A Sixth Circuit panel declines to strike down a state law under which public schools will no longer withhold union dues from teachers’ salaries. The Michigan Education Association had claimed that Public Act 53 interfered with its First Amendment right to speak. [David Shepardson, Detroit News]
Posts Tagged ‘First Amendment’
Maryland’s speech-chilling new “cyberbullying” law
I’ve got a short critique up now at Cato (earlier on the topic here). Proponents styled the enactment “Grace’s Law,” after a Howard County teenager who committed suicide; here’s Radley Balko on why “Laws named after crime victims and dead people are usually a bad idea.” While I believe the courts will eventually get around to striking it down, in the mean time the law will operate to chill some online speech.
P.S. Some recent thoughts from EFF’s Hanni Fakhoury on how laws can address the problem of harassment without being speech-unfriendly.
Mayor Bloomberg as paladin of civil liberties?
Yes, on the First Amendment he’s been pretty decent, but as to the rest, surely you jest, Ms. Kaminer [Jacob Sullum]
Guns roundup
- “Seattle gun buyback backfires” [David Henderson]
- “Gun ban” vs. “sensible gun control”: sorting out some of the major players [David Kopel, Cato Unbound, 2008]
- Second Amendment vs. First? Maryland lawmaker proposes bill “to prohibit publications from printing private info of gun owners” [Justin Silverman, Citizen Media Law]
- Mental illness and the next Newtown [NYT “Room for Debate”, Nick Gillespie, Walter Russell Mead, Ann Coulter, Sam Bagenstos]
- Story of gun nuts heckling grieving Newtown father at hearing was too good to check [Nobody’s Business, Jim Treacher]
- If you’re going to break a D.C. gun law in some unintended and harmless way, let’s hope you’re a well-known journalist and not some unknown schmo [Henderson] Meet some other victims of gun overcriminalization [Scott Shackford]
- “The Problem With the ‘Public Health Research on Gun Violence’ That Obama Wants You to Pay For” [Jacob Sullum]
Free speech roundup
- Spirit Airlines v. DOT: “Government Can’t Silence Speech Criticizing Its Actions, Even If That Speech Is ‘Commercial'” [Ilya Shapiro/Sophie Cole, Cato]
- Virginia Supreme Court speedily rejects prior restraint against Yelp review [Paul Alan Levy, Volokh, earlier]
- Why schools crack down on speech [Hans Bader]
- “Mann v. Steyn — CEI SLAPPs Back” [Adler, earlier]
- Hellhole jurisdictions? “The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist” [Max Fisher, WaPo] “Egyptian court sentences Christian family to 15 years for converting from Islam” [FoxNews] Pakistan mob burns man accused of desecrating Koran alive [Reuters] And see, via Volokh, blasphemy penalties from Tunisia (seven years for posting Mohammed cartoons) and Egypt.
- “Congressman-Elect Kerry Bentivolio Sued Me For Calling Him a ‘Deadbeat Santa'” [Mike Betzold, Deadline Detroit]
- UK government agrees to rollback of law criminalizing insults [Telegraph, Independent]
Preliminary injunction orders takedown of Yelp posts
So is that prior restraint? [Washington Post on Virginia case, background; Brian Wolfman and Paul Alan Levy, Public Citizen] More: Ken at Popehat.
Governments forcing out private editors: it’d never happen here. Right?
I’ve expanded into a longer Cato post my item about how (according to the New York Times) incoming French president François Hollande demanded and got the dismissal of the editor of Le Figaro, the leading opposition (conservative) newspaper. If you think such things would never happen in this country, you might want to catch up on a couple of stories from Chicago and Boston. The post is here.
P.S. They’re still fighting in Washington over media cross-ownership rules.
Compelled-wedding-photography case reaches New Mexico Supreme Court
I’m pleased to report that I filed a friend-of-the-court brief, on behalf of the Cato Institute, Dale Carpenter, and myself, arguing that wedding photographers (and other speakers) have a First Amendment right to choose what expression they create, including by choosing not to photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies. All the signers of the brief support same-sex marriage rights; our objection is not to same-sex marriages, but to compelling photographers and other speakers [to create] works that they don’t want to create.
As Ilya Shapiro explains further at Cato, the litigation before the New Mexico Supreme Court hinges in substantial part on whether the photographers are entitled to claim religious-liberty protection against the discrimination claim, but the Cato amicus brief advances a distinct alternative theory under which they deserve to prevail:
Our brief explains that photography is an art form protected by the First Amendment because clients seek out the photographer’s method of staging, posing, lighting, and editing. Photography is thus a form of expression subject to the First Amendment’s protection, unlike many other wedding-related businesses (e.g., caterers, hotels, limousine drivers).
The amicus brief in Elane Photography v. Willock is here; I’m happy to say I played a bit part in helping to advance it. Earlier on the case here, here, and here; and more from George Will.
Justice Alito’s speech at the Federalist Society
Josh Blackman has a summary, including the Justice’s memories of Charles Reich’s constitutional law class at Yale, his commentaries on cases from the last Supreme Court term, and a proposal to carve the faces of Federalist Society founders Lee Liberman, David McIntosh, Peter Keisler, and Steve Calabresi on Mount Rushmore.
P.S. And on the Citizens United decision [BLT]:
Alito said arguments can be made for overturning Citizens United, but not the popular one that boils down to one line: Corporations shouldn’t get free speech rights like a person.
“It is pithy, it fits on a bumper sticker, and in fact a variety of bumper stickers are available,” Alito told a crowd of about 1,400 at The Federalist Society’s annual dinner. He cited two: “End Corporate Personhood,” and “Life does not begin at incorporation.”
Then Alito pointed out the same people do not question the First Amendment rights of media corporations in cases like The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Pentagon papers case. If corporations did not have free speech rights, newspapers would lose such cases, he said.
“Scapegoating Free Speech”
Hans Bader on the curious insistence on blaming the Benghazi attack on a YouTube video [CEI] Greg Lukianoff responds to Eric Posner on blasphemy laws [HuffPo, earlier] “Uh oh. The Atlantic gets in the game of trolling the First Amendment.” [Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry on this by Garrett Epps, earlier on Epps]
P.S. Ken at Popehat rates the President’s U.N. speech mostly good, with a few lapses. “It’s time for Canada to repeal its prohibition on blasphemous libel.” [Derek From, Canadian Constitution Foundation Justice Report] And in the “Pastitsios” affair, advocates of free speech in Greece are protesting the blasphemy arrest of a 27 year old man over his website, which makes fun of a well-known deceased Orthodox monk. [BoingBoing]