#citizens’ rights "peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

[rose-in-a-fisted-glove]

Friends and Country-people

As we fight against the forces of tyranny and oppression in our home. As we stand up for the rights of our black (and other minority) fellows. As we demand accountability. Let us remember one other thing. 

This is what the framers of our constitution was worried about. We have reached the very circumstances that made the founders of this country revolt. 

Consider the Bill of Rights; the ten most basic rights that they were most concerned with. 

1.  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don’t think I need to explain just how badly our First Amendment rights have been violated with the current crackdown on protest, violence against the press, and ignoring the countless petitions signed. 

2. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This, despite what the NRA would have you believe, does not have to do with people having the rights to handguns and assault weapons. To quote the Bill of Rights’ Institute:

“ The Founders wanted to be sure they preserved the right to keep and bear arms as they established their new sovereign government. They did not want, as some put it, to trade one tyrant for another. Americans asserted a natural right to defend themselves and their property against all threats, including tyranny of any kind, foreign or domestic. “

The targeting of Antifa as a movement to suppress protest is denying our second Amendment right to protect ourselves from tyranny foreign or domestic. 

3. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

For what may be the first time in our history, our third amendment rights are under attack, and by our own Senators. They were honored this time, but now that they have come to be challenged, how long until this one too falls by the wayside?

4.  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is a long standing issue, and not just with the Police. How many times will we have to send around the same warning notes about ICE? How many people are picked up and “seized” for daring to exercise their first amendment rights? Even members of the press are not exempt from this violation. 

5.  No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

“I can’t breathe”: The police commit extra-judicial murder all the time. Children playing with toys, men walking down the street, women sleeping in their bed. No one is safe from being murdered by the police. This is (in my opinion) one of the most egregious violations on the list. 

6.  In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

In the first part, we go back to the police acting as judge, jury, and executioners. In the second part, so many people at protests are being arrested without reason. We have seen it on TV, no one is being informed of why they are being arrested, merely brutally beaten and then taken away. This has been caught on live television. 

7. Has to do with when petty larceny requires a judge vs a jury trail. It’s not related to the situation (yet, I put nothing past our government at this point). 

8.  Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

We are crowd sourcing bail for protesters, clearly it is excessive. No one other than our richest citizens can afford bail and it creates two classes that are treated differently under the law. 

Cruel and unusual punishments; we have heard stories of people being beaten, people being refused medications, refused toilets, being kept in unsanitary conditions. And of course murder for playing with toys or stealing candy is the most cruel and unusual of all.

9.  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The 9th amendment is saying “in case we forgot something, you have other rights. It doesn’t need to be explicitly stated here”. Requesting the right to be free from the tyranny of the government and the police seems most in fitting with the 9th amendment. 

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Trump has been stamping on this since day 1. I think this may be his least favorite amendment. He wants to rule as dictator. He hates being told that he doesn’t have the power to do something. 

*To specify, I am not calling for open or armed revolt against the government. I am merely pointing out all of the numerous ways that the current regime administration has been violating our rights and how directly current circumstances stack up against the Bill of Rights 

[chrissterry]

Jeff McCausland: General Mattis' statement on Trump reveals America's constitutional crisis : NBC News

Jeff McCausland: General Mattis’ statement on Trump reveals America’s constitutional crisis : NBC News

For senior retired military officers to level such criticism against a serving president is unprecedented. But they have good reason to be worried.

Source: Jeff McCausland: General Mattis’ statement on Trump reveals America’s constitutional crisis : NBC News

[newyorkprelawland-blog]

The Bill Of Rights In The Age Of Elon Musk And Twitter

By Amber Wayne, Adelphi University Class of 2024

May 2, 2022

Twitter announced that they accepted Elon Musk’s offer to buy the company for a mere 40 million dollars. He has already set forth a long agenda of things he plans to accomplish as the new owner like potentially reinstate Trump, release logarithm information, removes advertisements and, most shockingly, loosen content rules in the name of free speech[1]. The CEO of Tesla claimed that his motive for the purchase was to change the platform's content rules so they were less moderating. Musk refers to himself as a “free speech absolutist” and quotes, “free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated.[2]” The basis of Musk’s argument lies in that removing comments that are offensive is unacceptable, and ultimately are still legal due to freedom of speech. But, what does the Bill of Rights really say about free speech?

The Bill of Rights encompasses the first ten amendments to the constitution, a series of rights that is arguably the foundation of democracy that Musk speaks of. Grade school children can identify which amendment gives freedom of speech but are unable to really identify the logistics. The amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[3]” In layman's terms, the government may not make laws or prohibit citizens of the United States from expressing their right of freedom of speech. The writers of the constitution were not intending the first amendment to be used online, nor could they even imagine a world where we would be communicating through so many different online platforms. However, the ruling of Reno v. The ACLU specified that freedom of speech was applicable to online platforms, Twitter included.

So in terms of the constitution, Twitter must be breaking the law. Right? This may seem like the case but, contrary to popular belief,  there are some limitations to the first amendment. The same way you are now allowed to shout fire in a movie theater or bomb on a plane, you cannot post whatever you want on Twitter. The government gets involved with the amendment and it limits it for the overall protection of citizens. Freedom Forum Institute divides government involvement into nine categories; obscenity, fighting words, defamation (including libel and slander), child pornography, perjury, blackmail, incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats and solicitations to commit crimes[4]. Twitter, much like the government, is required to moderate what is said on their platform.

The official Twitter policy addresses many of the above categories of exemption to the first amendment such as; violence, abuse, exploitation, hateful conduct, and sensitive media. The specifics state, “Twitter’s mission is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information, and to express their opinions and beliefs without barriers. Free expression is a human right – we believe that everyone has a voice, and the right to use it.[5]” Their policy explicitly exemplifies that they are aware of the first amendment protection, but also need to act as a form of government to protect the rights of their users. Since its founding in 2006, Twitter has been able to regulate their content in a manner that is safe and conducive with both the first amendment and government regulations.

If Elon Musk goes through with his promises, Twitter may become a very place. Regulations are put in place for the overall safety of users, but it would appear that Musk sees them as a pesky censorship. If people were truly allowed to post whatever they want, there is nothing that can stop someone from posting inappropriate content or inciting hate crimes. Depending on the severity of the comment, this could lead to major issues with law enforcement because there are just things that cannot be posted, regardless of the first amendment. Frankly, if it is something that needs to be censored, whether it be inappropriate or hateful, maybe it does not need to be posted.

The Bill of Rights is introduced to students in elementary school but not many people are fully aware of its contents. Elon Musk, as the new owner of an online platform, needs to take responsibility and acknowledge that the first amendment is a delicate liberty and one that is not as cookie cutter as he states. Moderating the content that is posted makes sure that everyone within the community can equally enjoy it and actually follows the regulations within freedom of speech.

______________________________________________________________

Amber Wayne is currently a sophomore studying Ethics and Public Policy with a minor in Gender Studies at Adelphi University. She is graduating a year early with the plan of attending law school right after graduation.

______________________________________________________________

[1] https://www.npr.org/2022/04/25/1094671225/elon-musk-bought-twitter-plans

[2] https://www.npr.org/2022/04/25/1094671225/elon-musk-bought-twitter-plans

[3] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

[4] https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org

[5] https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy

[thedailyanthill]

Joe Rogan and All that Jazz

I’m pretty sure you knew the Angry Ant would have an opinion on this and I do. Actually I have a few opinions.

First of all that First Amendment is a wiggly thing. All it says is:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Basically it says the government shall make no inhibiting laws, not private companies or citizens.

You have to really dig into Supreme Court decisions for clarification and even then it’s tricky. You actually CAN yell Fire! In a movie theater. But then if it’s found you did it deliberately m, knowing it would start a panic. And if there are casualties, you’d be arrested.

You can’t pull a false fire alarm. That’s against the law almost everywhere.

Threats of bodily harm, and bomb threats are also not protected.

Hate speech is protected.. until it becomes an incitement to violence. Hate crimes are not protected.

It doesn’t cover obscenity or child pornography.

You can’t make false claims on products or gadgets, because then we get into fraud and the FDA. You look at any herbal supplement and you’ll find the words “this claim has not been approved by the FDA.”

You can burn the flag and talk about overthrown the government… until people take you seriously and you do try to overthrow the government (which is why the 1/6 patsies are in jail but the instigators are not).

So, where does Joe Rogan fit in?

First we have to look at other shock jocks. I’ll start with Alex Jones. Why that guy isn’t in jail is beyond me. He makes violent threats to liberals and Democrats. His lies about Hillary and “Pizza Gate” led to a man brandishing a gun at a New Jersey pizza parlor. He’s being sued by so many people over his false claims about Sandy Hook being staged by “crisis actors.”

Fox gets away with a lot of shit because they say it’s entertainment. Now watching Alex Jones slap his own self silly is actually hilarious- but also, seriously, that guy needs mental help.

Now I turn to Howard Stern. He’s been pissing people off since 1975. I find him odious and disgusting and misogynistic. People go on his show just to say the dirtiest, most obnoxious crap they can think of. The First Amendment has protected him for decades.

So Joe Rogan is a shock jock. Anyone who ever turned his show on knows this.

The gray area is spreading misinformation but even that’s not illegal if you believe him, that is on you. If he finds “scientists” who say the earth is flat, a good portion of his listeners are going to believe it. Being stupid is (sadly) not a crime. But in general people need to grow up and take some personal responsibility here.

You have all the knowledge in the known world in the palm of your hands - use it.

Now if he starts hawking products that he claims to be a treatment or a cure for Covid, that’s fraud and he could be nailed by the FDA. He could also be sued, in theory at least, by relatives of someone who died, but again, Joe Rogan isn’t holding a gun to anyone’s head and making them not get vaxxed or wear masks.

There’s a lot of anti-vaxxers out there and none have ever been arrested. Not even the parents of this poor kid who got tetanus (and tetanus is terrifying - Omg lockjaw is like something out of a horror movie). Even after that they refused to get him vaccinated. (I personally think that’s child abuse).

So to quote my mother, if you don’t like it, don’t watch it, don’t listen to it and use that little button on your dial that says “off.”

Personally I don’t care for Joe, guess what? I don’t listen to him. I don’t listen to Alex Jones or Howard Stern. People who do listen shouldn’t complain when these guys say something they don’t like. I’m not sure what part of shock jock they don’t get?

Update: Joe Rogan caught on audio using the n word multiple times. Then again, Howard Stern has used the n word and wore black face. It’s really a special kind of dumbass to say that crap on air, because nothing goes away on the internet. Of course they are both very sorry (about losing revenue no doubt). But leopards don’t change their spots.

If you’re criticizing Joe (as he should be) but not Howard Stern, you might want to look up the word hypocrite.

For the record I 100% support the decisions of Neil Young and Joni Mitchell and anyone else who wants to pull their music from Spotify. I deleted my app. And that’s OUR First Amendment right, too.

[thedavisreports]

Is the First Amendment Valid?

Director Liz Garbus’ documentary, Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech, presents an expose’ of past and present cases of America abridging the freedom of speech in various capacities. Garbus traces the historical frequency of citizens battling to express their absolute right to free speech which is backed by the first amendment. The Bill of Rights First Amendment of the Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance”. Shouting Fire depicts the challenges and threats to ones’ First Amendment by including footage, audio, pop-culture references, and participants of that battle throughout the film. The participants that share their accounts of the fight to protect and exercise their free speech consist of activists, civilians, educators, politicians, and historians. These shared accounts date back to the McCarthy Era, the Vietnam War, the American Nazi defense, Ward Churchill’s dismissal from the University of Colorado, 9/11 terrorist attacks, Debbie Almontaser’s forceful resignation, events of student’s rights to protest, and the Patriot Act. Although this documentary is seen through the lens of Garbus’ father, attorney Martin Garbus, it still portrays a holistic call to question what is the purpose of free speech and how, what, and when, and why it should be exercised and protected. The case of the student, Chase Harper, is worthy of further exploration as it relates to the state of free speech in America.

In a Poway, California public high school, the question of rather a student could express his belief that homosexuality is “shameful” on his t-shirt is acceptable according to his 1st amendment or not. To offer context, this day, in particular, there was a school-wide event held in solidarity with its lgbtq+ student body, and student Chase Harper wore the shirt to protest his counter stance. Harper’s urge to express his stance against homosexuality came from his religious beliefs. He referenced various scriptures from the Bible that urge its believers to spread the truth of the gospel. The specific “truth’ that Harper felt obligated to plaster on his t-shirt the next school day at the lgbtq+ event was “Be ashamed. The school has embraced what God has condemned.” On the back of the shirt quoted the excerpt from Romans 1:27 “homosexuality is shameful”. Harper had no idea that he would be suspended, threatened with expulsion, and questioned by the authorities. The school first punished him for the t-shirt because they believed it was a disruption to a healthy learning environment. The punishment was intensified after the school concluded that Harper’s t-shirt was not only disruptive but also violated the rights of other students. The students that protested against Harper’s t-shirt argued that he was challenging their first amendment right of expression through freedom of speech. Harper challenged the school’s punishment by questioning why must his first amendment right of speech be censored because it’s “merely offensive” to ones’ freedom of expression. Harper’s experience is concluded in the film as an open case that he is still battling within the courts.

The ethical issue at hand is a matter of who’s freedom of expression is truly being challenged. Was Harper wrong for expressing his stance which is based on his religious beliefs? Was Harper wrong for aggressive expression towards a minority group? Moreover, the ethical code that comes into play is the categorical imperative code, right is right, and wrong is wrong. I believe that Harper was wrong because the expression was cruel and usual. He did not have to go to such harsh measures to advocate his stance.

[southcarolinaprelawland]

Systematic Racism’s Affect On American Citizens Rights

By Ava Tanner, College of Charleston Class of 2022

June 15, 2020

In light of recent events, international protest over the murder of George Floyd and growing support for the Black Lives Matter movement, [1] many people are asking themselves how ascriptive characteristics, such as ethnicity, age,and gender,affect the supposedly equal rights of American citizens. To determine one's rights as a citizen of The United States, look no further than the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that all citizens have equal rights to expressive and cognitive beliefs including speech in traditional public forums.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” [2]Yet, historically these rights have not been universally applicable to non-white citizens deemed so by our legislative and judicial bodies. It only takes a brief study of American history: slavery, the civil rights movement, and current events to determine that racial minorities have been and are being oppressed. This observable systematic oppression generates the question,does race affect citizens' First Amendment rights?

To analyze this question it is important first to understand the differences between race and ethnicity. Race is defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary as “a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits. Ethnicity is defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary as “large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, religious, linguistic, cultural origins, or background.” [3]In layman's terms race can be reduced to a categorization of skin color while ethnicity encompasses cultural identities. This means racism is a form of systematic oppression founded on recipients'  ascriptive traits, the color of their skin.

Acts of racism occurred on American soil before the county’s' founding. America declared independence from Great Britain in 1776, but the Atlantic Slave Trade began in approximately 1526 and brought enslaved Africans to colonial shores as early as 1619.[4]This horrific act initiated the classification of non-whites as othered and therefore less in a social and legal perspective. This standard was reinforced through the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court case in which Justice Taney stated, “[Black men have] No rights which a white man is bound to respect.” In respect to Dred Scott sued for his rights as a free black man be upheld in each state. [5] Racial oppression continued to be enforced by federal law until Abraham Lincoln, America's 16th president (1861-1865)[6] approved the Thirteenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights in 1865 which abolished slavery throughout the United States. [7]

Jumping ahead in history to the American civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s.Reverend Martin Luther King Junior was the leader of the civil rights movement,and in the spring of 1963 in correlation with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), he led the Birmingham Campaign. This campaign primarily consisted of peaceful protest in Birmingham, Alabama to promote equal rights. [8] Included nonviolent marches, sit-ins, and boycotts. However, before it could officially begin he was arrested for violating a state injunction to protest. In response to his arrest, more than one thousand people attempted to march in downtown Birmingham. Police officers responded by using high-pressure fire hoses, dogs, and clubs to arrest hundreds of demonstrators, including students and children. After photos of children being abused by police officers were published public outrage declared this an obvious violation of black Americans' First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. These events in combination with many others lead to the incorporation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[9]

Civil unrest over minority rights continues,peeking most recently in May of 2020 after a viral video showing George Floyd, an unarmed black man arrested and murdered by a white police officer on May 25th.[10] Although this is sufficiently horrific, it was not the first public murder of an unarmed black person this year. On February 23rd Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed black man was shot by two white men in a truck while jogging. [11] On March 13th Breonna Taylor, an essential medical worker, was shot in her home by police during an unannounced drug raid. [12] While it may not be possible to determine each of these crimes to be racial motivated, the concurring evidence does not weigh in favor of racial neutrality in the judicial process. For example, during a Minnesota protest of George Floyd’s murder on May 30th CNN reporter Omar Jimenez, a young Latino man, and his team were arrested and detained by Minnesota police officers. Yet, his white colleagues were allowed to continue documenting the protest. This is an obvious violation of Jimenez’s First Amendment right, freedom of the press.[13] These events showcase the lack of respect for racial minorities First Amendment rights.

Although the question, does race affect citizens' First Amendment rights, is ultimately up to the individual to determine it is important to consider America's history and documented disdain for racial minorities. Currently, many American youths are answering this question, yes, and taking action to promote equal rights. This can be seen in the nationwide protest, many of which are filled with young people. In Charleston SC on Sunday, May 31st hundreds filled the downtown streets protesting the death of George Floyd and advocating for the Black Lives Matter movement.[14] This attitude has extended beyond America with BLM advocacy in Canada, Europe, and Australia to name a few. [1]Corporations like Ben & Jerry’s have released quotes supporting the BLM movement. “What happened to George Floyd in Minneapolis is the fruit born of toxic seeds planted on the shores of our country in Jamestown in 1619, when the first enslaved men and women arrived on this continent.” [15]These statements of support for equal rights brings hope for many suffering from systematic racism that one day, possibly in the near future, equal rights will truly be attainable in the land of the free.

________________________________________________________________

[1] “Thousands Protest Across 3 Continents to Honor George Floyd and Support the Black Lives Matter Movement”.Time.com.6 June 2020.

[2] “Bill of Rights of the United States of America (1791)”.billofrights.org.2020

[3] “Race”.Merriam-Webster.com.2020

[4] “Ethnicity”. Merriam-Webster.com.2020

[5] “"No Rights Which the White Man was Bound to Respect".acslaw.org.19 March 2007

[6] “Abraham Lincoln”.www.whitehouse.gov.

[7] “United States Declaration of Independence”.en.wikipedia.org.31 May 2020.

[8] “Constitutional Amendments and Major Civil Rights Acts of Congress Referenced in Black Americans in Congress”.History.house.gov.

[9] “The Birmingham Campaign (1963)”.blackpast.org.31 August 2016.

[10] “Killing of George Floyd”.en.wikipedia.org.7June 2020.

[11] “Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery”.en.wikipedia.org.7 June 2020.

[12]“Shooting of Breonna Taylor”.en.wikipedia.org.7 June 2020.

[13] “A black Latino CNN reporter was arrested. A white CNN reporter was not.”cnn.com.29 May 2020

[14] “Youth leads Black Lives Matter protest in downtown Charleston”.livefivenews.com.5 June 2020.

Photo Credit: Tony Webster

[citizentruth-blog]

United States of Oppression? US Detains Iranian-American TV Anchor For Unknown Reaso

“I’m very concerned. There’s no way of getting any word to her and she can’t send any out, apparently. We’re all in the dark and just waiting and praying that they release her.” News broke this Tuesday of the arrest of prominent US-born Iranian TV anchor, Marzieh Hashemi, 59, also known as Melanie Franklin, following her arrival at St. Louis airport on Jan. 14 after filming a documentary on Black Lives Matter. Hashemi, who converted to Islam in the early 1970s and subsequently moved to Iran with her husband to pursue her career in journalism, has long been an outspoken defender of civil liberties and human rights A report published in Sky News reads: “Ms Hashemi, who has worked for Iran’s English-language service Press TV for 25 years, was arrested alongside her son, Reza, at St. Louis Lambert International Airport on Sunday.” The FBI has so far refused to speak to the press, not even to confirm her arrest and subsequent detention without charge. Press TV says she is denied Halal food, Islam’s dietary laws.  Her criticism of the hostilities and disdain between Saudi Arabia and Israel attracted millions of followers to her work, firmly establishing her as a media giant both in Iran and abroad. Today she stands shackled in a US detention center, cut off from her family and friends, and perhaps legal representation, with no charges against her as far as anyone knows. Hashemi is very popular in Iran for the many causes she helped bring to light, from the plight of Yemen’s children in the Saudi Arabia/Yemen war to that of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and police brutality in the United States.

Hashemi has been a constant reminder in Iran that freedom and justice are both a right and a responsibility to preserve by holding ourselves and our respective governments to the highest standards of accountability and scrutiny. And although many may differ with her views, or even the life choices, she made by electing Iran as her new home and Shia Islam as her faith, to deny her of her choices, preferences, and beliefs is to deny all of ours without hope of redemption. There is something to be said about the many attacks governments have run against freedom of expression and free speech and how such rights should not suffer the limitations of any caveats but should instead stand inalienable and uncontested. Once upon a time America held to such noble principles; today it wields its security apparatus as a weapon against them, so that all would learn to speak not pluralism but the accepted ‘consensus’. Caleb Maupin, a journalist with RT, Russia’s official TV aimed at those outside Russia, says, “Marzieh’s arrest is an attack on independent media.”

Caleb Maupin speaks against arrest of Marzieh Hashemi

Family Statement

Milton Leroy Franklin, Hashemi’s brother, who lives in New Orleans, told Associated Press he knows only what his niece has put on Facebook, since the FBI has allowed no contact beyond one phone call to her family. The Press TV statement quotes Hashemi as saying she is being treated harshly.  “We don’t have any detailed information except she’s being held. And her son is being held in a hotel in (Washington), and she’s being held in some form of prison or incarcerated area,” Franklin said. “I’m very concerned. There’s no way of getting any word to her and she can’t send any out, apparently. We’re all in the dark and just waiting and praying that they release her.” Her son Hussein, a research fellow at the University of Colorado, said, “We still have no idea what’s going on. My siblings and I also have been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. We don’t know what this is about or how it’s unfolding.” The Iranians have detained four US citizens. No other facts are known at this time.

Are There Still Democracies?

Marzieh Hashemi’s detention by the US must follow international due process. Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that “o one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” By virtue of the Constitution of the United States of America none should suffer any infringement to his or her freedom under the First Amendment. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which respect an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. And yet Marzieh Hashemi, a US citizen, is being detained without charges as far as anyone knows. Such a flagrant violation of a person’s rights does not seem to command much media attention. One’s right to speak up and speak out cannot be tethered to a state’s political preferences or inclinations. Without conflicting opinions any democracy will quickly devolve into authoritarianism. George Orwell called it in 1984; we may wish to pay attention if not to wake up one day and realize we have been locked out of our democratic states. If Hashemi’s choice of residence, Iran, and her faith have led to her treatment by the authorities, we should keep in mind that history is not kind to those who would imprison large groups of people for who they are. America’s democratic mettle lies within its ability to abide by the rule of law, including its commitment to the principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How else can one distinguish a democratic state from a brutal regime commissioning the murder of its nationals on foreign ground if not by its ability to exact justice? The very real question behind Marzieh’s arrest is why the FBI remains mum on the reasons. What do they have to hide?   Read the full article

[psychicturtleblog]

Journalists and their issues

Alexis Myers

Reports and the media shouldn’t be blamed for not discussing certain topics. There are many limitations on what a reporter can broadcast, these limits are set mainly by the FCC. Journalists should also not be blamed for seeming biased in a situation like liking one political party more than the other. There is a Codes Of Ethics for journalists to follow that clearly states what they can and cannot do/say.

Now as a Journalist or the everyday american you would think the media would have free speech. That's not always the case, The Radio Act of 1927 was the first attempt by congress to regulate broadcast materials. This Act contained language that gave the government control over the quality of programming sent over public airwaves. Although the Communications Act of 1934 replaced this act and created a seven member Federal Communications Commision (FCC) to oversee radio and telephone communication. As of today it is a five member board and has no jurisdiction over printed media, a reason for this is because the public buys this information instead of just hearing it on the news. They mainly now just give out licenses so different media sources.

One source is Courses Lumen Learning American Government Module 8: the media, they point out, “Circumstances in which the freedom of the press is not absolute. We also compare the ways in which the government oversees and influences the media programming.” They also point out cases that are usually overlooked where journalists are taken to court over very libel claims. In the Declaration of Independence it even states, “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This is stating that as a right everyone can say what they want and be free to peaceful protest. They may even Talk to the government about fixing problems they see with situations. Without this the press would not be free to alert citizens to government abuses and corruptions. Now it is very understandable that Journalists are taken in a certain regard when it comes to this because they can influence others with their writings but some situations where journalists are punished or at least tried to be, is outrageous. An example of this is when Trump tried to get reporters banned from open conferences simply for asking questions he didn't want to hear. According to the July 28, 2018, Intelligence article it is stated that, “Trump has asked his aides to ban or revoke the credentials of reporters who offended him.” Another quote from that article would be, “And apparently nothing chafes the president more than when reporters call out questions during events. Such journalists are “the worst,” Trump reportedly told aides.” He seems to have no regard that asking questions and getting the facts is the media's job and by making them seem un-credible it could hurt many people's lives. There is another situation the Intelligence article talks about where the president banned a reporter for asking questions he most likely didn't wanna answer. It says, “CNN’s Kaitlan Collins was banned from an open media event at the White House in relation from the way she tried to question the president earlier that week.” This goes against the first right of that journalist, she should be free to simply ask questions and not be ridiculed for doing so. This is also going against what the Constitution stated, he is making it where she gets no information from him so she can't report back to the public about any issues there may be.

SPJ Code Of Ethics (Revised September 6, 2014) SPJ’s National Convention in Nashville Tenn. The Media and First Amendment.

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Lumen American Government Module 8: The media

American Government. Authored by: OpenStax.Provieded by: OpenStax; Rice University.Located at: https://cnx.org/contents/W8wOWXNF@12.1:Y1CfqFju@5/Preface.License: CC BY: Attribution.License Terms: Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/9e28f580-0d1b-4d72-8795-c48329947ac2@1.

Intelligencer, July 28th 2018, By Chas Danner “Trump has repeatedly tried to Ban or Punish Reporters who annoy him.”

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-has-repeatedly-tried-to-ban-and-punish-reporters.html

[theclassactcoach]

OUTRAGED!

I have a lot more than two cents to give on this. Before anyone reads this, I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not throw a blanket of blame or guilt on anyone group. That would be ignorant, so when I refer to groups, I'm specifically speaking about the individuals within that group whose actions are questionable.

I served my country in our United States Navy and as a veteran, let's start here...for those of you who love this country so much you chastise a man for not just enacting his right but as I see it, his duty...

Here is the Preamble of our Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a MORE PERFECT Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is our duty as Americans to form a MORE PERFECT UNION, INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY, PROVIDE for the COMMON DEFENSE, PROMOTE GENERAL WELFARE, and SECURE the BLESSINGS of LIBERTY to ourselves and our posterity. He his kneeling for all the things our forefathers wanted for our country.

Our Constitution is considered a living document because it can be changed. Thank you William Mastrosimone...who wrote "Our founding parents were pompous middle aged white farmers, but they were also great men because they knew one thing that all great men should know...that they didn’t know everything. They knew they were going to make mistakes, but they made sure to leave a way to correct them." Words without acts are dead. Those words are why this country was founded and are being kept alive by people who believe in them i.e. Colin Kaepernick.

Some say, "Why question the government and what it provides," or "I hope you need the police one day." I even had someone quote "A Few Good Men" stating, "I have neither the time, nor the inclination to explain myself, to a man who rises and sleeps, under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide them! I’d rather you just said ‘thank you’, and went on your way."

I think he got such a hard on at that moment that he didn't watch it through until the end, when that man (Colonel Jessup) is arrested and furthermore, the two Marines are found guilty of unbecoming of a Marine and are to be immediately dishonorably discharged. One says to the other, "Colonel Jessup admitted he ordered the code red, we did nothing wrong; we did nothing wrong." His fellow guilty Marine mans up and says, "Yes we did. We were supposed to fight for people who couldn't fight for themselves." All you Americans who love your country but have something to say about a man who kneels against injustice here, let that sink in.

In general, when you are in a position of power, it is your duty as an American to fight for your fellow citizen against the government. I value the police, but I value justice more, for without justice, the police are just a gang (with guns). Without justice the police are meaningless, because it is the value by which they exist in the first place. If the value is absent, then they are merely men. They stand for nothing.

Furthermore, let us take a look at our FIRST AMENDMENT for those who like to say "Protest on your own damn time."

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

See...Congress is not allowed to make a law that abridges his freedom of speech (even if what he says is silent through kneeling), or abridging his right to petition the government for redress of grievances (which can be an informal petition by way of kneeling). No where in here does it say, where you can protest or when you can protest. He protested on his time. All time is his time, where ever he may be, just because he is getting paid for his time, doesn't mean it isn't his, he is sharing it, leasing it out and so if people don't like the terms of the lease, they end it. It may be why he never received another contract. I don't know. Now, if you don't like it and you want to protest by burning and cutting your clothes, or boycott you have that right.

I believe it was said best by President Shepard, "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest."

We take mission trips to foreign countries and help those people in need while homeless people line city streets in the U.S. We fight wars in other countries because people are being mistreated, while unarmed men are killed in cold-blood at our front door (figuratively) and no justice is served in their names. We treat animals better than we treat humans. Land of the free and home of the brave? For the majority yes...but that blanket statement means it needs to apply to everyone.

I love my country and I want to see us become a MORE PERFECT UNION.

For those of you who might want to post a comment and have a debate, I'm happy to have a discourse, but be forewarned, if your argument is to shift the blame and bring up other topics to distract from the one I'm talking about, I will not respond, rather, I'll just take a knee.

[aawarning-blog]

New Post has been published on AAW

New Post has been published on http://www.anamericanwarning.com/2017/09/nfl-first-amendment/

The NFL - First Amendment Debate: This One Needs Some Clarity

There have been many opinions thrown around about the NFL Players and their kneeling protests. Some are saying it’s their right to protest and that it’s protected speech, and some argue that it’s a disruption and that they can be fired for it. So these two groups go back and forth, arguing about which side is right or wrong when the truth of the matter is that they are both right. That’s right! The players have the right and CAN be fired for it. So how can that be?

The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It doesn’t say anything about corporations.

To explain this, let us start with the recent statement by Teresa Stanton Collett, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law who says “I don’t watch football. I don’t care about football. But I do care about constitutional literacy. Please stop saying football players have first amendment rights to disregard the direction of their private employers while engaged in privately sponsored activities — which is what NFL football games are.” She said that “They have no more constitutional protection for their expressive activities than I do for mine at my private Catholic university. Any ‘rights’ they have are based on their contracts and employment law.”

I think in this case, Professor Collett is right and she’s wrong. Now, before I explain myself, I should note that I am not debating whether or not any of this is the right thing to do. I am merely discussing the right to do it. Please don’t read into the words and try to remain objective.

Is Kneeling Protected Speech?

Of course it is. First, it should be known that protected speech is determined by using the “clear and present danger” test. This precedent was set by the famous Schenck v. the United States case from World War I. Basically, free speech is protected unless it presents a “clear and present danger” to United States security or someone specifically. Taking a knee doesn’t harm anyone. It’s actually considered a peaceful form of speech and protest because it does not present a danger to anyone.

However, kneeling doesn’t involve actual speech (words), so it is considered “symbolic speech”. Because of this simple fact, it needs to be put into contrast with cases such as Texas v. Johnson were the Supreme Court upheld the right of an individual to burn an American flag if they choose to. So yes… it would be protected speech.

The question that so many should be asking is “protected from what or who?” I’ll get to that in a second, but before I do, let me clarify something. The professor makes a decent point when she says “They have no more constitutional protection for their expressive activities than I do for mine at my private Catholic university. Any ‘rights’ they have are based on their contracts and employment law.” This is true because we are talking about a private organization with a contract with a private citizen that just so happens to be engaging in protected speech. That is basically what I was saying in my recent article concerning the NFL Players and their protests. I wrote “You still have the freedom to say what you want and you won’t go to jail for it, but that doesn’t mean your actions are without consequence when you are being paid by someone else for your time.” We must understand that the business has rights too. This is especially true if the player is under contract.

Do Contracts Alter Rights?

Not really. It is true that you can attempt to waive your right or restrict your freedom of speech by signing a contract or gaining employment with a company that forbids it, but all this does is set up a situation where you can be fired for violations of certain terms or be made to pay back certain funds if those terms are violated. The government will more than likely not jail you for a breech of contract in a private matter.

I said “attempt to waive” for a very deliberate reason though. A “right” in this context is a “natural right”. A natural right is something you are born with. It is something that cannot be traded, signed away, taken away or anything else. The Founders recognized the natural right of individuals speaking freely and enumerated its protection by the First Amendment’s prohibition on Congress from making laws abridging freedom of speech. That’s a hint by the way.

By definition, there can be no law which can curtail or deprive someone of their right… such as speech. This actually includes contracts and employment law. This is because any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void according to the Supreme Court – Marbury v. Madison. However, your decision to participate in something that somehow infringes upon the right of a business owner to conduct business as usual is something else that needs to be considered. To explore this, we need to look at Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution and the 9th Amendment.

I bring up Article 1, Section 10 because it involves contracts. It states that no State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts. This plays into the argument that a right can be waived if done so under contract. This is a valid argument and I concede to that. However, it is also irrelevant in this case for a number of different reasons. For the most part, government tends to stay out of private contracts and agreements unless there is a dispute. Furthermore, no contract can truly infringe upon a Natural Right because rights actually exist in the absence of authority, not because of authority. If an agreement or contract attempts to infringe upon your rights, and you agree to it for whatever reason, all you’re saying in such contacts is that you are agreeing to not exercise said rights during the course of that contract. Essentially, you are willfully suspending them for a while, which is your right to do so. Your rights still exist though; you just consented to have them suspended for a bit in your private matter. There’s another hint. It still exists though and your will to exercise it is really the only thing that separates the thought from the act. Proof of this comes in the idea that workplace violence is illegal and when you sign up for a job, you agree that you will not engage in it. Yet… somehow it still happens.

Furthermore, I think it’s important to point out that the Contracts Clause has been almost read out of the Constitution by the courts. This is why we are witnessing an unbelievable amount of torts litigation as of late; because courts no longer respect contracts protecting businesses from liability and I think this may alter the debate in some instances. Still, the business has the right to conduct business as they see fit so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of an individual or violate mutually agreed upon contractual agreements. This is similar to how you can exercise your rights so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another. This is where the line gets a little thin though and we need to examine the details very closely.

On December 20, 1787, Thomas Jefferson said that “[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse.” This is actually our biggest hint. We should take note of the order.

It is also imperative that we examine the 9th Amendment because it states clearly that “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In this context, this means that the players have the right to protest as they see fit. It also means that the teams have the right to conduct business without disruption and it also means that the two parties can engage in business if they choose to. So who gets the win?

To add some perspective (or perhaps some confusion), the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that even hate speech, no matter how bigoted or offensive, is still free speech. Yet, people are fired for engaging in hate speech all of the time. So how can hate speech be protected speech but people still get fired for it? Well, according to Katherine Stone, a law professor at UCLA who focuses on labor law, “it’s not at all uncommon—or illegal—for private-sector workers to get fired for what they do in their free time if it reflects poorly on their employer.” So if you are engaged in free speech that makes your employer look bad, you may be out of a job. This is especially true if you are in an “at will” employment situation. Of course, these statements apply to what you do in your free time; what you do on paid time is even stricter. Employment on contract is even more so.

Will the Government Protect the Players?

Probably not but that’s not really the question we should asking. The debate seems to be whether or not the players have the right to do it on “team time” or “on the clock”. Some suggest that if it’s free speech, then they do and that the government will protect them. Some are saying that they need to be fired for their actions. Honestly… it really depends on what those contracts say. It’s not really up to us and again, they have the right, but the teams have rights too. So let me provide some clarity for you.

What is important to note here is something I have tried to express for many years. The Constitution is not a document that “allows” the people to do anything. Instead, it is a document that restricts government. This was made very clear by what Thomas Jefferson said in the quote I provided above saying “a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government”. It doesn’t saying anything about businesses or corporations either. This is important to note because the Bill of Rights really only applies to government action. It defines what our founders decided the government couldn’t do to its citizens. It does not apply to what corporations do to its employees. This is similar to how you have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms but probably cannot strap an AR15 to your back while sitting in the company lunch room without permission.

To be clear, understand that the 1st Amendment involves the government. These players have a private agreement with the teams they play for. These private agreements may not require them to stop kneeling, but said agreements could have other clauses that allow the teams to dismiss them for stirring the pot if it gets out of hand. This is where the customer’s power to boycott or patronize comes in. So let’s go ahead and ask the million dollar question.

Can NFL Owners Fire Players for Kneeling?

It’s quite possible. According to Sports Illustrated, the standard NFL player contract gives the team owners a considerable amount of power. The fact that players signed the agreement opens them up to all sorts of issues if they step out of what the clubs consider “their line“. Two lines in particular of the NFL player contract are of particular interest in this discussion.

Paragraph 2 for “employment and services.” The player pledges to “conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game.”

Paragraph 11, which concerns “skill, performance and conduct,” stipulates that the team can terminate a player’s contract if the player “has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club.”

If we think about the money being lost and the decline in ratings that have resulted from these protests, one has to wonder how much longer these will go on. If the people continue to pressure the NFL, no doubt they will cave at some point when the money is being lost. The point is that under these two clauses alone, one could say the players could be terminated at any time and it wouldn’t be a violation of their rights to do so. Or… if the owners wish for them to stop, they could try and compel them to stop under the terms of their contracts and it still wouldn’t be violation of their rights considering that the players willfully engaged in that contract.

So I have written all of the preceding to provide the necessary context for the following:

Nobody is really stopping them from kneeling right now and nobody will be able to stop them from kneeling if they are fired and forced to leave the stadium. The point is that they can still kneel either way. They have that right. We know that because nobody will physically stop them from kneeling short of removing them for trespassing if they refuse to leave private property. They could just be out of a job if they don’t abide by their agreements they willfully engaged in. Remember, federal law in this regard does not protect workers in the private sector — only government employees.

Contracts and Rights are two separate issues. Constitutional Rights concern a private citizen and the government, and in this case, contracts concern a private citizen and a private corporation. As I said in my article, “this is no different than if you worked at a bank and decided to use the front lobby as your platform.” If your actions are disrupting business and making the employer look bad, you CAN get fired for it and be barred from the grounds. You still have the right to say it or do it though; the government will not stop you from doing it unless you are trespassing or otherwise violating the rights of another.

Of course, there is another factor that muddies the water a bit, and that would be the billions of public dollars used by the these teams to help build their stadiums. Since taxpayer dollars are being used, a government hand is now involved. This could sway this debate in a number of different ways but I would imagine that would need to be settled in the courts and it would be a battle I would pay attention to.

Remember; we were all born with certain unalienable rights and nobody can take that away from you. The first amendment does not give anyone the right to say whatever they want without consequences… it just gives them the right to say it without the government infringing upon anyone actually saying it. Never forget that the Bill of Rights protects you from government but there is no right of employment. If you are willing to sign a private contract that will get you fired or fined for exercising your rights, then that’s on you. This is why I say that you may have the right, but you are not protected from making dumb decisions.

And yes, of course there are various forms of speech that are prohibited beyond that of the “clear and present danger” I spoke of earlier and they probably will get you some jail time. These include:

Obscenity

Fighting words

Defamation (including libel and slander)

Child pornography

Perjury

Blackmail

Incitement to imminent lawless action

True threats

Solicitations to commit crimes

Among a few others…

These forms of speech will probably land you in hand-cuffs and that’s not what we are talking about.

The Bigger Problem

Now, with all of that out of the way, I must say that as a nation, we have really dropped the ball. This NFL / National Anthem situation has been a massive distraction for us. For only the second time since 1929, the Republican Party controls the House, the Senate and the White House. You would think that they would be able to move mountains. Many were elected on the promise that they would do just that. Republicans vowed for seven years to abolish Obamacare and promised that if we put them in office, they would. But while the nation was wrapped up in another flag distraction, Republicans failed to do the one thing they were elected to do and repeal it. Unfortunately, this may have been the last chance to do it and we were all busy fighting among ourselves instead of providing pressure on Congress. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

Divide and conquer works and this is all the evidence you need to prove that it does.