Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

1st Amendment Tag

Posted by Mike LaChance on August 03, 2015 34 Comments
Dan Joseph of MRCTV has released a new video which is as maddening as it is humorous. Joseph interviews a bunch of people and asks them to list the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and almost everyone struggles to name them. Here's the best part, he's interviewing people who have just come out of the National Archive Building in Washington, DC which, you know, houses the original Bill of Rights. From the MRCTV blog:
The First Amendment is the foundation on which our entire nation was built. Without it, America as we know it would cease to exist. So, you would think that Americans would be able to name at least a few of the basic rights guaranteed by the most important section of the Bill of Rights. Well, think again! In our latest video, MRCTV proves that many Americans have an incredibly limited knowledge of the First Amendment - and some people actually don't have any.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 01, 2015 28 Comments
A group called Disarm NYPD plans to celebrate the 4th of July with an July 1 event featuring the burning of American flags. It started as an event to burn the Confederate Flag. But other groups around the country turned such events into burning both the Confederate and American flags, so the Disarm NYPD group changed the name of the event, as announced on a Facebook Event page:
We changed the name of this event to "Burn the American Flag." We did this for several reasons, all of which are hopefully obvious, and should ring true to everyone with a conscious. The Confederate flag has long been a symbol of white supremacy, slavery, and Jim Crow. However, the Confederacy lost the war the American flag has unceasingly, from the first day it was ever hung, represented the exact same thing.

Posted by Amy Miller on April 12, 2015 16 Comments
It's proof that public pressure works. After weeks under fire, Texas state representative Jason Villalba (R-114) has pulled his controversial "cop watcher" bill. As it was originally filed, the bill would have placed limits on how citizen journalists are allowed to document police activity. However, soon after the bill was referred to committee and reactions from activists escalated, Villalba indicated that he was open to substantially changing the language in the bill to clarify how the average citizen's First Amendment rights would be affected should it become law. Not good enough, said the people of Texas. And so Villalba has pulled the bill. The move is being praised by some law enforcement associations, but others, like the Dallas Police Association, are standing by their reasoning for proposing the bill to begin with.

Posted by Mike LaChance on April 03, 2015 64 Comments
Ann Coulter appeared on the O'Reilly Factor last night and addressed the story of the Indiana pizza place which was forced to shut down because of threats. She pointed out that the left has adopted a regular cycle of outrage which usually turns out to be false. She also urged Republicans and conservative Christians to stand up to bullies. Watch the video:

Posted by Amy Miller on April 02, 2015 49 Comments
Yesterday, we told you about a small Indiana pizza joint that has been forced to close down after its proprietors committed the unpardonable sin of coming forward in support of Indiana's new RFRA law. An irresponsible "news hit" led to a landslide of boycott threats, liberal thinkpieces, and threats against the lives and livelihoods of Memories Pizza's proprietors. I'm going to walk back a word I used just now---what happened here goes beyond a "boycott." Nobody involved in what has been done to Memories Pizza is "taking a stand"---unless, of course, this is what "taking a stand" looks like: memories pizza arson tweet Twitter is full of nutcases, but here's the problem---no one in the local media took a stand against this.

Posted by Amy Miller on April 01, 2015 32 Comments
Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson may have called for changes to his state's recently-passed religious freedom legislation, but he certainly isn't giving activists and the press a free pass to paint Arkansas' RFRA with the wrong brush. "This is a bill that in ordinary times would not be controversial, but these are not ordinary times," he said during a press briefing earlier today. Hutchinson didn't concede to arguments made by progressives and LGBT activists that the bill is a tool businesses can use to facilitate discrimination against gay people, but he did publicly ask the legislature to clarify language in the bill. From the AP:
"What is important from an Arkansas standpoint is one, we get the right balance and secondly, we make sure that we communicate we're not going to be a state that fails to recognize the diversity of our workplace, our economy and our future," Hutchinson said at a news conference at the state Capitol. Hutchinson initially supported the bill and on Tuesday his office had said he planned to sign it into law.

Posted by Jay Caruso on March 31, 2015 29 Comments
On March 26th, Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The uproar would lead one to think such a law was brand new and have never been codified in law before. That would be wrong of course, 19 other states and the federal government have their own versions of the RFRA. The federal version was in fact, signed by President Clinton in 1993 after it passed the Senate on a vote of 97-3. The moment it became law, activists, talking heads and journalists, without discussing the actual text of the law, began pontificating how gays could now be "discriminated against" in the state of Indiana. The histrionics hit a fever pitch, when Justin Nelson of the National Gay And Lesbian Chamber of Congress said businesses in Indiana would be allowed to put "Straights Only" signs up in their windows. Gabriel Malor wrote an in depth analysis for the law and had this to say:

Posted by Amy Miller on March 23, 2015 31 Comments
Earlier this month I wrote a lengthy but necessary breakdown of Texas' "Cop Watcher" bill. Sponsored by Dallas-area House representative Jason Villalba, HB 2918 as filed would have changed the way activists and citizen journalists are allowed to interact with police officers. Almost immediately after the bill was filed, Villalba came under fire from local and national activists who said that the bill was too restrictive and destroyed the ability for citizens to hold police accountable. Under pressure from constituents, activists, and his own colleagues, Villalba now appears amenable to amending---but not pulling---the controversial bill:
"I will not consider pulling this bill but what I will do is considerably rewrite it," the North Dallas Republican said during a taping of WFAA's Inside Texas Politics to air Sunday morning at 9:00. Villalba appeared on the program to explain House Bill 2918 that makes it a misdemeanor to photograph police within 25 feet of them. News media was excluded. During the taping, Villalba said he will reduce the distance to 15 feet but make it apply to everyone, including journalists. "All we're saying is provide [police] a halo. Give them a little room. We're not saying don't film. We're not saying stop. We're saying just step back a little bit," explained Villalba.

Posted by Amy Miller on March 15, 2015 22 Comments
The Texas legislature has a reputation for creating headlines, and HB 2918, authored by Dallas-area state Representative Jason Villalba (R-HD 114), might just be the "lege" scandal that we've all been waiting for. Texans don't like it when you mess with their right to hold government accountable---especially when it comes to police action---and Villalba's HB 2918 appears to do just that. Citizens, advocates, and journalists alike are coming out in opposition to a bill that would restrict the rights of everyday citizens and bloggers to film the actions of police officers. The Dallas Republican is even taking heat from his own caucus, with colleagues speaking out publicly against the bill's filing: Screen Shot 2015-03-15 at 8.13.49 PM Villalba’s “cop watching” bill amends and adds to Section 38.15 of the Texas Penal Code, which applies a criminal negligence standard to civilian interference with police business. The problem is that the Villalba bill characterizes the filming or documenting of police action as "interference." Here’s the controversial language (emphasis mine):

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on October 07, 2014 3 Comments
Turns out Twitter is also fed up with this administration's war on transparency. Last month, Twitter released a report detailing how they'd been banned from reporting the extent of government surveillance on the platform. In that report Twitter explained:
"...if the government will not allow us to publish the actual number of requests, we want the freedom to provide that information in much smaller ranges that will be more meaningful to Twitter’s users, and more in line with the relatively small number of non-national security information requests we receive. We also pressed for the ability to be specific about different kinds of national security requests and to be able to indicate “zero requests” if that applies to any particular category of request. Unfortunately, we were not able to make any progress at this meeting, and we were not satisfied with the restrictions set forth by the DOJ.
Today Twitter announced they're taking the transparency fight to court:
Our ability to speak has been restricted by laws that prohibit and even criminalize a service provider like us from disclosing the exact number of national security letters (“NSLs”) and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) court orders received — even if that number is zero. It’s our belief that we are entitled under the First Amendment to respond to our users’ concerns and to the statements of U.S. government officials by providing information about the scope of U.S. government surveillance – including what types of legal process have not been received. We should be free to do this in a meaningful way, rather than in broad, inexact ranges. So, today, we have filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to publish our full Transparency Report, and asking the court to declare these restrictions on our ability to speak about government surveillance as unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is already considering the constitutionality of the non-disclosure provisions of the NSL law later this week.
You can read the filing in its entirety beneath:
Accessibility by WAH