstrations in two separate locations.

“But let’s be clear: our lawsuit challenging the city to act constitutionally did not cause violence nor did it in any way address the question whether demonstrators could carry sticks or other weapons at the events,” Gastanaga said.

Over the years, the ACLU has taken somewhat of an absolutist stance on First Amendment rights, even defending speech that it hates. The organization was recently criticized by one of its own attorneys after the ACLU decided to defend Milo Yiannopoulos, a writer and speaker who is infamous for espousing hate against people of color, Muslims, immigrants, transgender people, and other marginalized individuals.

The events in Charlottesville and the ACLU’s defense of the constitutional rights of white supremacists, Nazis, and other hate-mongers raises an important question: what happens when the First Amendment–or any constitutional right for that matter–is used to protect hate and oppress other people?

In United States v. Schwimmer (1929), a pacifist applicant for naturalization was denied U.S. citizenship because she expressed that she “would not take up arms personally” in defense of the country. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes asserted that the Constitution protects thoughts that we may not agree with.

“Some of her answers might excite popular prejudice, but if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought–not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate,” Holmes wrote.

That idea has been applied in other cases over the years and has evolved to include hate speech as part of protected speech. The Supreme Court upheld that principle in June when it reaffirmed that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. Matal v. Tam dealt with the right of Asian American musician Simon Tam and his band “The Slants” to trademark their band name. The band’s trademark application was originally denied because of the band’s inclusion of a racial slur used to refer to Asians in their name.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the government’s restriction of “speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.'”

Of course, there are exceptions to that rule as well. The “fighting words” doctrine, which arose out of the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) decision, has been used to curtail speech used to incite violence. According to Chaplinsky, fighting words are “words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitutes a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.”

So where does the legality of the language used in Charlottesville fall on the protected/unprotected speech spectrum? Well, it can be a bit tricky. During the Charlottesville riots, white supremacists and neo-Nazis chanted anti-Semitic phrases like “Blood and soil,” which is derived from language that was used in Nazi Germany. However, if those chants were not spoken directly to a specific person, precedent may deem them to be hate speech but not fighting words. In other instances, rioters targeted specific individuals with racial and homophobic language. In those cases where particular individuals were singled out, a court might find that the aggressor was using fighting words.

Under current legal precedents, restrictions on free speech are not the clearest. What is clear is that hate groups are able to use discriminatory language that instills fear in marginalized communities without necessarily experiencing repercussions for that speech.

But it is also important, and perhaps more effective, to call out hate speech within our own communities. Eliminating hate speech is an important step in combating racism and other forms of hate, but people must also be willing to confront the beliefs and behavior that language is rooted in. Organizations like the subscription-based service Safety Pin Box provide substantive ways that allies can actively show their support for marginalized people, beyond mere social media posts “in solidarity.” People can also donate to anti-racism organizations and call their local, state, and national representatives in regard to specific issues. The events in Charlottesville are an overt demonstration of white supremacy, but they are only symptomatic of more systematic white supremacist structures. In order to combat white supremacy and other forms of hate, people must first address oppressive language and behavior in their own lives among family, friends, co-workers, and other community members.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happens When the First Amendment Is Used to Protect Hate? appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of controversial alt-right writer Milo Yiannopoulos, a decision that surprised and upset many. The organization claims that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) violated Yiannopoulos’ right to free speech by removing ads for his new book from the transit system. The ads were not removed until after people had complained about them.

Yiannopoulos, the outspoken Breitbart editor, has made controversial comments about many groups, including feminists, women, trans people, and gay people. Ironically, he’s slammed the ACLU in the past.

The ACLU routinely defends the First Amendment rights of people not sharing its political views, which lean to the left. The organization has so far tended to be critical of the Trump Administration. But it also makes a point of defending the constitutional rights of everyone, regardless of ideology. “When we give government the power to regulate speakers based on their identity or their perceived level of offense, it reduces speech for all of us,” Lee Rowland, a staff attorney at the ACLU, pointed out.

But the decision to defend Milo–a man who has said that transgender people are mentally ill and that feminism is a cancer–was too much even for some people working at the ACLU. On Wednesday, attorney Chase Strangio posted a statement criticizing the decision on Twitter.

“Milo preys on the deep-seated hatred for Black people, other people of color, trans people, immigrants, Muslim people and women that is sadly a central tenet of our social fabric and political system,” Strangio wrote. “He is vile. And I am sorry for any platform and validation that he receives.”

Here is my personal statement on today’s ACLU lawsuit defending that horrible person. I speak only for myself. pic.twitter.com/4KzsoqnmUn

— Chase Strangio (@chasestrangio) August 9, 2017

A lot of people seemed to agree with Strangio and many longtime supporters declared that they do not see the point in working with someone who is so hateful against so many.

You have literally no reason to include him in this case except to grab headlines and milk his fans for donation dollars.

— Lulu Diavolo (@SatansJacuzzi) August 9, 2017

As a long-time ACLU supporter, I could not possibly disagree more. What a wrong-headed position. https://t.co/j96WlB8gtN

— Charles Johnson (@Green_Footballs) August 10, 2017

But others saw the value in always standing up for First Amendment rights.

I cannot STAND this guy. But he has the right to speak, just like we all do.

— Deletrix (@DeletrixV) August 10, 2017

Arthur Spitzer, who is acting as lead counsel on the case, said that it is important to keep defending the constitutional rights of even those who are seen as the most despicable. “We always get some when we defend unpopular people. When we recently supported the Redskins’ right to keep their registered trademarks, we got similar reactions, internally and externally,” he said.

After Strangio’s statement went public, some questioned how it’s okay for him to express views that run counter to his employer’s. Spitzer said the ACLU has 1,000 employees and that it would be impossible for everyone to agree on every case they take. He said all employees and board members can always use their right to free speech to state their opinions, as long as they are clear that it’s their personal opinion and not that of the ACLU, which Strangio did.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ACLU Attorney Criticizes Decision to Work With Milo Yiannopoulos appeared first on Law Street.

When Pokémon Go debuted last summer, the mobile game spread across the world–as of April 2017, more than 65 million people were playing, according to Business Insider. The game got people to exercise outside as they pursued Pokémon, but there were also some safety issues because of its augmented reality style.

Milwaukee County enacted an ordinance in February to curb the presence of Pokémon Go-style games in the city. According to the ordinance, game developers would be required to apply for a permit for augmented reality games, like Pokémon Go, to be played in parks.

But last week, U.S. District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller halted the ordinance because he said it may violate the First Amendment. Stadtmueller issued a preliminary injunction that the county cannot enforce the measure until a lawsuit between the county and Candy Lab Inc., which develops augmented reality games, is finished.

Candy Lab Inc. filed the lawsuit in response to the county’s ordinance, according to a local Fox affiliate. Under the county’s order, companies must also obtain a “certificate of insurance” worth $1 million of “general liability coverage,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Milwaukee County board supervisor Sheldon Wasserman filed the ordinance because the county was struggling to police activity in parks that doubled as “Pokémon centers” or “Pokémon gyms” for the game. The main issues included “traffic congestion, parking issues, littering, damaged turf, risks to natural habitats, lack of restrooms, and noncompliance with park system operational hours,” according to a report by Milwaukee County Parks. 

Milwaukee County is by far the largest in Wisconsin, home to over 16 percent of the state’s population. Other areas of the country have also experienced safety issues stemming from the game, which can distract people as they walk at night. Last year, three University of Maryland students were robbed at gun point on campus in a one-hour span while playing the game, according to the Baltimore Sun.

The federal judge wasn’t swayed by the public safety issues, however. Instead, Stadtmueller recommends that the county allocate resources to remedying the issue instead of putting the pressure on the companies:

Rather than prohibit publication of the game itself, the County could address its concerns by directly regulating the objectionable downstream conduct. … This might include aggressively penalizing gamers who violate park rules or limiting gamers to certain areas of the park. Such measures would assuage the alleged evils visited upon the parks by gamers while stifling less expression than the Ordinance does.

One issue Stadtmueller brought up in his decision was how broad the restrictions were. For a law such as this to be constitutional, he said, it must be narrowly-tailored to the specific issue and content neutral. The judge didn’t feel that was the case. Stadtmueller believes the current restrictions are too “vague” and provide too much censorship power to government officials, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

The county claims that the games can’t be considered speech, according to a local Fox affiliate. But Stadtmueller said the plot, characters, and dialogue make the game an expression of free speech.

Despite the decision, Wasserman is still committed to fighting for the ordinance. He said he is particularly intrigued by the groundbreaking nature of the case and the potential ramifications.

“I’ve also been told by the lawyers that this case is getting so hot, and that it brings up so many constitutional questions, that this has the potential to go all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Wasserman said.

Only 10 years ago it would have seemed impossible that people would walk around with their phones catching virtual Pokémon and visiting parks or buildings to battle other gamers. But now that is a reality local governments are facing.

Whichever direction the court proceeds, it will have a ripple effect across the gaming and mobile application industry. Because of the initial injunction, though, Pokémon Go fans can rejoice and continue to enjoy the application wherever, and whenever, they want.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Judge Strikes Down Milwaukee’s Pokémon Go Law appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear President Donald Trump’s travel ban case. The hearing will be in October, and until then, the court said parts of the ban will be allowed to go into effect. Trump issued a revised executive order in March, blocking travel from six countries. Two federal courts have since ruled that the ban is unconstitutional and a breach of executive power. The Supreme Court agreed to examine both courts’ decisions.

For the time being, the ban will be reinstated “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” the justices said. A bona fide relationship includes “a close familial relationship” for individuals. For entities, “the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [the order].”

“The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity,” the court added.

Trump’s second attempt at stemming travel from a handful of Muslim-majority countries reined in a few of the tenets of his first order, which was originally issued in January. For one, the revised order dropped Iraq from the list of affected countries–Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria.

The order stipulates that residents of the six countries are barred from traveling to the U.S. for 90 days, until stricter vetting procedures are in place. The refugee program will be halted for 120 days, and the number of admitted refugees will drop to 50,000 from about 110,000.

This is Trump’s first travel ban-related victory since he issued the updated order in March. Both orders faced a torrent of opposition–thousands of people hit the streets and packed airports across the country in protest. Trump’s directive fared no better in the courts.

Last month, a federal appeals court, the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, issued an injunction on parts of the travel ban, arguing that it “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination” and violated the First Amendment.

A few weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the ban violated the president’s authority as granted by Congress. The court said Trump “did not meet the essential precondition in exercising his delegated authority,” which requires “a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.'”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Reinstates Parts of Trump’s Travel Ban, Will Hear Case in Fall appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that a law banning the registration of offensive trademarks was unconstitutional. The decision was a victory for the Asian-American dance rock band The Slants–and potentially the Washington Redskins.

Simon Tam, the band’s frontman, filed a lawsuit after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied his application for a trademark for the name “The Slants.” The agency cited the Lanham Act, which prohibits trademarks “which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”

The court ruled in an 8-0 decision that the “disparagement clause” of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Justice Samuel Alito, who delivered the majority opinion of the court, said Tam chose the name of the band “to ‘reclaim’ the term and drain its denigrating force.” According to Alito, the ban on offensive trademarks “offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

The federal government had argued that trademarks are government speech, but Alito wrote to the contrary, saying “trademarks are private, not government speech.” Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer were in agreement on the majority opinion.

While the justices reached a unanimous judgement, they were split on why they believed it violated the first amendment. In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, wrote that the measure in question constitutes “viewpoint discrimination.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch did not contribute because he had not yet been confirmed as a justice in January when the court heard the case.

The Slants celebrated the victory with a lengthy statement following the ruling. “The Supreme Court has vindicated First Amendment rights not only for our The Slants, but all Americans who are fighting against paternal government policies that ultimately lead to viewpoint discrimination,” wrote Tam.

Tam said the band never considered itself a political group, but that “the establishment of an Asian American band was a political act in of itself.” As a result, the band has integrated activism into their work by raising awareness and funds for issues affecting Asian Americans.

“Music is the best way we know how to drive social change: it overcomes social barriers in  a way that mob-mentality and fear-based political rhetoric never can,” Tam said.

The Slants’ trademark case could also impact other controversially named groups like the Washington Redskins, which has been in jeopardy of losing its team name for being racially offensive.

In 2014, the Patent and Trademark Office canceled the team’s trademark because the team’s name is a derogatory term for Native Americans. The Redskins appealed the case, but the federal appeals court had delayed hearing it until the Supreme Court ruled in Tam’s case.

Redskins attorney Lisa Blatt said the Supreme Court’s decision “resolves the Redskins’ long-standing dispute with the government.”

“The Supreme Court vindicated the team’s position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or cancelling a trademark registration based on the government’s opinion,” said Blatt.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Says Offensive Trademarks are Protected by Free Speech appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s Twitter account has controversially given his almost 32 million followers direct, unfiltered access to his thoughts and stances on issues. Now that users are getting blocked from the account for offending the president, a group of lawyers say his actions infringe on their freedom of speech.

On Tuesday, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University wrote a letter asking Trump to remove the blocks, adding that they constitute a violation of the First Amendment.

This request brings up some novel legal questions: Is access to a president’s tweets and the information they contain comparable to a public town hall, despite the fact that they are being posted on a private account? If so, can the president violate the Constitution if he prevents a user’s access? The lawyers’ letter states:

When the government makes a space available to the public at large for the purpose of expressive activity, it creates a public forum form which it may not constitutionally exclude individuals on the basis of viewpoint. This is true even if the space in question is ‘metaphysical’ rather than physical; even if the space is privately rather than publicly owned; and ‘even when the limited public forum is one of [the government’s] own creation.’

On the same day the letter was written, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in a briefing that Trump’s tweets ought to be taken seriously, thereby strengthening the lawyers’ argument. He “is the president of the United States, so they’re considered official statements by the president of the United States.”

Users have been blocked for tweets as simple as covfefe-related jokes, and policy criticism. Holly Figueroa O’Reilly was blocked from the @realDonaldTrump account after she made a joke about how the pope frowned at the president during his trip to the Vatican. She agrees that her blocking may constitute an offense to her First Amendment rights.

“This is an elected official trying to silence an entire sector of the dissenting populace,” O’Reilly said in opinion article. “This is what dictators and fascists do. This isn’t what we do here in America.

@realdonaldtrump isn't a regular citizen. He's @potus His tweets are public record. Unblock us this is unconstitutional #BlockedByTrump pic.twitter.com/a9Kw4KNTlv

— Andy Signore (@andysignore) June 7, 2017

Some, however, do not think cases like these would hold up in court. Ken White, a First Amendment litigator and blogger, told Vox that a blocked user is only being prevented from being able to “read what the president has chosen to vent on this particular site,” and not to speak about matters.

Other issues include the fact that the president has two accounts, including his @POTUS handle, and the fact that ultimately they are both hosted through a private company’s servers further muddle the legal picture.

While the debate over Trump’s Twitter blocks continues, some of his former followers have started a #BlockedByTrump hashtag, choosing to view the president’s move as a badge of honor.

Tonight I am honored to join an elite club … #BlockedByTrump. Apparently, I hurt the feelings of the "leader of the free world". SAD! pic.twitter.com/yQGyt2yBJE

— Rob Szczerba (@RJSzczerba) June 2, 2017

Is #BlockedByTrump just a hashtag or the Holy Grail of Twitter?

— Christoph Rehage (@crehage) May 30, 2017

If Trump doesn’t reverse the blocks or answer the letter, the Knight Institute says his administration should prepare for “legal action to protect the First Amendment rights of blocked individuals.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When Trump Blocks Twitter Followers, Does he Violate the Constitution? appeared first on Law Street.

A Milo Yiannopoulos supporter filed a lawsuit on Monday against regents of the University of California, Berkeley for $23 million. Kiara Robles, the plaintiff, says the school infringed on her First Amendment rights when a protest erupted on campus last February.

The protest, which drew over 1,500 students, was a response to the controversial invitation the Berkeley College Republicans student group sent to Yiannopoulos, asking him to speak at the campus. Yiannopoulos, a long-standing fan of President Donald Trump and a self-described cultural libertarian, is a former senior editor of alt-right media source Breitbart.

He gained prominence because of his highly controversial comments on women, Islam, homosexuality, and religion. He once said “gay rights have made us dumber” and called transgender people mentally ill.

Robles was pepper-sprayed during the Berkeley protest and says she and her friends were targeted during the clash because they hold and express conservative views. She was planning on attending Yiannopoulos’ talk before the Berkeley police department canceled the event citing security concerns.

More peaceful protests mad at capitalism. #miloatcal pic.twitter.com/1qrdJ5zeJ8

— Kiara Robles ಠ_ಠ (@kiarafrobles) February 2, 2017

https://twitter.com/kiarafrobles/status/827418775230099456

The lawsuit states that the defendants, which includes local law enforcement, billionaire George Soros, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for allegedly institutionalizing Robles’ concerns, have subjected “students and invitees who do not subscribe to the radical, left wing philosophies … to severe violence and bodily harm for merely expressing a differing viewpoint.”

“She was assaulted,” Robles’ lawyer told The San Francisco Chronicle on Wednesday. “The California university system, and in part, Berkeley, is out of control, and they’re facilitating, if not inciting, violence, and the campus police sit around twiddling their thumbs.”

The university said in a statement that it will mount a strong defense “contesting this collection of false claims.”

This lawsuit comes at a time when freedom of speech debates are increasingly common on college campuses and the media. Liberal students’ requests for “safe spaces” and outright bans on perceived hate speech have raised questions regarding whether or not other students’ freedom of expression rights are being curtailed.

Hitting at the heart of the debate and opposing Robles, Jonathan Gow, a UC Berkeley sophomore, said “when it’s hate speech, our free speech is to shut him down,” about the Yiannopoulos protests at Berkeley.

Last Friday, late-night talk show host Bill Maher, who said he would soon invite Yiannopoulos back on his show, was caught up in a similar controversy when he said the N-word on live television. Many outraged viewers called for his show to be canceled or for him to step down, while others said self-censorship of this word placed a limitation on individual freedom of speech.

Yiannopoulos has often found himself at the center of these debates, on and off campuses. Recently, he announced he would resort to self-publishing his new book “Dangerous” after the provocateur lost his controversial Simon and Schuster book deal when videos surfaced of him seemingly defending pedophilia. On Tuesday, the book was at the top of Amazon’s best-seller list in the humor category.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Milo Yiannopoulos Fan Sues UC Berkeley Over Violent February Protests appeared first on Law Street.

The battle between church and state is moving from the playground to the Supreme Court. Five years ago, Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri applied for money from the state so that it could repair a playground used by students in the church’s learning center. Because children had been scraping their knees and elbows on the gravel, Trinity wanted to cover the area with a rubber surface.

Because Missouri’s constitution does not allow public funds to support religious organizations, it rejected the church’s application for a grant. The church sued in response, insisting that it should have been eligible to receive the grant because the playground upgrade did not serve any religious purposes. After losing in federal district court and appellate court, Trinity’s case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which plans to hear arguments starting on Wednesday, April 19.

What the case boils down to is whether or not the provision in Missouri’s constitution violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which prohibits the government from encroaching on the free exercise of religion.

Now, Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens has announced his plans to undo the state’s policy that prohibits tax dollars from going toward religious groups. Jeffrey Mittman, the director of Missouri’s branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, is among Greitens’ critics who said that his move violates the state’s constitution.

Greitens’ new policy will not reverse the state’s refusal to give Trinity the grant. However, because it settles future issues involving religious institutions applying for grants, it could mean that the Supreme Court will no longer see the need to hear the Trinity case.

But one of the church’s attorneys, David Cortman, insisted that the case is still relevant because Greitens’ move does not “resolve the discriminatory actions that were taken” by the state.

Having the recently confirmed Supreme Court appointee Neil Gorsuch weigh in on the matter could benefit the church. While a judge for a U.S. appeals court in Colorado, Gorsuch argued that religious freedom protected the store chain Hobby Lobby from the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that it would have to offer its employees free birth control coverage.

And, depending on how narrowly the Supreme Court rules, the outcome of the case could have implications in other parts of the country as well–particularly in the 38 states that currently uphold Blaine Amendments, laws that prevent their governments from giving any financial aid to religiously-affiliated institutions.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How a Church Playground Caused a Dispute Over Religious Freedom appeared first on Law Street.

Are President Donald Trump and Twitter friends again?

The website–Trump’s social media platform of choice–has dropped its lawsuit against the federal government for trying to identify an anonymous user who was criticizing the president.

Twitter filed the case in a California court Thursday after it received a summons from the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection to reveal the person behind the Twitter account @ALT_uscis (which stands for United States Citizenship and Immigration Services). Though it is not a verified Twitter page for USCIS, the account’s administrators claim to be rogue employees who use the platform to criticize Trump’s immigration policies.

So when Twitter received DHS’s order, which allegedly requested the user’s name, login information,  phone number, mailing address, and IP address, the company refused to comply and sought to have the agency’s actions declared “unlawful and “unenforceable” in court. The American Civil Liberties Union also threw its support behind Twitter, offering to represent the individual behind the account.

One day later, the government backed off of its demands and the tech company withdrew the lawsuit.

Twitter’s lawyers say it was aiming to protect the free speech and First Amendment rights of its users from being violated by the government, and that complying with the DHS requests would “chill the expression of particularly valuable political speech.”

https://twitter.com/ALT_uscis/status/850399183127273472

But this may not be the end of the Trump Administration’s attempts to crack down on those who disagree with him. The president is not known for his ability to handle criticism well. In the past, he has lashed out after being made fun of, threatened legal action against newspapers that publish unflattering stories about him, and labeled those who say negative things about him as “haters and losers.“

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Administration vs. Twitter: Twitter Comes Out on Top appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Betsy DeVos Called Historically Black Schools “Pioneers” of “School Choice”

Betsy DeVos hasn’t had an easy start to her new position as education secretary. Now she’s in hot water again for some off-base comments about historically black colleges and universities. She called the schools “pioneers” of “school choice” and wrote that their founders had identified that the school system wasn’t working and created their own solution. This peculiar statement was met with outrage on social media, where people wondered whether she was aware that HBCUs weren’t created by choice, but because black students literally were not allowed in white schools.

Betsy DeVos said HBCUs were about school choice. As if white/colored water fountains were about beverage options. pic.twitter.com/I3tNlER43n

— Resist Dystopia (@AynAyahSteenkur) February 28, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

“Alexa, is your speech protected by the First Amendment?”

Amazon says yes, specifically regarding a murder trial in which authorities are trying to access recordings from one of its devices owned by the defendant.

The case involves an Arkansas man named James Andrew Bates, who police suspect murdered his friend Victor Collins after Collins was found dead in Bates’ hot tub in 2015. They obtained a search warrant for 48 hours of audio recorded by Bates’ Amazon Echo speaker around the time of Collins’ death.

Though Amazon has provided authorities with Bates’ subscriber information, they are challenging the warrant for the Echo data on constitutional grounds.

An Amazon Echo is a cylindrical speaker that can be linked to an artificially intelligent personal assistant called Alexa, whose voice plays over the speaker. Similar to how Siri functions, when a user activates Alexa by saying its name (or another “wake word”), they can ask it to answer questions, play music, send messages, or order food delivery.

Amazon first released the Echo in 2014, but the gadget has become more popular in the past year, topping the list of holiday season best-sellers and appearing in the company’s first-ever Super Bowl commercial in 2016.

In a 91-page memorandum to an Arkansas circuit court seeking to quash the warrant, the company’s lawyers wrote that both a user’s requests to Alexa and its response are protected by the First Amendment, and that handing over this information to the government would violate its customers’ privacy.

Citing the Supreme Court case Riley v. California, which determined that digital information on a cell phone could not be seized without a warrant, the legal team argued:

Once the Echo device detects the wake word, the Alexa Voice Service endeavors to respond to any ensuing voice communications detected in the user’s home. Accordingly, searching Alexa’s recordings is not the same as searching a drawer, a pocket, or a glove compartment. Like cell phones, such modern ‘smart’ electronic devices contain a multitude of data that can ‘reveal much more in combination than any isolated record,’ allowing those with access to it to reconstruct ‘[t]he sum of an individual’s private life.’ Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2489 (2014).

Amazon added that the prosecutors should have to show a “compelling need” for the recordings, meaning that they would not be able to find the information they need elsewhere, and that they should have to prove that the recordings are necessary to the investigation.

The case reflects a growing trend of law enforcement clashing with technology giants. Following the 2015 San Bernardino attacks, the FBI ordered Apple to create a software that would allow it to uncover encrypted information on one of the shooter’s phones. Apple fought back with the assertion that providing the government with the key to one phone would endanger the security of all iPhones. Furthermore, the company said that forcing its engineers to write code for such a software would be classified as compelled speech, a violation of the First Amendment. Ultimately, the FBI found a third party to unlock the phone for them.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are Your Conversations with Alexa Protected by the First Amendment? appeared first on Law Street.

Ageism is a prevalent problem in Hollywood, especially for actresses. Many, many actresses–Maggie Gyllenhaal, Patricia Arquette, Meryl Streep, Zoe Saldana, Sarah Silverman, Jane Fonda, Cate Blanchett, and others–have spoken out against sexism and ageism in Hollywood. But what if actresses were able to obscure their age on sites like IMDB? Would that give them a leg up when it comes to  landing parts? California just passed a law that would allow actors and actresses to remove their ages from their IMDB and similar professional entertainment pages, potentially putting that question to the test.

The text of the law, signed by Governor Jerry Brown, “will force subscription websites used by casting services and entertainment employers to remove age information in online profiles if asked.”

This comes after a lawsuit last year in which actress Junie Hoang sued IMDB for revealing her age. She claimed that her age being published hurt her career, and that IMDB breached her privacy by publicizing it. While she lost the lawsuit, it was certainly an interesting question, and opened up the conversation that this new law sort of stemmed from.

However, it’s not necessarily that simple. They Hollywood Reporter’s Jonathan Handel brought up the fact that the new law could violate First Amendment rights. First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams told the Hollywood Reporter:

The statute seems to me of the most dubious constitutionality. Birth dates are facts. It’s hard to see how the government, consistently with the First Amendment‎, can bar or punish their disclosure.

However Democratic Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon, who sponsored the bill, argued that it wasn’t censorship. He said:

Requiring websites to remove all age information from profiles would seem to run afoul of the First Amendment restrictions on the regulation of commercial speech. Limiting the bill to only subscribers makes it clear that the bill advances an important government interest — that of reducing age discrimination in a manner that is substantially related to that interest and no more extensive than necessary to achieve that interest.

Obviously this won’t make much of a difference for already established actresses, whose birthdays are quite easy to figure out. But it may make a difference for up-and-coming talent, or at least let actresses (and some actors) take the emphasis off their ages and let their work stand on its own. There’s still a lot of work to do to fight ageism in Hollywood, but maybe this will serve a tiny first step.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can a New California Law Help Stop Ageism in Hollywood? appeared first on Law Street.

Do you love to bash bad companies and restaurants on Yelp? You’d better be careful, because now you could be sued for posting a negative review online.

Over the past few months there has been a surge in businesses suing Yelp reviewers for nasty reviews. In February, a Texas couple was sued for leaving a negative review of a pet sitting company. In the review, the clients cited difficulty contacting their pet sitters as well as confusing fees as some of the reasons they did not enjoy their experience. After the review was posted, the pet sitting company brought a lawsuit against the clients for over $6,700. The reason for the lawsuit? Apparently the couple had signed a non-disparagment agreement in their contract.

This instance of Yelp legal trouble was not the first of its kind. Around a year ago, a New Yorker visited a local dentist and had a negative experience. The woman, Mary Rohs, claims she had to wait over an hour and was then greeted by a curt and dismissive dentist, Dr. Nima Dayani. According to court records, Dr. Dayani has a different account of Rohs’ appointment than she does, claiming that she was in the office for an extended period of time as a part of her thorough exam. Two days after Rohs posted the negative review, Dr. Dayani sued her, saying the review was defamatory. He claimed that he generally welcomes positive and negative reviews, but Rohs’ went too far:

[Rohs] accsued me of malpractice by saying I didn’t diagnose her. When you are publicly accusing someone of malpractice, you are damaging their reputation.

In response to the increase in lawsuits, Yelp has stepped in to warn its users. In several circumstances, the company has issued warning banners on companies’ pages on its site that read:

Consumer Alert: Questionable Legal Threats

This business may be trying to abuse the legal system in an effort to stifle free speech, including issuing questionable legal threats against reviewers. As a reminder, reviewers who share their experiences have a First Amendment right to express their opinions on Yelp.

An example can be found on a moving and storage company’s page, yet another company that has an ongoing legal battle with a customer for defamation. Yelp wants to make sure users are aware of the potential trouble they could get into with posting negative reviews.

This increased concern for consumer safety comes alongside some consumer-oriented legislation being introduced in Congress. The Consumer Review Fairness Act of 2016 was introduced this April and works to ban gag clauses–portions of contracts that prohibit signers from speaking negatively about a business–from consumer-business contracts. The act also aims to protect the right of the consumer to speak freely about a company. The bill still has a long way to go, but would be a step in the right direction as far as protection of consumer free speech goes.

While it may seem scary that you could be sued for expressing your opinion online, it is important to remember that these cases are not super common. Part of the reason that legislation against these suits is just now developing is that this type of lawsuit is so new in the litigation sphere. Rest assured that your freedom of speech is still protected and that you will, most likely, not be sued for your next disparaging taco bell review.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Yelp Users Getting Sued for Negative Reviews appeared first on Law Street.

A law designed to prevent the cyberbullying of children was ruled unconstitutional in the North Carolina Supreme Court this past week. In State of North Carolina v. Robert Bishop, the state Supreme Court was asked to assess the validity of the defendant’s claim that a North Carolina law against cyberbullying was a violation of the First Amendment protection of free speech.

The case before the Supreme Court began in February of 2012 when a high school student named Robert Bishop was charged with cyberbullying under a North Carolina statute. Bishop had posted a photo of a sexual message that one of his classmates, Dillon Price, had supposedly sent the defendant. Following several more posts and accusations by Price that the defendant had falsified the sexual messages, Bishop was arrested for cyberbullying.

According to N.C.G.S. § 14-458.1, specifically under section (a)(1)(d), it is illegal to post private, personal, or sexual information related to a minor on the internet with the intent to intimidate said minor. After his arrest and conviction, Bishop appealed to the Superior Court in his county, aiming to dismiss his charges on the grounds that the North Carolina statute is a violation of free speech because it restricts speech based on content. The Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the defendant’s arguments, ruling that the statute regulates conduct rather than speech and that to “the extent the Cyber-bullying Statute touches upon or regulates some aspects of some speech, the burden on speech and expression is merely incidental.”

After this ruling, the defendant once again appealed his case, this time to the Supreme Court of North Carolina.

The state Supreme Court held that N.C.G.S. § 14-458.1 was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. This decision was based in part on the fact that the statute was content-based and not sufficiently narrow in its interest to protect children from cyberbullying. This holding reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and simultaneously reversed the defendant’s conviction for cyberbullying under the statute.

What does this mean for the future of cyberbullying in North Carolina? The statute has been struck down, so, pending future cyberbullying laws being written, there isn’t currently a law to point to when a child is being bullied on the internet. Attorney General Roy Cooper, an avid supporter of the law, is worried about the severity of cyberbullying and the state’s ability to protect children from it:

Just because violence happens online doesn’t make it any less real or less hurtful. Cyberbullying can lead to physical harm, depression in its victims and even suicide and it’s troubling to see this law overturned.

On the positive side of things, this ruling may serve as an example to future law makers about the importance of precise language in laws. With any luck, a more narrowly tailored law can be written that will protect kids on the internet.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post North Carolina Supreme Court Strikes Down Cyberbullying Statute appeared first on Law Street.

A petsitting company, Prestigious Pets, is suing a Texas couple over a negative Yelp review. The company is seeking a staggering $200,000 to $1 million in damages for the negative feedback.

The couple, Robert and Michelle Douchouquette, hired the company to watch their dogs and beta fish while they were out of town in October 2015. But they weren’t happy with the service they were provided, and reviewed the company accordingly. According to Consumerist:

The pet-owners expressed their dissatisfaction with the service, taking issue with the company’s fees and billing, an apparent lack of updates from the sitter, the fact that the sitter didn’t leave the house keys behind as requested. The couple also claim that their fish might have received sub-optimal care in their absence.

The petsitting company claims that as a result of this review, it has lost business, received threats of harassment, and was left a “shell of its former success.” The plaintiffs further claim that as a result of the negative review they’ve experienced “numerous rape and death threats… in addition to other forms of harassment such as identity theft, impersonations, crank calls, etc.” The petsitting company is claiming that the Douchouquettes violated a non-disparagement clause in the contract they signed with the company. The lawsuit not only alleges that the couple violated that clause, but also defamation and business disparagement.

The court will have to determine whether or not the lawsuit brought by Prestigious Pets is frivolous. The attorney for the Douchouquettes is claiming that the lawsuit is a SLAPP (a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.) Essentially that would mean the only reason Prestigious Pets brought the suit is an attempt to get the Douchouquettes from posting negative things about the company.

Prestigious Pets’ Yelp page now has a warning to let reviewers know what the company is up to. It states:

You should know this business has issued legal threats and/or taken legal action against reviewers for exercising their free speech. If your review accurately describes your firsthand experience, you have a First Amendment right to express your opinion on Yelp.

We’ll have to see if the lawsuit is successful–$1 million really does seem a bit too high a price to pay for one bad Yelp review, especially when free speech considerations are taken into account.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Petsitting Company Sues Couple Who Left Bad Yelp Review appeared first on Law Street.

During the current 2016 primary, Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has been careful to emphasize that (despite some right wing attacks that say otherwise) he’s not a communist or a socialist. However, Sanders and his team are now possibly going to have to take that fight to court. Sanders’ legal team is fighting to stop a man named Daniel McCall and his company Liberty Maniacs from selling t-shirts, coffee cups, and other merchandise emblazoned with the words “Bernie is my comrade.”

The merchandise uses what looks like Sanders’ own campaign logo for “Bernie’s” name. Then, a picture of Sanders is featured along with some of history’s most famous communists and socialists–Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladomir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong.

Bernie Sanders’ Campaign Lawyers Do Not Appreciate Your “Bernie is My Comrade” T-Shirthttps://t.co/ctq5Qedojgpic.twitter.com/vkXrWpxZVW

— ALC (@Arthur59611540) April 19, 2016

‘Bernie is My Comrade’ shirts: Merchant issued cease and desist order by Sanders allies https://t.co/ntA7h4gFTTpic.twitter.com/piCbjuNvqL

— Red Alert Politics (@RedAlert) April 17, 2016

The Sanders campaign sent McCall a cease and desist letter alleging that McCall was infringing on its copyright and trademark; it also demanded that the company destroy or take down the items from the internet. In response, McCall’s lawyer has now accused the campaign of “trademark bullying.” McCall told Buzzfeed news: 

I was surprised Bernie’s campaign would have done that. He didn’t seem to be the type of candidate, the type of guy, who would do something like this. I’m waiting to see what happens, but I would think Bernie, or one of his staff members will step in and put an end to it. It appears to be pretty silly.

His lawyer, Paul Levy also responded to the lawsuit, and made a point about free speech: 

That contention is absurd. You cannot use trademark theories to silence members of the American public who disagree with your client’s views and oppose his candidacy. They can hardly express their views in that respect without identifying the candidacy about which they wish to speak; and it is precisely because the logo is so recognizable that it is an excellent way of specifying which ‘Bernie’ is the subject of commentary.

While its understandable that Sanders’ campaign doesn’t want to be affiliated with some of history’s most reviled dictators, we’ll have to see if the campaign prevails in this copyright fight. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bernie Sanders’ Campaign Tries to Stop “Bernie is my Comrade” Gear appeared first on Law Street.

Throw out your colanders and get rid of all of your spaghetti, a Nebraska judge ruled that Pastafarianism is not a real religion.

Stephen Cavanaugh, a Nebraska inmate, sued Nebraska prison officials seeking $5 million in 2014, arguing that his religion should be treated like every other religion. He claims that he was mocked and harassed over his belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He also claims that prison staff would not provide accommodations for his religion, as they do with others, by refusing to allow him to meet for worship services, to wear religious clothing and pendants, and to receive communion.

Pastafarianism is the belief that the earth was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), who made it much like it is today. Members of the church say that heaven “has a Beer Volcano and Stripper Factory.” They also dress like pirates. Communion is taken by eating “a large portion of spaghetti and meatballs.”

“Fremont Solstice Parade 2008: Flying Spaghetti Monster” courtesy of Mark Atwood via Flickr

In his ruling, released on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Gerrard wrote, “FSMism” is a “parody intended to advance an argument about science, the evolution of life, and the place of religion in public education,” rather than a religion explicitly outlined by federal law.

Cavanaugh is currently serving a four to eight-year sentence in the Nebraska State Penitentiary for assault and weapons charges.

This is not the first time that members of the FSM church have retaliated for not being treated like practitioners of a legitimate religion. There have been multiple cases of followers fighting for the right to wear the symbolic colander on their heads in driver’s license photos and to have the church’s flag on government property.

At the center of the controversy is the question of whether or not Pastafarianism should be considered a legitimate religion. Some lawmakers have argued that it isn’t, like in the case of Cavanaugh, but some scholars are hard-pressed to deny it that right.

“There’s an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in,” evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins wrote in Wired. “If there’s not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it.”

In the age of religious freedom, the dismissal of religion by members of other religions seems contradictory. If the basis of religion is proof, then it is not quite certain how any religion can meet the criteria.

Lindsay Miller of Lowell, Massachusetts was denied the right to wear a pasta strainer on her head in her license photo. Headgear is not approved, unless for specific religious circumstances in Massachusetts, so Miller appealed. She was ultimately allowed to wear her strainer.

Pastafarian, Lindsay Miller allowed to wear strainer on her head in driver’s license photo, citing religious freedom! pic.twitter.com/y6MwWSTv3t

— John Zelaski (@jzelaski) November 18, 2015

“The First Amendment applies to every person and every religion, so I was dismayed to hear that Lindsay had been ridiculed for simply seeking the same freedoms and protections afforded to people who belong to more traditional or theistic religions,” Patty DeJuneas, a member of the Secular Legal Society, said in a statement released by the American Humanist Association.

Ultimately, the state of Nebraska felt, “The essence of this action… is that prison officials believe the Plaintiff is not sincere in his religious beliefs about a flying lump of spaghetti that first created ‘a mountain, trees, and a midget.'”

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Religious Impasta? appeared first on Law Street.

The crazy case between Hulk Hogan and Gawker has finally reached a decision–and Hogan has emerged victorious. A jury awarded the famous professional wrestler $115 million after a two week trial, but just six hours of deliberations.

Hulk Hogan sued Gawker after the media company released a sex tape of Hogan and the wife of a former friend of his. Hogan claimed that Gawker violated his privacy by releasing the tape, and that they didn’t reach out to him, or the woman in the tape, Heather Cole, before releasing it publicly on the site in an article entitled: “Even for a Minute, Watching Hulk Hogan Have Sex in a Canopy Bed Is Not Safe for Work but Watch It Anyway.” To read the full details of the case, check out our previous coverage here.

Really, the argument on the part of Hogan’s lawyer came down to privacy, and whether or not the video that Gawker published was actually “newsworthy.” But Gawker’s lawyers argued that this came down to First Amendment rights. Gawker’s attorney, Michael Sullivan, stated his concern that this case would open up a dangerous door for public figures to sue media companies. According to CNN:

Sullivan warned that Hogan’s lawsuit could have a chilling effect on free press if ‘powerful celebrities, politicians and public figures would use our courts to punish people.’ ‘We will all be worse off as a result,’ he said.

Before the ruling came out this evening, Eric Goldman, co-director of Santa Clara University’s High Tech Law Institute spoke to Fusion about the case and stated:

Right now, there’s an ‘anything goes’ mentality when it comes to publishing information about celebrities. If Gawker loses, we might begin to see some rethinking of that mentality. If Gawker wins, I think it will further embolden online publishers that anything related to celebrities is fair game.

Given that the six jurors sided with Hogan, and Gawker did lose, that first consideration may be true. However, it seems like Gawker’s lawyers are going to appeal the case–as Gawker founder Nick Denton read from a written statement:

Given key evidence and the most important witness were both improperly withheld from this jury, we all knew the appeals court will need to resolve the case. … That’s why we feel very positive about the appeal that we have already begun preparing, as we expect to win this case ultimately.

Given the high price tag and high profile nature of this case, the appeal will be one to watch.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hulk Hogan Wins Gawker Lawsuit: How Will this Affect Freedom of the Press? appeared first on Law Street.

Lloyd “Carl” Fields Jr. was tragically killed during an ISIS attack in Jordan last November. Fields, a defense contractor from Florida, was at the International Police Training Center in Amman training a policeman who killed him; ISIS later took credit for the attack. Now, Fields’ widow has filed a lawsuit against Twitter, arguing that the social media platform has essentially supported the rise of ISIS by allowing the terrorist group to spread messages and fundraise using its technology.

The lawsuit filed by Tamara Fields alleges that:

Without Twitter, the explosive growth of ISIS over the last few years into the most- feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible. According to the Brookings Institution, ISIS ‘has exploited social media, most notoriously Twitter, to send its propaganda and messaging out to the world and to draw in people vulnerable to radicalization.’ Using Twitter, ‘ISIS has been able to exert an outsized impact on how the world perceives it, by disseminating images of graphic violence (including the beheading of Western journalists and aid workers) . . . while using social media to attract new recruits and inspire lone actor attacks.’ According to FBI Director James Comey, ISIS has perfected its use of Twitter to inspire small-scale individual attacks, ‘to crowdsource terrorism’ and ‘to sell murder.’

The fact that ISIS has used Twitter to spread messages, raise funds, and entice converts isn’t a secret. But the question that this lawsuit essentially poses is whether or not Twitter should be held responsible for those uses. Twitter’s “Abusive Behavior” policies state that “Users may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.” But exactly what that means is hard to qualify–particularly when ISIS members or sympathizers may used coded words or phrases, and when the difference between an ISIS member and a jokester, or a rabble-rouser, aren’t necessarily easy to glean. Moreover, if Twitter blocks one user, a new account usually pops up in its place. So, for a giant tech platform like Twitter, preventing ISIS from using it may be easier said than done.

Twitter has responded to the lawsuit, stating:

While we believe the lawsuit is without merit, we are deeply saddened to hear of this family’s terrible loss. Like people around the world, we are horrified by the atrocities perpetrated by extremist groups and their ripple effects on the Internet. Violent threats and the promotion of terrorism deserve no place on Twitter and, like other social networks, our rules make that clear. We have teams around the world actively investigating reports of rule violations, identifying violating conduct, partnering with organizations countering extremist content online, and working with law enforcement entities when appropriate

Fields’ lawsuit isn’t just about damages though–she’s asking the court to issue an order that Twitter has violated the Anti-Terrorism Act, which could could require not only Twitter to seriously overhaul its policies to become more responsible for how the network is used, but seriously affect our social media landscape as a whole.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wife of Man Killed by ISIS Sues Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier today, the hashtag #ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet began trending, prompting tons of funny, serious, and occasionally thought-provoking responses. Those who used the hashtag appeared to fall into two camps–some college students used it to lament the economic climate they’ve inherited–citing “affordable tuition,” “jobs,” and “a break” as things they don’t get. But there was also a way louder voice using the hashtag–those who are critical of college students following recent instances of contentious protests about race and equality across the country, most notably Mizzou and Yale. The hashtag is an interesting look into the generational divide in the U.S. that may be widening even further.

Let’s take a look at the tweets from those who believe that college students are overly sensitive:

#ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet that college is unbelievably easy, your degree impresses no one, and real life has no “safe spaces”

— Steven Crowder (@scrowder) December 14, 2015

#ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet A job after majoring in Lesbian Dance Theory.

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) December 14, 2015

#ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet You can’t be anti capitalism and post on twitter with your Iphone.

— Cyborgwolf (@Cyborgwolf) December 14, 2015

#ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet The first amendment, apparently. — ScottInSC (@ScottInSC) December 14, 2015

The narrative that college students have become increasingly over-sensitive is a popular one right now. Pew conducted a widely-circulated poll that appeared to indicate that it’s true–40 percent of millennial respondents answered that the government should be allowed to limit speech that is offensive to minorities. In contrast, only 27 percent of Gen X-ers felt that way, as well as 24 percent of boomers, and 12 percent of the silent generation.

In light of the recent protests at Mizzou, Yale, and other schools, many (mostly conservative) writers and thinkers pointed to that Pew poll as evidence that millennials were overly sensitive and didn’t appreciate or understand the First Amendment. But is the concept that young people, particularly college students, are way more likely to be offended a fair assessment? Not so fast–these numbers can’t be taken out of context, and this is way more nuanced than a straight up-and-down vote on free speech. Jesse Singal, of NY Magazine, pointed out that the numbers reported by Pew weren’t some sort of crazy outlier just happening with American millennials. Singal stated, in regards to American tendencies when discussing free speech attitudes:

They’ve shown over and over again that they favor free speech in theory, when asked about it in the broadest terms, but they also tend to be fairly enthusiastic about government bans on forms of speech they find particularly offensive (what’s considered offensive, of course, changes with the times). On this subject, millennials are right in line with reams of past polling, and it would be wrong to hold up last week’s results as an example of anything other than an extremely broad tendency that’s existed for a long time.

There’s also not necessarily compelling evidence that college environments are turning our young people toward reactionary sensitivity. Michael McGough, of the Los Angeles Times, pointed out that “it seems that college students and college graduates are less prone to support punishment of ‘offensive’ speech than those who haven’t attended college.”

But this isn’t just all about numbers–there is, generally speaking, a legitimate and frustrating ideological split among older Americans and younger Americans when it comes to things like free speech and what constitutes “offensive.” #ThingsCollegeStudentsDontGet seems to be a manifest of that frustration–and indicative of the fact that the generational divide on social issues is very much alive and well. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #ThingsCollegeKidsDontGet: Twitter Users Slam Millennials appeared first on Law Street.

With the advent of 3-D printers, we will someday soon possibly be able to print almost anything from the convenience of our homes. With that technology in place, it was only a matter of time before some enterprising individuals figured out how to print guns. But now the government is going after the developers of these printable guns, in the form of legal action. It’s not just about the printed guns though, the implications of this legal battle could have a big affect on the interpretation of the First Amendment.

Back when the news of printable guns first came out, the leading force appeared to be a company called  Defense Distributed, led by a man named Cody Wilson. The company was the first to publish printable gun instructions online, in the form of a 3D-printed pistol. At the time, I wrote about how various different areas were outlawing the use of 3D-printed guns.

After Defense Distributed first put the directions up on its website, the State Department sent a letter to the company asking it to take down the website. The State Department claimed that Defense Distributed was violating US Arms Export control laws, particularly the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) The latter threatened that if the directions weren’t taken down, the state would prosecute Wilson  would be prosecuted. It’s now that letter that has sparked the court battle between the State Department and Wilson.

Wilson has filed a lawsuit against the State Department, as well as individuals high up in the department, such as Secretary of State John Kerry. The lawsuit specifically names the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) as the section of the State Department, who sent the letter. Defense Distributed is working in conjunction with the Second Amendment Foundation on the lawsuit.

The argument that Defense Distributed is making is truly fascinating–the company is arguing that by trying to restrict it from posting the instructions online, the State Department is restricting its First Amendment right to free speech. Alan Gura, the lawyer for Defense Distributed stated about the lawsuit:

The internet is available worldwide, so posting something on the internet is deemed an export, and to [the State Department] this justifies imposing a prior restraint on internet speech. That’s a vast, unchecked seizure of power over speech that’s…not authorized by our constitution.

It makes some sense, but whether or not this argument will actually be successful seems to be more doubtful. It appears to come down to whether or not gun blueprints are viewed as speech, or, “technical data,” which the U.S. government can certainly make a strong argument for being able to control.

As technology continues to improve on multiple fronts, these are questions that will continue to come before the courts. Whether or not Defense Distributed is successful could affect the use of printable guns moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are These Weapons Protected by Free Speech? appeared first on Law Street.

For some, the term “lobbying” evokes the thought of fat cat plutocrats piping money into Congress to keep their interests and deep pockets protected. But while voting is the most fundamental aspect of a democracy, lobbying–for better or worse–is one of the most direct ways to influence policy making. Read on to learn about the lobbying system in the United States, as well as the benefits and negative effects of this system.

What is lobbying?

Lobbying is a right protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and ultimately allows citizens to shape legislators’ decisions. U.S. citizens have the right to petition, free speech, and freedom of the press, so when citizens want to influence government policy, they are constitutionally protected.

Those who hire lobbyists are usually called special interest groups–groups of people who use advocacy to influence policy and public opinion.

Types of Lobbying

There are two core types of lobbying: inside and outside. Inside lobbying occurs when individuals contact their legislators directly, mostly through phone calls and letters. Outside lobbying is when citizens or interest groups form campaigns or organizations to influence public opinion or to pressure policymakers.

Types of Lobbyists 

While lobbying by businesses that see a particular benefit in swaying our lawmakers is very common, there are other motivations for lobbying as well. Unions, for example, also lobby for issues pertaining to taxes, workers’ rights, and the minimum wage, just to name a few.

Religious lobbying is another good example. The head of a church or religious organization might lobby Congress to denounce a bill that would not fit the view of the congregation. The number of religious lobbying organizations has increased from less than 40 in 1970 to more than 200 in 2012. Catholic organizations lead the way, making up 19 percent of all religious lobbying groups. So, lobbying isn’t just about the money, it can take the form of moral or personal interests as well.

Lobbying is not only popular on the federal level, but also at the state level. A 2006 survey by the Center for Public Integrity reported that there were 40,000 paid lobbyists working with state legislatures, with that number expected to rise. Other lobbying efforts are even more local. Trying to persuade a city council to halt something like a construction project to preserve wildlife is another common example of lobbying.

When is the best time for lobbying efforts?

Lobbying is most common weeks before a bill is set to be voted on, when proponents of the bill gather to discuss how they will go about presenting the initiative. Another common time to see lobbyists is during election season. This time is crucial as lobbyists can put more pressure on members of Congress to please their constituents and recognize the immediate effect of voting against their constituents’ opinions.

Show Me the Money: Lobbyists and Spending

The amount of money spent on lobbying since the late 1990s has increased dramatically, despite fluctuations in the number of lobbyists. According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets, in 1998 there were 10,405 individual lobbyists and lobbying spending totaled $1.45 billion. In 2010 there were 12,948 lobbyists, and spending totaled a high of $3.52 billion. This means that there was a 24 percent increase in lobbyists, and a staggering 143 percent increase in total spending. Fewer lobbyists are representing more wealthy interest groups.

While the fundamental practice of lobbying is notifying members of the legislative branch of the positive and/or negative consequences of their decisions, this simple practice is made complicated by companies and organizations that spend millions of dollars per year to convince members of Congress to vote for policies that positively benefit their businesses. The following list, also compiled by Open Secrets, shows the spending of the largest Congressional lobbyists in the U.S. in 2014.

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce: $124,080,000
• National Association of Realtors: $55,057,053
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield: $21,888,774
• American Hospital Association: $20,773,146
• American Medical Association:  $19,650,000
• National Association of Broadcasters: $18,440,000

According to Open Secrets, $3.24 billion dollars was spent on lobbying Congress and federal agencies in 2014. While that’s not quite as high as the peak in 2010, it doesn’t show signs of slowing down significantly anytime soon.

Regulating Lobbying

The U.S. has very tight restrictions on lobbying, with violations of these restrictions punishable by jail time or fines. These punishments can sometimes take very severe and costly forms. For example, the Sacramento Bee reported in 2014 that the California Correctional Peace Officers Association was hit with a $5,500 fine for failing to disclose $24,603.50 in gifts to state representatives. In another case, documented by the Los Angeles Times, a lobbyist was fined $133,500, the highest lobbying fine ever, for making illegal campaign donations to 40 California politicians.

The Lobbying and Disclosure Act of 1995 was a major piece of legislation that attempted to regulate and hold lobbyists accountable. While this law helped bring transparency to lobbyists, there were many loopholes, such as the fact that small grassroots lobbying groups whose “activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in services” were not regulated. Due to the many loopholes in the original law, parts of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 were amended into the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. The law gives very specific guidelines for Congressional lobbying, and prohibits activities such as bribery.

Lobbying Disclosure Act 

Here is a portion of Section 6 of the act:

Section 6 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), 2 U.S.C. § 1605, provides that: The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall (1) provide guidance and assistance on the registration and reporting requirements of this Act and develop common standards, rules, and procedures for compliance with this Act; [and] (2) review, and, where necessary, verify and inquire to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of registrations and reports.

Essentially, this portion works to guarantee the transparency and accountability of lobbyists and the officials they lobby.

Other provisions of the law include that lobbyists are required to register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate. In addition, Cabinet Secretaries and other senior executive personnel are prohibited from lobbying the department or agency in which they worked for two years after they leave their position.

Some of the law also regulates interactions between lobbyists and officials. Lobbyists are prohibited from providing gifts, including travel, to members of Congress with the intent of violating House or Senate rules. The law also requires that lobbyist disclosures be filed electronically in both the Senate and House, and mandated the creation of a publicly searchable Internet database of such disclosures. It also prohibits officials from attending parties held in their honor at national party conventions if they have been sponsored by lobbyists, unless the member is the party’s presidential or vice presidential nominee.

How do the American people feel about lobbyists?

While lobbying is an important democratic right, most Americans view lobbyists negatively. A Gallup Poll released in 2013 showed that only six percent of Americans believe lobbyists are honest or have high ethical standards. Further confirming America’s view of lobbyists, seven in ten Americans believe that lobbyists have too much influence in Washington.

Arguments for Lobbying 

Those who support lobbying efforts point out that lobbyists bring to the forefront of the conversation topics that are not in the expertise areas of a politician. For example, a congressman with a background in energy legislation may benefit from more information on foreign affairs topics. Lobbyists also have the opportunity to educate legislators of the opinions of minorities that they may otherwise not learn about. Finally, lobbyists can bring about change directly by influencing the votes of politicians.

Arguments Against Lobbying

Those who disagree with our current lobbying system point to the Citizen’s United Supreme Court case, which allowed unlimited donations to political campaigns. They worry that such a broad decision may give lobbyists more power in negotiating a legislator’s vote. In addition, the pressure of interest groups influences politicians to vote in favor of the interest group, which may not line up with their constituents’ viewpoints. Finally, there’s a consistent fear that lobbyists use bribery and monetary threats to guide government actions.

Conclusion

Lobbying is important to the democratic process as it allows citizens to express their interests and opinions and in turn influence policy making. Second to voting, it may be the most important democratic right. But concerns abound that this right has been used increasingly in recent decades as a way for large corporations and interest groups to pressure politicians into passing legislation that favors their interests. While lobbying remains an important right, popular dissent and distrust means that it often leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many.

Resources

OpenSecrets.org: Lobbying Again on the Downward Slide in 2012

Mother Jones: K Street is Holy Place

Aljazeera America: Lobbying Tapered off in 2014 Amid Congressional Gridlock

Office of the Clerk: Lobbying Disclosure Act Guide

Sacramento Bee: Prison Officers’ Union Accepts Fine for Lobbying Violations

Gallup: Honesty and Ethics Rating of Clergy Slides to New Low

Pew: Lobbying for the Faithful

Center for Public Integrity: State Lobbying Becomes Million-Dollar Business

—

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lobbying: Washington’s Dirty Little Secret? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a new year, and I for one am excited to see what it will bring. No matter what, there will definitely be a lot of legal issues to discuss, debate, and bring changes to all of our lives. The five cases below are the top five to watch in 2015; some have already appeared before SCOTUS and await decisions in 2015, while others will be heard throughout the year. Here are five fascinating Supreme Court cases to watch in 2015.

Anthony Elonis v. United States

Law Street has actually been covering this interesting case for a while–check out our coverage of the case, the University of Virginia law clinic that’s gotten involved, and the all the legalese behind it. The reason we’ve followed it so closely is because it really is fascinating. Anthony Elonis was convicted of threatening multiple people, including his wife, an FBI agent, the police, and a kindergarten class. But these weren’t threats in the classical sense. They were written on his Facebook page in the form of rap lyrics. He claims the posts are art, protected under the First Amendment, and that he never intended to hurt anyone. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if such intent needs to be shown when convicting someone of making threats. The case was heard on December 1, 2014, but the court has yet to rule.

King v. Burwell

In King v. Burwell, SCOTUS will yet again be asked to weigh the Affordable Care Act. This time, it’s all about the tax subsidies, and weirdly, the central question in really depends on one word: “state.” The way that the ACA reads, in order for an individual to qualify for a tax subsidy, he needs to be receiving healthcare “through an exchange established by the state.” So, can people residing in states that haven’t set up their own exchanges, but instead rely on the federal program, get those tax subsidies? The IRS certainly thinks so and has been granting the subsidies. It’s an argument based pretty much on semantics, but it could have a huge effect on the ACA itself. This case will be heard in March.

Peggy Young v. United Parcel Service 

This case will ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on how pregnant employees are treated. Peggy Young, formerly a delivery driver for UPS, is arguing that the company violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA says that pregnant workers should be treated the same as any other worker who is “similar in their ability or inability to work.” Young and her lawyers argue that other employees who sustain temporary injuries or something of the like are moved to other positions, while she was forced to take unpaid leave. UPS claims that those other workers are given different jobs based on policies that don’t apply to Young, and she was treated the same as she would have been had she sustained an injury out of work. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide who’s in the right here. The case was just heard in December 2014; an opinion is forthcoming.

Holt v. Hobbs

Holt v. Hobbs will require the justices to look into prison procedures that prevent inmates from growing a beard in Arkansas. The plaintiff, Gregory Holt, wants to be able to grow a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim faith. The state is arguing that it could be used to smuggle drugs or other contraband. SCOTUS will have to rule on whether or not those prison procedures violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The question that the justices will consider is whether or not there’s a compelling enough government interest to prevent Holt from expressing his religion. The case was heard in October 2014; the opinion will be issued this year.

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

This case centers on the practice of gerrymandering. The justices will have to decide whether or not it was illegal for Alabama to redraw the districts in 2012 after the Census in a way that packed black voters into particular districts. The Alabama Black Caucus says that it relied too much on race when drawing those districts. While partisan gerrymandering is usually legal, racial gerrymandering is not–so the justices will have to decide which actually happened here. This case was heard in November 2014; the opinion is expected in the coming months.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Cases to Watch in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Freedom of speech is one of our rights in the United States, and it is guaranteed by the First Amendment. So it is hard to believe that something like social media that a majority of us use every day, could be the exception to the rule that we can say what we want to say without fear of backlash. In general, there are exceptions that prevent hate speech, defamation, and threats. Some of these aren’t legal, just frowned upon by the society at large, while others can get someone in trouble. Social media sites allow for the spread of all types of speech, from spoken word pieces on sites like YouTube, to shorter phrases said in 140 characters on Twitter. The publication of negative speech has some positive and negative consequences. We’ve seen them play out in the last few years with events in Ferguson, the Occupy Wall Street movement, and every major election.

It is difficult, however, to choose which pieces of speech are worthy of protection from action and which can be used against someone in legal proceedings. Not everything said on social media can be taken at face value. What one person deems as offensive and disturbing may incite a different emotion in another person. Striking a balance between unfiltered free speech, political correctness, and censorship is difficult. Censoring what is allowed on social media may seem like it goes against our Constitutional Rights, but allowing a free-for-all on speech can lead to threats, bullying, and hate speech.

Social Media’s Impact

Speech is not, nor has it ever been, a completely good vs. evil situation. There is so much more behind a string of text than just the literal meaning of the words. This is what makes it so difficult to decide who and what has a right to be on social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr. Some countries, like North Korea, Iran, China, Pakistan, and Turkey, have completely blocked their citizens’ access to social media sites as a way to ward off the problem. They operate under the theory that if you take away the cause, you won’t have to worry about it.

Many websites and apps do have “report” features so that a user can alert the webmasters that something has gone wrong. This begs the question, if someone says something terrible on social media, and it is reported but nothing happens, who is responsible for the fall out? It’s an increasingly important topic across the world; this isn’t just limited to the United States.

City of Ontario, California, et al v. Quon, et al

In 2009, the Supreme Court of California heard a case that discussed the rights to free speech in text messaging between employees. Employees of the City of Ontario, California filed a claim in district court against the police department, city, chief of police, and an internal affairs officer. They believed that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated when their text messages on city-issued pagers were reviewed. The city did not have a text-messaging policy; however, it did have a general “Computer Usage, Internet, and E-mail” policy. Those employees felt as if that particular section did not cover their pagers. The court held that the city employees had a right to privacy in their text messages because there was no specific language about text messaging in the city’s policy.

This, along with several other cases about Cloud privacy has prompted many to ask the question: are Supreme Court justices too out of the loop to fully understand the severity of the problem? Most–though admittedly not all–Justices don’t interact with social media to a great extent. Perhaps one or two may have a Twitter account, but those are often controlled by members of their team. President Obama, who is largely considered more modern with technology, is the first sitting President to have a Twitter account, but there are questions about just who actually runs it.

 Anthony Elonis v. United States

This case concerns a Pennsylvania man, Anthony Elonis, and his post of violence-filled rap lyrics aimed toward his ex-wife. He didn’t use his own name, but rather the pseudonym Tone Dougie. His rap suggested that he should use his wife’s “head on a stick” in his Halloween costume. He used images that haunt the public mind, saying that he was going to terrorize a school as “Hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class.” Some of the other lyrics were extremely troubling:

There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts. Hurry up and die, bitch, so I can bust this nut all over your corpse from atop your shallow grave. I used to be a nice guy but then you became a slut.

He also rapped about killing federal agents. Tara Elonis, his ex-wife, felt threatened by the song. The court had to judge “whether the threatening speaker intended to harm anyone or whether the listener was genuinely afraid of being harmed.” Nancy Leong pointed out in the Huffington Post that, “because the Internet filters out voice and demeanor cues, online statements provide less information about the seriousness of the statement, and are thus more likely to be reasonably interpreted as threats.“

Elonis didn’t seem to be too upset at first, posting on Facebook: “Did you know that it’s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife? It’s illegal. It’s indirect criminal contempt … I also found out it’s incredibly illegal, extremely illegal, to go on Facebook and say something like the best place to fire a mortar launcher at her house would be the cornfield behind it …”

The case is ongoing and it has incited intense emotions from both sides of the fence.

The Good

What are the benefits of having freedom of expression on social media? Surely, it is a way for some people to vent their anger without feeling self-conscious, nervous, or upset without resorting to violent actions. Everyone has a right to say what they think. We’ll never know, thankfully, if Elonis would have followed through on the threats in his rap.

Retweets, liking, or even posting your own status can be as effective as screaming at the top of your lungs at a protest. Lately, Facebook has been full of posts that educated everyone on topics relating to racism and the plight of African Americans in modern day America. There are always a few feminist pieces floating around. LGBTQ statuses, articles, and debate appear often, as well. Looking into the comments of these pieces, it is easy to see a cross section of what people believe about the topic. After all, the best way to argue for something is to know why people are arguing against it.

Social media has also become a home to those people who post positive things about topics from body-positive Instagram campaigns to equal media representation groups on Tumblr.

The Bad

To quote Uncle Ben from Spiderman: With great power, comes great responsibility. Unfortunately, many people do not understand their responsibility to fellow man. People who don’t believe in the status quo (or those who believe in the previous status quo that is now shifting to another) can stir up some pretty harsh feelings. People have the right to believe whatever they want, but these more extreme views on politics, racism, sexism, and homosexuality can start verbal sparring matches that help no one.

People have been using social media to post threats that haven’t been taken seriously for years. Stricter online controls would help alert the authorities in some cases, and even protect the innocent. Social media can be used for internet bullying, which in some cases is worse than the traditional verbal bullying. Online gossiping and social media platforms allow the bullying to continually exist–a problem for both the bully and the bullied.

Conclusion

Social media is one of the best inventions of the last century. It allows us to stay in contact with people we would have left behind, and it allows us to preserve our memories in a time capsule. However, it can also make or break a person depending on how someone reacts. Truthfully, the problem isn’t a freedom of speech issue, but rather one of morality. Can we take morals and apply them to the virtual world?

Resources

Primary

Supreme Court: City of Ontario, California, et al v. Quon et al

Constitution: First Amendment

Constitution: Fourth Amendment

Additional

Slate: Are Facebook Threats Real?

Huffington Post: Constitutional Rights in the Digital Age

The New York Times: Do Online Death Threats Count as Free Speech?

Salon: The Supreme Court’s baffling tech illiteracy is becoming a problem

Business Insider: This Guy’s Facebook Rants Put Him In Prison, And The Supreme Court Will Hear His Case Today

Truth Out: This Time, “Free Speech” Cannot Prevail

ABA: United States v. Anthony Elonis – Third Circuit

Index on Censorship: 10 Countries that have Social Media Banned

The New York Times: Chief Justice Samples Eminem in Online Threats Case

First Amendment Center: Social Networking

Bloomberg: The 8 Most Important Cases in the New Supreme Court Term

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Freedom of Speech and Social Media appeared first on Law Street.

A Colorado High School is being sued for denying a student group the ability to gather for prayer. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that describes itself as a non-profit legal organization advocating for the free practice of faith, is suing the school district along with the principal and assistant principal of Pine Creek High School. They allegedly stopped a Christian student group from holding group prayers on the grounds of separation of church and state, Reuters reported. The Alliance says they are violating the students’ First Amendment rights.

The Alliance said in a news release that the informal prayer group would meet to pray, sing, and discuss religion in an unoccupied choir room during a free period, when students are supposedly allowed to meet up with friends and hang out on school grounds. Senior Chase Windebank contacted the Alliance after he unsuccessfully appealed to Principal Kolette Back about the ban, who told him that they could only hold group prayers before or after school, but not during school.

The Alliance then sent a letter in October to Colorado’s Academy School District 20 arguing that Pine Creek is violating the prayer group’s First Amendment rights by restricting their religious freedom. The district responded by saying that no student group is technically allowed to meet during school time. On Friday, the Alliance filed a First Amendment-based suit anyway, saying Windebank’s group should be able to pray freely during the free period.

Public schools themselves are not allowed to hold sanctioned prayers because of the separation of church and state outlined in the First amendment. But Windebank’s group is supposedly informal, thus the group’s prayers aren’t technically school-sanctioned. One could say that since students are free to hang out freely during the free period, they should be allowed to meet to pray. One could also say that for a public school to allow a prayer group to go on violates the separation of church and state. But technically the state (by way of Pine Creek High School) has nothing to do with the prayer group. It’s just Windebank and his friends.

The Pine Creek case may be debatable, but it’s only a small story in a larger issue. The separation of church and state is a principle of secularism that can inadvertently lead to misguided policies that ironically go against secularism. An example of this phenomenon is France’s laws banning conspicuous religious symbols in public schools and banning veils that cover the face in any public place. The laws have been seen as de facto bans specifically on Muslim headwear for women, such as the niqab and the hijab. Proponents have defended the laws as protecting French identity and values, while others say they obstruct religious freedom.

The irony is that secularism and the separation of church and state mean that governments are neutral toward religion. Just like they can’t sponsor religious practices, they also can’t hinder them. It means no religion, not anti-religion. So when it comes to Pine Creek High School’s ban on Windebank’s prayer group, the question is whether or not by asserting the separation of church and state, it means that the school is actually restricting students’ freedom. The separation of church and state, at its core, never requires citizens to give up their freedoms. The prayer group was initially asked by the principals to stop meeting during school hours because what it was doing was religious. By doing that, the school could inadvertently be going against the very principle of separation. Whether or not that’s true, the lawsuit will decide.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado School Prayer Ban: Limiting Religious Freedom? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I try not to spend a whole lot of time paying attention to the local news in Houston because it’s usually about someone getting killed or the meteorologist getting the weather wrong yet again. But I noticed a tweet from my local outlet about Houston’s mayor Annise Parker doing something crazy. That something crazy is subpoenaing pastors over their sermons.

I will be 100 percent honest and let you know that I am not fond of Mayor Parker. She drives me insane. Not because she is a Democrat or a lesbian but because her ideals of how to run this city are just bananas! (Sidenote: I do really hate how every news outlet constantly identifies Mayor Parker as the “first openly lesbian mayor of a major city.” I mean this with all do respect, but who gives a crap at this point!? She’s been mayor of Houston for four years — time to let that go. This is why we can never be seen as more than our gender and sexuality. Stop identifying people by these two labels — she is MAYOR ANNISE PARKER! What does her sexual preference have to do with running this city? Absolutely nothing! Off my soap box.)

The city’s Equal Rights Ordinance was voted on back in May and is now being challenged for various reasons. The ordinance included a “bathroom” clause that was eventually dropped, which regulated which bathrooms a transgender person could use. Over the summer, opponents of the ordinance delivered 50,000 signatures for repeal— nearly triple the minimum necessary number of 17,269. In this case, good ol’ Mayor Parker — champion of the ordinance — has decided to take away the First Amendment rights of pastors in Houston by subpoenaing the sermons and other communications of pastors who opposed the ordinance and collected signatures in church.

The subpoenas sought “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO (Houston Equal Rights Ordinance), the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession,” according to the Houston Chronicle.

Churches and pastors are specifically protected in their speech and religious practice under the First Amendment. So why does Mayor Parker and her cronies think it was okay to subpoena their sermons? Let’s just start to chip away at the constitution a little bit at a time until we have no more rights. Who needs rights or to be protected by the law anyway?

I certainly do love how Mayor Parker and City Attorney Dave Feldman have started to back track on everything since the subpoenas were issued on Monday; they are now claiming that they have realized that the subpoenas were too broad. Too broad? You basically want to see everything that is being said about you and stripping away the rights of fellow Houstonians. It’s like the popular girl in high school finding out someone doesn’t agree with her and then demanding to find out everything that is being said behind her back. Grow up! Not even two days after the subpoenas were issued Mr. Feldman received criticism from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott stating that the subpoenas needed to be withdrawn immediately. Hmmm. City attorney versus Attorney General of the State of Texas. Who do you think has more clout?

Mayor Parker needs to set aside her own personal agenda and do what’s right for the whole city and maybe take into account the reason why she is in the position she is in. Wouldn’t it make sense to know about the laws and the Constitution before trying to get your way? You just made yourself look like a fool, Annise.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Houston Mayor Annise Parker Violating First Amendment Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

Social Media has exploded in recent years as the most popular way for young people to communicate. At the time of a Pew study created in 2012, 95 percent of teens aged 12-17 had access to the Internet. Thirty-seven percent owned some sort of smart phone, and 80 percent had a computer. Eighty-one percent reported regularly using some sort of social media platform. While the specific social media platforms that teens actually use has evolved over the years, it’s clear that using these types of sites to communicate isn’t going away any time soon. Given that students are moving away from the kind of social media that their parents are attracted to, the question is clear: is anyone monitoring what happens on social media sites between teenagers? Read on to learn about the debate, the perspective of schools, and where we currently stand.

Why might schools get involved with student social media use?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teens and Social Media: How do Schools Fit In? appeared first on Law Street.

On August 21, 2014, Pulitzer Prize-winning architect Zaha Hadid, who designed the stadium for the 2022 World Cup, sued the New York Review of Books and its critic, Martin Filler, for defamation. Hadid claimed that Filler defamed her in his June 5, 2014 article, “The Insolence of Architecture,” in which he reviewed non-party Rowan Moore’s book Why We Build: Desire and Power in Architecture. Hadid asserted that Filler’s following passage defamed her:

“However, despite the numerous horror stories about this coercive exploitation, some big-name practitioners don’t seem moved by the plight of the Emirates’ imported serfs. Andrew Ross, a professor of social and cultural analysis at New York University and a member of Gulf Labor, an advocacy group that is seeking to redress this region-wide injustice, earlier this year wrote a chilling New York Times Op-Ed piece. In it he quotes the Iraqi-born, London-based architect Zaha Hadid, who designed the Al Wakrah stadium in Qatar, now being built for the 2022 World Cup. She has unashamedly disavowed any responsibility, let alone concern, for the estimated one thousand laborers who have perished while constructing her project thus far. ‘I have nothing to do with the workers,’ Hadid has claimed. ‘It is not my duty as an architect to look at it.‘”

Hadid contends that Filler defamed her because workers have not begun constructing the stadium, and no workers have died. Moreover, the passage implies that she is indifferent to the workers’ deaths. Architectmagazine.com reports that Hadid’s complaint seeks “a withdrawal of the article from publication, a retraction, unspecified damages from the defendants, full payment of legal fees, and ‘any further relief as justice may require.’”

On August 25, 2014, Filler retracted his statement in a letter to the editor entitled, An Apology to Zaha Hadid, which is also added to the end of the review online. The Los Angeles Times reports that Hadid’s legal team received Filler’s retraction but has yet to respond.

Although Hadid obtained Filler’s retraction, it may be difficult for the architect to receive any other relief that she seeks in her complaint if her lawsuit reaches the trial stage. Since Hadid is a Pulitzer Prize-winning architect, she will likely be deemed a public figure, and consequently, she has to prove that Filler acted with “actual malice” when he wrote his article, which is a difficult standard to prove, as explained in this post about celebrity defamation suits.

—

Joseph Perry (@jperry325) is a 3L at St. John’s University whose goal is to become a publishing media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Phil Gyford via Flickr]

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Review of Books Retracts Defamation Error appeared first on Law Street.

After nearly seven years of relatively little disruption, a Massachusetts abortion clinic was the site of a vivacious protest on Saturday. The protest was three times larger than the clinic’s normal crowd and took place within the confines of the now meaningless 35-foot buffer zone. Last Thursday’s Supreme Court decision in McCullen v. Coakley terminated Massachusetts’ buffer zones around abortion clinics in defense of protesters’ freedom of speech. A consequential storm of criticism from women’s rights groups followed. They posed the question of whether constitutionality should be the sole factor in a decision so influential.

Although I always find myself screaming on behalf of pro-choice advocates, I must admit that the Supreme Court’s ruling does follow the constitution in a very logical and technical sense. But should the Constitution be the final word? Pro-choice activists across the country certainly don’t think so.

The Ruling

SCOTUS’s decision to strike down the buffer zones stemmed from their broad definition of anti-abortion advocates’ free speech. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “here the Commonwealth has pursued interests by the extreme step of closing a substantial portion of a traditional public forum to all speakers,” referring to sidewalks where protesters typically congregate. Eleanor McCullen, the grandma-esque poster woman for abortion opponents, argued that the buffer zones were unnecessary because the exchanges they sought to restrict were peaceful, not violent. However, an abortion opponent could just as easily whisper a dangerous threat as they could shout it.

Justice Scalia pointed out that the close, personal interactions being defended by this ruling were a perfect example of what the First Amendment is intended to protect–the right to try to persuade others. He even went on to compare these conversations to protests that occur in other scenarios, such as protesters outside the Republican National Convention or voting stations.

At this point, I know I was not alone in thinking: did he really just compare getting an abortion to filling out a ballot? It’s not like choosing a political party. It’s not a choice you can alter or change with time. It’s a choice that will change your life forever and not one that should be taken lightly. It’s a choice that you should be so firm in that a peaceful chat outside a clinic would not persuade you to change it. It’s a choice that will affect you for the rest of your life. Most importantly, its a personal choice, not one subject to public discussion and attack.

Yes, I said “attack.” Just because it’s not screaming, loud, and belligerent, doesn’t make it polite or okay–harassment can take many forms. For example, most anti-abortion protesters shame patients silently with posters calling them killers, or with pictures of living, dead, or mutilated babies. The Boston Globe shared a statement from a young woman entering the aforementioned Massachusetts clinic on Saturday. She said, “you have to walk through this circle of people staring at you and talking to you and judging you…it’s very intimidating.” This shaming can bring as much emotional pain as any violent act.

Equally as interesting is the Supreme Court’s choice to eliminate these safe zones around abortion clinics, while still retaining their own buffer zones around the courthouse. The Supreme Court’s most recent regulation on their own buffer zone states:

The term ‘demonstration’ includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services, and all other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers.

In fact, the closest public place where protesters would be allowed to hold demonstrations is 252 feet from their front doors. So, not only do the hypocritical justices have their own buffer zone, but it is more than seven times that of the Massachusetts clinics. The irony is truly nauseating.

What the Supreme Court should have considered:

• History: In 1994, two staff members at Planned Parenthood clinics in Brookline, MA, were killed by shooter John C. Salvi. He went on to injure five more people and also shot up another clinic in Virginia, where he fled to after the initial crime. No one should approach protesters, especially abortion opponents in Massachusetts, with the naivety that they will always remain peaceful. The buffer zone was not full-proof, but at least it was some sort of safeguard to protect patients and staff.
• Success Rates of Buffer Zones: There haven’t been any dangerous altercations since 2007, when the 35-foot zone was enacted. The fact that these zones have worked shouldn’t be used as justification to terminate them, but rather to further their necessity.
• Success Rates of Anti-Abortion Protesters: The buffer zones did not make it impossible for abortion opponents to achieve their goal. Eleanor McCullen, the case’s plaintiff, testified to persuading about 80 women to forgo abortion procedures, even with the 35-foot buffer zone. Why should the Supreme Court make it easier for less-polite protesters to attack the patients, while peaceful abortion opponents are still accomplishing their objective?

The only silver lining is that the Supreme Court seems to realize the need for some safeguard for entering patients. They contended that there are alternative steps that the Massachusetts legislature can take to ensure the protection of clinic patients. But in the meantime, women in Massachusetts must forgo the protection, however seemingly scant, that they were once guaranteed before entering abortion clinics.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Talk Radio News Service via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sorry SCOTUS, Harassment Isn’t Free Speech appeared first on Law Street.

The UVA Law Supreme Court Litigation Clinic is headed to the Supreme Court next term to defend Anthony D. Elonis, the New York man who posted rap lyrics to Facebook describing how he would kill his estranged wife. (If you’re not familiar with the case, click here to read my take on it.)

The main question in Elonis v. United States centers on First Amendment rights–when do threats made online become true threats, which aren’t protected by the First Amendment? Specifically in Elonis’s case, the court will be examining Facebook statuses in which he posted threatening “rap lyrics.” Select UVA Law students will take a stab at presenting Elonis’s defense.

The UVA Law Supreme Court Litigation Clinic is a one year program offered to third-year law students. Admitted students earn eight credits through participation, but even more valuable is the experience they gain. Once accepted to the clinic, students actively participate in live cases and must meet high expectations.

Working in teams, students handle actual cases from the seeking of Supreme Court review to briefing on the merits. Classes meet every week to discuss drafts of briefs and other papers students have prepared for submission to the court. Students will be expected to identify candidates for Supreme Court review; draft petitions for certiorari, amicus merits briefs and party merits briefs; and attend mootings and Supreme Court arguments.

In addition to providing invaluable experience to our nation’s future legal force, the UVA Law clinic grants students the opportunity to work on a pivotal case. The Supreme Court will debate whether Elonis’s Facebook posts can actually fall under the category of true threats–meaning that he intended to carry out the actions he wrote about. But Elonis’s lawyers artfully defended his case by stating he was rapping, therefore claiming First Amendment protection.

One of the clinic’s instructors, John P. Elwood, described the case as highly relevant because of our increased reliance on electronic communication. Furthermore, he made the point that electronically communicating with strangers may lead to miscommunication more often. Elwood says the ambiguity surrounding true threats has been a mess since the 2003 Virginia v. Black case, in which the Supreme Court attempted to create more specific guidelines for defining them.

I maintain my opinion, this guy is scary–if I were the ex-wife he had threatened I’d want a sense of security and protection too. There may be UVA students who also sympathize with her, but are defending Elonis with the clinic. Unfortunately for them, as a lawyer you don’t always get to choose who you defend. A lawyer’s duty is to defend her client to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of her personal beliefs. It will be valuable for those students to learn that lesson early, because sometimes it’s a hard pill to swallow. For example, when Hillary Clinton was a court-appointed attorney in 1975, she defended a 41-year-old man who was accused of raping 12-year-old girl. It must have been tough, and her political foes are now using it to attack her, but the important thing is that she did her job as a lawyer. The UVA students may have the opportunity to practice that kind of ethical dilemma when they argue on behalf of Elonis.

Elonis v. United States is the eleventh case the UVA clinic will defend in the Supreme Court since its establishment in 2006. And while the academic and legal experience is highly valuable, one other aspect should not be forgotten–legal ethics. That’s exactly what sets the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic apart from the rest–practicing legal ethics in a pivotal case. These twenty-somethings are in for quite a ride; their participation in our highest court could make history!

The University of Virginia School of Law staff did not comment as of press time.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Mmw3v via English Wikipedia]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UVA Law Clinic Takes on Controversial Anthony Elonis Case appeared first on Law Street.

I, for one, find parody accounts on Twitter hilarious; however, it is obvious that Jim Ardis, the mayor of Peoria, Illinois, disagrees. After discovering that someone had created a parody Twitter account in his name, rather than laugh it off, Ardis took extreme measures that ultimately led to a police raid of the creator’s home.

The account used the handle @peoriamayor and portrayed the mayor as a foul-mouthed, frequent drug user who loved going to strip clubs. The creator of the account is 29-year-old Jon Daniel, a writer, line cook, and father of two. Daniel shared with the Associated Press that he started the Twitter account as a joke. He told them, “I thought my friends would find it funny.”

While Daniel’s friends did indeed find the account funny, Ardis did not. Shortly after the account’s creation, the mayor discovered it and immediately started the process of getting it taken down. Just two days after the account’s creation, the city manager contacted the city’s chief information officer, Sam Rivera, and asked for help getting the account taken down. The email, which was sent on March 11, read, “Someone is using the Mayor’s likeness in a twitter account, it’s not him. @Peoriamayor. Can you work to get it shut down today?”

Just an hour later, emails were sent by city manager Patrick Urich to the city’s police chief demanding a police investigation into the account’s creator. While the police were skeptical if a crime had even been committed, Ardis was persistent and demanded that it be looked into further. Eventually, Detective James Feehan dug deep enough and found an obscure Illinois statute that makes it illegal to falsely portray a government official. The police were then able to subpoena Twitter for the IP address behind @Peoriamayor, and then subpoenaed Comcast to trace that IP information back to Daniel’s house.

On April 15, three weeks after the account was suspended, police raided Daniel’s home. Because one of the tweets involved a photo of a “white powdery substance” and a razor blade, the police entered the home armed with a warrant allowing them to search for drugs, paraphernalia, and electronics that could post to Twitter. The police confiscated several electronic devices, but ultimately did not arrest Daniel.

They did, however, arrest his roommate. Police seized a “large gold gift bag with five sandwich bags containing a green leafy substance” and arrested Jacob Elliot, Daniel’s roommate, for possession of marijuana.

Daniel is now fighting back, and suing Ardis and six other city employees for violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The account was clearly labeled as a parody account, and therefore should not have been taken down. Typically, spoofs and parodies like this Twitter account are protected by the First Amendment because they are considered a form of political speech and are not intended to deceive anyone.

The 55-year-old mayor is threatening a countersuit for defamation. In an attempt to demonstrate that the tweets were not clearly parody, Ardis “gave a straight-faced reading of Daniel’s most off-color tweets, including messages that voiced enthusiastic support for strippers, tequila and crack pipes.”

Just three days after the raid, Ardis received some detrimental news for his defamation “case” –there may be an internet exception to the impersonating statute. If this is the case, everyone missed it, from the investigators to the State Attorney’s Office to the judges, and it is likely that they will toss his case. In addition, the mayor has received major public criticism for his drastic actions against Daniel. The incident has been labeled “Twittergate” in Illinois, and several other Ardis parody accounts have popped up on social media. It will be interesting to see what, if any, action Ardis takes against these new impersonators. Hopefully he won’t be raiding any more homes.

Ardis has also received many emails from people all over the world mocking him for his actions. One message read: “Just to give you heads up, sir: I will be mocking you at the dinner table this evening, I will await your stormtroopers with some fresh coffee and rolls. Please phone ahead.” While this situation is yet to be resolved, it’s unlikely that things will turn out in Ardis’ favor.

And for your daily laugh, here is a video of Ardis reading some of @peoriamayor’s tweets:

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Glenn Halog via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Peoria Mayor Sends Police to Raid Home of Twitter Parody Account Creator appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court is finally ruling on free speech relating to social media platforms. Now, before we jump the gun and say putting limitations on free speech is a violation of the First Amendment, let me explain. This conversation was sparked by a recent case — United States of America v. Anthony Douglas Elonis. I originally thought the outcome of this case was absurd — the defendant is serving more than three years in prison for a few eccentric Facebook posts. Really? Then I dug deeper and what I found was quite disturbing.

After losing his wife, his kids, and his job, Anthony Elonis was depressed and angry. He turned to Facebook to rant. And the “raps” he posted threatened his former place of work, his wife, innocent children, and an FBI agent. Below are some excerpts from his “rap lyrics”:

I also found out that it’s incredibly illegal,
extremely illegal, to go on Facebook and say
something like the best place to fire a mortar
launcher at her house would be from the
cornfield behind it because of easy access to a
getaway road and you’d have a clear line of
sight through the sun room.
Insanely illegal.
Ridiculously, wrecklessly, insanely illegal.
Yet even more illegal to show an illustrated
diagram.
===[ __ ] =====house
: : : : : : : ^ : : : : : : : : : : : :cornfield
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
######################getaway road
Insanely illegal.
Ridiculously, horribly felonious.
Cause they will come to my house in the middle
of the night and they will lock me up.
Extremely against the law.

In another post he “rapped” about shooting up a kindergarten classroom:

That’s it, I’ve had about enough
I’m checking out and making a name for myself
Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius
to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever
imagined
And hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a
kindergarten class
The only question is . . . which one?

Do you feel uncomfortable yet? You can also check out the hearing transcript for more of Elonis’ disconcerting posts. By now, you’re probably pretty creeped out by this weird Eminem wannabe. Well, he served his time: a 44-month sentence. What makes me see red is why he was convicted.

Elonis landed in the slammer for “transmit[ting] in interstate or foreign commerce any
communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another…” Anyone else think it’s problematic that despite his threats, which blatantly targeted his wife, he was sentenced on a technicality?

Cyber threats are common; Elonis’ wife is not alone. Now the media is examining when rap crosses the line from being “gangsta” to being threatening? This issue is at the crux of the case the Supreme Court will hear in the upcoming term.

True Threats

While true threats are not protected by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court is struggling with ambiguities like cyber threats. The last time the court had a case involving threats was the 2003 case Virginia v. Black et al. The court defined true threats as “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

Elonis defended his posts as art, saying he therefore lacked intent to actually carry out those threats. But his threats were specific, well thought-out, and frightening. So were his posts true threats or merely artistic expression? That’s exactly the question SCOTUS will have to answer.

When Does Rap go too Far?

Elonis is one of many who have been put on trial for violent content in rap lyrics. Now who doesn’t love some good ol’ fashioned hate-the-world, go burn in hell, Eminem-style rap? I actually love Eminem – my iTunes holds precisely 54 of his songs. Yes, his raps are graphic, violent, angry, and sometimes downright grotesque. But, aside from his mother, whom he actually bought a mansion, he does not outline specific plans for a single person’s demise. He’s just angry at the world, that’s all.

So, this is where Eminem’s content differs from Elonis’, among others. The debate is tangled — scholars and legal professionals need to consider artistic expression, intent, and how that plays out in the cyber world.

A group of legal scholars are defending Elonis and his “artistic expression” posts on Facebook. Clay Calvert, Erik Nielson, and Charis E. Kubrin argue that the context in which artistic expression is interpreted depends on its vessel of dissemination, in this case, social media. So, higher courts have difficulty determining the context and the intent, which both affect the verdict of threat cases involving social media posts.

The subject is highly complex, but my opinion on this is simple. If you post poorly written yet fear-inducing threats to Facebook, you deserve to be put away. Elonis is clearly not stable, as you can see from the nostalgic posts about his ex-wife, whom he threatened to behead.

Rap is considered an art form, so it’s protected by the First Amendment. But throw social media into the mix and our Constitution becomes difficult to apply. So, yes, I’m relieved the Supreme Court will rule on this convoluted case because it will have long-reaching ramifications. I would certainly feel more secure if social media threats were considered more seriously, especially considering the shooting in Santa Barbara last month.

When it comes to threats, there is a fine line between protecting our First Amendment rights and protecting our citizens. My hope is that the Supreme Court will find a solution by defining when threats should be taken literally and when they are artistic ploys.

Featured image courtesy of [dcwriterdawn via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court to Determine How Free Speech Applies to Social Media appeared first on Law Street.

With all of the recent issues in the media, Satanism has become a unique topic of discussion. Rarely spoken of, it tends to be a controversial taboo, and a typically condemned ideology. Despite all of the negative debate, it is interesting to analyze the legality behind such a forbidden topic, and see how the controversies surrounding recent incidences are handled by the courts.

Part of what the United States was built on was the freedom to freely practice the religion of one’s choice. According to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” There is no amendment which excludes or singles out a particular religion as not applying to the constitution. According to John Farina, a professor of Religion and Law at George Mason University, “The state is incompetent to make judgments about what is a good religion and what isn’t.” Legality of religion is not about morality or ethics, it is about breaking the law. So where does Satanism fall within this spectrum. Here is an in depth look at the legality of Satanism.

What is Satanism?

According to Contemporary Religious Satanism, “Satanism of today is atheistic[…] Satanic ideology states that one should pursue one’s own satisfaction.” There is discrepancy between how scholars define the religion and how the organization defines it themselves, but Satanism can loosely be defined as more of a philosophy than a religion that focuses on “empowerment, self-realization, actualization, [and] assertion or development […] a general opposition to all traditional and modern institutions of authority.”  Satanists do not embrace evilness per se, yet they embrace rebellion and prefer not to adhere to the conformity of traditional religion. Many Satanists feel that that have been wronged by society, and choose to resort to this alternative lifestyle.

Case Study: The Black Mass at Harvard University

At Harvard University, there was a planned Satanic ceremony, called Black Mass to occur in May 2014. The mass would mock the classic Catholic mass, with the students intent of “exercising their First Amendment rights.” The Cultural Studies Club wanted to explore and demonstrate a new realm of religious expression. According to CNN, a cultural studies club student at Harvard said,  “Our purpose is not to denigrate any religion or faith, which would be repugnant to our educational purposes…but instead to learn and experience the history of different cultural practices.” Some students felt that this was a very innovative and enlightening idea; others were extremely upset and wanted to put an immediate end to what they felt was an an attack.

The Harvard Extension School said in a statement that it encouraged students to assemble freely. However, “we do not agree with the student group’s decision to stage an event that is so deeply disturbing and offensive to many in the Harvard community and beyond.” As a university, a private institution, Harvard does not owe this group of students the right to hold a religious ceremony. The Constitution does not require nor regulate an educational establishment; and a private institution has the right to oversee and set precedent for the students’ public activity on the account of preserving a safe environment, that is conducive to learning. The fact that the Black Mass caused such an extreme backlash from a large portion of the student body and staff gave Harvard more than enough reason to put a halt on the ceremony before it started.

To see an interview with one of the participants of the Black Mass click here:

Case Study: Oklahoma Satanist Group Attempts to Erect a Statue in Celebration of Satanism

In Oklahoma, a Satanist group is currently battling to have their statue erected in front of the Oklahoma State Capitol. The statue is being built in a studio in New York City, and is almost in its final form. The statue is a seven-foot tall demon-like man with a goat’s head; the figure has long horns, a beard, and wears a partial smirk. Two children statue look up admiringly at the demon-like man.  The group argues that they should be able to place their statue on the grounds because the Ten Commandments are displayed there. If a religious symbol is already placed on public grounds, how can the state block the Satanist group from displaying their statue? According to CNS News, Lucien Greaves, a representative for the Satanic Temple argued, “We would have never suggested that a Satanic monument should be represented on Capitol grounds if it weren’t for the fact that the 10 Commandments were already there. The idea of a solitary monument, related to any one religion, standing on Capitol grounds is offensive. “

According to ABC 15, “In December, state lawmakers told CNN that the satanists’ message wouldn’t fly in their Bible Belt state, where nearly two-thirds of the population are Christian.” In 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, the courts ruled in an establishment clause that a federal nor a state government “can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” Justice Black also ruled that there can be no official church of the state established. Religion is an independent facility, and should be treated accordingly. Oklahoma’s legislators are contradicting the basic principle which is established in the case; by erecting a statue symbolizing one religion’s values, yet denying another the right to display their symbols publicly. Farina says, “The court has to balance that religious freedom right against the compelling interest of the state.” In this case, it is clear where to majority lies, yet seems to contradict the separation between church and state clause. In fact, neither the ten commandments nor the demon statue should be displayed on public grounds. Religion should remain a private entity, and be confined to a religious establishment.

This First Amendment and the Establishment Clause, banning any “law respecting an establishment of religion,” was made applicable to the states by due process and the Fourteenth Amendment. In terms of religion, the only way that the government can intervene and regulate is when there is illegal activity or criminal action resulting from the religious practices.

An example of this scenario was Gonzalez v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (2005). In this case, which was brought to the Supreme Court, O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (“UDV”), a Brazilian religious group in the United States, claimed that they needed to import a hallucinate tea which included the drug DMT for a part of their religious ritual. According to Farina, UDV won the case and was able to continue to import the tea on account of traditional religious purposes tied to the consumption of this mind-altering tea.

Case Study: Van Orden v. Perry

Another case that supports the preferential treatment of certain religions is the Van Orden v. Perry case in 2005. In this case former lawyer, Van Orden, sued Texas for the display of the Ten Commandments on state capitol grounds. He claimed that the statute violated the Establishment Clause, in which the government is banned from making an official religion or favoring one over the other. In this case, the state won on the grounds that “the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning.” The fact that the monument included historical context that applies to national history, outweighed its secular purpose. According to Legal Information Institute, this where an inherent is a contradiction lies, “One face looks to the past in acknowledgment of our Nation’s heritage, while the other looks to the present in demanding a separation between church and state.” Yet, one has to argue what is history truly . Although, we have a very mainstreamed view on what is taught in the educational system, what one may deem important is subjective to that person’s background and upbringing. Anything that is suggested for a secular purpose can easily offend anyone with opposing personal view.

Tax Exemption

According to Farina, there really is no such thing as a legal religion. The only thing that would make a religion “valid” would be their status with the IRS and whether or not they receive exemption from paying taxes. In the 2001 case, ESA v. Rylander,  the Ethical Society of Austin applied to the courts to get tax exemption for being a religious organization; they were initially granted the benefit by the courts, yet the decision was revoked when the courts decided that in order for it to legally be considered a religious organization the religion must worship a “supreme being.” In 2010 Oklahoma granted the Satanist church tax-exemption. According to Pro Con, “A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community, but there is no such provision in the U.S. Constitution.” This statement may cause Satanist establishments issues when applying for tax exemption in their state. On the other hand, according to TCI College Law Review, “there is no adequate definition of a protected religion or religious tax exempt activity […] religious institutions are not obligated to perform services to the community in return for the tax exemption.” Also, tax exemptions are not required by the First Amendment, therefore the state courts are left to handle the decision, which leads to inconsistency in the state’s legislation.

 Private vs. Public Interests

What it really boils down to is religion is truly a private entity. As the constitution supports the idea that people should be able to worship freely, it does not support the public involvement in the matter. Religion is personal; no religious organization should have the freedom to express their beliefs in an aggressive manner. Legally, Satanists should have the right to practice their religion (as long as they do not break any laws). The issue for most people seems to be more about morality, when we bring up a religion that has such a negative connotation.

Resources

Primary 

Charters of Freedom: Bill of Rights

Harvard: Statement on ‘Black Mass’

Supreme Court: Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

US Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit: Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal

SCOTUS: Van Orden v. Perry

Additional

USA Today: Satanic ‘Black Mass’ at Harvard canceled

Boston Globe: Amid Outcry, Black Mass at Harvard is Called Off

Fox News: Satanic Group Says Oklahoma Must Give the Devil His Due

Cornell Law: Establishment Clause

Boston Globe: Satan Statue Should be Welcome in Oklahoma

New York Daily News: Devil-Worship Group Unveils Satanic Statue Design for Oklahoma State Capitol

ABC 15: Satanists Unveil Design for Oklahoma Statehouse Statue

Time: ‘Black Mass’ on Harvard Campus Canceled

CNN: Update: Harvard’s Satanic ‘Black Mass’ Cancelled

ProCon: Should Churches (Defined as Churches, Temples, Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?

Jesper Aagaard Peterson: Contemporary Religious Satanism: A Critical Anthology

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Giving the Devil His Due: the Legality of Satanism appeared first on Law Street.

What happens when two Supreme Court Justices, who rarely rule the same way, sit down for an hour-long conversation on the First Amendment? Surprisingly, a lot of laughs, and some strong opinions about free speech. On Thursday, April 17, Justices discussed the First Amendment on the Kalb Report at the National Press Club.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg couldn’t be more ideologically different- Scalia is an originalist, meaning the Constitution should be interpreted as it would have been when it was created. Ginsburg, on the other hand, sees the Constitution as a living document, one that can be interpreted differently based on how society has evolved.

Agreement on Free Speech:

But for being so different in their opinions, the two agreed on the most basic idea that freedom of speech is a necessary function of democracy.

“The right to speak my mind, that’s America to me,” Ginsburg said.

Scalia seemed to agree, saying, “democracy means persuading one another […] you can’t run such a system if here is muzzling of one point of view.”

Times v. Sullivan:

The two didn’t agree for long, though. One discussion over the case New York Times v. Sullivan elicited two very different opinions from the Justices.

Times. V. Sullivan was the case that holds public officials have a much harder time suing for libel. Basically, unless they can prove someone made libelous comments on purpose, they don’t have a shot at a lawsuit.

Scalia had no time for that, saying the founding fathers “would have been appalled at the notion they could be libeled with impunity,” and that rather than interpreting the Constitution, the Times v. Sullivan decision revised it.

Ginsburg disagreed, saying, “Times v. Sullivan is now well-accepted […] I suspect that if the founding fathers were around to see what life was like in the 1960s, they would have agreed with that.”

Using your rights… isn’t always right?:

The conversation also pointed to the fact that while the Justices may support First Amendment Rights, it doesn’t mean they agree with the ways in which people utilize those rights.

“You can be using your 1st amendment right and it can be abominable that you are,” Scalia said and continued with,  “I will defend your right to use it, but I will not defend the appropriateness of the manner in which you’re using it now- that can be very wrong.”

Specifically, Ginsburg referred to a case, which Scalia ruled on, that held flag burning was Constitutionally protected, even though he did not personally agree with the idea of it.

“I would have thrown that guy in jail if I were king,” alluding to the fact in a democracy, we don’t have that option.

The First Amendment Debate isn’t Over:

At one point, Ginsburg referenced a case the Supreme Court will hear next week, questioning whether it is legal to lie about candidates running for office.

The case is Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, and it challenges an Ohio law that says groups and individuals can’t make false statements about political candidates. The court will be tasked with deciding whether or not false statements in the context of political races are protected speech.

Though it’s hard to tell how the court will rule, there have been other cases that deal with lies in relation to free speech. In 2012, the court ruled that a man who lied about receiving the Medal of Honor was protected by free speech. In 2006, after Xavier Alvarez lied about receiving a military award, he was prosecuted under the “Stolen Valor Act,” which made it illegal to do so.

Precedent for the Case:

The court held 6-3 that the First Amendment protected Alvarez’s lie. Ginsburg was in the majority; Scalia was not.

The opinion state specifically, “the Court has instructed that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside the First Amendment; the statement must be a knowing and reckless falsehood.”

The combination of Alvarez and Times as precedent will be make for an interesting decision by the Court, and Ginsburg and Scalia could very easily end up on different sides of the decision again.

Their Friendship hasn’t Waned:

But through the differing opinions on how to interpret the Constitution, Ginsburg and Scalia have remained close friends.

When Kalb asked Ginsburg if she would have voted in favor of the Times case, Scalia jumped in saying, “oh God yes she would have!”

At another point, Ginsburg poked fun at Scalia after he mentioned using telephone booths, saying, “we don’t have to worry about that anymore!”

The moderator, Marvin Kalb, seemed to appreciate the dynamic between the two, saying “they are like the old days in this capital when political differences did not stop a good friendship from flourishing.”

Having two Justices discuss not just their friendship, but views on issues as decisive as the First Amendment, as well, gives the public a great inside look into the reasoning behind Supreme Court decisions. While they had vastly different ideas about how laws should be interpreted, they both had strong reasoning behind their opinions, and respected each other as people regardless of their professional views.

You can watch the whole program here.

[Times v. Sullivan] [Alvarez Case] [Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Petteway, College of the Supreme Court of the United States via Wikipedia]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The First Amendment: Two Supreme Court Justices Debate What it Means appeared first on Law Street.

Money has always been a big part of politics, and campaign finance laws have been put in place to curb potential corruption. But the Supreme Court continues to rule on parts of campaign finance laws- most recently allowing individuals to give money to more campaigns in the case McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission. Is this one more way to allow big money into politics, or a protection of free speech?

Campaign contributions are protected as free speech under the First Amendment, but with restrictions in order to prevent corruption. Since 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo, the Court has ruled that campaign contribution limits can be enforced as “primary weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions.” Basically, it’s fine to limit contributions from individuals to avoid corruption. And understandably so- it isn’t unreasonable to think donating huge sums of money from an individual to a campaign could lead to some kind of favoritism toward that person.

So to combat that potential, the government set a cap for the amount of money an individual can contribute to campaigns, and it’s been like this since 1976. Currently, that limit is $5,200 to each campaign over a two-year period. As time has gone on, the courts have continued to rule more on the side of campaign contributions as free speech, making those laws less restrictive, and continuing to hold them as protected free speech under the First Amendment.

One of the most recent examples was in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, where the Court ruled restrictions on how much money unions and corporations could donate weren’t legal. Liberals saw this as a way to equate corporations to people, and conservatives saw it as an expansion of First Amendment rights.

So McCutcheon tackled another part of the campaign finance puzzle: caps on individual donations… kind of.

Prior to this ruling, there was a limit on how much money an individual could donate to one campaign, as well as a cap on how much an individual could donate to campaigns total. Individuals could give up to $5,200 to any one candidate, but no more than $123,200 total during a two-year election cycle. And of that $123,200, only $48,600 could go to individual campaigns. The Supreme Court held on Wednesday that that total limit, the $123,200, was unconstitutional, while the caps on donations to individual campaigns still stand.

So, what does this mean in practice? Basically, wealthy people can give money to more candidates… but they can’t give more money to one candidate. Again, liberals have gotten upset-worried that increasing the amount of money individuals can donate to campaigns will somehow unhinge a balance of power, or make a system already centered on money even more uneven. But to be frank- this decision doesn’t change a whole lot of anything, and it’s constitutionally sound.

If the goal of campaign finance limits is to combat corruption (legitimate corruption, not just speculative or hypothetical corruption), then giving a limited amount of money to a few more candidates really isn’t a huge problem.  Individuals won’t be able to wield more influence over one candidate because to individual caps are still in place.

Still, there is concern that this ruling only helps the wealthy, as they’re the only ones who would be able to give this much money to campaigns in the first place. But more important than worrying about rich people giving money to campaigns is worrying about what the First Amendment protects. The First Amendment, time and again, has protected campaign contributions as free speech. Arbitrary limits on one kind of free speech are no better than arbitrary limits on another.

Though it’s easy to get caught up in thinking allowing the wealthy to give more money to a campaign isn’t fair, the McCutcheon decision by the Supreme Court upholds rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. The only restrictions the courts should impose on campaign limits are ones that protect against corruption and limiting the amount of campaigns individuals can donate to do not protect against corruption.

[Supreme Court] [Oyez] [Washington Times] [Citizens United]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Flickr/Tracy Olson]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More Money, More Problems? Supreme Court Rules on Campaign Finance Laws appeared first on Law Street.

By most accounts, the rollout of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been incredibly rocky. Even as problems with Healthcare.gov have stabilized and enrollment numbers have increased across the nation, the law, alternatively called ‘Obamacare,’ is being hit with numerous lawsuits challenging its various provisions. One such notable lawsuit is Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and it has arrived at the Supreme Court.

The case pits Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius against arts and crafts giant Hobby Lobby, and it underscores the fierce resistance by some companies to the 2010 law. The heart of the case lies in the issue of whether or not the ACA’s provision forcing employers to cover contraception as a part of employee-based health care is an attack on religious freedom. Hobby Lobby Stores filed a suit against the United States in September 2012 citing the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Clinton in 1993.

The Free Exercise Clause, if anyone needs reminding, states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” As for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the gist of the bill is that it prevents the government from passing legislation that would make it extremely hard for someone to exercise their religion. In this case, Hobby Lobby claims that the ACA  makes it too difficult for the family of ownership (the Greens) to exercise their religion due to the provision of contraceptive medication in employee’s healthcare premiums. It is important to note here that there is no explicit mention of contraception coverage in the wording of the healthcare bill.

The arts and crafts chain store only took their case to the next level after the Supreme Court refused to grant an injunction excusing Hobby Lobby from providing contraception coverage, saying simply, “Applicants do not satisfy the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief they seek.” Then, in July 2013, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton provided the Green family an exemption from the “contraceptive mandate.” In his ruling, Judge Heaton said:

Given the importance of the interests at stake in this case, the fact that the ACA’s requirements raise new and substantial questions of law and public policy, and that substantial litigation as to the mandate at issue here is ongoing around the country, the court concludes there is an overriding public interest in the resolution of the legal issues raised by the mandate before Hobby Lobby and Mardel are exposed to the substantial penalties that are potentially applicable. The public interest therefore lies in preserving the status quo until the issues raised by plaintiffs’ claims are resolved.

The tables were turned on Hobby Lobby when the Center for Inquiry filed its own amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in January 2014. In the brief, the Center cited the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the same basis of argument used by Hobby Lobby, stating that the government cannot make an exception on religious grounds for one company. With the Supreme Court granting certiorari since November 2013, many are eager to see the result of this massively influential case, and the next arguments are scheduled for March 25.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [DangApricot via Wikipedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Craft of Contraception Rights: SCOTUS to Hear Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby appeared first on Law Street.

Freedom of the Press has always, of course, applied to traditional journalists. If someone accuses a journalist in say, The Washington Post, or the New York Times, or even a small town newspaper of defamation, and the issue is of public concern, the plaintiffs have to prove that there was negligence or worse in order to win damages. Essentially a plaintiff would have to prove that a journalist wrote their story without properly checking out their sources, or some other negligent behavior. If they cannot prove that a reporter didn’t do their due diligence, they cannot be found guilty. This was established by a 1974 Supreme Court case, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

For years, this 1974 case sufficed as protecting journalists, because official media was really the only kind of media that existed. There was radio, newspapers, and TV, and all of those were mostly composed of people who had journalistic training and were part of a larger company. But with the advent of the internet, everyone can have a blog. In fact, if I so decided, I could go get a free WordPress blog right now and start writing just a few minutes later. And out of that prevalence of individual-driven media came the question: does this freedom of the press also apply to the informal and individual press?

Last week, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the same standards that apply to journalists in print media also apply to bloggers and anyone else. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press member Gregg Leslie said, “it’s not a special right to the news media. So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others.”

The case came from a Montana blogger named Crystal L. Cox. In a blog post a few years ago, Cox stated that Obsidian Finance Group and its founder had committed fraud. So Obsidian Finance Group’s co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Cox. During the first trial, Cox lost the case and was ordered to pay the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. Cox did not deny that what she reported may have been false, just that she did not do it out of negligence, the same standard that a print reporter would have been held to. With this latest appeal, the 9th District Court agreed with Cox.

The Court stated,

The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable.” They went on to cite cases in which individual speakers have been granted First Amendment rights, despite not being a part of the established press. For example, the First Amendment rights of authors have often been protected, regardless of their training, background, or affiliations.

This is very good news for anyone who has a blog or even a desire to post things in an individual capacity on their social network. It could also go a far way for advocacy groups that work unofficially for candidates and their rights to create media alleging things against candidates. It could also have important ramifications for blogging in other lawsuits. For example, if a blogger is treated as a journalist for the purposes of the First Amendment, they could also be treated as a journalist in a matter like protection of sources.

[LA Times]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jorge Quinteros via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Court Says Bloggers are Journalists Too appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year, folks! Welcome to 2014.

This is going to be one hell of a year — and it’s already kicked off with a bang. Not a fun, happy, feminist bang, but a bang nonetheless.

During her final moments of 2013, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor signed a temporary stay on the enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirements in the Affordable Care Act. What does that mean? Basically, she just made it that much harder for women across the country to access birth control.

Not your finest moment, Justice Sotomayor. Courtesy of the Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States, Steve Petteway source via Wikipedia.

Here’s how it went down. As of December 30, 2013, the Affordable Care Act requires employer-sponsored health insurance to cover birth control. So, basically, if you get health insurance on your day job’s dime, you legally cannot be prevented from using it to snag some birth control pills. Awesome.

But! As always, some folks were pretty pissed off about this. Namely, Christian folks. A whole slew of Christian-values nonprofits and businesses objected to this piece of the ACA, claiming it infringed on their religious freedom. The logic here, is that if Christian values include not supporting contraception or abortion, a Christian employer shouldn’t have to subsidize those services for its employees.

Fair enough, churchgoers. The government can’t force you to support — financially or otherwise — actions that are forbidden by your religion. That’s what religious freedom is all about, right? Getting to practice your faith freely, without anyone telling you it’s not allowed?

Yes! Absolutely. But, there’s another side to the freedom of religion coin. While the government can’t prevent anyone from freely practicing their faith, it also can’t push any particular faith on its citizens. So, while the government can’t stop Catholics from attending church on Sundays, it also can’t force Jews to celebrate Christmas. The street runs both ways.

And this is where things get tricky. While Christian organizations have a fair point — being legally forced to subsidize contraception if they’re religiously opposed to it is majorly problematic — they’re also forgetting the other side of the coin. They’re right in asserting that they can’t be forced to do anything that interferes with their religious beliefs, but they can’t, in turn, force their religious beliefs on anyone else.

And that’s the tragic flaw in their anti-Obamacare logic. If Christian businesses were given their way — and allowed to forego contraceptive coverage for their employees — they would be forcing workers to live by a set of Christian standards, unless they paid a steep price tag. What happens when the employees of a Christian company aren’t Christian themselves? What happens when they’re Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist? Can those employees be forced to live by Christian values?

Absolutely not. Now you’re infringing on their religious freedom.

And here lies the central problem. Forcing Christian businesses to pay for contraceptive coverage might be infringing on their religious freedom — but allowing them to not pay for it might infringe on workers’ religious freedom.

It’s a lose-lose situation.

But! As per a compromise cooked up by the Department of Health and Human Services, there seemed to be a solution. Under this plan, Christian companies and nonprofits had to sign a form stating their religious affiliation, and instead of paying for contraceptive coverage themselves, the insurers paid for it, and were reimbursed.

Yay solutions!

Awesome! Way to use your problem solving skills, people. This way, religiously opposed employers don’t have to pay for contraception, but employees can still access those services if they choose.

But, this wasn’t good enough for many a Christian employer. Signing a form was, apparently, too much to ask. So lawsuits poured in. And Justice Sotomayor was sympathetic.

So, with the hourglass running down on 2013, she signed a mandate preventing this piece of the law being enforced. What does that mean? Religious employers can deny workers contraceptive coverage. For folks working at Christian institutions, birth control will only be an option if they can afford to pay a whole ton of money out of pocket. Which really means, birth control won’t be an option at all.

The Obama administration has until tomorrow to respond. From there, we’ll all just have to wait around for the Supreme Court to make a final decision sometime this summer, after it’s had a chance to sift through all of the case filings. And, mind you, things aren’t looking too good on that front, considering this problem was brought about by one of the most feministy of Justices. If Sotomayor is making it hard for women to access birth control, who the fuck is going to make it any easier?

We’re looking at you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The tricky business of religious freedom has been a constant roadblock for women and feminism. What do you think about this latest Obamacare battle?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Parenting Patch via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Happy New Year! Your Birth Control’s No Longer Covered appeared first on Law Street.

With the widespread use of cell phones, it has become easier and easier to capture pictures of everyday life. Unfortunately, that also means that it has become easier to take photos of unsuspecting and unwilling subjects for fetishistic purposes. Doing so is called “voyeur photography”, and one popular use is referred to as “upskirting.” Upskirting is pretty much exactly what it sounds like, taking a photo up a woman’s skirt, usually while she is walking up a set of stairs or on an escalator. Over the past few years, there have been a handful of men found committing such behavior, such as Christopher Hunt Cleveland, who was arrested this September for taking approximately 4,500 upskirt photos on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Convictions can result in jail time and registration as a sex-offender.

In 2010, a Massachusetts man by the name of Michael Robertson was arrested for trying to take upskirt pictures on the T (the subway system in Boston).  He was charged with two counts of photographing a nude or partially nude person without her knowledge. Mr. Robertson’s case is now in front of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and he and his lawyer, Michelle Menken, are arguing that it his constitutional right as protected by the First Amendment to take these pictures. Furthermore, they are arguing that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy afforded to women who are in public dressed in such as a manner that would allow upskirting to be possible.

Upskirting is a behavior that is made possible by camera phone technology, and therefore is relatively new. Just nine years ago, in 2004, Congress passed the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act. A summary of the law provided by the Library of Congress states:

Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit knowingly videotaping, photographing, filming, recording by any means, or broadcasting an image of a private area of an individual, without that individual’s consent, under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. (Defines a “private area” as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual.) Makes such prohibition inapplicable to lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity.

Various states also have instituted their own voyeurism laws. For example, in the state of Massachusetts, a law enacted in 2004 states essentially the same thing as the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, but also outlines appropriate punishments. Any laws along this line are usually referred to colloquially as “Peeping Tom Laws.” Menken has argued that regardless of what these laws state, they simply do not apply in this case, pointing out that, “Peeping Tom laws protect women and men from being photographed in dressing rooms and bathrooms who are nude or partially nude. However, the way the law is written right now, it does not protect clothed people in public areas.” She has also taken issue with the characterization of these women as “partially nude”, stating that every picture that Robertson took showed private parts that were covered by underwear. She said, “women in the photographs can not be considered partially nude because their underwear covered everything and no private parts could be seen in the pictures taken.”

It is pretty clear that both the state in which Robertson resides as well as the United States have created laws that attempt to prevent behavior such as upskirting. But whether or not these laws violate Robertson’s First Amendment rights will be decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Court. I would like to imagine that women who wear skirts and climb stairs do not have a reasonable expectation that their private parts may be photographed, but it is important to remember that similar arguments have been up held before—in 2008, charges were dropped under Oklahoma Peeping Tom laws against a man who upskirted a 16-year-old girl in a Super Target. It was determined that she did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that public location. How Robertson’s case fares may have an important effect on similar laws across many states, and at the federal level.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Corey Seeman via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Peeping Toms, Cellphones, and Skirts appeared first on Law Street.

Most people have seen the popular I <3 Boobies bracelets in recent years. They come in a variety of bright colors, they’re made of stretchy rubber, are about as thick as a watch, and in very large letters, say “I <3 Boobies.” They are produced by a company called Keep-A-Breast, a fundraising and educational company. In their mission statement, they state that, “The Keep A Breast Foundation is the leading youth-focused, global, nonprofit breast cancer organization. Our mission is to eradicate breast cancer for future generations. We provide support programs for young people impacted by cancer and educate people about prevention, early detection, and cancer-causing toxins in our everyday environment.” Depending on whether the bracelets are sold by an outside retailer, or through the company itself, Keep-A-Breast earns somewhere between $1.50-$4.00 to go to research and prevention for each bracelet sold. Unfortunately, these bracelets have been banned in many schools across the country because of claims that the message “I <3 Boobies” is too sexual in nature and too likely to be abused.

In 2010, two young women, Brianna Hawk and Kayla Martinez, wore the bracelets to school as part of their middle school’s Breast Cancer Awareness Day. The girls attended school in the Easton Area School District of Pennsylvania, about an hour and a half northwest of Philadelphia. The school district had previously dictated that these bracelets were forbidden from school because they were lewd in nature. The school cited creating a hyper-sexualized environment for its middle school students as a concern. Hawk and Martinez, then 12 and 13, were suspended from school.

The Hawk and Martinez families immediately took action. The ACLU helped the girls file a suit, and they won. The school board continued to appeal the case, but on each appeal they lost. Most recently, in August 2013, the 3^rd U.S. Circuit Court of appeals upheld the ruling in favor of the girls. Put simply, the two arguments at issue are that the School District believed that the bracelets were disruptive, but the girls claimed they were just trying to raise awareness of the disease and the stigma behind it. Martinez had actually had an aunt die of breast cancer when she was younger. She explained her motivation behind fighting for the bracelets. “In our generation, all the teenagers ask me about the bracelet. So it shows the bracelets teach a lot to kids.” The Courts agreed with the argument made by the girls.

On Tuesday, October 19, the School Board voted 7-1 to bring the case to the Supreme Court.  The school is claiming that this is not just about the bracelets, but rather about the overall ability of a school district to deem what is and what is not appropriate for its students. The one board member who voted against bringing the case forward, Frank Pintabone, expressed exhaustion with the legal battle, stating, “I think we should be done with it. Let it go. We lost 20, 30 times, I don’t even know anymore.”

Whether or not students have the right to wear whatever they want to school has always been contentious. From Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, probably the most well-known precedent in regards to students’ constitutional rights, to upcoming the Easton School District Case, students’ rights are a hotly debated set of issues. Whether this case will limit freedoms, or extend the ones granted in Tinker will be interesting to observe.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Krystal Pritchett via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can You Heart Boobies in Public School? appeared first on Law Street.

The largest internet companies have joined forces with top civil liberties groups to call on the White House and Congress to increase transparency surrounding the government’s controversial National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance program. Apple, Facebook and Google are among the companies that signed a letter to the feds, asking for the right to disclose information about national security data requests.

The  tech giants’ call for greater transparency represents a push back against allegations that they had a deeper involvement with the NSA’s surveillance program, PRISM, and allowed the NSA ‘direct’ access to their servers. In particular, Google has vehemently denied that they granted the government such access. Last month, Google petitioned a secret U.S national security court to soften the restrictions on the information it can reveal about the government  data requests made under Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA), claiming such restrictions violate the company’s First Amendment rights. Microsoft also had a similar request.

Tech companies are prohibited from revealing anything about requests they receive for such information because FISA requests are classified as top secret.

[Time.com]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Mozart via Flickr]

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NSA Transparency Push: Apple, Google, Facebook Join Civil Liberties Coalition appeared first on Law Street.