| Cyborg | | | Designer-Babies | | | Futurism | | | Futurist | | | Immortality | | | Longevity | | | Nanotechnology | | | Post-Human | | | Singularity | | | Transhuman |
First Amendment Show (Invite and Share!)
Everyone invite and share! 
See you in WOOSTER on 5/24/13! https://www.facebook.com/events/482624668476532/?fref=ts https://www.facebook.com/NateLouisMusic.
By: TheNateHead
Visit link:
First Amendment Show (Invite and Share!) – Video
Tampa 912 First Amendment rally in front of the IRS
May 21st, 2013, 200+ people showed up to defend their Liberty against the assault on the First Amendment. Being targeted by the Federal Government (Internal …
By: Tampa912Project
See the original post:
Tampa 912 First Amendment rally in front of the IRS – Video
First Amendment History Project
A brief guide to the First Amendment of the Constitution of The United States of America.
By: Angie Melton
Here is the original post:
First Amendment History Project – Video
Former Rutgers quarterback Ryan Hart won his appeal in an ongoing lawsuit against EA Sports regarding the unauthorized use of his likeness in the NCAA Football series of games earlier this week, according to Kotaku.Harts victory comes after a Federal District Court judge dismissed his suit in 2011, ruling that EA has a First Amendment right to depict college football players.
Hart appealed the ruling to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, and the three-judge panel sided with the former quarterback in a 2-1 decision, ruling that[t]he various digitized sights and sounds in the video game do not alter or transform the appelants identity in a significant way, according to Judge Joseph Greenaway.
The legalities of depicting NCAA players in a for-profit manner are murky at best, and this case may help to create a new precedent.Former Nebraska and Arizona State quarterback Samuel Keller is at the Federal Appeal level in a different district with an identical complaint. Kellers case was already combined with that of former UCLA player Ed OBannon, who seeks to make it a class action suit.
According to NCAA rules, a player cannot profit off of their athletic performance. Even the action of selling personalmemorabilia is prohibited, as former Ohio State quarterback Terrelle Pryor and four of his teammates found out in 2010, leading to a five game suspension.
While the players themselves are prohibited from receiving any compensation, the schools and other companies with license rights to NCAA football are not. Companies can sell the jerseys of any player they wish as long as that players name is not on the jersey, because that player would then be legally entitled to receive some of the revenue from that sale, a violation of NCAA rules.The same is true of EA Sports NCAA Football game series. NFL Players negotiate for fees through the Players Association, but the NCAA players cannot.
Hart, who played for Rutgers from 2002-2005, claims that EA Sports used his likeness down to his actual football skills, his physical appearance, his stats, and even his background information. Harts lawyers claimed that EA essentially stole the likeness of Hart and other college football players for profit.
EA insists that the use of the players is done in such a way to create an expressive transformation, which would give them protection under the First Amendment. The arguments are not far removed from those EA is currently using in defense of its decisionto no longer paylicense fees to gun manufacturers in order to feature real weapons in games, as that too is protected under the First Amendment.
The case will now be sent back to the District Court level for another hearing. If successful, these cases could have a significant impact both on the way the NCAA treats its players and on the future of college football video games.
DT
Mike Rougeau is a freelance writer covering video games, technology and entertainment. His words have appeared in publications that include Kotaku, IFC, TechRadar, GamesRadar, Complex Magazine, G4, 1Up, and others. He loves Dark Souls and his dog. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/roguecheddar.
See original here:
Former NCAA QB wins appeal, sets up First Amendment showdown with EA
Obama must protect the first amendment?
Good grief. An Op-Ed article in the Rochester NY (Liberal) Democrat and Chronicle so says, referencing the recent illegal seizure of phone records from the A…
By: Artifactsofmars's channel
See the article here:
Obama must protect the first amendment? – Video
AP Probe Scandal Raises Questions About Conflicts in Protecting the First Amendment
AP Probe Scandal Raises Questions About Conflicts in Protecting the First Amendment and National Security.
By: leonida sheets
See more here:
AP Probe Scandal Raises Questions About Conflicts in Protecting the First Amendment – Video
Krauthammer Assault on First Amendment
more at http://therightpundit.com.
By: Speakmymind02's channel
See more here:
Krauthammer Assault on First Amendment – Video
Lawyers for two Roman Catholic-owned companies in Illinois and Indiana argued before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday that a law forcing them to include birth control in their employees’ benefits would violate their First Amendment rights.
But in an unexpected twist during a hearing on the merits of a preliminary injunction, the lawyer for the U.S. government argued that accommodating the business owners’ religious beliefs could violate the First Amendment as well.
Edward L. White III, a lawyer representing Korte & Luitjohan Contractors in the Downstate city of Highland, said the fines imposed for ignoring the contraception mandate would impose a substantial burden on the southern Illinois construction company and therefore violate the U.S. constitution.
The mandate is depriving my clients of the free exercise of their Catholic faith, said White, a lawyer for the American Center for Law & Justice based in Ann Arbor, Mich.
The company is an extension of their beliefs as the two people who control the company, he told the court.
But Alisa Klein, an attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, said allowing a company to impose a religious framework on a diverse workforce would amount to fostering or enabling religious practice.
At bottom, the concern is about establishing religion, Klein said.
Judge Diane Sykes said the question before the court is not whether the mandate violates religious beliefs, but whether acting on those beliefs imposes a significant burden on a business owner.
We are not competent to answer religious questions, she said.
About 60 businesses, half of them for-profit and most of them Catholic-owned, have sued the Obama administration over a health-care mandate that requires employers to provide health benefits, including contraception, some sterilization procedures and the morning-after pill. In February, the Obama administration proposed a rule that attempted to address the First Amendment concerns expressed by non-profits. But the rule did not offer to shield for-profit businesses with more than 50 employees. They still must comply, even if they object on religious grounds.
See the original post here:
Birth control case a fight over First Amendment
As Mayor Bob Filner grapples with the First Amendment issue that led him to grant a local artist personal permission to sell jewelry in Ocean Beach, theres at least one place he can turn for guidance: the Unified Port of San Diego.
Last month, Chula Vista artist David Millette waited in line at City Hall to tell Mayor Bob Filner he believed the citys policy for permitting local artists to perform or sell their products was unconstitutional.
Filner agreed, and told the Park and Recreation director Millette had permission to sell his handmade jewelry in parks and beaches. Now Millette carries a copy of the letter around to let officers know hes covered.
But the citys municipal code, which forced Millette to seek special permission, hasnt been changed. It still includes the same regulations that Filner seems persuaded to see as a violation of the First Amendment. (Filners office hasnt responded to requests for comment).
Last year, the port district reacted to the same issue by rewriting its restrictions.
Port attorney Ellen Gross said the district exhaustively rewrote itsordinanceoutlining activities protected by the First Amendment, partially in response to recent court cases, such as a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2009.
Gross said the port modeled its ordinance after Los Angeles rewritten code, which withstood a court challenge. It also had the ACLU look at the language to make sure it didnt violate the First Amendment.
I cant speak for the city of San Diego and how they want to permit, but for the port and our resource management, we found that the scheme we came up with works very well, she said.
As the mayors next monthly meet-and-greet session approaching, he can expect to greeted by one artist who received a permission slip of his own to sell his art at the harbor.
William J. Dorsett, a 35-year-old artist who also calls himself the San Diego Roseman, normally weaves roses and palm fronds for patrons in front of Anthonys Fish Grotto.
Read more from the original source:
What the Port Can Teach Filner About First Amendment Permitting
Libertarianism: theTrojan Horse to Feudalism – Part 1
By: LouisianaCommonweal
See the original post here:
Libertarianism: theTrojan Horse to Feudalism – Part 1 – Video
The newest posting at Libertarianism.org is a 1979 speech by Nathaniel Branden, from the largest-ever convention of the Libertarian Party, titled What Happens When the Libertarian Movement Begins to Succeed? Alas, its audio-only, unlike all the classic videos at Libertarianism.org. But its still vintage Branden, and quite interesting. The sites multimedia editor, Evan Banks, drew my attention to this part of the speech (starting around 22:22) that I think has a lot of relevance to the work we do at Cato and the attempts at persuasion by libertarians generally:
So it becomes very interesting to ask ourselves and obviously I dont wish to imply this applies to all of us, it doesnt but these are trends to watch for in ourselves and in our colleagues. So it becomes interesting to ask ourselves: Okay, suppose that I or my friends or my colleagues, while genuinely believing in these ideals, at the same time have this unrecognized negative self-concept of which Branden speaks. That means that my self-sabotaging behavior wouldnt happen on a conscious level, but it would happen. How would it happen? What kinds of mistakes might we make?
Well, for example, suppose that youre talking with people that dont already share your views, and yet you believe your views have evidence and reason to support them. Now, if you really believe that youre in this to win; to see your ideas prevail, then you give a lot of thought to how to become a good communicator, how to reach human minds, how to appeal to human intelligence. What do you do if youre really in it to keep proving that youre a heroicbut doomedmartyr? What do you do if your deepest belief [about people that dont already share your views] is, Youre never going to get it. Youre hopelessly corrupt. I may be one of the two or three last moral people on Earth. What am I doing at this party anyway?
[laughter]
You engage in a lot of flaming rhetoric you talk about statists, you talk about looters, you talk about parasites in contexts where you KNOW this language is Greek to your listener. Why should you care, your dialogue isnt directed to him anyway its directed to the spectator you watching you being a hero. HE knows what you mean dont get confused over the fact that your listeners dont, the show isnt for them anyway.
So, one of the signs that we want to look out for, and one of the most important signs, happens in how we approach communication. Are we really out to reach human beings? Are we really out to build a bridge to somebody whose context may be very different from our own? Do we still remember that a lot of what we now regard as self-evident once upon a time wasnt self-evident? Or do we walk into a conversation on the premise: Ill give you one chance, after which youre irredeemably evil?
[laughter]
Read the original:
The Art of Persuasion
Real News » Intimigate: First Amendment
As we learn more about the DOJ's targeting of journalists in the name of national security, we debate whether or not reporters will be able to maintain their…
By: yazchat
Original post:
Real News » Intimigate: First Amendment – Video
Radio Host and Political Activist Adam Kokesh Arrested By Police For His First Amendment Rights
Political activist and radio host Adam Kokesh was arrested – abducted…. by police for exercising his First Amendment rights during a pro-marijuana legaliza…
By: BelligerentPolitics
View original post here:
Radio Host and Political Activist Adam Kokesh Arrested By Police For His First Amendment Rights – Video
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) pledged that the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will get to the bottom of the “IRS’ abuse of taxpayers’ First Amendment rights,” which he said members of the Obama administration have been aware of since last summer when he and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) called for an inspector general’s investigation.
“At the risk of sounding, I guess a little boastful, we’d like to think that because Congressman Issa and I requested the audit of the IRS — when Tea Party groups from all over the country and specifically from the fourth district of Ohio, came to us and said ‘look we’re getting harassed,’ — we said let’s check into this and so we requested the audit and the audit by the inspector general is what prompted the IRS to actually come forward and admit to what they did,” Issa said in a video response (below) via TellDC.com, a website that allows people to ask questions to their elected representatives.
Jordan and Issa requested the audit in a June 28, 2012 letter sent directly to Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration J. Russell George that pointed out examples of IRS “overreach.”
Gearing up for a hearing next Wednesday, Jordan told TellDC.com that the committee is planning to seek testimony from other IRS witnesses in addition to Lois Lerner, the director of the IRS’s Exempt Organizations Division, who will be a key witness.
Watch the rest of Jordan’s response to Melissa Hopkins, Executive Producer at TellDC.com:
Please enable Javascript to watch this video
Video courtesy of TellDC.com.
Front page image credit: AP
Visit link:
Rep. Jordan Pledges to Get to Bottom of IRS ‘Abuse of Taxpayers’ First Amendment Rights’
LIBERAL Rep. Savages Eric Holder: Department Of Justice Has 'Impaired The First Amendment'
LIBERAL Rep. Savages Eric Holder: Department Of Justice Has 'Impaired The First Amendment'
By: leonida sheets
View post:
LIBERAL Rep. Savages Eric Holder: Department Of Justice Has ‘Impaired The First Amendment’ – Video
E. Michael Jones – US tapping phones against First Amendment
Press TV has conducted an interview with E. Michael Jones, editor of Culture Wars online magazine from Indiana, about the recent scandals in the United State…
By: bammbamm12
Originally posted here:
E. Michael Jones – US tapping phones against First Amendment – Video
Can the mere image of a green leaf be considered obscene? If you think thats the kind of navel-gazing philosophical question to only be pondered by stoners, you are half right it does have to do with marijuana. But it isnt just an abstract and pointless query; its an important and relevant legal one thanks to a bizarre effort to criminalize the mere image of the cannabis plant.
The setting for this effort is Colorado. After citizens here overwhelmingly backed Amendment 64, which fully legalizes marijuana, the state is now experiencing predictable attempts to thwart voters will. The first of those was an attempt to automatically repeal the amendment if voters didnt approve a new tax to fund marijuana regulatory enforcement. The second of those has been municipal and state proposals to criminalize images like the cannabis leaf and media content about marijuana, despite the fact that access to the substance is now a constitutionally protected right in Colorado.
The good news is that the former bill died in the statehouse. The bad news is that the latter set of initiatives has already been enacted in the states biggest city and may be soon be expanded at the state level, thus potentially setting a larger First Amendment precedent allowing governments to target industries they dont like.
The history of this particular free-speech controversy dates back to 2012, when the Denver Post reported that in a vote that lasted less than a minute the Denver city council enacted a citywide ban on all outdoor medical-marijuana advertising in the city including billboards, posters, bus benches, windshield leaflets and sign twirlers. In this, the Associated Press noted the city was joining Delaware, Montana, Vermont and Washington State in regulating speech about marijuana.
Because marijuana was still only officially a medicinal substance in 2012, advocates of curtailing the marketing of medicinal marijuana could at least back then cite Americas earlier restrictions on prescription drug advertisements as historical precedent for the pot advertising ban. Referencing that history, they could additionally claim an ad ban wasnt any kind of broader and unprecedented assault on the deeper principles of free speech.
The same, however, cannot be said today in Colorado. Thanks to the statewide ballot measure in 2012, cannabis is legal not just for medicinal use but also for recreational use, meaning that new ad bans are trying to curtail speech about a constitutionally recognized consumer product.
Despite that new reality, NBC 9 News reports that at the end of the legislative session, groups supporting the continued Drug War slipped language into a last-minute bill that would force stores to hide behind the counter any magazine whose primary focus is marijuana or marijuana businesses. According to the bill language, it would also ban marijuana related pop-up ads on the Internet and also ban ads promoting any health or physical benefit claims about cannabis.
Looked at strictly through the prism of drug use, it is shockingly hypocritical that this language sailed through the Colorado legislature and now awaits Gov. John Hickenloopers signature.
It is hypocritical because the Colorado that is citing concern about drug use as justification to crack down on marijuana-related speech is also the same Colorado proudly promoting the far more toxic drug known as alcohol. Yes, among other things, Colorados professional baseball field is named after a beer company; its governor brags about building a business career off peddling alcohol; and the states craft brewing industry (which, by the way, I love) is promoted by municipal governments as an integral part of the states tourism appeal.
On the other hand, considered as a free speech issue, it is no coincidence that this is all happening in Colorado. This state has, after all, displayed an acute hostility to First Amendment principles. In only the last few years, its largest city engaged in mass arrests of protestors at the Democratic National Convention while also trying to confine First Amendment rights to fenced-in free speech zones; its state government deployedweapon-brandishing riot police against non-violent Occupy Wall Street demonstrators; and its biggest public university shut down its campus to quash the annual 4/20 protest against the ongoing Drug War.
View original post here:
Marijuana opponents’ new plan: Kill First Amendment
President Barack Obamas administration announced this week that it is throwing its support behind the press shield law that has been stalled in Congress since time immemorial. Critics insist that the administration, suddenly mired in scandal, is simply trying to curry favor with the news media, but the proposal deserves to be judged on its merits.
And on its merits, the shield law is a bad idea. Let me explain why.
I believe that the First Amendment is the single most important provision in the Constitution. Part of what makes it so is that it protects all Americans — not just journalists.
The avowed purpose of the shield law is to make it difficult for the government to compel testimony from journalists. It is self-evident that being forced to disclose confidential information would make it harder for reporters to do their jobs. In effect, the risk of compelled disclosure increases the cost of journalism.
A useful analogy is the case of NAACP v. Alabama, decided 55 years ago, in which the Supreme Court held that forced disclosure of membership lists would burden the freedom of association. This seems plainly correct. If all the world can know which organizations you join, your cost of membership is effectively increased. That, wrote the justices, the Constitution does not allow the state to do.
Very well. If compelling journalists to disclose their sources is analogous to compelling members of an interest group to disclose their membership, whats wrong with the shield law? The answer, as the late Judge Bailey Aldrich wrote in a different context, is that the statute is not too happily drafted.
There are several versions of the shield law pending in Congress. The one that seems to have the most support is grandiloquently titled the Free Flow of Information Act. But this bill, much like the guidelines on which the Justice Department was supposed to rely before seizing telephone records of Associated Press reporters, is chock-full of exceptions — particularly for national security cases.
The statute, in any case, says only that the government cant subpoena documents or testimony from journalists until it has exhausted other reasonable means of getting the same information. In a saner world, this would be a universal standard — but it probably wouldnt be a significant change for the practice of journalism. Even in the absence of a shield law, most prosecutors are too savvy to go after journalists. The price can be too high. If a prosecutor does decide to try to pry a source out of a reporter, chances are he has indeed run out of other ideas.
Put otherwise, the protections themselves might change the status quo only a little. And there is reason to think that the shield law, even if it existed, would have offered scant protection to the AP.
But the rather limited effect isnt the largest problem with the proposed statute. After all, the protections can always be strengthened. The larger problem is the class the bill would protect. The protection applies only to a covered person, and a covered person is defined with disturbing narrowness:
The rest is here:
Note to Media: The First Amendment Protects All of Us
FireFox!
Start Your Own Web Hosting Company
Web Hosting
Advertise Here $10 a Month
Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin
|
Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum
|