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.

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.

Judge Temporarily Halts AG’s Google Investigation

Early this week, a federal judge agreed to temporarily halt an investigation carried out by an attorney general on Google, giving the American search-engine firm a small victory in a heavy feud against law enforcement agencies regarding internet privacy.

Judge Henry T. Wingate granted a preliminary injunction request from Google, which prevented Attorney General Jim Hood from pursuing a subpoena meant to closely review as to whether or not Google is encouraging illegal activities on its own websites. The injunction also prevents Hood from filing criminal charges in the meantime.

Last year, Hood’s office sent a subpoena to Google asking for details on its advertising and search practices ranging from banned materials to human trafficking to copyright-protected content.

Google’s attorney argued that the subpoena is violation of the federal law that protects search engines from suits looking to hold them responsible for failing to screen content made by third parties. The search giant also said the investigation is targeting the protected speech of the constitution.

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.

Person in Facebook Case Criticized for Prison Note

The man involved in a case regarding posting of online threats via Facebook caught the attention of probation officials for comments made from prison in a note aimed directly at a prosecutor.

The Supreme Court heard the argument as to whether or not to uphold the conviction of Anthony Elonis, who threatened his estranged wife, local schools, and law enforcement officials through Facebook.

Elonis, who claimed his comments aren’t actual threats, served prison time for three years and was released early this year.

Elonis sent a letter in 2013 to a U.S. attorney assistant while in custody. The statement ended with =-P, an expression signaling a person who is either being sarcastic, joking, or disgusted. In addition, he added, “I just thought you would appreciate my new found respect for the law.” He then signed it with, “Your BFF Anthony Douglas Elonis.”

Probation officials are currently looking for a condition that would restrict Elonis from reaching out to the U.S. Attorney’s Office from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

SC to Make Consideration on Facebook Post

Next week, the Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in a First Amendment case that reviews the battle regarding when speeches on Facebook posts and other social media outlets are in violation of the law.

The appeal, which is up for arguments next week, showcases a perplexing issue courts have been struggling to settle, and it does so when what people can say reaches a larger audience through social media. While social media firms have rules in handling separate speeches over the internet, the results may affect people who express themselves on such social platforms.

Advocates of free speech say the constitution allows people to express themselves, and that such ruling would chill speech on social media and elsewhere.

The Justice Department is saying the worry of restricting legitimate speech is overblown.

While Facebook isn’t indicated in the case, the firm is keeping tabs on the case. Today’s federal protects online social media firms from statements made by its users.

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.

Attorneys in Saudi Sent to Jail for Tweets

A court in Riyadh recently sentenced three attorneys to eight years in prison after they harshly criticized the Ministry of Justice on Twitter. They were also slapped with travel bans as well as an indefinite ban on media or social networking site appearance.

Charges that were slapped include interfering with judiciary independence, contempt of the judiciary, and critiquing the judiciary system via Twitter.

They were fined with over 1 million Saudi riyals by the legal committee of the Ministry of Culture and Information on the same charges. At the same time, the Ministry of Justice’s disciplinary committee took off their law licenses.

The same attorneys frequently used social media to air out their disappointment with the Ministry of Justice’s performance, most critically their failure to carry out reforms as part of a multi-billion dollar project in overhauling the judiciary as indicated by King Abdullah back in 2007.

Both the attorneys and prosecutor plan to appeal the latest sentence.

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.

City of Warren Sued for Violating Free Speech

The City of Warren Michigan may be in legal trouble after refusing Freedom from Religion to use a public atrium. James R. Fouts, the governor of Warren stated in a letter to the director of the group that since the group was not a "religion" and has no tenets, congregation or official place of worship, they could not use the space. Fouts also stated that the group was known to oppose the nativity and the Prayer Station in the atrium as well as the Annual Day of Prayer which is held in front of the City Hall. In his statement to the group, Fouts stated that the atrium was not available for anti-religious groups which were "intending to deprive all organized religions of their constitutional freedoms." However, the governor's rejection itself is unconstitutional and violates the Free Speech Clause. The government is not allowed to discriminate against any religious opinions including those which are anti-religious or irreligious in nature.