{"id":1101,"date":"2017-06-25T11:00:26","date_gmt":"2017-06-25T15:00:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/?p=1101"},"modified":"2017-06-25T11:00:26","modified_gmt":"2017-06-25T15:00:26","slug":"first-amendment-newsflash-611-25","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/first-amendment-newsflash-611-25\/","title":{"rendered":"First Amendment Newsflash 6\/11-25"},"content":{"rendered":"

Welcome to First Amendment Newsflash: the First Amendment Law Review\u2019s new bi-weekly roundup of the latest in free expression and religious freedom news and commentary. Check here every other Sunday for a new edition! Need First Amendment news in the meantime? Follow FALR on <\/span><\/i>Twitter<\/a> and <\/span><\/i>Facebook<\/a> for regular updates.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

\"the-first-amendment\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Supreme Court News<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

In <\/span>Matal v. Tam<\/a> (formerly Lee v. Tam), the Supreme Court held 8-0 that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment. The Court found that trademarks do not constitute government speech. Four justices applied the Central Hudson test, while the other four justices argued that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard. The decision is seen as reaffirming that there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Read <\/span>The Washington Post<\/span><\/i>\u2019s analysis <\/span>here<\/a>. <\/span><\/p>\n

In <\/span>Packingham v. North Carolina<\/a>, the Supreme Court held 8-0 that a N.C. statute preventing registered sex offenders from using social media violates the First Amendment. The majority opinion proclaims the internet to be \u201cthe most important place[] . . . for the exchange of views.\u201d Read <\/span>SCOTUSblog<\/span><\/i>\u2019s<\/span> analysis <\/span>here<\/a>. <\/span><\/p>\n

Cert was denied<\/a> in a case from the Second Circuit challenging mass arrests of protesters (<\/span>Garcia v. Bloomberg<\/a>), leaving a circuit split on the issue.<\/span><\/p>\n

The government filed its <\/span>opposition brief in<\/a> Elonis II. At issue in this case, back up on cert from the Third Circuit, is whether the trial court\u2019s omission of the mens rea element from jury instructions was harmless error. Read Elonis\u2019 brief <\/span>here<\/a>. For a refresher on Elonis I, check out FALR blog posts <\/span>here<\/a> and <\/span>here<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Federal Legislative News<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to discuss \u201cthe assault on the First Amendment on college campuses.\u201d <\/span>The Chronicle of Higher Education<\/span><\/i> has four takeaways <\/span>here<\/a>. <\/span><\/p>\n

Montana Senator Steve Daines introduced a bill to <\/span>amend the Constitution<\/a> to allow for legislation that prohibits flag desecration. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Other Court News<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

A Massachusetts court found a young woman who encouraged her friend to commit suicide <\/span>guilty of involuntary manslaughter<\/a>. Many commentators worry this conviction runs afoul of the First Amendment.<\/span><\/p>\n

A student expelled from Michigan Technological Institute for posting, \u201cGonna shoot all black people \u2026\u2026 a smile tomorrow\u201d on Yik Yak, <\/span>settled his lawsuit<\/a> against the university.<\/span><\/p>\n

In a panel re-hearing in <\/span>Gerlich v. Leath<\/a>, the Eighth Circuit reaffirmed that Iowa State University violated students\u2019 First Amendment rights by precluding the ISU NORML chapter from using ISU\u2019s trademarks.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Ninth Circuit <\/span>heard oral arguments in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District<\/a>, the case of a high school football coach\u2019s pre-game prayers. This case pits establishment issues against free exercise and free expression concerns. For analysis on this issue generally, check out <\/span>pg. 381 of the Spring 2017 issue of FALR<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

In another case related to pre-game prayer, a Florida Christian school has <\/span>appealed a federal court decision<\/a> that upheld the Florida High School Athletic Association\u2019s decision to deny the school from broadcasting a prayer before a football championship game in 2015.<\/span><\/p>\n

Former New York gubernatorial candidate\u00a0<\/span>Carl Paladino filed a First Amendment suit<\/a> against members of the Buffalo Board of Education who are trying to remove him from the board. Calls for removal point to Paladino allegedly disclosing confidential information, but came after he made racist statements about the Obamas.<\/span><\/p>\n

The New Hampshire ACLU has <\/span>filed an amicus brief<\/a> in a case alleging that Farmington, N.H.\u2019s social media policy violates town employees\u2019 First Amendment rights. <\/span><\/p>\n

A federal judge ruled that a cross on display in a public park in Pensacola, Fla. <\/span>violates the establishment clause<\/a>. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Fifth Circuit ruled that plaintiffs challenging the Mississippi \u201cProtecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act\u201d <\/span>lacked standing<\/a>, allowing the legislation to go into effect for the first time. The law allows businesses to refuse wedding services based on sincerely held religious beliefs in three areas: that marriage is between a man and a woman, that people should not engage in premarital sex, and that gender is set at birth.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

State Legislative News<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Wisconsin State Assembly passed a Campus Free Speech Act, <\/span>advancing it to the state senate<\/a>. Similar laws have passed in Utah, Colorado, Virginia, Tennessee, and Louisiana (awaiting the governor’s signature), and four other states are currently considering similar measures. The bills have been controversial among free speech advocates, with some lauding their potential to allow more campus free speech and others expressing concern that their disciplinary provisions will chill counter-protests.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Texas governor <\/span>signed the Freedom to Serve Children Act<\/a>, which allows child welfare providers in the state to cite sincerely held religious beliefs to deny adoptions and other services to parents and children. This law follows a line of similar legislation, including RFRA, that have caused debate about balancing the right to free exercise with other civil rights issues.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Policy & Commentary<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n

PBS Newshour did a <\/span>segment on the use of surveillance technology in schools<\/a>, exploring the balance between civil liberties like free speech and schools\u2019 need to maintain safety for students.<\/span><\/p>\n

Netflix released \u201c<\/span>Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press<\/a>,\u201d a documentary about the Hulk Hogan case against Gawker.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

That\u2019s it for your First Amendment Newsflash June 11-25. See you again on July 9!<\/strong><\/span><\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Welcome to First Amendment Newsflash: the First Amendment Law Review\u2019s new bi-weekly roundup of the latest in free expression and religious freedom news and commentary. Check here every other Sunday for a new edition! Need First Amendment news in the meantime? Follow FALR on Twitter and Facebook for regular updates.   Supreme Court News In …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":1136,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1101"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1101"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1101\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1136"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1101"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1101"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1101"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}