35 Burst results for "First Amendment"

At least 31 officers across U.S. tied to storming of the Capitol in Washington, DC

The Aloha Show

00:22 sec | 21 hrs ago

At least 31 officers across U.S. tied to storming of the Capitol in Washington, DC

"Departments across the nation reviewing the behavior of dozens of officers who were in Washington the day of the riot into capital at least 31 officers being scrutinized or face criminal charges tied to the events of January 6th. Experts say it's up to police chiefs to strike a balance between maintaining their officers. First Amendment rights and dealing with community mistrust of those officers.

Washington
US police weigh officer discipline after rally, Capitol riot

AP News Radio

00:44 sec | 23 hrs ago

US police weigh officer discipline after rally, Capitol riot

"Police departments around the country are weighing disciplinary actions against their officers for taking part in the deadly riot at the US capitol and the rally that led up to it an Associated Press survey found at least thirty one officers in twelve states are being scrutinized for their behavior or face criminal charges some storm the capitol while others say they were only at the rally most have not been publicly identified some say if they're off duty it's considered free speech but Chuck Wexler director of the police executive research forum says officers first amendment rights don't extend to express in words that maybe violent or prejudicial because that's going to reflect on what they do when they're working when they're testifying in court he says it speaks to credibility I'm Julie Walker

Chuck Wexler Associated Press United States Julie Walker
Remembering Hank Aaron: Friends Respond to Atlanta Braves Legend’s Death

Atlanta Up Close

05:24 min | 1 d ago

Remembering Hank Aaron: Friends Respond to Atlanta Braves Legend’s Death

"Day. And then well ordered the death of a legend are Mr Baseball Well known businessman and philanthropist, Mr. Henry Louis. Hank Aaron, who had the end of his baseball career with 755 has significantly eclipsed his home run record of 715. Erin remains baseball's all time leader in R B I and total bases. Hank Aaron was a political activist in his own right to telling me during the 2016 election season, why it was so important to vote. I think that if you think about all of the sacrifices that all about civil rights leaders have had before my time and think about what decide if I should be done. You know how important it is to hold. I mean, this is this year's gonna be even more important this year than ever. I mean, when you see the candidates who's running not only from the presidential standpoint, but even from the law standpoint, I think we got to look at ourselves and said We would to not only to our Children what ourselves to put the best candidates that is going to look after us because that haven't happened. Erin used his star power to defeat a constitutional amendment that would have allowed the governor to take over schools deemed to be chronically failing and in passion, Aaron Told a story from his childhood while displaying his sense of humor too many, many years ago, and I mean many years ago when I was growing up in Mobile, Alabama. Remember school teacher named Mrs Lisa. It was my English teacher. I wasn't very good in school, You know? I mean, I wanted to play baseball and that's what I want to do. And I remember, Huh? At a home. And in the back of our house, she had three large pecan trees. And I remember that Each day that I went to school. She took upon herself. Tell me that I want you. Once you get out of school stop by my house so we can continue your education. Remember this so very well. And when Andy asked me to come this morning, I said Will be there as soon as I can. You know, I'm walking around now on one leg course. Because I asked Cooks a meal advice from my wife and she told me to stay at home. And I slipped on some buddies and broke Leg in the hill. And I am paying for it now. I remember this school teachers so very well. And I remember her taking time out, and she would tell me when I got my house. And she lived by myself, and she would tell me, she said. I want you go out in my backyard. And pick me two buckets of pecan. And you come in this house. I want to teach you basic English and other subjects that I am. And I remember that so very well. And when I thought about this, I said, you know, we have to defeat this. There's absolutely no way that we can do it other than defeat this And I am just so happy to be on stage with Ambassador Young. And to see so many of you out there. Probably thinking the same thing I'm thinking, but I am so proud. And I think about that so well, I said, you know, in rare and Where would you be at today? If it wasn't for that school teacher who helped you so very much. And I just feel like I Had a blessing. From, huh? Help me continue my education, but I went on and that started playing baseball. Anyway, I just want to say that I'm so happy and we have to defeat this. We have to vote. No, please. Thank you very much. It was on that same day that former Ambassador Andrew Young reminded us truly of the pivotal role that his longtime friend Hank Aaron, played in turning Georgia Blue when it elected Bill Clinton as president of the United States. Has Hank to come because in 1992, he held a rally. Uh, in the cab county and invited Bill Clinton down on and there were 25,000 people there. Who might not have voted And because Hank and Billy, a number of us invited them down. They came. Bill Clinton won Georgia by 11,000 votes. And I spoke with Young on the morning upon learning of his friend's death. You went toe. Bid on this didn't wake up. Remember him? Uh, we were sitting over here last weekend. Just talking about, actually, Unfortunately, We were talking about all his friends that we're going Because Phil Niekro had just passed down certain. The Braves announcer We will both older than them. So we figured, you know life is life. Young, adding that Aaron lived out more than the American

Baseball Hank Aaron Mr. Henry Louis Erin Mrs Lisa Ambassador Young Aaron Alabama Bill Clinton Andy Mobile Cab County Hank Andrew Young Georgia Billy United States Phil Niekro Braves
Biden's Catholicism Could Influence The Abortion Debate, Activists Say

All Things Considered

03:39 min | 1 d ago

Biden's Catholicism Could Influence The Abortion Debate, Activists Say

"President Biden is only the second Catholic president of the United States. He's also a supporter of abortion rights. Ah, position at odds with official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. During the first White House press briefing of the Biden administration, a reporter from a Catholic network asked Press Secretary Jen Psaki about Biden's abortion policies. I will just take the opportunity to remind all of you that he is a devout Catholic and somebody who attends church regularly. He started his day attending church with his family this morning. NPR's Sarah McCammon examines what binds Catholicism's could mean for the abortion debate for Catholic activists like Marjorie Dannenfelser. President Biden's high profile example of a Catholic who supports abortion rights is troubling. It's a negative example of a deep and important moral issue that is being debated in this country. Dannenfelser is president of the Susan B. Anthony list, which has worked for years to help confirm conservative Supreme Court justices. She's particularly disturbed by Biden's embrace of a broader push among Democrats to repeal the Hyde amendment, which prohibits federal funding for most abortions. Ah, position he took in 2019 while running for the Democratic presidential nomination. After decades of supporting hide. The church itself has not changed. And its view ever on the dignity of human life and the need for its protection. He can't bring the Catholic Church along with him because of his political needs. But for those who like to see the church take a more permissive stance on issues including abortion, Biden's election is an opportunity. Jamie Manson is president of Catholics for choice. There are many issues in which Catholics are descending from the bishops and seeing that these are complex moral issues, whether it's same sex marriage, whether it's contraception or whether it's abortion Holding suggests a majority of American Catholics support abortion rights in most or all cases, and most Catholic women say they've used contraception, which the church also opposes. With a conservative Supreme Court majority and Biden in the White House. Manson predicts continued battles over issues including conscience exemptions, for example, for pharmacists who object to dispensing the morning after pill or employers who oppose including contraceptive coverage in their health plans. What I hope one of the impacts on public policy will be is to say, Listen, that is not what religious freedom is about religious freedom is about No one being oppressed or having their civil rights loss because of individual religious beliefs. Conservative Catholics, meanwhile, worry Biden will roll back Trump administration policies that they've seen as a victories for religious liberty. Already, the administration has said Biden is preparing to reverse the Mexico City policy, which prohibits US funding for organizations that perform or refer patients for abortion and other countries. But a study in the journal The Lancet found that the policy actually increased the abortion rate in some countries, most likely because it also reduced access to contraception. Natalia Imperatori Lee is a progressive Catholic theologian and religious studies professor at Manhattan College in New York. So I think the biting from a policy perspective is going to do things that end up Reducing the number of abortions, however, divided the rank and file. The church's position remains the same. On Inauguration Day, The U. S conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement praising Biden's piety but expressing deep concern about several of his positions, including his support for abortion rights. Sarah McCammon. NPR NEWS

President Biden Biden Biden Administration Press Secretary Jen Psaki Sarah Mccammon Marjorie Dannenfelser Dannenfelser Roman Catholic Church Jamie Manson Susan B. Anthony Supreme Court Npr News White House Trump Administration United States Manson Natalia Imperatori Lee Mexico City The Lancet
New Class Action Lawsuit Seeks Damages For Protesters Brutalized By New York PD Officers

10 10 WINS 24 Hour News

00:40 sec | 3 d ago

New Class Action Lawsuit Seeks Damages For Protesters Brutalized By New York PD Officers

"The city and NYPD had been named in a new class action lawsuits stemming from last summer's Black Lives Matter Protests. This class action lawsuit filed by four firms alleges the NYPD violently disrupted First Amendment rights made arrests without fair warning and used unreasonable force of the suit also claims the NYPD did nothing to discipline those officers involved. Unlike the federal lawsuit, filed earlier by state Attorney General Leticia James, this one seeks financial damages. In a response, the city Law Department says the NYPD has a long track record of protecting the rights of protesters. Well, at the same time, ensuring public safety.

Nypd Attorney General Leticia James Law Department
Class Action Suit Filed Against New York PD on Behalf of Black Lives Matter Protesters

10 10 WINS 24 Hour News

00:37 sec | 3 d ago

Class Action Suit Filed Against New York PD on Behalf of Black Lives Matter Protesters

"Stemming from last summer's black lives matter. Protests alleging police violated the civil rights of protesters. Unlike an earlier lawsuit announced by the attorney general, this class action seeks financial damages and alleges police violently disrupted First Amendment rights. Made arrest without fair warning and used unreasonable force. The lawsuit also claims the NYPD failed to discipline officers who were involved. In response. The city Law Department says the NYPD has a long track record of successfully protecting the rights of protesters will ensuring ensuring public public safety. safety. Al Al Jones Jones 10 10

Nypd Law Department Al Al Jones Jones
Blast partly destroys building in Madrid; cause not clear

Steve and Ted

00:34 sec | 5 d ago

Blast partly destroys building in Madrid; cause not clear

"Following an explosion that witnesses described as extremely loud videos and images shared on social media. Showed a tower of smoke coming out from a building and rubble scattered in the central streets of Madrid. Spanish public broadcaster TVE said the explosion took place in a building You're a nursing home. Uh, once a person who lives near the port today told The Associated Press that she heard a loud explosion that's in Madrid. Now three big things. Three proposed anti Abortion amendment has cleared his first hurdle in the Kansas

TVE Madrid The Associated Press Kansas
America Is in a Dark, Deeply Divided Place: Inauguration Day 2021

The BreakPoint Podcast

03:54 min | 5 d ago

America Is in a Dark, Deeply Divided Place: Inauguration Day 2021

"In july eighteen. Sixty four some fourteen thousand confederate troops to just six miles within sight of the us capitol dome for president lincoln. It was a rude shock after all. This was a year after the union. Victory at the battle of gettysburg and the confederacy seen near defeat. Just the nicotine. Seventeen thousand union troops dispatched by ulysses s grant arrived and pushed the confederates back. Well today joe biden. Sworn in as the forty six president of the united states twenty thousand national guardsmen will defend the same capital this time from enraged citizens. It's impossible to understand how we've reached this point unless we look beyond the last few weeks even beyond the election to pre existing conditions such as our decades-long thinning out of civil society. The most recent lawlessness at the capitol reflects an escalating lawlessness that spans political parties religious affiliations age brackets social classes. And so we're faced with. The question will a militarized america. Be the new normal. Will the armed troops protecting the citadel of democracy today be patrolling the streets of writing cities tomorrow will the blatant failures of our institutions and our leaders continued to fester to this explosive level of distrust chuck. Colson often said that unless people are governed by their conscience they will be governed by the constable when people were unable to govern themselves. They then face a choice. Between order or continued chaos. Most often people will choose order which inevitably means the loss of freedoms the freedom to peaceably. Assemble is impossible to maintain when assemblies frequently turned into riots. looting or sedition. The freedom of speech seems particularly vulnerable today when big tech world so much power and decides like twitter facebook and instagram. Already have to crack down on political speech they deem offensive or dangerous and just last week representative alexandria. Ocasio cortez spoke openly about forming a committee to rein in our media environment. That's something that should anyone who has ever read any dystopia novel ever and our second amendment freedoms are most vulnerable. When used as cover by mass shooters are insurrectionist. Perhaps the most consistent refrain from america's founders is that our national experiment would ultimately prove unsustainable unless there was a virtuous citizenry. our constitution simply cannot ever knows who refused to govern themselves. John adams our second president said it most clearly quote. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It's wholly inadequate to the government of any other and yet americans are becoming increasingly. Immoral and irreligious are shocking. Lack of conscience on display in rising numbers of both deaths from despair by that. I mean addiction self harm and suicide and acts of desperation meaning violent acts riots and even self mutilation pursuit of identity or sexual pleasure. Look we pump poison ideas into our hearts and minds and then call it entertainment. We pump lies into our children and then call it education. The result is that america finds itself in such a dark deeply divided. Play place that alexander solzhenitsyn accurately described in one thousand nine hundred seventy eight speech at harvard. We have he said quote very little defense against the abyss of human decadence such as the misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people such as motion pictures full of pornography crime and horror even the strict. This laws sits alternates in might add even twenty thousand national guard. Troops will ultimately be powerless. Defend people against such moral corrosion but the situation is dire. But it's not without hope as chuck. Colson often said despair as a sin. Christ is risen from the dead and god and his gracious goodness has revealed to us what is true and what is good. He's given us his word and through prayer. He makes himself available to

Ulysses S Grant America President Lincoln National Guardsmen Ocasio Cortez Gettysburg Joe Biden Colson Chuck Instagram Alexandria John Adams Twitter Facebook Alexander Solzhenitsyn Harvard
Taking down content is not censorship. Its business.

Marketplace Tech with Molly Wood

01:11 min | 6 d ago

Taking down content is not censorship. Its business.

"On the show. We talked about tech companies and social media platforms regulating speech. Banning president trump and other accounts removing groups and topics booting parlor off of app stores and amazon web hosting and. Of course there's been a lot of backlash in claims of censorship and questions about whether speech on social media should be regulated by the government. And all of that gets us to a topic. That's worth revisiting right now. Which is the first amendment barons. Ohka is president of the nonprofit tech freedom. He says first of all we gotta get our vocabulary right well when facebook bands somebody. That's not censorship. Censorship is when the government makes a private company. Something down period end of story so we really need to stop using that term in that broad way but he want to have social media and you want to have it moderated responsibly. You need section to thirty to do both things to protect against lawsuits for hosting content but also ensure that websites can take down egregious content. That's what's allowed the internet to develop and it's not perfect but that's just how speeches and we can't regulate the things people are complaining about. Because of the first.

Ohka Amazon Government Facebook
Armed protesters gather in Richmond, support 2nd Amendment rights on 'Lobby Day'

Mark Levin

00:32 sec | 6 d ago

Armed protesters gather in Richmond, support 2nd Amendment rights on 'Lobby Day'

"Amendment advocates drove caravans by the State House in Richmond today for their annual lobby day event, Gun, rights advocate Tony Myers said in a video posted on the Virginia Citizens Defense League's Web site. Today. We celebrate lobby Dave Because we know that gun rights are civil rights because self defense is a human right. Governor Ralph Northam signed a handful of gun control bills into law last year. Speaking in a virtual vigil to prevent gun violence, he says there's still work to do. There is no need for anybody to have an assault weapon on the streets of Virginia.

Tony Myers Virginia Citizens Defense Leag State House Ralph Northam Richmond Dave Virginia
Armed protesters gather in Richmond, support 2nd Amendment rights on 'Lobby Day'

Larry O'Connor

00:41 sec | 6 d ago

Armed protesters gather in Richmond, support 2nd Amendment rights on 'Lobby Day'

"Real leave people on both slide to the gun control debate in Virginia, making their voices heard in Richmond Second Amendment advocates drove caravans by the State House in Richmond today for their annual lobby day event, Gun, rights advocate Tony Myers said in a video posted on the Virginia Citizens Defense League's Web site. Today. We celebrate lobby day. Because we know that gun rights are civil rights because self defense is a human right. Governor Ralph Northam signed a handful of gun control bills into law last year. Speaking at a virtual vigil to prevent gun violence, he says there's still work to do. There is no need for anybody to have an assault weapon on the streets of Virginia Curtis Sun W M a L N w a

Tony Myers Richmond Virginia Citizens Defense Leag State House Ralph Northam Virginia
City tightens security around Capitol Square for Lobby Day

Rush Limbaugh

00:20 sec | 6 d ago

City tightens security around Capitol Square for Lobby Day

"Square being basically shut down the amount of people supporting Second Amendment rights down significantly from last year during lobby Day at State Capitol, planned car care of hand by the Virginia Citizens Defense. This leg has materialized this afternoon, with members trying to bend the Science museum where the state Senate is meeting Richmond Police have closed a portion of the East Broad Street. The

State Capitol Virginia Citizens Defense Science Museum Richmond Police Senate
A protected right? Free speech and social media

WGN Programming

06:35 min | Last week

A protected right? Free speech and social media

"President Trump was banned from Facebook and permanently banned from Twitter. For certain inciting language. We also watched his Amazon suspended the right wing social media platform parlor from its sight lawsuit ensued. It's pending. People are crying. First amendment has been violated. What are your rights are their First Amendment rights when it comes to Social Media and consortium media banned people for reasons that it feels are appropriate. Joining us to talk about this is very interesting is she was Eric Goldman. Who is a professor of LOT Santa Clara University School of Law in the Silicon Valley, his co director of the high tech Law Institute, and he is gonna explain it all to us. Hi, Professor Goldman. Thank you for joining me. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. I'm gonna start by asking you Is there a first Amendment right that a person has to use Twitter. The short answer is no. The First Amendment only applies to state actors entities of the government. Since Twitter is a private actor, private publisher. It's not covered by obligations that the government is So in and I just I wanna explain it this way. If I am saying things that are harmful or offensive, and I say to Twitter what you have to publish them, it doesn't create a First Amendment problem for Twitter. Meaning Twitter can't be forced to publish things that it doesn't believe are appropriate. Is that a fair way to look at? Yeah, that's 100% correct. In fact, if you look at the First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, And so when Twitter is choosing to publish their party content, it's acting is a function of the press. So the First Amendment applies under that freedom of the press obligation Now, people there's something about it that Is driving everyone crazy because in this country, we believe we can say anything at any time. And who is it? Who are our Amazon? And who is Facebook? And who is Twitter to tell us what we should be hearing and not hearing. Explain to our listeners. Is this fair and I guess there's two questions. Is it fair? And what are the legalities of that? And what are the What are the ramifications of that? Yeah, it's the same question that we have with your own radio station that everyone's listen to. Right now. That's radio stations are obligated to provide air time to any listener who wants to call in. He just him screaming in terms of who calls in and then if someone's out of control, saying things that are inappropriate, you're going to cut the mic off and none of that. Whatever assume is a violation, their First Amendment rights, they would say. That we expect this radio station Tonto cater to its audience. So the entire premise of um WGN making sure that the broadcast continents fit for its listeners. It's identical to the thought process that we applied to places like Twitter or Amazon that they're going to publish what they think it's fit for their audience. I'm going to give out our phone numbers. I'm better. Some people have some questions for our professor here. 3129817 200 Let me play doubles advocate here and you look at the statistics on where people get news and this is so different than it used to be. When I was a kid. We was all the newspapers and and news on television, And now much of it is done on social media Getting news from The Internet and and things that are published online. How fair is it to have certain people be in charge of deciding what's harmful, inoffensive and what's not, and a lot of people are saying, you know, I hear all this horrible racist stuff that we, you know, on Twitter, but yet we are president can't be on Twitter. And what did he say? And what How is it that that was worse than what somebody else said? How is this fair? And how should we deal with this from a legal perspective going forward? Well, I think that people have very different views about what's fair. So I find that when we start shifting the evaluation metric there, um I think that we're probably not going to end up agreeing that a zoo community But just you went back to talking about how things were when you were kids. I don't know how far apart we are in aged, But when I was a kid in the mid 19 seventies, there was one local newspaper, and there were three television stations that could reach a community, right? WGN was one of them on and in those days, um even in when there was such Linda channels to reach a community there was a Supreme Court case called Miami Herald versus Tonio with the Supreme Court said You can't force that newspaper the only one that's catering to that local market to publish content that they don't want to publish that violates our freedom of the press. And so, it's said. That's true, even though that paper might have a local monopoly, even though there's only that one. We still don't think that that's permissible under the First Amendment. We're making incursion on their free speech rights. So you see why the conversation about fairness is so difficult because I want the right deal. Say whatever I want whenever I want. You said that earlier, um but but the reality is that we have to look at all the different competing interests when we think about Uh, who gets the right to say What toe Which audiences? Okay, so again, I'm just gonna go over this, because is there any obligation on the part of Twitter? Let's say to be fair, meaning if I said the same thing you said, and they cut me off and they didn't cut you off. Do I have a right to sue? Do I have a right to somehow have a legal argument that I'm not being treated fairly and I deserve to be treated fairly. It's a really great question, and I think it really gets at the heart of the challenges or bedeviling services like Facebook or Twitter. They really aspire to treat like cases equally. That if the Jackson birds, we say, said, by people in the same circumstance that they would apply the same rules to those that's an overwhelming challenge. It's actually not possible with the volume and scale that services like that engage in. It's simply not possible them toe always treat like cases equally, despite their best efforts, despite their intent. Um, but the reality is that because they're deciding what's safe for their audience, even if they make an arbitrary decision, one of which a content that was okay on day one from person A first would be a day two is cut off. That's their prerogative, and that's actually quite legally protected and their several layers legal protection. Provide Twitter Facebook, the ability to make those classifications sessions decisions, even though they're not going to get him all

Twitter President Trump Lot Santa Clara University Sch High Tech Law Institute Professor Goldman Amazon Eric Goldman Facebook Silicon Valley Miami Herald Supreme Court WGN Tonio Linda Jackson
A protected right? Free speech and social media

KYW 24 Hour News

01:13 min | Last week

A protected right? Free speech and social media

"You know, several social media platforms have dumped President Trump. And this week, the Philadelphia district attorney's office began investigating one of their own detectives, and whether he committed a crime when he allegedly posted he was ready for war over the election results. Hey, one of these crime and justice reporter Kristin Jo Hanson looks into how social media posts aligned with the free speech. The First Amendment allows you to march down the street in protests, and for the most part, you can pretty much say anything you want out loud. But when it comes to writing on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or Snapchat, it's a different story. Three companies can kick you off line. Caitlin Gurney is a First Amendment attorney A Ballard's far and says, Look at it like this. When one of my kids invites a friend over to my house, they need to abide by my rules, and that's exactly what's happening on social media. These companies are saying that if you post on my platform, you need to abide by my rules, she says. Basically, social media is in a protected platform for free speech. There are so rules whether They're given to you by the company you work for, or the ones we all check off. When we sign up for a social media platform companies can fire you and the platforms can kick you

President Trump Kristin Jo Hanson Caitlin Gurney Philadelphia Instagram Ballard Facebook Twitter
California Gavin Newsom Deploys 1,000 National Guard Troops Over Fears of Civil Unrest

WGN Programming

00:19 sec | Last week

California Gavin Newsom Deploys 1,000 National Guard Troops Over Fears of Civil Unrest

"Governor Gavin Newsom has activated 1000 National Guard troops to protect the king. Capital in Sacramento, are treating this very seriously and the points significant resource is to protect public safety, critical infrastructure and First Amendment rights. But let me be clear. There will be no tolerance for violence.

Gavin Newsom National Guard Sacramento
More arrests announced as inauguration security takes shape

Heartland Newsfeed Radio Network

00:54 sec | Last week

More arrests announced as inauguration security takes shape

"Texas realtor who made online threat to the us capital last week has turned herself in to the fbi. Special agent matt. Desarno do not tolerate violent agitators and extremists who used guys a first amendment protected activity to incite violence and recap and video ryan as as frozen trump for a pardon so far more than two hundred people have an identified in more than one hundred arrests have been made as security in the area of the capital is stepped up in the final days. Before the inauguration national park service has now announced that all of the dc national mall and all dc landmarks will be closed from today until the day after the inauguration and they are limiting the size of any protests to one hundred people so no more than one hundred people can gather together. Any protesters will have to walk through metal detectors. They're very worried about the potential for arm protest. Fox's

Desarno Dc National Mall FBI Matt Texas Ryan National Park Service United States FOX
'News Of The World' Filmmaker Wanted To Explore The 'Healing Power Of Storytelling'

Fresh Air

03:01 min | Last week

'News Of The World' Filmmaker Wanted To Explore The 'Healing Power Of Storytelling'

"Me away from this time of Cove. It and insurrection yet seemed relevant to both. It's set in Texas and 18 75 years after the civil War has ended when many Texans are bitter about defeat and reluctant to rejoin the union, which would require agreeing to the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, which includes the abolition of slavery. One of the first images we see in the film is of a black man hanging from a tree. White settlers air fighting native Americans, Everyone is hurting. The film is a Western called News of the world. It stars Tom Hanks. My guest is the director Paul Greengrass, who previously directed Hank's in the film Captain Phillips. The news of the world. Hanks plays a former Confederate captain Jefferson Kyle Kid who fought in the Texas infantry during the Civil War and surrendered in 18 65. Film is set five years later, when kid is a lonely man with unspoken regrets, eking out a living traveling from one small, poor Texas town and muddy settlement. Do another reading aloud The news from newspapers around the country as a form of information and entertainment to gatherings of people charging 10 cents a person. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Good to be back with you all here in which you talk for all my name is Captain Jefferson, Kyle kid And I'm here tonight to bring you all the news from across this great world of ours. Now I know how life is that these parts working a trade sunup to sundown. No time for reading newspapers and my correct But we do that work for you. And maybe just for tonight. We can escape our troubles. And here, the great changes that are happening out there starting local then. Our own. Houston Telegraph. The The first first of of February. February. This This news news Meningitis Meningitis epidemic epidemic continues continues to to spread spread without without prejudice across the Panhandle and North Texas region. So far, it has claimed 97 souls just a two month period. Federal news SHAR own down, Harold The director of News of the world, Paul Greengrass started his career as a journalist and documentary filmmaker. He went on to make films based on real events, including terrorist attacks. Captain Phillips was based on the American cargo ship hijacked by Somali pirates in 2009. 22 July was about the terrorist attack in Norway in 2011 by a far right extremist. United. 93 was about the airplane passengers who fought back against the hijackers on 9 11 and died crashing near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Greengrass also directed three

Captain Phillips Jefferson Kyle Texas Paul Greengrass Captain Jefferson Kyle Kid Tom Hanks Hanks Houston Telegraph Hank Meningitis Meningitis Epidemic Panhandle North Texas Harold Norway Shanksville United Greengrass Pennsylvania
Republican Congressman vs. David C. Smalley

Dogma Debate

06:03 min | Last week

Republican Congressman vs. David C. Smalley

"Let's jump straight in. Because i want to bring our guest in on the conversation immediately. He's a former congressman from virginia's fifth district he's now nc are is chief strategist and author of bigfoot. It's complicated which. I really hope we have time to get into and i really hope. He's still a republican. Let's find out join me in welcoming denver riggleman to the show. Thanks for joining me today. Sir thanks for having me sir. Oh well you heard that with us for the first time it just came out moments ago. What are your thoughts. So i'd like to state as we start here. The president trump reid tweeted a few months ago that the joe biden. Kill seal team six. I think god you're right. No you know. That's and that's what i was when i was listening to that speech after what i heard Down near the white house right before the siege on the capital. In fact that i've been in. Congress have been in the house. And i knew some of those people that spoke like madison call or mo brooks of talked to many times Don jr. meant obviously rudy giuliani I've met obviously and and what i really saw. Their david was absolute Language to incite really. It happened over the months and months and to hear that right now. My my first reaction is not really a politician but as an intelligence officer and something counter-terrorism like somebody's very afraid of the senate trial for impeachment. I thought the same thing Michael came in a few seconds in michael goes. Looks like a hostage video like he looks like he like. It's not really his words. He just feels the need to say these things he had to. I mean you know. The thing is is that his his term does end. I know that there are some people that are still listening to pastures and trucks talking about biblical prophecy that president trump is right now hidden a bunker and mike. Flynn is going to be the next vice president but by the way that's true. I just saw this video two days ago. One hundred eighty five thousand likes david on a facebook video from some dude in a truck saying that you know he's a pastor and had biblical prophecy and he just went through the whole cunanan thing and i just shaking my head about the ridiculousness out there. But he still wants to keep his brand to. He's got to make money. And how's he going to do that. And i think there's a lot of things you need to worry about. And that speech was the copa. That was so too late and show not anything that he said before that very hard to believe men. You're spot on. I mean. I i you know about damn time is the first reaction and then does he even believe the stuff he's saying is the second reaction So late you know so late to the party So that so that my listeners have a little bit background as to why this conversation between the two of us is so important You know you're you're only a former congressman because apparently you weren't conservative enough for your district right you. You lost to someone who was far more conservative and on top of that. I've seen you. I've seen pictures. Anyway of you officiating. Same sex wedding so you don't sound very republican the to us sir. What's going what's going on over there. Why are you so open minded and logical. You know when iran. You know. i've only been. I don't know people know this about me. I was i was a ceo. sell my company in two thousand twelve doing counterterrorism and counterintelligence work. Could you know not. Only that i can. I can go back in time. If i told you the crazy stuff. I've done like we mission plan. The first bombing runs death in afghanistan for nine eleven. that was our squadron. It was me Oman training omanis on. F16 sixteen operations in two thousand and ninety nine. I was on. The romanian serbian border for operation. Allied for trying to stop ethnic cleansing. I've had a hell of a life and that's just the beginning counter idea. Actually our team that was tracking sulejmani and two thousand six two thousand seven so when people saw my resume like this son of a gun never been in politics before when i ran as a republican i was asked to because the my predecessor had to resign because of alcoholism. Which is a little ironic. Since i'm going to stiller. I one on accident one by one. Vote against a christian. Dominion est They called me a baby killing sodomite But i thought if if practicality and i was a good guy team player like in my military days voted independently when i had to I thought i would see that. I care about people more than the career. Because i didn't need the paycheck and sadly after the same sex wedding david conspiracy theory started about me that i was working for soros to turn children into alternative lifestyles by funding schools. To teach that doug gay sex was okay. And that i really started saying cunanan was turning and blossom and this was back in twenty nineteen and since my background is in you tracking isis and al qaeda and disinformation and radicals. I said this also looks like that. We have almost the same type of thing here. We have people that are using language of dehumanisation and antisemitic. Tropes to go after people. And you know it's like a lot my book right. It's about bigfoot belief systems and take over people's lives so really been a hell of a time for me. I never thought that My family we get death threats You know i never you know. I never thought that. I can tell you this. Now that somebody would remove the lug nuts are in them all up on my right front tire at a rally where i came out and felt funny and took it to a shop and look like they tried to hurt me pretty bad so this has been one of my life has been like for the past two years david. And guess what athem you know. This is what they want to bring it. Bring it because i got fifty acres of distillery and i'm a second amendment guy and but i'm also a free thinker and pretty socially libertarian. So i don't know where. I fit bud

Riggleman Trump Reid Cunanan Mo Brooks Don Jr President Trump David Bigfoot Joe Biden Rudy Giuliani Denver Sulejmani SIR White House Madison Flynn Virginia Congress Senate Michael
"first amendment" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast

The Lawfare Podcast

07:08 min | Last month

"first amendment" Discussed on The Lawfare Podcast

"You could say the same thing any time. Anybody regulates or sensors speech so when the government adopts a law that would censor speech for example. Say you can't engage in incitement. You know we could say that. The government is engaged in some kind of a messaging project. I mean the government is saying that incitement is is bad. The government is also Handling speech in much the same way that a platform handles speech. But you know the really salient aspect of what the government is doing. There is is regulatory not expressive and we regard it as a form of speech regulation. Not just the government communicating. Its message so. I would say that i would say the same thing. When a platform regulate speech sure at some conceptual level. Maybe the platform is communicating something. But that's not the relevant level of of analysis you. Let's say that. Let's say that google decides to open its new headquarters in detroit where i used to live. That's also a choice. It it involves some degree of human decision making and it expresses certain corporate values They want to express their support for the business culture. There in detroit but people recognize that a kind of commonsense level the first amendment just can't possibly give us a san framework for regulating those kinds of business decisions. That's the. That's the way i would look at this and so i understand that presumably. The same would be true if the company argues that. Because it's acting through computer code and computer code can be used for expressive purposes. That doesn't simply by itself. Turn every computer into a core site of first amendment speech. Yeah i think the computer code argument is even more species than the than the editorial argument the basis for the computer code argument going back the original case law on the nineteen nineties was that computer code in or at least source code is kind of language and so therefore anything expressed in computer code or at least source. Code is a form of speech. Well that's not the way that we treat actual language. I mean there are all kinds of things. We do with languages like english that we don't regard as speech that implicates the first amendment. If you and i make a contract for example so the the notion that anything that is expressed in any kind of language counci speech. I think leads to just kind of ludicrous outcomes and actually if you look at the case law that would apply the standard. You can see that the courts really have bent over backwards to water down the kind of analysis that they that they apply to these computer code a speech clamps. Do you think there's any context in which what technology companies do on their platforms is speech is their own legitimate first amendment speech or are they always should we always in all circumstances think of them analogous to your phone company right which obviously hosts your speech but itself is never really speaking. Yeah i think there's i think there's definitely situations where the platform speak so if if a platform puts out a press release that's speech the google doodle. I mean that's a that's a form of speech. I would be willing to say that if twitter tags et trump tweet that speech i could see somebody making an argument that maybe we should look at. That is more more regulatory but i think that that basically looks like speech. Facebook has the banner on the top during the elections. that says the votes are still being counted. That speech it's like a something a tv network would do. But i think when we really go off the off the rails with this is where a platform isn't putting out something that we would ordinarily recognize as a message but instead taking down other people's speech and especially if you have a a a single platform that is managing the speech of two billion users like facebook. That's the point where we could say. Look even if we are kind of sympathetic to the idea that the platform speaks and expresses its values through these censorship policies. That's just an interest that's overbalanced so many times over by these two billion other speakers that we should disregarded is kind of trivial to me one of the hardest areas here is is what to do about the algorithms that these tech companies used to either promote certain users and certain posts and then demote other users because on the one hand if twitter or facebook had a you know editors feature a sidebar where they picked out their favorite tweets of the day. And if you can go. The apple app store google store. And they'll do editors choice apps of the day that strikes me as again quintessentially first amendment speech of the platforms themselves. And then if you accept that then maybe you can argue that. Well then what they do. Algorithm mickley is just an extension of that. They've just trained a bunch of their computers to replicate their judgment and they can then deploy that to scale across their billions of users. But now we get into the probably just ran into which is now. He seemed to be heavily over waiting. Whatever speech interests platforms have. So is it just a matter of the law we have to draw some some arbitrary boundaries. Sometimes and maybe the line between individual versus algorithm make decision making. Is that line. You've saw conceptually perfect. It's it's the boast workable line that we can draw the law. That's a that's a good question. I mean i. I think it's important to find some kind of a workable line. And i'm not sure that i would draw the line at algorithm speech. I can imagine some some contexts where an algorithm could be used to produce art. I mean that kind of thing has has taken place. Let's say most sports pages today on the internet. My understanding is that they produce a lot of algorithm generated content. You know i'm i'm fine with. I'm fine with that counting as speech. I think but i think what's really important is not to mistake regulation for a form of speech and these these platforms whether we wanna compare him to states or not. I think are clearly involved in regulation or or governance of speech if we're going to recognize that kind of activity as speech then whatever the theoretical merits.

detroit google government facebook twitter apple
"first amendment" Discussed on Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast

Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast

01:55 min | 1 year ago

"first amendment" Discussed on Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast

"Grace. Marsh was a jehovah's witness. You may remember from our first episode about fighting awards that the nineteen forties were dangerous time for jehovah's witnesses were very unpopular and frequently subjected to abuse and persecution in the united states great. Marsh went to chickasaw alabama to hand out jehovah's witnesses literature and to preach she stood on the sidewalk outside outside the town's post office and tried to distribute her religious leaflets but she was arrested and prosecuted for trespassing because chickasaw alabama wasn't normal town. It was a company town. Everything and chickasaw alabama from the houses to the streets and the sidewalks in the stores was owned by the gulf shipbuilding corporation great. Marsh argued that she had a free speech right to hand and out leaflets peacefully on sidewalk outside a post office that this was classic first amendment activity the town of chickasaw argued that she was on private private property that even though it looked like a town and even though it had sidewalks and a post office like a town was really all the private property of gulf shipbuilding corporation the supreme court agreed with grace marsh the court said that the town's apparently public spaces. We're accessible to everyone and that there was nothing evident that distinguished it from any other town. Here's what justice black said writing for the court since these facility built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function it is subject to state regulation so.

Grace. Marsh alabama chickasaw gulf shipbuilding corporation supreme court united states black
"first amendment" Discussed on Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast

Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast

02:23 min | 1 year ago

"first amendment" Discussed on Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast

"<music> yeah uh when social supreme court case. I called marsh versus alabama.

"first amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

04:38 min | 1 year ago

"first amendment" Discussed on We The People

"D._O._J.. Argued Weld than its government speech had just represents the president's own speech because under First Amendment doctrine the government may the government itself may engage in unquote viewpoint discrimination meaning it may express its own views and public officials may express their own views <hes> but they held that the court held old that even if the president's own tweets were considered government speech the replies which everyone who follows him can post a reply directly that the President President and these replies show up in the comment threads under the president tweets president's tweets those replies cannot be considered government speech. They're not curated in any way and they are actually speech of individuals citizens that takes place in what is known as a Public Forum mm-hmm so the Second Circuit applied the Public Forum doctrine and said in essence just as if a public official like the president were to to host an open public meeting that that would be considered a public forum and you can't exclude people were kicked people out from that public meeting based on in their viewpoint David. What is your response to both of the Second Circuit's holding namely that at Real Donald Trump is indeed a government account not subject to the First Amendment and the replies of citizens are protected speech because they take place in a public forum it will <hes> before before I give my legal reply I <hes> congratulations to Katie on victory which could very well be the victory in the case? I mean it's far from certain Supreme Court will take this or and I don't know there's already been there's been a nonbank appeal yet but certainly the second circuit may not take on bunk review view so this could be the decision in the case so congratulations on the outcome. I I'm GonNa let me let me begin by saying I find this as a person who's litigated in the first amendment arena for a long time. I find this to be a hard case <hes> but here's why in a nutshell I come down on the <hes>. Uh I come down on this. <hes> the Donald Trump's side on the case. I absolutely <hes> this is not private personal speech this this is government speech in yes. It is viewpoint discrimination and so in those circumstances if you've got a government speakers speaking their official capacity and then they engage in viewpoint discrimination normally that's almost virtual lay down hand in court in First Amendment of case law but I think here what we're talking about is a situation. I think if we're going to draw an analogy here in the court had an analogy where where it talked about for example even though twitter's a private <hes> is a private company that it could still be under heard the temporary control of the government and it used a comparison of say privately owned theater leased or operated by the city as being a public forum <hes> that was the case Promotions Promotions Ltd versus Conrad Nineteen Seventy Five KS and it compared Donald Trump's use of twitter two essentially a pride like a private lease. I think the actual comparison is more like as if Donald trump rather than using twitter <hes> to make his various announcements or issue his various insult I think the bottom line is that twitter as if he's a guest Sean Hannity's Radio Show and what he's doing doing is every now and then he's actually hanging up on a caller. He's hitting that kill button but it's Sean Hannity's radio show his presence on the shows entirely at Sean Handy's discretion his access to the kill button is entirely Sean Hannity's discretion. No money is exchanged hands. He doesn't have any real property right here. Twitter's terms of service or really really clear I mean the the twitter is basically just in total control and you exist eh twitter's total permission for example it says we may suspend or terminate your account or ceased providing you with all or part of the services at any time for any or no reason any or no reason and then it's not even you know once you issue your tweet. It's also twitter kind of takes ownership of it. I mean it's you're granting twitter this worldwide non exclusive.

President President twitter Donald Trump Supreme Court Sean Hannity official Katie Sean Handy Weld David Promotions Promotions Ltd KS
"first amendment" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

03:34 min | 1 year ago

"first amendment" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

"He said, quickly leaks, these reporters organizations encourage the sources to provide the quote protected information for public dissemination and also like WikiLeaks they off. Often encourage the sources to engage in a quote pattern of illegally procuring and providing protected information. This was a top lawyer under your W Bush. Yeah. Yeah. You know, it goes back long before secure job right now, now, as you say media organizations use secure drop to Woodward was deep throat in is, you know, I think the New York Times is probably had a tip line for one hundred years. Right. So this is not new. This is journalism. This is what it's always been if this prosecution were to go forward and Assange was convicted under the espionage act, what would that mean for the first amendment and for freedom of the press in this country, you know, I think it would be a huge blow to the freedom of the press and more importantly, a huge blow to the public's ability to understand government conduct, and to hold government decision accountable for their decisions. If we've learned anything from history, it's that relying on the. People who put these programs in place to tell us the full story about the effectiveness, unlawfulness and morality of these programs. You know, it would be a huge mistake. You know, we know what the Bush administration told the public about the interrogation of prisoners, and then we know what we learned from whistle blowers and from investigative journalism. This does not for people. We stick to US law, and our international obligations and what the government was actually doing waterboarding prisoners using the same techniques that in the Viet Cong had used right on American prisoners. You see a similar divergence of narratives with respect to the drone program right, where the government is saying, you know, the civilian casualties are in the single digits, what we have been very cautious about is making sure that we are not taking strikes in situations where for example, we think there's the presence of women or children, or if it is an normally populated area journalists like you who actually report, you know, based on conversations the people on the ground and going to the places where these drones are us. Find out that civilian casualty numbers are in the hundreds or even thousands. This is a pattern that goes back. Long before nine eleven but I think, since nine eleven it's probably been especially pronounced where you know what the government tells us about national security policy is quite different from what is actually true about national security policy. Are we on the road toward having an official secrets act? If the government were successful, we're successful in prosecuting Assange, on the theory that is laid out in this indictment. It would essentially be introducing an official secrets act. I worry that, you know, prosecuting Assange is actually not even necessary to at least getting a some way towards that end. Because, you know, news organizations are going to have to now operate under the shadow of this indictment, and it's an indictment that names Assange, but describes the media. You know, that's the problem that the indictment is prosecutorial vitamin, but what's being prosecuted is not just assigned. It's the it's the press Djamil offer. Thanks for all the work that you have done and continue to do. And thanks for being with us. Thank you. Jimmy jeffer- is the director of night first amendment institute.

Assange US official New York Times Jimmy jeffer Woodward Djamil director one hundred years
"first amendment" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

06:00 min | 1 year ago

"first amendment" Discussed on Intercepted with Jeremy Scahill

"Joined. On with the show. When reality seems too difficult for us to face we retreat behind defensive mechanisms every time I go into a room, if there aren't cameras, they come out say, oh, he was yelling screaming. His defense mechanism is a special type of rationalization that we call projection Joanna was my temperament yesterday Mercedes you were the room yesterday. I walked in what was my. Swing. Testing Larry you there. There were many people there. By the way, many big, we can get you twenty twenty other people to say this what was by edited yesterday pin, wheeling through life defenses held high darting away from reality through the escape patches of his emotional being. We're just talking about the media's today the narrative was, I was screaming lifting. Respectfully, say so inconvenienced convenience, you and I left the room. He's a bit people. You know, a lot of people say deep state IDO save. So we have a lot of bad people, and I think they're being found out. Has told him. I don't know. Say. Only go of mom. The. This is intercepted. I'm Jeremy Scahill coming from the offices of the intercept in New York City, and this is episode ninety five of intercepted. When you report fake dues, you are the enemy of the people. Go ahead. When I say the enemy, the people, I'm talking about the fake news. Fake news is in fact, and I hate to say this, in fact, the enemy of the people, a few days ago, I called the fake news, the enemy of the people, and they are, they are the enemy of the people, the fake news media. They are truly an enemy of the people, the fake news enemy of the people. They really are. They are so bad. We are at a historic and dangerous crossroads right now in this country. The Trump Justice department has openly declared war on the first amendment, and the case that they have chosen to pave the way for criminally prosecuting journalists and publishers is that of WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, and they are doing. By using the espionage act. This is the first time in the history of this country. The first time since the first amendment to the US constitution was enshrined as law that the government of this country is criminally. Charging a publisher for publishing truthful information. What is at issue? Here is not John Podesta's emails, it's not the sexual assault allegations against Julian Assange and Sweden. It's not the twenty sixteen elections. It's not about Russia, or the Trump campaign, this indictment centers around the exposure of war crimes by the forces of the most powerful nation on earth. It's about publishing documents that laid bare the blackmail the backroom deals, the threats, the lies of the US government in nations across the world, it is retaliation against an organization that presented to the world video evidence of a US helicopter. Massacre of Iraqi civilians and to Reuters news journalists. Once you get on. Come on. If you. This indictment is revenge for publishing documents on the US kill campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan for publishing documents about torture, and the creation of proxy forces in Iraq. But this is not just about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange at the heart of the seventeen espionage act charges against Assange is the most extreme threat to press freedom and freedom of speech in the modern era. Not even Richard. Nixon went this far despite wanting desperately to criminalize journalism higher. Never seen such outrageous. Vicious reported twenty seven years of, don't get the impression that you rows. My anger one can only be angry with those respects. The case against Julian Assange is actually a defacto prosecution of all publishers, if this succeeds, than the Pandora's box is open tomorrow. This administration could be going after the publishers of the New York Times, or the Washington Post or the guardian they're already going after the intercept, but this too could escalate to actually prosecuting journalists this administration wants to put journalists in prison. The New York Times was a publishing partner with WikiLeaks. It did story after story after story on the very documents Wicky leaks published that were provided by US army whistleblower. Chelsea manning. That's what this case is about. So to the guardian, and their Spiegel and dozens of other news organizations..

Julian Assange US WikiLeaks Larry publisher Joanna US army Jeremy Scahill New York City Reuters Trump Justice department Chelsea manning The New York Times Russia John Podesta Iraq Sweden Nixon
"first amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

04:33 min | 1 year ago

"first amendment" Discussed on We The People

"There are no affirmative defenses that might make the law. More constitutional. The fact that the information released may have led to legal or policy reform that the journalism that was based on it might have won awards. None of this would be relevant or admissible in a trial under the act, and so even of the leaker himself. So again, I think what I would try to emphasize the court is that this would be in. Enormous enormous change that the framers of the constitution put freedom of the press in the first very first amendment because they realized that three ranches of government might not be enough oversight that we actually needed an outside. Check that without unauthorized leaks to the press in their publication. We would not have learned absolutely vital information about how our government functions, including that tortured prisoners, including that it engaged in surveillance in violation of federal laws that all of this information was classified at the highest levels. And that the court should look beyond. The general distaste for the particular defendant in this case, the much broader implications. Well, it is time for closing arguments. And it's extremely eliminating and very well mooted discussion, and let's just return to the question on the table, which is the one with which we began. And Josh the first argument is to you. Do you believe that the indictment of Julian Assange for attempting to hack into a government computer to obtain classified documents, violates the first amendment, and do you believe that it will succeed in court? I don't think the indictment as we currently see it, violates the first amendment, and I think it will at least survive, I meant challenge in court, which leaves the side questions of evidence reprove other complications for prosecution, but because of its narrowness in time in the conspiracy and its participants charged the actively being limited to hacking in the feary of hacking being one already validated by the military Justice system in Chelsea Manning's own prosecution. All of that narrowness adds up to me to something that survives. I challenged. Let me just a couple of points to that couple of caveats that have come up in this discussion one. This is not the end. The extradition story. Perhaps there will be challenges as is brought to extradition presumably by Assange, and those challenges could evolve to the extent the United States tries to add at this point additional charges. Moreover, it may not be the end of the story after that. Because as we've indicated if the UK where to waive the doctrine of specialty or the US were to push its limits. There may be challenges that could be allowed to go forward via Assange in a US court to additional charges those could be challenges grounded in the treaty's terms. But as we've talked about those could well be challenges grounded in the first amendment, depending on what those additional charges are last point is that and it's really where Ben ended ended his last answer as well. I'm conscious that we are having this conversation in a week when Pulitzer prizes have been awarded and moreover in an era where press freedom is just so important in where I admire so much the work that's being done. A vibrant and active and robust press in the United States, and frankly elsewhere, even in the face of here on abroad, real challenges to its work. And so it's with great admiration for the press, and for the lawyers like, then who defend the press that I realize we are having this conversation. And that makes me all the more appreciative to get to be a part of it with you both. Thank you very much. Indeed for that been the last word is to you. Do you believe that the indictment of Julian Assange for attempting to hack into a government computer to obtain classified documents, violates the first amendment, and do you believe it will succeed in court? I think the charges stop here. And if we don't see anything else it may be difficult first amendment challenge. I do think that there's considerable doubt about whether the activties the government describes in this indictment that is offering to help Chelsea Manning crack, this particular password violate the community fraud and abuse act, which is the statute under which Chelsea Manning was charged. Josh pointed out the military. Court accepted that they do. But a lot of scholars including former prosecutors say that they think that this is actually a pretty marginal case on.

Chelsea Manning Julian Assange United States Josh Ben military Justice system UK Pulitzer fraud
"first amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

02:28 min | 2 years ago

"first amendment" Discussed on We The People

"The government to satisfy strict scrutiny because what it means when we're saying that the government has to apply strict scrutiny is not that the first amendment rights automatically win it just means that the government doesn't get a blank check and the government has to prove that it has a good reason for doing what it's doing which is really important for protection of minority rights that often are overlooked in legislative process and to the point about we can't we can't allow the protection of rights if they're going to harm someone eighty professors sunshine at homes have a great new book out not brand new but newish book out called the cost of rights the talks about how every single constitutional right we have imposes harm in cost on other people and so if we were not willing to countenance any sort of harm from any sort of protection of rights we would have no rights and you see this in a lot of examples of cases where we protect the rights of religious minorities for example when we protected the rights of a muslim prisoner to bail to grow a beard government argued that was imposing costs and increasing risks of harm to two other government employees and other presented mates and yet we protect that anyway because the government didn't have strong enough reason that it couldn't try and avoid that harm by doing other things their cases where sick temples have been trying to establish just a place where they can worship in neighbor have complained in said you're going to increase traffic and noise and that's a harm to us and so we wouldn't we wouldn't protect sick by noren groups if we just said okay that's a harm so so you don't get a religious right and in the prison context last example i give the government has also argued we shouldn't have to accommodate jews who want to have a kosher diet because that's an increased cost that takes away goods had benefits from other inmates so the idea that we could just have a rule that you can have your constitutional rights as long as they don't inconvenience or harm or resulted any sort of cost anyone sounds deceptively simple and appealing but what it means in practice is that we are completely visceral that institutional right for all of those really illuminating examples for exploring effects of strict scrutiny on religious exemptions and also for.

"first amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

04:43 min | 2 years ago

"first amendment" Discussed on We The People

"I'm jeffrey rosen president and c._e._o. the national constitution center and welcome to we the people a weekly show of constitutional debate the national constitution center is a nonpartisan nonprofit chartered by congress to increase awareness and understanding of the constitution among the american people on this episode we explore the free exercise clause and the future of religious exemptions last week the supreme court denied sir sharara in a case called kennedy versus bremerton school districts and that was a case brought by joseph kennedy who's a high school football coach who was fired when he refused to stop praying the fifty yard line after games justice samuel alito wrote a really interesting concurring opinion in the sir denial in which he suggested he and other justices might be open to overturning a case called and clement division versus smith which will explore detail on this podcast and joining us to cass slight on this crucially important question of the future of religious exceptions under the excise laws are to america's leading experts in the constitution and the first amendment religion clauses stephanie barkley is associate professor at b._y._u. law school where she teaches the first amendment and she is of counsel at the becket fund and organization dedicated to defending the free exercise of religion she's litigated many free exercise cases as the trial and appellate level stephanie thank you so much for joining thanks so much for having me and richard caskey is the legal director and americans united for the separation of church and state for he litigators first amendment establishment clause free exercise clause and free speech cases he also teaches at the american university washington college of law and he wrote an amicus brief on behalf of remington in the ninth circuit richard it's wonderful to have you with us really nice to be here jeff thank you so much wonderful will let us begin with the kennedy and remers fan case stephanie one at you begin by telling us the facts of this case why was joseph kennedy preying on the fifty yard line what did he think he was trying to accomplish and what the lower court said when it required him to stop praying yes so this is a case where the coach after the game was over would pray silently on the fifty yard line and and what happened was the superintendent essentially gave him a letter that was threatening him to lose his position if you continue to engage in his religious practices and the letter is a little bit confusing as to why it but the coach did again say prayer after the game silently on the fifty yard line and and so he ultimately lost his job because he was engaging his own as he described his private religious practice richard to add to the fact of the case have prayed in different places different times and what can you cast on his conception of his prayer in the lower court said sure so the the history of of what was going on here matters a whole lot for something like eight years kennedy who is an assistant football coach had held prayers on the on the field before games and had given little religious homilies religious a motivational speeches to the students in a prayer circle after the games on the fifty yard line when the school district told him that he was supposed to stop that he i did and then he decided that he wasn't going to do that anymore so he went out onto the fifty yard line after the game he was surrounded by students who were all participating with him and led prayers and so the school school district said look you kept telling him look we respect your religious practice you can pray we can we can accommodate your religion in all different sorts of ways and really tried to bend over backwards to do that but he insisted that the only the only thing acceptable to him was to be on the fifty yard line immediately after the game in the in the closing game ceremonies when he's surrounded by the students and in fact if you look at the briefing opposition filed by the school district the opposition to the cert petition you'll see at the back of photo that shows that what he was doing is nothing like praying by himself this isn't individual religious practice this was this was showing the students what mattered to him so that they would go along and they did and.

president jeffrey rosen fifty yard eight years
"first amendment" Discussed on Let's Get Civical

Let's Get Civical

04:30 min | 2 years ago

"first amendment" Discussed on Let's Get Civical

"I guess they were like it's too racy. But it's it's talking about teen pregnancy and probably the facts and and how to avoid unwanted teen, pregnancies. But also yet they said they said that. They were they were worried about says, they were he the principal was concerned the students would still be identifiable from the text. And he thought that his the he thought that the girl who was talking about how awful she was talking about. This one's kind of odd. She was talking about how like there was talking about divorce and this girl said that like, yeah, my father didn't treat me. Well, and they didn't and you know, my father, my father was like always out on business trips, and such and he was like, oh I object to that. Because you're father should be able to defend himself. Right. And that's that one seems like the the the teen pregnancy thing seems like pretty much classic like abstinence only education nonsense, but the, but the like your father should be able to defend himself. That's like so weird. I mean, I feel like how many times kids are like, you know, complaining about their dads and complaining about the crazy things are parents do like I've seen it in school newspapers before so it's it's it's all that. It's that particular, but the the ask they the court case, they said to them, they're like, okay. Do you consider the newspaper an open forum, and the students were like will the I guess, you know, the students the students it's this inside. Yeah. It's it's an open forum for students and this. Cream court was like actually we don't really know if it is because because they said. A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with basic educational mission. Even though the government could not Z. They say only when the decision to censor school sponsored publication theatrical production or vehicles didn't expression has no valid educational purpose. So they say that it's they said that it's basically that. The majority of Indians at school ministers are not required to tolerate speech. That is contrary to the schools academic mission. So it's it's pretty yeah. It's it's very it's kinda strange, which is an it's often contrasted with the tinker VDI Moines. And that case was that cases. That's a really interesting case. And what happened was people a bunch of students got together with and families got together talk about how they felt about the Vietnam war, and they all decided to wear black armbands to school and some with peaceable some just lack armbands and the school was like take them off. And they're like, well, no, we're we're wearing these to you know, to to mourn, and they were like, Nope. You've gotta take those off. And so, and I think there was there was a quote from it that said something like children, do not children do not shed their first amendment rights at the school. How something like that was written in the? Yeah. Good. But it, but then you're right in the in the Hazel versus who Meyer case. It's like is. Isn't it within your rights like repress? Right. You know, right. Where you can you unless it's, you know, as long as it's not like, inciting some sort of horrific violence like you are free to print whatever it is that you wanna print. So it's weird to have the fact that they're like, you know, twenty years prior being like students can have first minute rights when they're at school. Well, it's it's so, yeah, it's still, but it's also so strange because I mean, there's there's like a private institution, and that's the thing in this country. There's so many organizations that are private institutions because of that they don't a lot of times. They don't have to play by the rules. They can censor whatever they want. They can say whatever they want. But this was a public school. So it has to take into account. Okay. Was this a was this? Was this a school thing was as a public thing? And there's there's sort of this schools in in America, kind of sort of exist in this no man's land of like are they private do. They get to make their own rules. Do they not? And you see that a lot would like charter schools. I mean, that's nothing the charter schools charter schools are privately owned organizations and a lot of them can kind of do whatever they want. And so there's still this kind of confusion between how much right school districts and schools actually have. I mean, I feel like yeah..

principal VDI Moines Meyer America twenty years
"first amendment" Discussed on 1A

1A

02:33 min | 2 years ago

"first amendment" Discussed on 1A

"We've mentioned that the court didn't really start ruling in a major way on the first amendment until nine hundred nineteen. I get the feeling that it's one of those parts of the constitution other than say the preamble or the second amendment that Americans have a really visceral emotional connection to there's something about the first amendment that just kind of it's it's one of those things that we we're on our shield is likely if you believe in this you are in American, right? I agree with that. That is to say, I think it's an interesting kind of tension in paradox in the society, the first amendment is not just the constitutional law. Not just jurisprudence. It really is a set of public values of the country, and it's become part of the identity of the United States. So if you ask a citizen of the United States, tell me what the base. Characteristics of American society consist of certainly one of the things would be we can say we want citizens have the freedom to speak in the government. Can't censor us. That's very powerful part of the identity of Americans on the other hand, one of the things that has been absolutely central to the development of the principle of free speech is a recognition that are natural impulses are not to respect it. That is we we don't like speech that we regard as offensive, and we don't like speech that we think is dangerous because it's going to persuade people to do this. So we have countless instances in which the society has gone overboard in regulating speech, and censoring speech, and has to be had to be pulled back by the courts in order to achieve the kind of openness that we want. So there's a paradox attention in that Herman in Rochester, New York emailed freedom of. Speech is both the foundation of democracy and its achilles heel since ancient Athens demagogues have figured out how to game the system by weaponising free speech to mislead the public and fool them into voting against their own best interest and have used it to gain power themselves. How can we protect ourselves against demagoguery while safeguarding freedom of speech? I wonder if this is a good place to get into an audio clip that I would like to get both of you to react to its Lilongwe. It's just over a minute. But it's an interview between CARA Swisher, who's the executive editor of Recode, and Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO and co founder of Facebook. Here's a part of their conversation from back in July, and this had to do with the way you deal with speech like say holocaust deniers on Facebook..

United States Facebook CARA Swisher Mark Zuckerberg Lilongwe New York Rochester Herman executive editor Athens CEO co founder
"first amendment" Discussed on Recode Decode

Recode Decode

04:12 min | 2 years ago

"first amendment" Discussed on Recode Decode

"If you're listening on your phone right now, just head over to the show page and swipe down. And if you're not on apple podcast, just half the link in the show notes to get there. And while you're at it. We also appreciate it. If you took a minute this week to rate and review, our other shows, Recode media, and Tibbett and any other podcast you'd like thank you. And everyone have a happy thanksgiving. We're here with Jimmy L Jaffer. He's from the night first amendment institute at Columbia, and we were just talking about a whole range of ideas around how these social media companies monitor themselves or don't have or lack of monitoring themselves. But one of the things you said early on was this idea of the privatization of the public space. And I think in his testimony last week Jack Dorsey called Twitter the public square, and I was like, no, it's not it. It is. But it's not. And if it is then he gets to be regulated in the public square, or isn't it? And so talk a little bit about what you mean by the privatization of public sphere. Yeah. Well, I think what I mean by that is that conversations that used to take place in spaces that were subject to the first amendment are now taking place in spaces that are controlled by private actors and therefore not subject to the first amendment now. Squares us in a lot of different ways and a lot of different contexts. There's this decision a couple years ago. The packing him decision that Justice Kennedy wrote in which he described the social media platforms as the public square and Justice Alito wrote a concurrence effectively scolding Justice Kennedy for using that language saying, you know, you don't want to go down that road. You don't even mean what you're saying. You know, so there's this debate at the level of legal doctrine, you know, are the social media companies are public squares or not then there's a question, you know, sort of, you know, in a more practical way, I know Zan up to Feqi has has resisted the idea of calling these social media companies public squares. Because really they're toll model is based on feeding. You just information information, that's really made just for you. So it's the opposite of a public square interested in grabbing information from you feed. Yeah, advertisers. But you certainly, you know, they're not publicly. You know, they're they're not. They're their interest is not a public interest commercial corporations. And this is how they're walking cross. And here's what they might want an ice cream right here because he's hot right? Right. Right. I mean, there's this whole surveillance under. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. A whole level of surveillance under the speech and their monetize ING the results of that that surround. So that, you know, in in those respects, it doesn't look like public square, right? But there's no question that these companies have immense power to decide not just who can speak, but also who gets heard right who can speak because they decide who gets onto the platforms, and who doesn't but who can be heard because their algorithms decide what speech gets prioritizing speech gets. You know, the. Yeah. So, you know, in that sense, they control the public the public square and not just in the United States. But in a lot of the world, right? And you know, again, the first amendment is concerned principally with government power. But we resisted the centralization of control over the public square in the government because we didn't like the idea of centralization of that kind of our, and so maybe we should resist the idea of centralizing power in the social media companies for the same reason, you know, so that you know, that's how you get to proposals. Like, well, maybe we should have a must carry rule which requires Facebook to carry everybody, you know, that restricts Facebook from, but you run up against pretty serious first amendment arguments on the other side, you know, Facebook, can I think quite plausibly say that it has a first right to create the kind of community that wants to write wants to create. And I'm not sure we really want a situation where he spoke is subject to the first amendment in the same way that the government is. I mean, it would require Facebook. To allow pornography on the platform. For example, it would allow it would require Facebook to allow, you know, constitutionally protected, hate speech. So Facebook would be required to to host that..

Facebook Jack Dorsey Justice Kennedy Jimmy L Jaffer government Tibbett Justice Alito apple United States Zan Columbia Feqi
"first amendment" Discussed on Recode Decode

Recode Decode

04:10 min | 2 years ago

"first amendment" Discussed on Recode Decode

"Hi, I'm Karen, Swisher editor at large Recode. You may know me as someone who loves the first amendment. But the number nineteen is pretty good too. But in my spare time, I talked tech, and you're listening to Rico decode from the vox media podcast network today in the red chair is Jimmy will Jaffer the executive director of the night. I amendment institute it's a group at Columbia University that defends the freedoms of speech and press in the digital age. And just recently they've challenged the way Facebook deals with journalists and scholars and they also bothering Donald Trump Jamea, welcome to Rico deco. Thanks very much. All the things that are doing in. This the reason I went to have you on your there's some interesting stuff you're doing there. So let's talk about how you got there. How did you get there? And how did the night? Explain what the night first amendment institute is. But your first. Okay. Well, so I was a lawyer at the ACLU for fifteen years. I've heard of that. Yeah. Just down the street. When this when this building was Goldman Sachs. I was at the ACLU and. Was just until a couple of years ago man, but I worked at the starting in two thousand and two so soon after nine eleven and mainly at the beginning on national security related cases cases, involving immigration detainees cases involving Guantanamo and then cases involving the Patriot Act and government surveillance and first amendment related questions. And you know, that grew that practice grew it eventually became a formal project at the focused on national security issues, and I ran that project for a few years, and then when I left the ACLU a couple years ago, I was the director of something called the center for democracy, which covered the ACLU the national work on free speech privacy, national security, technology, and international human rights. Obviously, I was not doing all that work myself. A lot of people at the is working with on it. But I was doing that. And then the night first amendment was created at Columbia. It was really. The project lebeau Linder who's the president to Columbia and berto a bargain, who's the president of the knightfoundation, and they had had conversations over many years about the possibility of setting up something like this. And the main the main insight that they had was that the big supreme court precedents from the nineteen sixties and seventies involving free speech were precedence created in an era that looked very very different from the one. We're in right now where the threats to the first amendment were quite different from the ones we're facing right now, and all of the things that raise complicated free speech questions right now, like the privatization of the public square or new surveillance, g search engines, none of these things existed back when the supreme court decided, the Pentagon papers case, New York Times versus Sullivan, or the cases, you know, the big hits from from the sixties and seventies. So they thought we need an institute that will focus on the edge of technology and the edge of the law. These. Questions that new technology is presenting the first amendment. Why did you what interested you in the first amendment in doing this? As a as a lawyer, I became a first amendment lawyer almost incidentally, I was as I said, I kind of national security lawyer, but a lot of the national security cases, I worked on turned out to be first amendment cases. I worked on a lot of transparency cases. In fact, the the the case, I probably spend most time on at the was a freedom of information that case involving interrogation under the Bush administration in that case, we filed in two thousand four it's still rendering information. Yeah, we're trying to get documents about the treatment of prisoners in military CIA custody. And the case was as these kinds of cases, go very successful. One it resulted in the release of what are sometimes called the torture memos the Bush administration's, torture memos. A lot of information about maltreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. Eventually this CIA. Inspector general report that led to a prosecution criminal investigation by the Obama administration. So it was a relatively successful case. That's the one I spent most of my time on, but I did a lot of other cases involving the exclusion of foreign scholars from the.

ACLU Guantanamo executive director Columbia University Columbia Goldman Sachs vox media Rico Facebook Donald Trump Jamea Karen CIA editor Obama administration lebeau Linder Jimmy Jaffer New York Times
"first amendment" Discussed on Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast

Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast

05:58 min | 2 years ago

"first amendment" Discussed on Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast

"I've been asking you our listeners to send in first amendment questions. You'd like answered the podcast. Thank you for your responses. Here's an Email from Ben Olsen. Ken, I've been wondering the word congress in the first amendment. What is it doing? It seems like most, if not, all law ignores the congress part in. It's considered unconstitutional for state and local governments to also make laws restricting speech. Why does it mention congress specifically? That's a good question. Ben, the explanation is something that lawyers learn about, but many non lawyers don't. The answer lies with the fourteenth amendment to the constitution and something called the incorporation doctrine. The first amendment does say, congress shall make no law. It's right in the title. This podcast, it's part of the Bill of rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution ratified in seventeen ninety one. It's only one of the Bill of rights that explicitly mentioned con. Chris or explicitly limits at scoop to the federal government, but pretty early on the United States Supreme court held that the Bill of rights only limited the federal government, not the states in eighteen thirty three in a case called barren versus Baltimore. The supreme court said that the restrictions on government power in the Bill of rights only limited the government of United States, not the government of the individual states. So what's the United States that can't make a law abridging free speech or jail people without due process or search people unreasonably. It was the state constitutions that were designed to protect people's rights from action by the states, but then after the civil war in eighteen sixty eight America adopted several constitutional amendments, prohibiting slavery and starting the long and winding road towards prohibiting official racial discrimination. By the states, one of those was the fourteenth amendment. The fourteenth. Amendment says that no state can deprive a person of life liberty or property without due process of law. In other words states, now the constitution limits what you can do to people as well. But what does that mean? What does it mean that the state can't deprive you of liberty without due process? What is liberty? Well, the supreme court began to decide gradually that the liberty protected by the fourteenth amendment includes most of the rights in the Bill of rights. Those first ten amendments, put another way the fourteenth amendment incorporates those rights. So for instance, in nineteen twenty five and a case called Gatland versus New York. The supreme court said, we may and do assume that freedom of speech and the press which are protected by the first amendment from abridgement by congress are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process. Clause of the fourteenth amendment from impairment by. The states. This is the incorporation doctrine, not all the rights have been incorporated. For instance, the fifth amendment, right? To be indicted by a grand jury. If you're charged with a felony has never been incorporated. And so it only applies to federal prosecutions unless your state constitution happens to require it. The process is still ongoing. The supreme court only recently found in a case in twenty ten that the second amendment right to bear arms was incorporated under the fourteenth amendment and therefore applicable to the states. I'm leaving out a ton of nuance and interesting history, but that's the basic idea. So Dick's time, someone on the internet says, the first amendment says, congress will make no law, so it doesn't ploy to state law. You'll know why they're wrong. That happens every day and I die a little every time. Thanks for the question. Ben. In this series of podcast, I'll be telling more stories behind important first amendment decisions. If there's a case you want to hear about, or I question you'd like answered on the podcast. Drop me a line at Ken at Popat dot com. Thanks for listening. You can find documents and cases mentioned on this podcast at Popat dot com or legal, talk network dot com. If you liked what you heard today, please remember to rate us at apple podcasts and follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Lastly, I'd like to thank our participants voice actors, producers and audio engineers for their participation. My guest professor, Aaron, good, Susan, our voice actors, Madison Marquel as lawyer for Sydney street, Jeremy church as lawyer for the government. Jonathan, Maria, a supreme court Justice, John Marshall, Harlan producer, Kate Nutting, executive producer, Lawrence Colletti research assistant Jordan Miller and last, but not least music sound design. Editing mixing by Adam Lockwood and assisted by Kelly chromatic experts on the oral argument and St. versus New York provided by only a free law project. By just you go Information Institute, Cornell law school. See you next on episode? Seven fire in a crowded theatre. The us expressed by the participants of this program are their own and do not represent the views of, or they endorsed by Popat legal talknet worth or their respective officers. Directors, employees, agents, representatives shareholders were subsidiaries, none of the content. You considered legal advice as always a lawyer, please.

Supreme court congress United States Ben Olsen New York Ken Popat dot Adam Lockwood Cornell law school Popat Jordan Miller John Marshall Chris Kelly chromatic Kate Nutting Lawrence Colletti
"first amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

01:46 min | 3 years ago

"first amendment" Discussed on We The People

"Speech so should the first amendment be reinterpreted what i of thought was wonderful about what derek bok it when he was president of harbor is some students hung confederate flag out the window and he said that's childish it's unpleasant it is just they're doing it to show off and they have a right to do it okay now let me tell you why and there was a good educational experience there so i think that's why we have this kennedy institute i think what's what you have the constitution centre and that's why i think that's most people i think everybody in public life will think that the the most important thing we can do is is teach the next generation and the generation after that why why these values have developed in this country and so i'm sure whatever it is you know there we are you have to explain it and we won't have it and that's what i would i tell the lincoln i tried my my why said that she will give each of our grandchildren twenty dollars when they memorize gettysburg address and yeah wants done it and and i said look the the key thing here that's what i was talking about before think think of one of the reasons if i can remember it for i four score in seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent anew nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition all manner created equal everybody now we are engaged in that war.

derek bok president kennedy institute twenty dollars seven years
"first amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

01:44 min | 3 years ago

"first amendment" Discussed on We The People

"And therefore your risk setting up ford ab sensors and i i rather like the the two ideas that i put in my opinion which i've taken from others i mean what one is of course the marketplace of ideas that we think if you allow every point of view and don't have the censorship eventually reason will prevail but i did like newborns book because he says well look at that first amendment is it's a it's a transmission belt see i people think they can think what they want that's the religion clauses which in those days was really ideology and and was really what you want to think inside your head and from there you go to speech which is we expressing and we think about it and then express it and then there is the press which helps transmit it of people and then there is petition because the point of a lot of this is to get to our public representatives and then the idea it's not that that marketplace of ideas is out there just idly spinning away the idea is for a lot of speech not all not even for all protected speech but for a lot of speech the idea is that we will gather people we will get supporters we will get our views across in the marketplace we will build a public opinion that will be transmitted into action said that is a theory of government and i think for one hundred years has been our theory of governors and maybe it won't work that's what i also it's an experiment and we hope it will we hope it will go back into history we've had a civil war.

one hundred years
"first amendment" Discussed on We The People

We The People

01:47 min | 3 years ago

"first amendment" Discussed on We The People

"There is nothing more contrary to the first amendment than that and the the reason for the opt in the reason why the optin questioning yang is going to become so important is because a person has to be able not just to associate or identify with or agree with the speech that they are going to be held to have made but if they don't even want to make a choice whether to say that or they haven't made up their mind whether they wanted to take that position or they are of two minds as to that position they should not be considered to have made that statement they should be allowed to form their opinions and to express their opinions nef their opinion is yes i agree with what the union is doing an advocating and i want to be a part of it and i want to support it that is a first amendment value but it is only protected if it's done by allowing them to make that choice anti optin for from much trump will it's time for closing arguments on this extremely illuminating discussion these are the brief three minutes statements were you sum up the essence of your position and i hope we the people listeners finding these closing arguments are useful and the first one eugene is to you why do you believe that the speech at issue in the janice case does not implicated first amendment concerns so i don't think there is speech as such an issue in the judge.

eugene janice three minutes