Monday, March 19, 2018
#FREESPEECH IN THE NEWS: MARCH 19, 2018
As the Citadel of Free Speech here in Cleveland, we work to protect and promote the basis of our democracy by sharing related stories, commentary, and opinions on free speech in the 21st century. Here's what's making the news – and what you should know about – in the past week.
1.) U.S. top court mulls free speech fight over 'crisis pregnancy centers'
A Christian-based crisis pregnancy center in California is challenging a California law requiring that it post notices saying the state provides free or low-cost birth control and abortion services. The center says this law violates their right to free speech in the first amendment.
The case is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court this week.
Specifically, the mandate is for unlicensed facilities with no medical personnel on staff. According to the state of California, the law was created to deter these facilities from giving women misleading or false information about the services available in the state.
This case is one of six the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on this term.
2.) White House officials made to sign non-disclosure agreements, report says
The non-disclosure agreements President Donald Trump ordered senior staff in the White House to sign prior to working their posts are likely null and void.
The agreements, which state staff members may be required to pay up to $10 million dollars for disclosing White House information, were also signed by several staff members in President Trump’s campaign.
Legal experts say despite signing the agreements, they likely do not supersede staff members’ first amendment right to free speech and are thus not enforceable.
3.) WV Supreme Court: Complete internet restriction violates 1st Amendment
Restricting a person’s access to the internet as a condition of their parole from prison is a violation of their right to free speech under the first amendment.
The West Virginia Supreme Court ruled in favor of a man fighting to have his parole reinstated after it was determined he violated an internet access mandate. The man’s girlfriend had internet access on her computer, which he did not use. He was banned from visiting websites, receivingemailfrom employers or medical personnel, paying bills online as well as having a smartphone.
The judge ruled because his offense did not involve the internet, the condition of his parole was unnecessary and unconstitutional.
