{"id":1817,"date":"2017-12-03T11:00:06","date_gmt":"2017-12-03T16:00:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/?p=1817"},"modified":"2017-12-03T11:00:06","modified_gmt":"2017-12-03T16:00:06","slug":"first-amendment-newsflash-11-13-12-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/first-amendment-newsflash-11-13-12-3\/","title":{"rendered":"First Amendment Newsflash 11\/13-12\/3"},"content":{"rendered":"

Welcome to First Amendment Newsflash, the First Amendment Law Review\u2019s 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\u00a0<\/i>Twitter<\/i><\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<\/i>Facebook<\/i><\/a>\u00a0for regular updates.<\/i><\/p>\n

\"pexels-photo-227432\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Federal Court News<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court will decide whether it violates the First Amendment for California to require \u201ccrisis pregnancy centers<\/a>,\u201d which counsel patients against abortion, and instead tell patients that the state offers contraception and abortion services.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court will hear a case that tests whether cops need a warrant to track individuals through cell tower location technology<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court agreed to revisit the issue of whether five million government workers can refuse to pay union fees arguing that mandatory fees<\/a> violate the First Amendment.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case to determine whether a Colorado cake shop owner has a First Amendment right to refuse to make a wedding cake<\/a> for a homosexual couple.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether state laws that ban political apparel at polling places<\/a> violate free speech.<\/p>\n

A federal appeals court affirmed the dismissal<\/a> of an Ohio couple\u2019s suit against companies that used the couple’s engagement photos for the cover of a book about a woman\u2019s sexual desire for New England Patriots’ star Rob Gronkowski.<\/p>\n

A neo-Nazi website publisher<\/a> asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit accusing him of orchestrating an anti-Semitic internet trolling campaign against a Montana family because the \u201ctrolling\u201d is \u201cpolitical speech.\u201d<\/p>\n

Federal judge rebukes St. Louis Police<\/a> for tactics used on protesters after ex-officer\u2019s acquittal as retaliation tactics violating the First Amendment.<\/p>\n

The city of Manchester paid $275,000<\/a> for violating a citizen\u2019s First Amendment right to film police.<\/p>\n

An organization is suing Washington Metro after the transit agency rejected its ad featuring a biblical Christmas scene<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Environmental groups being sued by the developers of the Dakota pipeline asked a federal judge to dismiss the suit<\/a> arguing that the developer\u2019s arguments that the environmental groups disseminated false and misleading information is baseless and an attack on free speech.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

State Court News<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court of Hawaii will hear a case to determine whether there is a First amendment right to record police officers<\/a> at work.<\/p>\n

Pennsylvania\u2019s Supreme Court weighed whether anti-police rap lyrics<\/a> constitute a \u201ctrue threat.\u201d<\/p>\n

Wisconsin Supreme court affirmed a mother\u2019s conviction for swearing at her son<\/a> without reaching the issue of whether the First Amendment protected her speech.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

An Arizona lawmaker proposed new legislation<\/a> that would make it a felony to wear any sort of disguise to evade recognition or identification at civil protests, political events, or any public event.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Other News and Commentary<\/strong><\/p>\n

Charlottesville\u2019s police department was criticized in an\u00a0independent review commissioned by the city<\/a> as \u201cill-prepared\u201d and \u201clacking proper training\u201d to protect the protestors\u2019 First Amendment rights.<\/p>\n

A Chicago cop has been cited for racist and threatening Facebook posts<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Tufts University postponed an event<\/a> with Anthony Scaramucci, former White House communications director, after Scaramucci threatened to sue the student newspaper for publishing an opinion piece.<\/p>\n

Slate magazine writer claims that Trump\u2019s interest in blocking the AT&T and Time Warner merger<\/a> and the Department of Justice\u2019s antitrust suit may be violating the First Amendment, depending on the DOJ\u2019s motives for blocking the merger.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

That\u2019s it for your First Amendment Newsflash November 13-December 3. See you again on December 17!<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Welcome to First Amendment Newsflash, the First Amendment Law Review\u2019s 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\u00a0Twitter\u00a0and\u00a0Facebook\u00a0for regular updates.   Federal Court News The Supreme Court will decide whether …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":1818,"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\/1817"}],"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=1817"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1817\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1818"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1817"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1817"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1817"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}