Legal Radar

Art Activists: New York City Halted Museum Protest Speech

Several art activists filed a federal suit against New York City and claimed their First Amendment rights were being violated during last year’s Metropolitan Museum of Art protest.

The plaintiffs utilized mobile video projectors to show political messages and images.

NYC police officers, who were present during the protest, seized the group’s projector since it beamed “political speech” on the side building of the museum during a gala for David H. Koch on September 9^th.

Police halted the van and carried out criminal summonses to the activists for illegally posting advertisements.

The activists were brought to a local precinct and held for a few hours prior to being released. While the summonses were dismissed, the police kept the projector.

Samuel Cohen, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said the NYC police unlawfully arrested his clients and took the projector to prevent them from carrying out their free speech rights.

The complaint, which was filed in the previous week in a Manhattan federal court, is seeking trial and monetary damages.

Virginia SC: Yelp Doesn’t Need to Reveal Reviewers

Virginia’s Supreme Court ruled earlier that Yelp is obligated to not reveal the identities of online users accused by a business owner of posting fraud and negative feedback about his carpet-cleaning firm.

The dispute before the Supreme Court in Virginia describes a complaint brought about by Joe Hadeed, a business owner of Hadeed Carpet Cleaning, Inc. in Springfield, Virginia, who claimed his business was bombarded with harsh reviews in 2012. He filed a suit against several online reviewers for defamation and demanded Yelp to reveal their true identities.

Hadeed believed that the posted reviews were made by fellow competitors and says his sales took a nose dive after negative comments were posted online. Yelp argued that without proof, users had the First Amendment right to post without revealing their identity.

The state trial court and Court of Appeals sided with Hadeed, holding Yelp responsible for contempt for not revealing the identities of users.

Justices looking into the case felt that the lower court lacked the authority for revealing the Yelp reviewers.

Flag Shirt-Wearing Students Asking SC to Hear Their Case

Later this week, the justices are set to privately discuss a ruling against white high school students who sued their school for demanding them to remove their flag-print shirts on the day their classmates were celebrating Mexican heritage.

Attorneys of the students are asking for the Supreme Court to overturn the previous ruling, which resulted to the school not infringing on any constitutional rights.

The lawsuit was carried out by three students from Live Oak High School in California. In 2010 of the Cinco de Mayo, they wore shirts with a huge American flag print, angering Mexican students who saw them as a racial slur.

Aware of a possible trouble brewing, the school’s assistant principal demanded the students to have their shirts worn inside-out or replaced with other shirts. Several wearers refused while the other two went home. Those same two students received numerous threats and had to miss school for another day out of fear.

Judges Getting Spotlight on First Amendment Rights

A few days back, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments as to whether or not states can prevent judicial candidates from soliciting donations without violating their rights of free speech.

All over the coast of California, the state’s Supreme Court decided that judges there are prohibited to be part of non-profit associations that discriminate sex, sexual, orientation, race, and among other things, effectively excluding the Boy Scouts of America membership.

The group wasn’t included specifically by name but state rule, which will take effect in 2016, was proposed in the previous year in response to the Boy Scout’s policy of barring homosexuals from leadership or staff roles, which led to a fierce debate among California attorneys and judges.

The case of the U.S. Supreme Court describes political free speech rights of judges while state ethics rule of free association limits. Both raise the question as to how the protection of the First Amendment should be given to judges who are tasked to be impartial and fair.

NYC Police: First Amendment Right to Protest De Blasio

Do NYC police officers have the First Amendment right to protest against Mayor Bill de Blasio?

William Bratton, NYC’s Police Commissioner, said it was deemed “inappropriate” for police officers to turn against the mayor in a funeral of several slain officers.

While there’s no sign of any of the police officer who took part in the rebuke of the mayor will face sanction, some observers suggested those who protested should face consequences.

Speech rights of public workers are frequently in the legal gray area.

Courts said that government workers have legal rights to speak openly as private citizens on issues concerning the public --- with certain exceptions.

Courts are also considering how free speech can lead to the disruption of government functions. The speech value would need to be measured against its potential disruption.

The Supreme Court has laid general guidelines that looks into free speech rights of public workers.

Union leaders are accusing the mayor for founding an anti-police environment.

Banning of Facebook Ballots by New Hampshire Creates Legal Issue

A legislator in New Hampshire suing the state said that a new law that bans voters from showing off their ballots is actually in violation of free speech in the First Amendment.

The suit is aimed at a new law that was recently passed by the state. The law prevents voters from snapping pics of their ballots and posting them on social media networking sites.

Individuals who are in violation of the law will face a maximum fine of $1,000.

The primary aim of the law is to curb vote buying. It also extends its ban in social media sites.

The New Hampshire ACLU who are representing the plaintiffs said the interest of the state in completely banning corruption will never trump the First Amendment rights of its citizens.

Leon, Rideout, Andrew Langlois, and political aspirant Brandon Ross, all took pictures of their ballots in the previous month and posting them on social media sites.

All three are currently under investigation.

Twitter Suing Government Regarding Request of Data

Twitter said it’ll file a suit against the U.S. government for the right to reveal data on government surveillance on its current users --- leading to more clash that has amplified in the past several months.

Twitter’s suit claims the Justice Department and the FBI are violating the First Amendment rights by limiting what the firm is able to reveal regarding government’s national security requests for data of users. Twitter is seeking the ability to publish the kind and number of government demands it receives for user data in complete detail.

The suit is the latest in an ongoing legal clash between tech firms and the U.S. government regarding surveillance and the angle in which privately-owned companies cooperate in data gathering.

With the suit being filed, Twitter is basically rejecting the deal with the U.S. government made early this year with tech powerhouses Microsoft, LinkedIn, Google, Yahoo, and Facebook. Such settlement lets tech firms disclose a number of government requests in different ranges.

Unrest in Ferguson Puts Spotlights on Protesters Rights

Clashes between law enforcement officers and protestors in Ferguson, Missouri, are in the spotlight regarding protester rights and crowd control by the police.

Anger over the shooting of Michael Brown, has prompted protests combined with looting and vandalism, as police officers in riot gear threw tear gas to scatter the crowd.

Missouri’s Governor, Jay Nixon, said he has plans for operation shifts in dealing with the Ferguson situation.

Courts have taken the view of the First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly to offer protection to protestors taking part in peaceful protests.

Courts respect the on-street action by police. If a protest ends up being violent, officers can respond with proper violence. In certain instances, officers may have the power to utilize deadly force.

Based on the Missouri law, the use of deadly force can be justified if an officer has reasons to believe it’s necessary to make an arrest or prevent an individual from committing a felony, utilizing a harmful weapon, or inflicting serious injury.

Appeals Court Holds that Lawyers do have First Amendment Rights

Earlier this week, a federal appeals court ruled that lawyers retain the First Amendment right to run ads which contain a judge which praises their work. This reverses an earlier ruling by the lower court. On Monday, the Third U.S. Court of Appeals made a ruling in favor of a litigator from New Jersey who claimed that the state's rules about attorney advertising was infringing on his constitutional rights. Andrew Dwyer is a workplace discrimination lawyer from Newark, NJ protested a guideline which bars lawyers from grabbing a passage which contains praise for their work form a judicial opinion and using it to promote their work. Dwyer represented himself in court on the issue and the Third Circuit ruling was in his favor and stated that the state's guideline did impose an unconstitutional burden on the lawyer. 

The guideline was drawn up in 2012 when a judge complained that Dwyer had quoted lines from judges which praised his work.

Street Musician Sues D.C. Metro for First Amendment Rights to Play in Public

Alex Young is a young musician who plays his guitar for riders who are taking the Washington, D.C. Metro. Police Officers have threatened to arrest Young stating that it is okay for him to play his music in public, but not with his guitar case open to solicit contributions. The officers allege that he is engaging in commercial activity by singing with his guitar case open, an activity which is prohibited on Metro property. However, Young fought back with his own lawsuit which was filed in Washington's federal court. He states that it is his First Amendment right to play his guitar in a public area and that he can leave his guitar case open at will. The hearing is scheduled to appear before US District Judge Beryl Howell later this month. Young's lawyer Jeffery Light has stated that the musician depends on willing support from society. Light is asking the judge to issue an injunction which would block Metro officials from enforcing an anti-busking policy. Metro regulations do allow for free speech related activities at Metro stations, but they cannot interfere with rider's free access.