Opinion: Trump’s Abuse of First Amendment as Racist Club Aligns with Republican, Right-Wing Supreme Court Practices

While Donald Trump has been involved in a dispute with Twitter, speciously and ignorantly crying that the social media company violated his First Amendment rights, uprisings and mass actions protesting the police murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor—and the pervasive devaluing of Black lives generally–have mounted. read more

GOP Seeks to Destroy First Amendment and Democracy Itself

Trump - McConnell

As Don Draper, the central character of AMC’s hit show Mad Men, likes to say, “If you don’t like what’s being said, change the conversation.”

For the GOP across the nation these days, though, the prevailing attitude is more to the effect of, “If you don’t like what’s being said, repress the conversation.”

The GOP will fight to the death for the Second Amendment, allowing anybody to buy and possess deadly weapons. This uncritical advocacy has, of course, resulted in a string of mass shootings in the United States, costing many American lives.

When it comes to the First Amendment, however, the GOP doesn’t find the Constitution quite so precious or worth upholding.

The West Virginia State Senate last May 30 passed legislation outlawing public school teacher strikes and authorizing the firing of public workers, beyond just teachers, who strike. The legislation heads to the Republican-led State House on June 17 for consideration.

This legislation reads as a retaliation aimed at teachers for their historic statewide strike last year shutting down public schools for nine days. Teachers were protesting a decade-long pay freeze which the state offered to “ameliorate” with a small pay increase accompanied by pension reductions and substantial increases in health care premiums.

The West Virginia teachers’ actions set off a series of teachers’ strikes in Arizona, Kentucky, Colorado, and Oklahoma.

While West Virginia teachers spearheaded a widespread fervor of democracy in action, now the West Virginia GOP is spearheading a counter-fervor of anti-democratic repression.

Remember when thousands of indigenous and environmental activists gathered in North Dakota in late 2016 to protest the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline? The protest enjoyed a temporary success when then-President Barack Obama’s administration withheld a permit needed for construction of the pipeline to continue. The victory was short-lived, as Trump swept into office and reversed the decision.

These protests triggered a GOP counter-attack aimed at repressing protests in the future and disarming democracy, and gutting the First Amendment.
Oklahoma, a state dependent on the fossil-fuel industry, pre-emptively passed a law in 2017 making it a felony to enter pipeline property to “impede or inhibit operations of the facility.” If the activist succeeded in impeding operations, the penalty could be ten years in jail in addition to a $10,000 fine.

Similar laws denying protesting “critical infrastructure” passed in South Dakota and North Dakota, and legislations mirroring Oklahoma’s have been enacted in Iowa and Louisiana, while also being introduced in Indiana and Illinois, for a total of fifteen states thus far experiencing this legislative onslaught on the democratic rights of protest.

American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), an industry-backed organization, adopted Oklahoma’s bill as model legislation and has been a force in spreading this legislation to other states. The bills have typically inspired and lobby-efforts from such industry heavy-weights as Energy Transfer, Enbridge, and TransCanda, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline.

This legislation has a chilling effect on activist efforts to engage in the kinds of protest and democratic action that we saw at Standing Rock around the Keystone XL pipeline project.

Critics of this legislative wave argue these bills radically undermine the First Amendment.

We need to see this attack on the First Amendment as part of a larger GOP assault on free speech rights.

Take last year’s Supreme Court ruling in the Janus case.

In her dissent to the Janus decision, which declared that public sector unions’ right to collect fair share dues from non-union members violated those workers’ First Amendment rights, Justice Elena Kagan lambasted the ruling for “turning the First Amendment into a sword.” She criticized it for exploiting the First Amendment to curtail rather than foster freedom and democracy, asserting that the First Amendment “was meant not to undermine but to protect democratic governance—including over the role of public-sector unions.”

Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion confirms the ruling turns the First Amendment on its head, restricting rather than enabling employees’ collective speech in the workplace. Arguing in the name of First Amendment rights, Alito prepares the grounds for annihilating free speech, especially workers’ voice in the workplace.

Let’s start with one of Alito’s most obnoxious rhetorical moves. Alito characterizes as “most surprising” what he calls the Union respondent’s “originalist defense” of Abood, the case that set the precedent for allowing public sector unions to collect agency fees. The union, Alito summarizes, argued that “Abood was correctly decided because the First Amendment was not originally understood to provide any protection for the free speech rights of public employees.” Alito then distorts the union’s position with wry and condescending arrogance, writing that “we doubt that the Union—or its members—actually want us to hold that that public employees have ‘no [free speech] rights.’” Of course, unions aren’t arguing to deprive workers of free speech; rather they are pointing out the reality that workers do have only very restricted free speech rights in the workplace as individuals, which makes the role of unions—and their financial ability to fulfill that role—in providing a collective voice for workers and creating some degree of workplace democracy all the more crucial. Alito’s argument, in elevating individual free speech rights over that of the collective, ignoring the reality of unequal workplace power dynamics, actually undermines both the speech rights of the individual and the collective.

Throughout the opinion, he premises his argument on the assumption that employees already have free speech rights in the workplace, arguing it is the Union’s position that overturns precedent, not the Janus decision. He writes, “Taking away free speech protection for public employees would mean overturning decades of landmark precedent.”

As I have elaborated elsewhere, employees don’t have workplace free speech rights.

The Union to which Alito refers isn’t arguing that workers shouldn’t have free speech, but that as individual workers they don’t. This reality needs to be recognized to understand the important role unions fulfill in giving workers a voice.

From all these instances, we need urgently to see is that the First Amendment and democracy itself are under assault.

Opinion: Trump Defends Cyber-Bullies As Melania Holds Annual #BeBest Campaign

The bullies of America know that Donald Trump has their backs. The bully can  even be a race horse, for whom Trump will tweet a defense. Politically correct “MAGA” talk show hosts, people who are known to bully and harass on social media, can count on Trump to cry “censorship” when they are acted against. Naturally, Trump’s passion for free speech only applies to the free speech protections for his own tribe.

Last week, as part of his defense of James Woods, Alex Jones et al. Trump tweeted:

“When will the Radical Left Wing Media apologize to me for knowingly getting the Russia Collusion Delusion story so wrong? The real story is about to happen! Why is @nytimes, @washingtonpost, @CNN, @MSNBC allowed to be on Twitter & Facebook. Much of what they do is FAKE NEWS!”

When will the Radical Left Wing Media apologize to me for knowingly getting the Russia Collusion Delusion story so wrong? The real story is about to happen! Why is @nytimes, @washingtonpost, @CNN, @MSNBC allowed to be on Twitter & Facebook. Much of what they do is FAKE NEWS! read more

Literary Group Sues Trump For Illegal Attacks On the Press

In a suit filed Tuesday in federal court in Manhattan, the PEN American Center (PEN America) alleges that “official acts” by President Donald Trump have “violated the First Amendment and his oath to uphold the Constitution.”

Breaking: PEN America sues Trump over claimed retaliatory actions against media organizations. Lawsuit cites Trump’s attacks on the Post (re: Amazon), CNN (re: merger), and NBC (re: broadcast license). https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5002912-PEN-v-Trump-Complaint.html …

Breaking: PEN America sues Trump over claimed retaliatory actions against media organizations. Lawsuit cites Trump's attacks on the Post (re: Amazon), CNN (re: merger), and NBC (re: broadcast license). https://t.co/LWJwSrLacI pic.twitter.com/ZOC7ILnoRv read more

Trump’s Assault On the First Amendment Takes Root In Public Louisiana High School

In a tweet, Shaun King shared a chilling announcement from a public high school principle in Louisiana. It’s the first indication that Trump’s attack on the first amendment is taking root.

CNN’s Keith Boykin responded with a tweet that summarizes the very thing that makes this a first amendment issue.

This is illegal. Parkway High School is a public school in Louisiana. Principal Waylon Bates is violating their constitutional rights. https://t.co/XeXjVoY45C read more

HHS Secretary Price Displays Ignorance of First Amendment Following Reporter’s Arrest

What does a lawmaker do when a journalist asks a question they don’t like? In American, it used to be the question would be ignored or reframed, and the journalist would persist in getting an answer to the original question. It’s a dance that can, at times be frustrating for both partners, but a dance that is crucial to the America we know and most of us love. Never would asking a question result in a journalist’s arrest – no matter how many times the journalist would ask it and no matter how many times the lawmaker would dodge it.

Bill O’Reilly Says NFL Player Kneeling for Anthem ‘Disrespects Our Entire System’

Bill O’Reilly has a problem with Denver Broncos football player Brandon Marshall, who before the Thursday night season opener against the North Carolina Panthers, chose to take a knee for the national anthem. Marshall joins Colin Kaepernick, Jeremy Lane and Eric Reid in refusing to stand as a protest against social injustice.

Marshall said of his decision,

“The message is I’m against social injustice. I’m not against the military or police or America at all. I’m against social injustice and I feel like this was the right thing to do.

“I feel like this is the right platform. This is our only platform to really be heard. I feel like a lot of times people want us to just shut up and entertain them, shut up and play football. But we have voices as well. We’re actually educated individuals that went to college. So when we have an opinion and we speak it, I feel like a lot of people bash us for what we have to say.”

Watch O’Reilly’s rant courtesy of Media Matters for America:

Now, Mr. Marshall is an interesting study as far as being an American is concerned. Not a football player. An American. He was raised in Las Vegas. Had a violent father who went to prison. But he worked hard and succeeded in developing his football skills. Marshall received a scholarship, full scholarship from the University of Nevada. He went to college free. By the way, he was on the same team as Colin Kaepernick who started the national anthem disrespect. Anyway, Brandon Marshall has played well in the National Football League and recently signed a 32-million-dollar contract. So let’s put this in perspective. Poor kid, bad father, develops his god-given skills, is presented with an opportunity to attend college free of charge. Then becomes a professional football player, earning millions in our capitalistic system. Nowhere on Earth could Brandon Marshall have done that but America. Nowhere. To be fair, bad things do happen in this country, in every country, and they must be confronted. But to disrespect our entire system when you have reaped so much benefit from it is fallacious in the extreme. Brandon Marshall and others like him have an obligation to think about what they’re putting out there because some impressionable folks listen to them. Want to improve things? Good. Disrespecting the anthem, not good. read more

Ralph Reed Invokes MLK’s Fight for Freedom in Defense of his Fight to Oppress

So Ralph Reed of the misnamed Faith and Freedom Coalition, took exception to my findings yesterday, that the Bible is irrelevant as a determinant of United States immigration policy reform. He thinks he’s pretty clever and like any good conservative these days, goes right to invoking MLK: “So MLK was wrong to invoke the BIble & nature’s God in campaigning for civil rights? Really?”

@missrevo @politicususa So MLK was wrong to invoke the BIble [sic] & nature’s God in campaigning for civil rights?Really?

— Ralph Reed (@ralphreed) February 14, 2013 read more