SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
first amendment
FCC Chair Rebukes DeSantis-Run Florida for Threatening TV Station Over Abortion Ad
Another critic said that "this is the latest proof that there is no limit to how low DeSantis will stoop to censor free speech and punish dissent."
Oct 09, 2024
Federal Communications Commission Chair Jessica Rosenworcel on Tuesday called out a Florida agency for threatening a Tampa NBC affiliate with prosecution for airing an advertisement in support of a state abortion rights proposal on the November ballot.
"The right of broadcasters to speak freely is rooted in the First Amendment," Rosenworcel said in a statement. "Threats against broadcast stations for airing content that conflicts with the government's views are dangerous and undermine the fundamental principle of free speech."
Floridians Protecting Freedom's ad is designed to build support for Amendment 4, which if approved by voters next month would alter the Florida Constitution to outlaw pre-viability prohibitions on abortion care, including Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' six-week ban, which took effect earlier this year and has already been shown to harm patients.
The 30-second ad features a Tampa resident who was diagnosed with brain cancer while pregnant. Caroline, who already had one child at the time, says that "the doctors knew if I did not end my pregnancy, I would lose my baby, I would lose my life, and my daughter would lose her mom."
"Florida has now banned abortion even in cases like mine," explains Caroline, who received abortion care in 2020, before the U.S. Supreme Court reversedRoe v. Wade and enabled bans like the one signed by DeSantis. "Amendment 4 is gonna protect women like me. We have to vote yes."
Florida journalist Jason Garcia revealed Monday that last week, John Wilson, general counsel at the state Department of Health (DOH), wrote to WFLA-TV vice president and general manager Mark Higgins, claiming that the ad contains information that is "categorically false" and constitutes a "sanitary nuisance," which could lead to criminal proceedings if it is not removed.
As HuffPostreported Tuesday:
It's unclear if the agency only sent the letter to the NBC affiliate, or to others as well. Either way, a threat like this could have a chilling effect on publicly advocating for the pro-choice measure, just weeks away from when it will be in front of voters. Florida's Department of Health did not respond to HuffPost's request for comment.
The sanitary nuisance law is meant to curb conditions that can threaten or impair Floridians' health. It normally pertains to issues like overflowing septic tanks and problematic garbage disposals.
Attorneys for Floridians Protecting Freedom swiftly sent a letter to WFLA leaders, arguing that the DOH interjection "raises serious First Amendment concerns—indeed, it reflects an unconstitutional attempt to coerce the station into censoring protected speech," and "the advertisement is true."
The DOH letter "vaguely outlines the limited instances where abortions are allowed in Florida but fails to provide any evidence showing that Caroline's statements are false," the lawyers wrote. "Caroline was diagnosed with stage four brain cancer when she was 20 weeks pregnant; the diagnosis was terminal."
Florida's ban has limited exceptions for abortions after six weeks—before many people even know they are pregnant. In cases of rape and incest, patients can receive care up to 15 weeks, if they can manage the burdensome paperwork. Abortions to protect the health or life of a pregnant person require two physicians to assert in writing that such care is necessary.
"The only instances where the Agency for Health Care Administration has provided guidance that abortions are permitted after six-weeks' gestation are when there is an immediate threat to the pregnant person's life," the lawyers noted. "Caroline's diagnosis was terminal. Practically, that means that an abortion would not have saved her life, only extended it. Florida law would not allow an abortion in this instance."
The group of attorneys is far from alone in criticizing the Florida DOH's attempt to get the ad off the air. Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), toldPopular Information that the department's letter stretches "the meaning of sanitary nuisance beyond recognition."
"Terr told Popular Information that even if the ad was false and violated Florida's sanitary nuisance law, the enforcement of the law against a political ad would be unconstitutional," the outlet added. "Terr notes that the First Amendment contains 'no general exception for false speech or misinformation, and that's because of the danger of the government having a general power to dictate what is true or false, especially when it comes to political speech.'"
As Slate's Mark Joseph Stern reported Monday:
Rebecca Tushnet, a professor at Harvard Law School and a First Amendment specialist, told me that the DeSantis administration's threat is "about as blatant a violation of the First Amendment as you'll see."
Jennifer Safstrom, director of the First Amendment Clinic at Vanderbilt Law School, condemned the administration's letter as an unconstitutional "weaponization of state law to suppress speech" that's "designed to have a chilling effect on advocates during a time critical to voter outreach." Alexander Tsesis, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law, said it seemed "absurd to threaten prosecution," and pointed out that stations' own "editorial decisions" are protected by the First Amendment. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a professor at Stetson Law, called the incident yet another episode in DeSantis' "long recent history of violating the First Amendment with abandon."
Seth Stern, director of advocacy of Freedom of the Press Foundation, similarly said in a Wednesday statement that "this is the latest proof that there is no limit to how low DeSantis will stoop to censor free speech and punish dissent."
"It comes on the heels of his efforts to rewrite defamation law to make it easier for the rich and powerful to bankrupt their critics, his Stop WOKE Act stunt, and other similarly unconstitutional nonsense," Stern noted. "A governor who is confident in his policies and secure in his leadership would welcome debate and correct statements he believes are misleading rather than trying to weaponize trash disposal laws against the free press."
"But DeSantis is not that governor. His administration's conduct would be silly if it weren't such a transparent bully tactic," he added. "Floridians care about the First Amendment, which is why DeSantis' outrageous censorship campaigns keep failing. We hope the news outlets he targets will not only ignore him but loudly shame him."
The governor has come under fire for various actions throughout the fight for Amendment 4. As Garcia highlighted on social media, while targeting Caroline's ad, "the DeSantis administration is running taxpayer-funded television commercials attacking Amendment 4 on ESPN, CNN, Fox News, The Weather Channel, and more."
The ads are part of what the ACLU of Florida has called an "unconstitutional misinformation campaign," which also includes a government website. Additionally, as Common Dreamsreported last month, multiple state residents have had law enforcement come to their homes to confirm that they signed the petition to get Amendment 4 on the ballot.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pro-Palestine Students, Faculty Sue UC Santa Cruz Over 'Unconstitutional' Ban
The lawsuit was filed "to vindicate the fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly, and due process against overreach by university authorities," the text said.
Sep 09, 2024
Students and staff at the University of California, Santa Cruz launched a lawsuit against the school on Monday for barring them from campus without due process after they were arrested at a pro-Palestinian protest in the spring.
The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Northern California, the Center for Protest Law & Litigation, and civil rights attorney Thomas Seabaugh, is demanding that the University "cease summarily banishing" people who exerciser their First Amendment rights as the new academic year beings.
"The bans were incredibly punitive and profoundly unfair," Rachel Lederman, senior counsel with the Center for Protest Law & Litigation, said in a statement. "They went into effect on the spot, instantly cutting students and faculty off from classes, jobs, and other school resources, such as meal plans and healthcare. On-campus residents were rendered homeless. Academic performance suffered."
"It's time to hold UCSC accountable for its illegal use of Section 626.4 campus bans against students and faculty as a tool of censorship."
One impacted student was Elio Ellutzi, a plaintiff and undergraduate who was not only made homeless and cut off from their campus job, they were forced to the miss a pre-scheduled doctor's appointment and delay treatment until the fall.
"It was terrible to miss that appointment and be cut off from my home, the library, and my notes," Ellutzi said. "This all happened during final exams and, even though I had been on the honor roll for the last two quarters, I struggled to complete my coursework and my grades really suffered."
Fellow plaintiff and UCSC undergraduate Laaila Irshad also suffered academically.
"I was a resident assistant living and working in campus housing, so the ban was devastating," Laaila said. "I failed my school courses as I could not access my computer, attend classes, or complete assignments."
The bans were issued to more than 100 students and faculty members who were arrested on the night of May 30, when the university called in more than 100 police officers to clear the school's Palestine solidarity encampment.
Everyone arrested that night was banned from campus under section 626.4 of California's Penal Code, which allows a university to withdraw its consent for an individual's presence on campus for up to two weeks. However, in order for a university to make use of the code, it must first either hold a hearing or decide that an individual poses "a substantial and material threat." Neither criteria were met in the case of those arrested in May, in violation of both state and federal law.
Chessie Thacher, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said the bans were "unconstitutional and overbroad, depriving students and faculty of their due process rights."
The lawsuit explained further:
The campus police, acting under defendants' direction, handed out identical one-page Section 626.4 notices to arrestees. The officers handed out so many of these form notices en masse that they eventually ran out of paper and resorted to verbally informing students and faculty of the ban. Some people were also purportedly banned without getting either written or verbal notice. No hearing or opportunity to be heard was provided before any of these bans went into effect. No individualized findings were made about how, post-arrest, "the continued presence" on campus of each summarily banned person presented "a substantial and material threat of significant injury to persons or property."
The notices were also handed out after an arrest experience that was harrowing in and of itself, according to first-hand testimony from plaintiffs.
Christine Hong, a professor of critical race and ethnic studies, said she had gone to the encampment on May 30 to support her students:
When I arrived, I saw a line of officers advancing in militarized formation, moving forward, then stopping, and waiting before continuing their slow march down to the base of campus until they were just two to three feet in front of the line of students. From that point forward, they repeatedly attacked us in waves of violence. The police used their batons to force us so tightly into each other that some protesters were dry heaving from the batons being thrust violently into their organs. When students tried to move the batons away from their stomachs, they were ordered to stay still and bear the pain. The person next to me was later hospitalized for their injuries. In what appeared to be their efforts to pluck off protesters for arrest, officers in full riot gear were unrestrained in their violence, including grabbing people by the neck. One person sustained injuries so severe that they suffered neurological damage and now walks using a cane.
Once arrested, both Hong and Irshad described spending time in police vans with their hands tightly zip-tied and no chance to access facilities.
Irshad recalled:
I was arrested at 6:00 am, while other protesters remained on-site into the morning, still without basic necessities. We were then handcuffed tightly with zip ties and loaded into vans, where static radio blared at deafening volumes. When we pleaded for relief, the volume was increased, and when I asked to use the restroom, I was met with scorn and laughter. It was a shock to be treated so cruelly simply for exercising my right to protest.
The lawsuit stated that it was filed "to vindicate the fundamental democratic and constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly, and due process against overreach by university authorities."
"It's time to hold UCSC accountable for its illegal use of Section 626.4 campus bans against students and faculty as a tool of censorship," Seabaugh said in a statement. "Our clients did not engage in conduct that posed a threat of significant injury to anyone or anything. Banning them on the spot was not just heavy-handed, it was unconstitutional and a violation of basic democratic rights and academic freedoms. We're suing to ensure that in the coming school year, UCSC officials comply with the law and respect the constitutional limits on their power to ban students and faculty from campus."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Sues US for Placing Palestinian American on 'Illegal, Racist Watchlist'
"Security agencies have no right to infringe on people's rights under flimsy pretext and without judicial permission and due process," said a plaintiff in the case.
Aug 12, 2024
The largest U.S. Muslim civil rights group on Monday announced it is suing Attorney General Merrick Garland and other federal officials for placing one Palestinian American on its "no-fly" list and for seizing another's electronic device and interrogating him about his constitutionally protected organizing for a free Palestine.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations and its Los Angeles office (CAIR-LA) are suing Garland, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray, Terrorism Screening Center Director Michael Glasheen, and other national security officials on behalf of Mustafa Zeidan and Osama Abu Irshaid.
According to the lawsuit, the men "are both United States citizens of Palestinian descent" who have never "been charged or convicted of a violent crime."
"Yet, recently, the federal government has placed Dr. Abu Irshaid and Mr. Zeidan on a secret list, subjecting one to a humiliating process of detention, questioning, and phone seizure at the border and barring the other from flying altogether," the filing states. Irshaid is on the terrorism watchlist while Zeidan cannot fly.
"Only one thing has changed for Dr. Abu Irshaid in recent months: his constant and passionate advocacy for an end to Israel's genocide in Gaza and an end to the United States' complicity in that genocide."
"As a result of his status on the government's secret list now, Dr. Abu Irshaid is detained at the border by federal agents each time he crosses it," the document continues. "Federal agents ask... humiliating questions about his lawful associations and work leading a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of Palestinians."
As a board member and national director of Palos Hills, Illinois-based American Muslims for Palestine, Irshaid frequently appears as an expert on mainstream media outlets including NPR and Al Jazeera, where he warned last December of "dangerous smear campaigns that weaponize racism to silence the Palestinian freedom movement."
The lawsuit states that
federal agents "have successfully coerced" Irshaid into unlocking his phone, which they still held at the time the suit was filed.
"Only one thing has changed for Dr. Abu Irshaid in recent months: His constant and passionate advocacy for an end to Israel's genocide in Gaza and an end to the United States' complicity in that genocide," the complaint stresses.
The lawsuit continues:
Mr. Zeidan has fared even worse. [He] travels to Jordan several times a year to visit and take care of his ailing mother. After purchasing a ticket to see her in May of this year, he showed up to the airport, only for officials at the airport to tell him that he was forbidden from boarding his flight because of his status on the government's secret list. The government has given Mr. Zeidan no explanation for why he's been placed on the no-fly List after years of flying overseas without any issues. Only one thing has changed in the last several months for Mr. Zeidan: He organizes a weekly protest to call for an end to Israel's genocidal campaign in Gaza and the United States' complicity in that genocide.
"When I first came to the United States almost three decades ago what appealed to me the most about it were the constitutional rights and civil liberties that guarantee humans dignity," Irshaid said Monday at a press conference in Washington, D.C. announcing the lawsuit, "and that security agencies have no right to infringe on people's rights under flimsy pretext and without judicial permission and due process."
"The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington turned things upside down in the United States," Irshaid continued. "Harsh laws were enacted that infringed on the civil and constitutional rights of American citizens including the right to privacy and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty."
"American Muslims in particular became suspects merely because of their religious and ethnic background and were treated as guilty until proven innocent," he noted. "I understand the need to maintain security, but it must be conducted consistent with American values, and constitutional legal values and protections."
Explaining that he was previously on the U.S. watchlist from 2010-17, Irshaid expressed his dismay at finding himself back on it. However, he said he would not stop advocating for Palestine.
"As a human being, I reject killing, maiming, displacement, starvation, displacement, and terrorization of tens of thousands of children, women, civilians, and innocents, regardless of their nationalities," he said. "Moreover, as an American, I reject the complicity of American decision-makers in supporting such crimes with weapons, money, and the diplomatic immunity they provide to Israel."
"The right to political dissent is protected by the First Amendment," Irshaid added. "This does not make me less patriotic, but rather makes me more in line with American values."
Earlier this year, U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) urged her House colleagues to condemn a proposal by U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) to add pro-Palestine student protesters to the no-fly list.
"A sitting senator labels Americans protesting against a foreign country accused of carrying out a genocide funded with our tax dollars as terrorists and puts a target on their back to be attacked," said Omar, who is Muslim. "This is insanely dangerous and somehow no one will condemn it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular