Federal judge blocks enforcement of Iowa’s book ban law; Iowa Public Radio, December 29, 2023

 Grant Gerlock, Iowa Public Radio ; Federal judge blocks enforcement of Iowa’s book ban law

"A federal judge has blocked the state of Iowa from enforcing major portions of an education law, SF 496, which has caused school districts to pull hundreds of books from library shelves.

The temporary injunction prevents enforcement of a ban on books with sexually explicit content, which the judge in the case said likely violates the First Amendment. It also blocks a section barring instruction relating to sexual orientation and gender identity in elementary school, which he called “void for vagueness.”

The decision follows a hearing last week that combined arguments from two separate challenges against the law signed by Gov. Kim Reynolds in May. A lawsuit brought by LGBTQ students calls the law discriminatory while another from a group of educators and the publisher Penguin Random House claims it violates their freedom of speech.

Enforcement provisions in the law that apply to book removals were set to take effect January 1...

Judge Stephen Locher said in his ruling released late Friday afternoon that the court was unable to find another school library book restriction “even remotely similar to Senate File 496.” Where lawmakers should use a scalpel, he said, SF 496 is a “bulldozer” that has pulled books out of schools that are widely regarded as important works.

“The underlying message is that there is no redeeming value to any such book even if it is a work of history, self-help guide, award-winning novel, or other piece of serious literature,” Locher wrote. “In effect, the Legislature has imposed a puritanical ‘pall of orthodoxy’ over school libraries.”"

What we’re watching at the start of new Supreme Court term; The Washington Post, October 2, 2023

Tobi Raji

, 

Theodoric Meyer

 and 

Leigh Ann Caldwell

, The Washington Post; What we’re watching at the start of new Supreme Court term

"2. Lindke v. Freed, O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (Oct. 31)

There are several cases on the court’s docket this term that will tackle the future of online speech. The first two — Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier — will seek to answer whether the First Amendment prohibits public officials from blocking constituents.

• (“Two years ago, the justices dismissed a similar challenge to Trump’s efforts to block critics on Twitter, after he lost reelection and his Twitter account was suspended,” Robertwrites.)

The high court will also debate the constitutionality of laws passed in Texas and Florida that regulate the tech industry’s content-moderation policies. They are Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton. Conservatives argue that social media platforms are censoring their viewpoints, while the companies argue that the new laws violate their First Amendment right to choose what to publish on their platforms."

Report on Anti-Gay Slur Could Put Local News Site Out of Business; The New York Times , August 15, 2023

Jeremy W. Peters  , The New York Times; Report on Anti-Gay Slur Could Put Local News Site Out of Business

"Some First Amendment advocates said the playbook was relatively easy to replicate: A public official unhappy with the coverage sues, creating crushing costs for an outlet."

Florida school district sued for violating first amendment rights with book bans; The Guardian, May 17, 2023

Erum Salam, The Guardian; Florida school district sued for violating first amendment rights with book bans

"In a statement, PEN America’s CEO, Suzanne Nossel, said: “Children in a democracy must not be taught that books are dangerous. The freedom to read is guaranteed by the constitution. In Escambia county, state censors are spiriting books off shelves in a deliberate attempt to silence pluralism and diversity. In a nation built on free speech, this cannot stand. The law demands that the Escambia county school district put removed or restricted books back on library shelves where they belong.”"

A Yale Psychiatrist’s Tweet About Dershowitz, Her Dismissal, and a Lawsuit; The New York Times, March 26, 2021

 Mihir Zaveri, The New York Times; A Yale Psychiatrist’s Tweet About Dershowitz, Her Dismissal, and a Lawsuit

The psychiatrist, Bandy X. Lee, said she was let go after the lawyer Alan M. Dershowitz complained to the university. Yale said she violated ethics rules against diagnosing public figures, her lawsuit claims.

"Others have questioned the relevance of the Goldwater rule. Jonathan Moreno, a bioethics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said he had not heard of anyone being disciplined by the American Psychiatric Association for violating the rule, even though people repeatedly broke it.

He also said professionals in other medical fields routinely comment in the press about the health of public figures."

Violence at Capitol and beyond reignites a debate over America's long-held defense of extremist speech; CNN, January 19, 2021

Eliott C. McLaughlin, CNN ; Violence at Capitol and beyond reignites a debate over America's long-held defense of extremist speech

"With most Americans hoping this week's expected inauguration protests look nothing like the Capitol siege, questions emerge about unrestrained free expression, long championed by First Amendment theorists as a benefit to society, no matter how ugly and hateful."

After a long legal struggle, Seattle band Thunderpussy is granted a U.S. trademark; The Seattle Times, April 5, 2020

Brendan Kiley, The Seattle Times; After a long legal struggle, Seattle band Thunderpussy is granted a U.S. trademark

"“There are a great many immoral and scandalous ideas in the world (even more than there are swearwords), and the Lanham Act covers them all,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court’s opinion. “It therefore violates the First Amendment.” She also noted a lack of consistency in how the USPTO interpreted the Lanham Act, approving some trademarks and rejecting others that used the same potentially offensive language.

Kerr, Thunderpussy’s attorney, had argued the same point in his appeal to the USPTO.

“I mentioned over 40 trademark applications that had been accepted that included the word ‘pussy,’ ” he said. “Human discretion enters into the process, which is one person forming an opinion based on an internet search — but the implications for the band are enormous.”

The wheels of bureaucracy turned and, on April 4, Kerr finally received a letter from the USPTO granting Thunderpussy registered trademark number 6,021,338."

Anti-harassment policy raises First Amendment questions; University of Pittsburgh University Times, November 18, 2019

Marty Levine, University of Pittsburgh University Times; Anti-harassment policy raises First Amendment questions

"Members of the University Senate’s Faculty Affairs committee say they have met with University officials and voiced concerns that a proposed new anti-harassment measure may potentially stifle classroom discussion and require the entire Pitt community to report suspicious speech to University authorities.

After the meeting, the policy was pulled from a vote before Faculty Assembly."

Kona Stories Book Store to Celebrate Banned Book Week; Big Island Now, September 21, 2019

Big Island Now; Kona Stories Book Store to Celebrate Banned Book Week

"At its heart, Banned Books Week is a celebration of the freedom to access ideas, a fundamental right that belongs to everyone and over which no one person or small group of people should hold sway.

Banned Books Week is a celebration of books, comics, plays, art, journalism and much more. 

At Kona Stories Book Store, books have been wrapped in paper bags to disguise the title. Books are decorated with red “I read banned books” stickers and a brief description of why they are on the list.

Customers are encouraged to buy the books without knowing the titles."

OPINION: The Ethics in Journalism Act is designed to censor journalists; The Sentinel, Kennesaw State University, April 22, 2019

Sean Eikhoff, The Sentinel, Kennesaw State University; OPINION: The Ethics in Journalism Act is designed to censor journalists

"The Ethics in Journalism Act currently in the Georgia House of Representatives is a thinly veiled attempt to censor journalists. A government-created committee with the power to unilaterally suspend or probate journalists is a dangerous concept and was exactly the sort of institution the framers sought to avoid when establishing freedom of the press.

The bill, HB 734, is sponsored by six Republicans and would create a Journalism Ethics Board with nine members appointed by Steve Wrigley, the chancellor of the University of Georgia. This board would be tasked to create a process by which journalists “may be investigated and sanctioned for violating such canons of ethics for journalists to include, but not be limited to, loss or suspension of accreditation, probation, public reprimand and private reprimand.”

The bill is an attempt to violate journalists’ first amendment rights and leave the chance of government punishing journalists for reporting the truth."

Iancu v. Brunetti Oral Argument; C-SPAN, April 15, 2019

April 15, 2019, C-SPAN; 

"Iancu v. Brunetti Oral Argument

The Supreme Court heard oral argument for Iancu v. Brunetti, a case concerning trademark law and the ban of “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks. Erik Brunetti founded a streetwear brand called “FUCT” back in 1990. Since then, he’s attempted to trademark it but with no success. Under the Lanham Act, the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) can refuse an application if it considers it to be “immoral” or “scandalous” and that’s exactly what happened here. The USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board also reviewed the application and they too agreed that the mark was “scandalous” and very similar to the word “fucked.” The board also cited that “FUCT” was used on products with sexual imagery and public interpretation of it was “an unmistakable aura of negative sexual connotations.” Mr. Brunetti’s legal team argued that this is in direct violation of his first amendment rights to free speech and private expression. Furthermore, they said speech should be protected under the First Amendment even if one is in disagreement with it. This case eventually came before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. They ruled in favor of Mr. Brunetti. The federal government then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The justices will now decide whether the Lanham Act banning “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks is unconstitutional."

Trademark Fight Over Vulgar Term’s ‘Phonetic Twin’ Heads to Supreme Court; The New York Times, January 21, 2019

Adam Liptak, The New York Times; Trademark Fight Over Vulgar Term’s ‘Phonetic Twin’ Heads to Supreme Court

"The Supreme Court apparently thinks the question is more complicated, as it agreed this month to hear the government’s appeal. If nothing else, the court can use Mr. Brunetti’s case to sort out just what it meant to say in the 2017 decision, which ruled for an Asian-American dance-rock band called the Slants. (The decision also effectively allowed the Washington Redskins football team to register its trademarks.)

The justices were unanimous in ruling that the prohibition on disparaging trademarks violated the First Amendment. But they managed to split 4 to 4 in most of their reasoning, making it hard to analyze how the decision applies in the context of the ban on scandalous terms."

Supreme Court to decide if trademark protection can be denied to ‘scandalous’ brands; The Washington Post, January 4, 2019

Robert Barnes, The Washington Post; Supreme Court to decide if trademark protection can be denied to ‘scandalous’ brands

"The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review a new front in the battle over free speech and will decide whether trademark protection can be refused to brands the federal government finds vulgar or lewd.

The case involves a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny trademark registration to a clothing line called FUCT.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down the century-old ban on protecting “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks as a First Amendment violation, and the Department of Justice wants the Supreme Court to reverse the decision...

The case,Iancu v. Brunetti , will probably be heard at the Supreme Court in April."

Artist Fired For Trump Cartoons to Release Book Enemy of the People; Comic Book Resources, November 9, 2018

Brandon Zachary, Comic Book Resources; Artist Fired For Trump Cartoons to Release Book Enemy of the People

[Kip Currier: With his singular artistic style and rapier insights, Rob Rogers is truly one of America's great political cartoonists and satirists.

Rogers was treated abysmally by the owners and management of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and was fired from the paper this year; see this Nov. 4 article in The Washington Post for more background.

It's good to see that his newest compilation Enemy of the People: A Cartoonists Journey will be available for purchase soon.]


"The Pulitzer Prize winner was a 25-year veteran of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette before being unceremoniously fired earlier this year, purportedly because his cartoons were regularly critical of President Trump and his policies.

Titled Enemy of the People: A Cartoonists Journey, the 184-page collection will be released Dec. 11 through the publisher's IDW Limited imprint...

“Satire is the ultimate expression of free speech," Rogers said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. "[It] reminds us that we live in a healthy democracy. But we are living in a time like no other in our country’s history, a time when the media is under attack, a time of extreme partisanship. We need satire and editorial cartoons more now than ever.”"

#ProtectMueller Rapid Response Rally in Pittsburgh--Calling for Recusal of Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, Protection of FBI Investigation by Robert Mueller, and Upholding of Rule of Law, Pittsburgh, PA, November 8, 2018

Kip Currier; #ProtectMueller Rapid Response Rally in Pittsburgh--Calling for Recusal of Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, Protection of FBI Investigation by Robert Mueller, and Upholding of Rule of Law:

Acosta should sue the president, and Americans should shun Sanders; The Washington Post, November 8, 2018

Jennifer Rubin, The Washington Post; Acosta should sue the president, and Americans should shun Sanders

"President Trump’s conduct (Sanders surely didn’t do this on her own) violates every democratic norm one can think of — and what’s more, is illegal.

The First Amendment protects the press’s right to report the news and the public’s right to receive that news. The government cannot punish or threaten the press or individuals based on the content of what is reported. In fact, in a public forum, which Twitter was deemed to be, a federal court already ordered Trump to unblock Twitter users who were critical of him."

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: what sports have taught me about race in America; The Guardian, August 28, 2018

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, The Guardian;

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: what sports have taught me about race in America

"Athletes who speak out are proclaiming their loyalty to a constitution that demands equality and inclusiveness, not to the government officials who try to undermine those ideals by silencing its critics."

When do rants exceed First Amendment boundaries and become true threats?; ABA Journal, August 2018

David L. Hudson Jr., ABA Journal; When do rants exceed First Amendment boundaries and become true threats?

"True threats are not protected in part because of the fear and disruption they cause in their recipients. “Speech that places a victim in fear for his or her physical safety is deeply harmful in that it disrupts the target’s life and may deter him or her from engaging in key life activities,” says University of Colorado Law School professor Helen Norton, who writes frequently on First Amendment topics.

“Indeed, true threats may themselves undermine First Amendment values by silencing the speaker’s target.” The push to combat threats is understandable. The problem is discerning the boundaries between protected speech and unprotected true threats. “The unclear part of the definition is what makes a threat ‘true,’ meaning that it is an expression dangerous enough for the government to have the power to punish, and the definition is narrow enough that it does not chill protected speech,” says Leslie Gielow Jacobs, a First Amendment expert who teaches at the University of the Pacific.

“We don’t want to criminalize political hyperbole, jokes or drunken rants,” Norton explains. “Not infrequently, we say extreme things that we don’t mean to be understood literally, such as ‘I am so mad at X that I could kill him.’ Speech of that sort furthers an individual’s First Amendment interests in expressive autonomy, and the government’s regulation of it threatens overreaching and other dangers.”"

The Expensive Education of Mark Zuckerberg and Silicon Valley; The New York Times, August 2, 2018

Kara Swisher, The New York Times;

The Expensive Education of Mark Zuckerberg and Silicon Valley

"All these companies began with a gauzy credo to change the world. But they have done that in ways they did not imagine — by weaponizing pretty much everything that could be weaponized. They have mutated human communication, so that connecting people has too often become about pitting them against one another, and turbocharged that discord to an unprecedented and damaging volume.

They have weaponized social media. They have weaponized the First Amendment. They have weaponized civic discourse. And they have weaponized, most of all, politics...

Because what he never managed to grok then was that the company he created was destined to become a template for all of humanity, the digital reflection of masses of people across the globe. Including — and especially — the bad ones.

Was it because he was a computer major who left college early and did not attend enough humanities courses that might have alerted him to the uglier aspects of human nature? Maybe."

Honey Badger may not care, but the ‘creative genius’ who took him viral just won a big victory; The Washington Post, August 1, 2018

Antonia Farzan, The Washington Post; Honey Badger may not care, but the ‘creative genius’ who took him viral just won a big victory

"In June 2015, Gordon filed a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment to the greeting card company, saying that the cards were expressive works protected by the First Amendment. Gordon appealed.

On Monday, the appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, allowing his lawsuit to continue.

In an opinion published Monday, the three-judge panel said that Gordon’s lawsuit against Drape Creative, Inc. and Papyrus-Recycled Greetings, Inc. presents a question that should be tried before a jury: Did the greeting cards add any artistic value that would be protected by the First Amendment, or did they simply appropriate the goodwill associated with Gordon’s trademark?"