The 8th U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals found that police had not violated protestors ‘ First And Fourth Amendments rights when they arrested 400 people at the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The court cited widespread violence and vandalism in saying police were justified in conducting mass arrests to restore order. -db

From City Pages, January 13, 2012, by Aaron Rupar.

Full story

Despite split rulings in two federal appellate courts, the U.S. Supreme Court will not hear arguments on whether school officials can regulate the off-campus speech of students on the Internet.

Two of the three cases under consideration concerned parodies directed at principals while the third involved cruel words directed at another student. -db

From the Student Press Law Center, January 17, 2012, by Brian Schraum.

Full story

Some legal experts are drawing an analogy between the Occupy tents and the burning flag in assessing the right of protesters, and some protesters see the tent as a symbol of hardships during tough economic times, a statement that should be protected by the First Amendment. -db

From an analysis for the Citizens Media Law Project, December 5, 2011, by Victoria S. Ekstrand.

Full story

The Bay Area Rapid Transit District adopted a policy that supports First Amendment rights by limiting cell phone service shutdowns to public safety emergencies.

The district came under fire in August for shutting down cell phone service to preempt perceived threats during protests in four underground stations. -db

From a commentary for the First Amendment Center, December 2, 2011, by Gene Policinski.

Full story

Protesters of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s anti-union stance claim that citations for bearing signs in state buildings are unconstitutional since the protesters did not obstruct pedestrians or pose a threat to property.

Violators of the state rule against signs and banners could be fined up to $500. -db

From the Courthouse News Service, November 14, 2011, by Lisa Buchmeier.

Full story 

A Morgan Hill high school acted legally when it ordered students to conceal T-shirts bearing American flags on Cinco de Mayo, a federal judge ruled.

Because Mexican American and Anglo students had previously wrangled about clothing on Cinco de Mayo, Live Oak High School officials reasonably anticipated campus disruption and safety problems, U.S. District Judge James Ware of San Francisco said.

A lawyer for the students wearing the U.S. flag said he would appeal, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Full story

A freelance cartoonist covering Occupy Oakland with a press pass was arrested and held 14 hours charged with failing to disperse and obstructing. -db

From KGO-TV News, November 3, 2011, by Ama Daetz.

Full story

A newspaper reporter and demonstrators in the Occupy Nashville protests are suing in federal court claiming violations of the First Amendment right after they were arrested at a public plaza near the state Capitol building.

After the protests began on October 7, Nashville passed two laws to prevent groups from assembling at what is called “The Plaza,” a well-established public forum. -db

From the Courthouse News Service, November 3, 2011, by Philip A. Janquart.

Full story

In attempting to clear a street, Milwaukee policemen arrested a Milwaukee Sentinel Journal photographer covering a march near a university campus in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

The police claimed the photographer did not identify herself as a journalist. -db

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, November 2, 2011, by By Karen Herzog with contributions from Sharif Durhams.

Full story

A federal judge ruled that a Catholic fraternal organizaton could continue to picket  in front of a sex shop so long as they are not posing a danger to pedestrians or motorists.

The sex shop owners had sued on a number of grounds one being that the protesters were interfering with their First Amendment rights. -db

From the Courthouse News Service, October 31, 2011, by Reuben Kramer.

Full story

A Baton Rouge high school student sued school officials for suspending him and throwing him out of the honors club for criticizing a teacher on Facebook. The student made the comment from his home and removed it before school the next day.

The boy’s parents contend that the comment was intended as a joke and created no disturbance at the school so should be protected under the First Amendment. -db

From the Courthouse News Service, October 25, 2011, by Sabrina Canfield.

Full story

The American Civil Liberties Union is appealing a federal court decision approving the decision of Seattle officials for public safety reasons to pull ads critical of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

Officials received many threatening messages before the ads were scheduled to run, but one proponent of the ad said there was no evidence of  credible threats against the ads. -db

From the Courthouse News Service, October 11, 2011, by Nick McCann.

Full story

Students jailed for their part in a teach-in to protest cuts and tuition hikes sued University of California officials for denying their right to assembly and free speech.

The students claimed they were meeting in Wheeler Hall with administrative sanction when without warning they were handcuffed and arrested. -db

From the Courthouse News Service, October 13, 2011, by Nick McCann.

Full story

When a student not gay himself tried to wear a T-shirt standing up for gay friends and advocating for a Gay-Straight Alliance at his school, the principal barged into his classroom to punish him in violation of the student’s free speech rights according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

The student had defied the principal’s order to turn the T- shirt inside out on the knowledge that the shirt complied with the high school’s dress code. -db

From a commentary for the American Civil Liberties Union, October 6, 2011, by Amanda Goad.

Full story

Members of the Christian ministry, Volunteers for Repent America, arrested in 2006 for allegedly blocking pedestrians during their protests at the Seventh Annual Gay Games, lost their lawsuit in federal appeals court.

The ministry claimed their free speech rights were violated, but the court ruled against them, holding that the Chicago police were concerned narrowly with maintaining orderly flow of traffic and were not discriminating on the basis of the ministry’s message. -db

From the Courthouse News Service, October 5, 2011, by Joe Celentino.

Full story

A reporter for the conservative “The Alex Jones Show” filed a lawsuit in federal court in response to his arrest covering the 2009 G-20 summit in Pittsburgh.

The reporter said he was arrested even though wearing his press credentials and carrying a professional video camera and detained for over 12 hours in cold weather wearing only a t-shirt and shorts.

From the Courthouse News Service, September 30, 2011, by Erin Mcauley.

Full story

A jury in Irvine, California found 10 Muslim students guilty of disrupting a speech by the Israeli ambassador at UC Irvine. They were sentenced to three years probation and 56 hours of community service.

One legal scholar said the students’ speech directed toward depriving another of First Amendment rights was not protected but felt the criminal misdemeanor charges were excessive after the university had disciplined the students. -db

From the Los Angeles Times, September 23, 2011, by Nicole Santa Cruz, Lauren Williams and Mike Anton.

Full story

The full panel of the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Redondo Beach ordinance aimed at clearing the streets of day laborers looking for work was too restrictive of free speech. The court wrote, “[The ordiance] is not narrowly tailored because [it] restricts significantly more speech than is necessary, and because the city could have employed various less restrictive alternatives to achieve its goals.”

A dissenting judge said the law restrict speech but sought to regulate conduct such as harassment of  females and urinating on the street. -db

From the Courthouse News Service, September 16, 2011 by Tim Hull.

Full story

A federal district judge ruled that Indiana school authorities overreached in punishing two high school girls for posting provocative images of themselves online.

The judge said the expression was intended to be humorous and was protected. He also found no disruption in the posting, “…no reasonable jury could conclude that the photos of T.V. and M.K. posted on the internet caused a substantial disruption to school activities, or that there was a reasonably foreseeable chance of future substantial disruption.” -db

From the First Amendment Center, August 12, 2011, by David L. Hudson, Jr.

Full story

Writing for the First Amendment Center, David L. Hudson Jr. says the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Cohen v. California strengthened free speech by limiting the fighting words doctrine, clarifying the difference between obscenity and profanity, making the case that offensive speech should be protected and warning that governments could ban language representing unpopular views.

The case centered on Paul Robert Cohen who in 1968 wore a jacket in the Los Angeles County Courthouse bearing the words “Fuck the Draft” and even though he removed the jacket in a courtroom, he was arrested on a offensive conduct charge. The Supreme Court sided with Cohen, Justice John Marshall Harlan writing for the majority, “The constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours. That the air may at times seemed filled with verbal cacophony is, in this sense, not a sign of weakness but of strength.” -db

From a commentary for the First Amendment Center, June 7, 2011, by David L. Hudson Jr.

Full story

After Jacob Fleener, on his own time and on his own computer,  logged onto a Facebook page with a parody of his principal, he was taken out of his high school English class to be interrogated by two district police services officers.  The school officials recommended transferring him to an alternative school and gave a letter to his father accusing his son of identity theft.

The school officials later relented and agreed to rescind the transfer allowing him to make up the work lost during a five day suspension and expunge records of his arrest, but in bringing the lawsuit the family said that teachers had been reluctant to provide makeup work and school officials continued to state that Fleener had committed various crimes, including identity theft and cyber-bullying. The family also found out through a pubic records request that the defendants had failed to fully expunge the arrest record. -db

From Courthouse News Service, May 10, 2011, by Iulia Filip.

Full story

College students at Iowa State and Penn State fervently celebrated Osana bin Laden’s death on Sunday night, ignoring their school’s ban on spontaneous demonstrations. In each case, the police made no moves to halt the festivities.

Writing for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Adam Kissel questions the constitutionality of the colleges’ free speech zones, “While it is good that Penn State and Iowa State did not employ their policies to shut down last night’s activities (at least the legal ones), one has to wonder: would the schools do the same when the spontaneous event is a protest of campus policies?” -db

From a commentary in FIRE, May 2, 2011, by Adam Kissel.

Full story

A federal appeals court ruled that authorities acted lawfully when they ejected an activist from a County Council meeting. The appeals court upheld a lower court decision that the man was removed to restore order, not to silence him.

The majority opinion said, “…we cannot find evidence in the record to support a reasonable inference that … [the mayor ejected the activist] from the March 20 council meeting because of animus toward him or his message.” -db

From the Erie Times-News, April 25, 2011, by Ed Palattella.

Full story

The Florida pastor who burned a Quran bringing on violent protests by Muslims in Afghanistan was briefly held by police and prohibited from holding a rally at a Dearborn mosque. Pastor Terry Jones says he plans to return next week to protest at City Hall on First Amendment grounds and  may file a lawsuit.

The Dearborn mayor said that the right to free speech could not jeopardize public safety. -db

From the Detroit Free Press, April 23, 2011, by Niraj Warikoo.

Full story

Marin Independent Journal
January 14, 2011
By Mark Prado

A federal district judge ruled that the Golden Gate Bridge District’s restrictions on  protesters using the bridge violated their First Amendment rights. The district banned bullhorns, hand-held signs and protests after 2 p.m. on weekends. -db

An anti-illegal immigration activist sued the city of Novato claiming his arrest at a Sept. 14 council meeting violated his First Amendment rights. He was arrested after he made incendiary remarks to the council and refused to leave the podium or address the council directly. -db

Marin Independent Journal
December 9, 2010
By Rob Rogers

Anti-illegal immigration activist Jerome Ghigliotti has filed a $2.5 million claim against the city of Novato, arguing that his arrest at a Sept. 14 meeting of the City Council resulted in numerous civil rights and First Amendment violations.

“I am seeking damages because the city hurt me,” said Ghigliotti, a Novato resident and San Francisco attorney. “They did bad, illegal things.”

The city’s insurance adjuster has rejected the claim, Novato City Manager Michael Frank said Thursday. Ghigliotti had previously said he would consider filing a lawsuit against the city if it turned the claim down. “I wouldn’t do anything without the advice of counsel, and until the city said yes or no,” Ghigliotti said.

Ghigliotti, a spokesman for the anti-illegal immigration group Citizens for Legal Employment and Contracting, has frequently expressed his displeasure with the Novato City Council by turning his back on the council during public comment sessions and making pronouncements to the audience.

Those pronouncements have included an Aug. 24 statement in which he said he wished a councilwoman’s family member would be raped or murdered by an illegal immigrant, so that the council would recognize the seriousness of the issue. Ghigliotti had begun another speech at the council’s Sept. 14 meeting when then-Mayor Jeanne MacLeamy asked him either to address the council or leave the podium. When Ghigliotti refused repeated requests, Novato Police Chief Joseph Kreins arrested Ghigliotti.

The Marin County District Attorney’s Office later found that it did not have enough evidence to charge Ghigliotti with disruption of a public meeting.

Ghigliotti insists that his latest legal action against the city is not an attempt to draw attention to his group’s cause. He has repeatedly criticized the Novato council for refusing to place a citizens’ initiative on the ballot that would require contractors working for the city to determine the immigration status of their employees using a federal database.

“Those are two separate issues,” he said. “The fact that the council has not put the initiative on the ballot will require a writ of mandamus. These issues will be handled by two different attorneys.”

His claim accuses the city, the City Council, its members and city staff, including Chief Kreins, with false arrest and imprisonment, defamation, slander, violation of state and federal voting and civil rights, and malice. As a result, Mayor Madeline Kellner said neither she nor other city officials could comment on the claim.

“Because of potential litigation, I cannot comment at this time,” Kellner said.

Copyright 2010 Marin Independent Journal. MediaNews Group.      FAC Content Use Policy

After telling a student he could not fly an American flag on his bike on the possibility that the flag could cause disruption at Denair Middle School, the school authorities relented and allowed the flag. -db

FOX40 News
November 12, 2010
By Elissa Harrington

DENAIR, Calif. -13-year-old Cody Alicea rides with an American flag on the back of his bike. He says he does this to be patriotic and to honor veterans, like his own grandfather, Robert. He’s had the flag on his bike for two months but Monday, was told to take it down.

A school official at Denair Middle School told Cody some students had been complaining about the flag and it was no longer allowed on school property.

“In this country we’re supposed to be free,” said Cody. “And I should be able to wave my flag wherever I want to. And they’re telling me I can’t.” Cody had to take the flag off his bike and put it in his backpack, where he kept it all week.

Cody’s grandfather says the school was concerned about racial tensions or uprisings because of the flag. He feels if there was really a problem it should have been brought up two months ago, not during Veterans week. And if it was an issue of safety, parents should have been contacted.

“No action should be taken. We don’t want any repercussion,” said Roger Alicea. “We just want Cody to be proud of what he’s doing.” Roger says the family is not planning to take any legal action, but they do want to meet with school staff.

Cody says he wants to serve in the military some day, and is raising money for a trip to Washington, D.C. in the Spring.

After being contacted by FOX40 Friday morning, Denair’s Superintendent says Cody will be allowed to keep the flag on his bike. He told FOX40 he and the school are patriotic, but their main priority is keeping students safe; the school will focus on the students who are causing uprisings. Riding a bike is still not allowed on school campus, but when Cody rides his bike to school he can now fly the flag.

Copyright 2010 Tribune Company     FAC Content Use Policy

A Mountain View, California man known as ‘sign man’ claims that his right to free speech was violated when he was arrested for creating threats to public safety and obstructing traffic. -db

San Francisco Chronicle
November 7, 2010
By Kelsey Williams

On any given day in Mountain View, a man called Wo’O Ideafarm can be found standing by his roughly 5-by-4-by-8 foot box/home that he covers with large signs. Ranging in content from relatively mild and uplifting to outright offensive, Ideafarm’s goal is to incite conversation, that he says is meant to connect people.

Recently, Ideafarm has been arrested on multiple municipal code violations that could potentially lead to jail time. Officials in Mountain View claim that the problem with Ideafarm is mainly a safety concern, given his tendency to park the doghouse on street corners, in the median, and in the public right of way obstructing traffic and driver visibility. Ideafarm believes the charges are stifling his right to free speech.

Copyright 2010 Hearst Communications Inc.     FAC Content Use Policy

First Amendment commentator David Hudson says that in the case of the Texas cheerleader kicked off the team for not cheering for her alleged sexual attacker, it is clear that she was not disruptive in not cheering nor was there any legitimate educational goal achieved by removing her from the squad. -db

First Amendment Center
Commentary
November 11, 2010
By David L. Hudson Jr.

Can a silent cheerleader disrupt school activities? Is there a legitimate educational reason to punish a student for refusing to cheer for her alleged attacker?

These questions form the basis for an appeal to the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals filed on behalf of a former Texas cheerleader (known as H.S. in court papers), who was kicked off the Silsbee High School squad after she didn’t cheer for a basketball player who allegedly sexually assaulted her after a football game. The individual played on both the football and basketball teams.

Last September, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit rejected H.S.’s First Amendment, due-process and equal-protection claims in Doe v. Silsbee Independent School Dist. With respect to the First Amendment claims, the panel upheld a lower court’s dismissal in part because, it said, the cheerleader’s silence was disruptive. According to the panel, the lack of cheering “constituted substantial interference with the work of the school because, as a cheerleader, H.S. was at the basketball game for the purpose of cheering, a position she undertook voluntarily.”

The panel also reasoned: “Insofar as the First Amendment does not require schools to promote particular student speech, [the school] had no duty to promote H.S.’s message by allowing her to cheer or not cheer, as she saw fit.”

The panel cited two seminal student First Amendment decisions in its decision — Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist. (1969) and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988). In Tinker, the Court ruled that public school officials can censor student speech only if they reasonably forecast that the speech will cause substantial disruption of school activities. Under Hazelwood, school officials have more control over school-sponsored speech if their reason for censorship is reasonably related to a legitimate educational concern.

There is no way that a single cheerleader not cheering for a player at the free-throw line is disruptive. The crowd probably focused on the game, not on a single cheerleader. If the cheerleader, say, had walked to the foul line and confronted the player, that would have been disruptive. But being silent for a few moments disrupts nothing.

The full 5th Circuit reasonably could say that the student speech should be evaluated under the more deferential Hazelwood standard, in that cheerleading is a school-sponsored activity. But even the Hazelwood standard requires fundamental reasonableness. What is the legitimate educational reason in forcing a student-cheerleader to cheer for her attacker? (The player later pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault.)

In the petition for full panel review, Larry Watts, the cheerleader’s attorney, wrote: “She cheered the entire game except for a two brief times when the accused rapist went to the free-throw line. There was no pedagogical purpose ever articulated by defendants as to why a rape victim should in addition to cheering for the team be required to cheer for the accused rapist also.”

It is not only unreasonable to force a cheerleader to cheer for her assailant, it is ridiculous. As Selena Roberts of Sports Illustrated wrote in her Nov. 8 column, “lessons remain to be learned — by the educators.”

Copyright 2010 First Amendment Center     FAC Content Use Policy

A Northern California shopping mall lost its bid to stop a pastor from addressing shoppers about topics other than shopping. The appellate decision held that the state constitution protected “peaceful, consensual, spontaneous conversations between strangers.” -db

San Francisco Chronicle
October 21, 2010
By Bob Egelko

The state Supreme Court rejected a shopping mall’s challenge Wednesday to a ruling that allows people at the mall – a pastor, in this case – to approach strangers and talk about subjects other than shopping.

The court denied review of an appellate decision written by its chief-justice nominee, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who found the mall’s restrictions violated free-speech rights. Justices Marvin Baxter and Ming Chin voted to hear the case, two short of the majority needed for review.

The ruling underscored California’s constitutional protections for free expression, which are broader than First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. The state’s high court ruled in 1979 that free speech rights protected non-disruptive leafleting at a shopping center, in contrast with U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have protected speakers only against government restraints.

Pastor Matthew Snatchko relied on that ruling in his suit against Westfield, owner of the Galleria mall in Roseville (Placer County), where he was arrested in 2006.

Snatchko approached three teenage girls at the indoor mall and, with their consent, spoke to them about his religion, but a security guard told him he was violating the Galleria’s rules. Those rules required a permit from management for “expressive activity,” including selling, recruiting or talking to strangers, unless the mall or one of its stores sponsored the activity.

The pastor refused and was led away in handcuffs, but prosecutors dropped the case and he sued. A Superior Court judge upheld the mall’s rules, but the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento disagreed in August.

The rules prohibited not merely unwanted sales pitches but also “peaceful, consensual, spontaneous conversations between strangers … pure free speech” on topics as innocuous as baseball scores, Cantil-Sakauye wrote in the 3-0 ruling.

She said the mall regulated speech based on its content, allowing conversations about shopping but not “impromptu chitchat” about religion or the weather. Those distinctions, the justice said, undermined Westfield’s argument that regulations were needed to protect patrons and keep common areas free of congestion.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who appointed Cantil-Sakauye to the appeals court in 2005, nominated her in July to succeed the Supreme Court’s chief justice, Ronald George, who is retiring in January. Voters will decide Nov. 2 whether to confirm her for a 12-year term.

In seeking state Supreme Court review, Westfield said the appellate ruling would prevent malls from intervening while “the safe, calm atmosphere they created is transformed into a common flea market.”

The company’s lawyer, Miriam Vogel, also argued that the ruling would allow state law to diminish a shopping center’s property value, a potential constitutional issue that Westfield could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Spokeswoman Catharine Dickey said the company was reviewing its options.

The case is Snatchko vs. Westfield, S186415.

© 2010 Hearst Communications Inc.     FAC Content Use Policy

The Manatee County School Board in Florida is debating a policy that prohibits teachers from posting comments on sites such as Facebook or Twitter that would put the district, students and teachers in a “negative, scandalous or embarrassing light.” -db

Student Press Law Center
September 28, 2010
By Chelsea Keenan

FLORIDA — The Manatee County School Board discussed a policy Monday that, if passed, would limit what teachers can say on social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.

The policy would prohibit teachers from posting comments that could put the district, teachers or students in a “negative, scandalous or embarrassing light.”

The policy would also require teachers to obtain permission from students’ parents in order to interact with students on social networking sites.

Bruce Proud, Manatee Education Association business agent, said the organization met with the district superintendent last week to discuss some concerns with the policy’s wording in regard to teachers’ right to privacy and right to freedom of speech.

Proud said the MEA offered up alternative wording and is having the policy reviewed by an attorney to see if there are any procedural or legal issues.

“We’re waiting for the recommendations of the attorney and then we’ll see what course we should take,” Proud said.

John Bowen, an attorney for the Manatee County School District, said no event in particular spurred the creation of the policy, but the Sarasota Herald Tribune reported that a middle school teacher from Manatee County was recently suspended after he posted that he hated his students and his job on Facebook.

“We just wanted to make it clear that they are still subject to the same codes of ethics at home that they are subject to at work,” Bowen said.

Bowen said this is becoming a nationwide issue and the school board has looked at several other policies to help develop its own.

“We’re struggling on how to develop an effective policy and don’t want to violate people’s First Amendment rights,” he said.

David Hudson, a scholar at the First Amendment Center, said he’s seeing these kinds of policies more and more frequently.

“School officials are saying that [teachers' comments] can have a detrimental impact on the job,” he said.

Hudson said it’s often difficult for teachers to prove their First Amendment rights have been violated.

“Normally you have to show that you are speaking as a private citizen not a public employee,” he said. “Then, in your off-duty, online speech you have to show you’re speaking on a matter of public concern. And you have to show your free speech rights are not disruptive to the workplace.”

The board is scheduled to vote on the policy Oct. 25.

Copyright 2010 Student Press Law Center     FAC Content Use Policy

Police arrested at man at the Alaska State Fair carrying a sign calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama. The fair allows political messages if citizens rent a booth and follow vendor guidelines but forbid political activities in common areas. -db

Anchorage Daily News
August 28, 2010
By Kyle Hopkins

Ten minutes of mayhem Thursday at the Alaska State Fair — caught on video and posted on YouTube — jump-started an Internet debate on free speech this week and landed a familiar roadside activist in jail.

Palmer police arrested Sidney Hill, 52, for assault, disorderly conduct and criminal mischief, police commander Thomas Remaley said.

Fair marketing director Dean Phipps said Hill is known for waving signs near the Carrs grocery store in Palmer and apparently carried a large banner into the nearby fair Thursday. It read “LaRouche says Impeach Obama Now.”

The fair has an unwritten policy against people campaigning in common areas, Phipps said. The YouTube clip shows Hill clashing loudly with security guards before being forced to the ground and eventually arrested.

Phipps said Hill became aggressive and belligerent, trying to incite the crowd when security guards approached him. Some fairgoers said Hill didn’t appear to be causing problems.

“He was just walking around with a sign,” said Wendy Lewis of Anchorage.

The photographer, identified on YouTube as Brian Stanfill, described what he saw in an e-mail: “(Hill) was peacefully displaying his message without yelling or heckling other fair patrons until the fair security personnel approached him and grabbed his sign and then him.”

Phipps defended the use of force by security guards seen in the clip.

“The initial attempt was to educate him and let him know what the rules were, and he became belligerent. They felt that they were assaulted … and then responded to that.”

The fair is on private property, owned by the non-profit Alaska State Fair Inc. If people want to deliver a political message — on abortion or Pebble Mine, for example — they’re expected to rent a booth and follow vendor guidelines, Phipps said.

Security told fair officials that Hill had been swinging the sign around, so that people, including kids, had to dodge it, Phipps said.

Remaley, the police commander, said Hill also possessed a handgun, which is not allowed on the fairgrounds.

The video begins with Hill yelling “This is public access!” and that he has free speech and ends with him walking away in handcuffs with police.

In between, Hill can be seen tangling with security, telling another man he’s “a worthless hippie” and calling on the crowd for help. Security hold Hill to the ground as he yells. An off-duty state trooper steps in to keep the crowd back.

Hill’s banner referenced Lyndon LaRouche, a political activist who has run for U.S. president.

Copyright 2010 The Anchorage Daily News     FAC Content Use Policy

The majority of the 26 active judges of  the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted to rehear the case of homeless-rights advocate who sued the city of Santa Cruz after he was thrown out of a city council meeting for making a Nazi salute to the mayor. -db

Teen-agers are finding that courts are unsympathetic to their use of “fighting words”, viewing the language as disorderly conduct and affirming lower court decisions in finding the teen-agers delinquent. -db

First Amendment Center
Commentary
March 11, 2010
By David L. Hudson Jr.

Recent court decisions in Arizona and North Dakota demonstrate that kids can face criminal charges and convictions when they utter “fighting words.” Appellate courts in both states affirmed juvenile court findings of delinquency for violating laws against abusing teachers and disorderly conduct.

Students in both cases asserted First Amendment defenses to no avail. The courts said the laws involved unprotected fighting words — a category of speech that the U.S. Supreme Court described more than 65 years ago in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). The Court defined “fighting words” as “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Most courts have focused on the second part of the definition.

The Arizona Court of Appeals determined March 2 that a juvenile named Nickolas S. uttered fighting words when he hurled repeated epithets at a school official, including “fucking bitch” and “you stupid bitch,” when many other students were present. The student faced criminal charges under an Arizona law that prohibits a person from “knowingly abus[ing] a teacher or other school employee on school grounds while the teacher or employee is engaged in the performance of his duties.”

A juvenile court had convicted Nickolas S. of two counts of violating the law — once for profanity muttered under his breath and later when he let fly as above. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the conviction for profanity under the breath but affirmed conviction for the repeated epithets. The court in In Re Nickolas S. said that “we have no difficulty concluding that a reasonable person in these circumstances might well react violently when confronted with such repeated, angry, and personal epithets.”

In North Dakota, the state high court Feb. 17 upheld a finding of delinquency for a juvenile called H.K. who uttered racial slurs at an African-American youth at a dance at a teen center and later at a restaurant. The state’s delinquency petition charged H.K. with disorderly conduct for her racially harassing speech at the teen center, and a juvenile court agreed.

H.K.’s attorney argued on appeal that the state impermissibly sought to criminalize the use of the word “nigger.” The state high court wrote in In Re H.K. that while the First Amendment protects the mere use of this slur, “an objectively reasonable person would find the totality of H.K.’s statements constituted explicit and implicit threats that were likely to incite a breach of the peace or violent reaction and alarm the listener.”

In other words, the North Dakota Supreme Court determined that the repeated barrage of racial slurs constituted unprotected fighting words and disorderly conduct.

These rulings against juveniles for their profane or racial insults show that the “fighting words” doctrine is alive and well in the lower courts.

Copyright 2010 First Amendment Center

After a high school student’s free speech arguments were rejected by a federal district judge, a federal appeals judge said that he could bring First Amendment claims against his school for punishing him for allegedly asking a question to another student about a gang. The student denies asking the question. -DB

A federal district judge ruled that two students could wear empty holsters at Tarrant County College Northeast  to protest school policy against concealed handguns on campus. The students could protest on public streets, sidewalks and common areas but not in classrooms or hallways. Another hearing is scheduled for November 16. -DB

Courthouse News Service
November 10, 2009
By David Lee

DALLAS (CN) – Two students who sued their college for the right to wear empty holsters to protest the prohibition of concealed weapons on campuses won a partial victory when a federal judge granted in part – but denied in part – their request for a temporary restraining order.

The students sued the Tarrant County College District last week, demanding the right to wear empty gun holsters at the TCC Northeast campus in Hurst at a protest this week. Plaintiffs Clayton Smith and John Schwertz object to state law and school policies that forbid students from carrying concealed handguns on campus.

U.S. District Judge Terry R. Means ruled that the plaintiffs and other TCC students can wear the empty holsters, wear shirts depicting empty holsters, discuss handgun regulation and distribute literature on handgun regulation in traditional public forum areas on campus, including public streets, sidewalks and common areas.

“However, to the extent that Smith and Schwertz seek to wear empty holsters inside of Tarrant County College District classrooms and their adjacent hallways, their motion is denied,” Means wrote.

School administrators had barred similar empty-holster protests by Smith and other students at other TCC campuses, arguing that the college could control the time, place and manner of such protests. The college also banned distribution of literature without a permit and restricted protesters to a “free speech zone” in front of the library.

The plaintiffs said administrators applied district policy to allow the shirts, but forbade the wearing of empty holsters anywhere on campus.

“We’re grateful to the court for granting us the right to discuss issues that are so important to us with our classmates and colleagues,” said Smith.

A subsequent hearing is set for Nov. 16.

Copyright 2009 Courthouse News Service

10News
November 5, 2009

Southwestern College officials are investigation the actions of four professors currently on paid leave after a campus protest over budget cuts.The officials are concerned that the professors incited students to leave the free speech area and disregarded police instructions. -DB

A federal court of appeals ruled that the City of Santa Cruz could eject a man from a city council meeting for a Nazi salute since the salute contributed to disrupting the meeting. The man’s attorney argued that the salute could not have been disruptive since no one noticed it. -DB

Metropolitan News-Enterprise
November 4, 2009
By Sherri M. Okamoto

A man who was ejected from a city council meeting for giving a Nazi salute in the presiding officer’s direction did not suffer a violation of his First Amendment rights, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday.

As the salute could reasonably have interpreted as supporting or furthering the disruption of the meeting that had been occurring in the room, a majority of the divided panel agreed with District Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the Northern District of California that removing Robert Norse from the chambers was reasonable and that the mayor and council members were all entitled to qualified immunity.

The basis of Norse’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action was his eviction from two meetings of the Santa Cruz City Council. As the episodes were videotaped, the underlying facts were not disputed by the parties.

Norse was shown engaging in a parade about the council chambers, protesting the council’s action at a 2004 meeting.

Disruptive Member

At a 2002 meeting, Norse gave a Nazi salute in support of a disruptive member of the audience who had refused to leave the podium after the mayor ruled that the speaker’s time had expired, and that the portion of the meeting devoted to receiving oral communications from the public had ended.

The mayor had resumed council business by reading announcements and apparently had not noticed Norse’s gesture, but Councilman Tim Fitzmaurice called his attention to Norse’s behavior.

Norse was then ordered to leave the meeting.

In a 2004 unpublished disposition, a Ninth Circuit panel unanimously upheld the validity of the council rules that were being enforced at the time of Norse’s ejections, which authorized removal of “any person who interrupts and refuses to keep quiet…or otherwise disrupts the proceedings of the Council.”

The court, however, reversed the dismissal of the action, holding that there was no way of assessing the reasonableness of the mayor’s actions on the basis of the pleadings alone, particularly his action in ordering Norse’s 2002 ejection.

On remand, Whyte ruled that the mayor acted reasonably in ordering both of Norse’s ejections because Norse was supporting the conduct of persons in the meeting who were causing a disruption.

Protest Gesture

In her opinion for the appellate court, Judge Mary M. Schroeder agreed, explaining that Norse’s salute “had little to do with the message content of the speaker whose time had expired,” but rather was a protest to the mayor’s good faith efforts to enforce the rules of the meetings to maintain order.

Even if Norse’s free speech rights had been violated, Schroeder posited that this would not have been clear to a reasonable person in the mayor or council’s position, given the circumstances and threat of disorder presented.

As for Norse’s behavior at the 2004 meeting, the jurist said his conduct was “clearly disruptive” and there was no doubt that ordering Norse’s ejection in that instance was a reasonable application of the rules of the council.

Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain joined Schroeder’s opinion, but Senior Judge A. Wallace Tashima only joined in the portion affirming the district court’s dismissal of Norse’s claim based on the 2004 ejection, insisting that Norse’s free speech rights were violated by his removal from the 2002 session.

Tashima argued that the record could support an inference that Norse was excluded from the 2002 meeting because the city officials disagreed with the views he expressed by giving his silent Nazi salute.

Reasonable Inferences

Because the district court’s procedure in granting judgment to the defendants on qualified immunity was akin to a summary judgment proceeding, Tashima opined that the appellate court was required to draw every reasonable inference in favor of Norse.

“It is uncontroverted that Norse’s Nazi salute lasted only a second or two and, in the course of rendering that salute, Norse uttered no word or other sound,” Tashima said, reasoning that since the council permitted silent, visual speech, such as the displaying of signs at its meetings, so long as such speech did not block the view of or otherwise interfere with other meeting attendees, that Norse’s gesture complied with the council’s rules.

He contended that the gesture itself could not have been disruptive since the mayor had not even noticed it and no audience members reacted to it, and therefore there was no justification to remove Norse from the hearing.

Tashima also said the majority’s ruling that the city officials were entitled to qualified immunity was “just plain wrong,” since clearly established law mandates that speech at a municipal meeting could not be suppressed unless it is actually disruptive.

The case is Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 07-15814.

Copyright 2009, Metropolitan News Company