1st Amendment Thread

[C-Mag]

AG Sessions going after Suppression of Free Speech on Campus
https://article.wn.com/view/2017/09/27/ ... on_campus/

[Hastur]

Don't know where to put this. The 'Mad Pooper' of Colorado has left a statement via her(?) spokesman saying sorry.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/26/ma ... r-air.html

A man claiming to be the “spokesman” of a jogger dubbed the "Mad Pooper" – who reportedly has been defecating on the lawns of Colorado homes – says the woman is struggling after gender reassignment surgery and as she battles a traumatic brain injury.

The unidentified man made the comments in a YouTube video that has since been removed, KRDO reported.

He said he was speaking on the behalf of Colorado Springs jogger “Shirley” and said she is sorry for her actions. The man also said “Shirley” can no longer control herself after undergoing the reassignment surgery.

He added the jogger’s actions are protected under the First Amendment and the government cannot control when and where she decides to do her business – a claim blasted by criminal defense attorney Jeremy Loew.

"Defecating in someone's yard is definitely not protected under the First Amendment and it is actually a crime," Loew told KRDO. "This is actually the worst thing the family could do. Maybe they thought the videos would make the situation go away, but they won't. People all over the world are talking about this, and police will catch her. The man in the video will also have to be called into court to testify."

[de officiis]

Another civil liberties advancement from our friends across the pond. Keep up the good work!

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/10/05/b ... ernet/amp/

[Ex-California]

Another civil liberties advancement from our friends across the pond. Keep up the good work!

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/10/05/b ... ernet/amp/

Please justify this Monte

[Ex-California]

Don't know where to put this. The 'Mad Pooper' of Colorado has left a statement via her(?) spokesman saying sorry.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/26/ma ... r-air.html

A man claiming to be the “spokesman” of a jogger dubbed the "Mad Pooper" – who reportedly has been defecating on the lawns of Colorado homes – says the woman is struggling after gender reassignment surgery and as she battles a traumatic brain injury.

The unidentified man made the comments in a YouTube video that has since been removed, KRDO reported.

He said he was speaking on the behalf of Colorado Springs jogger “Shirley” and said she is sorry for her actions. The man also said “Shirley” can no longer control herself after undergoing the reassignment surgery.

He added the jogger’s actions are protected under the First Amendment and the government cannot control when and where she decides to do her business – a claim blasted by criminal defense attorney Jeremy Loew.

"Defecating in someone's yard is definitely not protected under the First Amendment and it is actually a crime," Loew told KRDO. "This is actually the worst thing the family could do. Maybe they thought the videos would make the situation go away, but they won't. People all over the world are talking about this, and police will catch her. The man in the video will also have to be called into court to testify."

Holy shit.

BUT REASSIGNMENT SURGERY IS A HEALTHY TREATMENT FOR PEOPLE WHO DONT' FEEL COMFORTABLE IN THEIR BODIES

[SuburbanFarmer]

Another civil liberties advancement from our friends across the pond. Keep up the good work!

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/10/05/b ... ernet/amp/

15 years for looking at the wrong website.. Fucking madness..

[de officiis]

Satanist wins transfer of her abortion rights case to the Missouri Supreme Court

A Missouri woman who is an adherent of the Satanic Temple won a victory in court last week in her quest to show that state abortion law violates her religious beliefs.

The Western District Court of Appeals ruled in her favor Tuesday, writing that her constitutional challenge — rare for its basis in religion — presented “a contested matter of right that involves fair doubt and reasonable room for disagreement.”

The woman, identified as Mary Doe in court documents, argued that her religion does not adhere to the idea that life begins at conception, and, because of that, the prerequisites for an abortion in Missouri are unconstitutionally violating her freedom of religion protected by the First Amendment.

The court ordered a transfer of the woman’s case to the Missouri Supreme Court.

...
Doe underwent an abortion in May 2015 in St. Louis. But before she was able to have the procedure, she had to comply with the state’s informed consent law.

The law compels women to wait 72 hours between their initial visit and the procedure, view an active ultrasound and sign a form pledging that they’ve read a booklet that includes the line, “[t]he life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.”

She declined to hear her fetus’ heartbeat and felt “guilt and shame,” according to court documents.

She claims that “the sole purpose of the law is to indoctrinate pregnant women into the belief held by some, but not all, Christians that a separate and unique human being begins at conception,” according to the court’s opinion. “Because the law does not recognize or include other beliefs, she contends that it establishes an official religion and makes clear that the state disapproves of her beliefs.”

The case would be the first of its kind to be heard by either the Missouri Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court, according to the Western District Court.

“Neither the Missouri Supreme Court nor the U.S. Supreme Court has considered whether a Booklet of this nature, an Ultrasound, an Audible Heartbeat Offer, and a seventy-two-hour Waiting Period violate the Religion Clause rights of pregnant women,” the court wrote.

Judge Thomas Newton issued the unanimous opinion. He wrote that Doe argued she must not support religious, philosophical or political beliefs that imbue her fetal tissue with an existence separate, apart or unique from her body.

“Because we believe that this case raises real and substantial constitutional claims, it is within the Missouri Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction...” Newton wrote, “and we hereby order its transfer.”

Doe is an adherent of the Satanic Temple, according to court documents.

...

I guess you could call this a "win" although it was probably more like the intermediate appellate court said, "we ain't touching this with a ten-foot pole!"

It will be interesting to see how the Missouri Supremes handle this. Supposedly they lean conservative.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

So, I want the cake to say: Congratulations on Your Sick-Ass Abortion, HAIL SATAN!

[de officiis]

Confederate emblem causes unequal treatment, attorneys argue

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Attorneys say in written arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court that the Confederate battle emblem on the Mississippi flag is “an official endorsement of white supremacy” and lower courts were wrong to block a lawsuit challenging the flag.

The arguments were made in papers filed Friday by lawyers for Carlos Moore, an African-American attorney who sued the state in 2016 seeking to have the flag declared an unconstitutional relic of slavery.

Mississippi has used the same flag since 1894 and it has the last state banner featuring the Confederate symbol — red field topped by a blue tilted cross dotted by 13 white stars. Critics say the symbol is racist. Supporters say it represents history.

“Mississippi adopted its flag at the same time it vigorously reasserted white control of the state, the flag was intended to be an official endorsement of white supremacy, and by continuing to fly it, Mississippi broadcasts that message on daily basis,” Moore’s attorneys wrote. “It is the equivalent of the state adopting ‘White Supremacy Forever’ as its state motto.”

A federal district judge and an appeals court ruled against Moore, and his attorneys are trying to revive the case. The Supreme Court accepts a fraction of cases on appeal.

In papers filed Oct. 18, attorneys for Gov. Phil Bryant said the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was correct to say that Moore failed to show he suffered harm because of the flag.

Moore’s attorneys, led by Michael T. Scott of Philadelphia, responded Friday that “government speech endorsing one race over another” is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

Mississippi residents who voted in a 2001 referendum chose to keep the flag. . . .

Moore, who became a city judge this year, has received death threats for filing suit over the state flag and for removing the flag from his courtroom in Clarksdale, his attorneys said.

Gov. Bryant has said repeatedly that if the flag design is to be reconsidered, it should be approved by voters. He said this week that he wants the flag to go the 2018 ballot. However, it’s not clear if a majority of legislators would agree to put it there or if they would offer an alternate design.

I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court grants cert, but you never know.

[Fife]

Confederate emblem causes unequal treatment, attorneys argue

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Attorneys say in written arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court that the Confederate battle emblem on the Mississippi flag is “an official endorsement of white supremacy” and lower courts were wrong to block a lawsuit challenging the flag.

The arguments were made in papers filed Friday by lawyers for Carlos Moore, an African-American attorney who sued the state in 2016 seeking to have the flag declared an unconstitutional relic of slavery.

Mississippi has used the same flag since 1894 and it has the last state banner featuring the Confederate symbol — red field topped by a blue tilted cross dotted by 13 white stars. Critics say the symbol is racist. Supporters say it represents history.

“Mississippi adopted its flag at the same time it vigorously reasserted white control of the state, the flag was intended to be an official endorsement of white supremacy, and by continuing to fly it, Mississippi broadcasts that message on daily basis,” Moore’s attorneys wrote. “It is the equivalent of the state adopting ‘White Supremacy Forever’ as its state motto.”

A federal district judge and an appeals court ruled against Moore, and his attorneys are trying to revive the case. The Supreme Court accepts a fraction of cases on appeal.

In papers filed Oct. 18, attorneys for Gov. Phil Bryant said the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was correct to say that Moore failed to show he suffered harm because of the flag.

Moore’s attorneys, led by Michael T. Scott of Philadelphia, responded Friday that “government speech endorsing one race over another” is a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.

Mississippi residents who voted in a 2001 referendum chose to keep the flag. . . .

Moore, who became a city judge this year, has received death threats for filing suit over the state flag and for removing the flag from his courtroom in Clarksdale, his attorneys said.

Gov. Bryant has said repeatedly that if the flag design is to be reconsidered, it should be approved by voters. He said this week that he wants the flag to go the 2018 ballot. However, it’s not clear if a majority of legislators would agree to put it there or if they would offer an alternate design.

I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court grants cert, but you never know.

No way SCOTUS touches this, IMNSHO.

The issue cuts way, way, way too deep into IRL federalism.