Connect with us

FIRST AMENDMENT? WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT?

Trump Now Plans to Call for News Outlets to Fire Reporters, Pundits He Feels Made False Accusations Against Him

Published

on

President Donald Trump wants vengeance now that special counsel Robert Mueller has turned in his report, which Attorney General William Barr says shows no evidence of conspiracy or obstruction.

The president is claiming the report exonerates him from allegations that his campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election, and now Trump wants to punish his enemies who reported on the nearly two-year investigation, reported Axios.

Trump called for an investigation of his critics and cast himself as a victim within an hour of learning Mueller’s findings.

“Aides say Trump plans to … call for organizations to fire members of the media and former government officials who he believes made false accusations about him,” the Washington Post reported.

Barr’s summary shows that Mueller did not find evidence that anyone in the Trump campaign or its associates conspired or coordinated with the Russian government, and Mueller wrote that he did not conclude Trump committed a crime, but he made clear his findings did not exonerate the president.

The report represents a huge political win for the president, who will use Mueller’s findings to cast doubt on investigations by House Democrats, and Trump’s allies are already calling for investigations of the investigators.

RELATED STORIES:

WATCH: HOUSE JUDICIARY CHAIR NADLER SMACKS DOWN AG BARR – SAYS ‘WE WILL ASK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO TESTIFY’

MUELLER REPORT FINDS NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION – BUT ‘DOES NOT EXONERATE’ ON OBSTRUCTION – READ AG’S LETTER TO CONGRESS HERE

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

FIRST AMENDMENT? WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT?

Kagan Calls SCOTUS Porn Ruling ‘Confused’: ‘At War With Itself’

Published

on

Justice Elena Kagan called Friday morning’s Supreme Court porn ruling “confused,” saying it flies in the face of established First Amendment case law.

In Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, the Supreme Court upheld a Texas state law that requires adults to provide official identification in order to view websites where at least one-third of the content on it is “harmful to minors.” The case was decided 6-3 on ideological lines, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion, and Justice Kagan writing the dissent.

The Court found that the 2023 Texas law did not run afoul of the First Amendment, in part because the state has an interest in protecting minors from harmful material. That part of the ruling was widely agreed upon. Where the issue lies is whether the specific law was well-tailored enough to not infringe on protected speech.

READ MORE: Louisiana Adults Must Now Show Drivers’ Licenses to Access Porn Online

Kagan and the other liberal justices disagreed on this point. She argued that while the state clearly has the right to declare certain speech obscene for minors and legally prohibit them from engaging with it, adults must still be allowed access. Kagan said that Friday’s ruling runs counter to cases brought before the Court “on no fewer than four prior occasions,” where the Court has “given the same answer, consistent with general free speech principles, each and every time.”

Kagan argued that the concept of “strict scrutiny” should have been applied to the Texas law, which requires the “least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest.” The ruling however, said that the ID requirement only hit the level of “intermediate scrutiny,” which does not require the state to answer the “least restrictive means” question.

“The majority’s opinion concluding to the contrary is, to be frank, confused. The opinion, to start with, is at war with itself. Parts suggest that the First Amendment plays no role here—that because Texas’s law works through age verification mandates, the First Amendment is beside the point. But even the majority eventually gives up that ghost. As, really, it must,” Kagan wrote.

She argued that the law would cause some people not to access these objectionable-to-minors websites, saying that people may not want to “identify themselves to a website (and maybe, from there, to the world)” as someone who enjoys pornography. The reference to “the world” refers to concerns raised by the Free Speech Coalition that the Texas law could leave citizens open to hackers if sites do not properly protect the identification information.

“But still, the majority proposes, that burden demands only intermediate scrutiny because it arises from an ‘incidental’ restriction, given that Texas’s statute uses age verification to prevent minors from viewing the speech. Except that is wrong—nothing like what we have ever understood as an incidental restraint for First Amendment purposes. Texas’s law defines speech by content and tells people entitled to view that speech that they must incur a cost to do so. That is, under our First Amendment law, a direct (not incidental) regulation of speech based on its content—which demands strict scrutiny,” Kagan wrote.

After the law passed, some pundits warned that if it were upheld, it could lead to other laws against content deemed objectionable. The Free Speech Coalition argued that porn can be the “canary in the coal mine of free speech,” and Harvard Law Professor Rebecca Tushnet agreed.

“If the Court is open to revisiting the First Amendment framework that structured the last 70 years or so of constitutional history, then many things will be up for grabs, including defamation law, political speech regulations, and compelled speech. Speech about abortion and LGBTQ issues would be the obvious next targets,” she said.

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

FIRST AMENDMENT? WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT?

Justice Clarence Thomas Believes Media Criticism of Decisions ‘Jeopardizes Any Faith’ in the Supreme Court

Published

on

Justice Clarence Thomas complained about the harsh criticism the Supreme Court has received since allowing a controversial anti-abortion law to go into effect in Texas.

Thomas delivered the 2021 Tocqueville Lecture at the University of Notre Dame on Thursday, where he complained about media criticism, The Washington Post reported.

“I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference. So if they think you are anti-abortion or something personally, they think that’s the way you always will come out. They think you’re for this or for that. They think you become like a politician,” Thomas said.

“That’s a problem. You’re going to jeopardize any faith in the legal institutions,” he said.

A second Post report on the speech noted Thomas’ remarks on the ongoing mistrust of the court.

“The court was thought to be the least dangerous branch and we may have become the most dangerous,” Thomas said. “And I think that’s problematic.”

The newspaper noted the lecture was interrupted by protesters who yelled, “I still believe Anita Hill.”

 

Continue Reading

FIRST AMENDMENT? WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT?

Four Cops ‘Drag’ Man From McCarthy Press Conference for Asking Question About Jan. 6 Committee

Published

on

Four law enforcement officers reportedly removed a man from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-CA) press conference on Thursday when he tried to ask a question about the Jan. 6 committee.

“I tried to ask @GOPLeader McCarthy a question after he decried Cuban police pickup up people in the streets,” Grant Stern explained in a tweet. “Why does he oppose the bipartisan #January6thCommission?”

“A Congressional staffer had four cops pick me up and drag me from the room,” he explained.

Stern’s bio indicates that he is an editor for the OccupyDemocrats organization.

Watch the video below

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.