First Amen Free Spch 1st

see 2 for newer (html fail 3/20)capt 819 baksee also commercial speech

see also corporate personhood

see also climate lawsuitspress suppression, activist?

also 1st Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .[arizona anti-gay]; hobby lobby  <a href="http://www.freespeechforpeople.com/node/665">http://www.freespeechforpeople.com/node/665</a>

we could have a whole category for cigarette labels?

tobacco litigation?

=<div></div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3087&context=facpub">https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3087&context=facpub</a></div><div>
</div><div>2018 Big Food and Soda Versus Public Health: Industry Litigation Against Local Government Regulations to Promote Healthy Diets </div><div>
</div><div>Sarah A. Roache Georgetown University Law Center, sarah.roache@law.georgetown.edu Charles Platkin School of Urban Public Health, City University of New York, cplatkin@hunter.cuny.edu Lawrence O. Gostin Georgetown University, gostin@law.georgetown.edu Cara Kaplan Fordham Law School, ckaplan7@law.fordham.edu  </div><div>
</div><div>p 1078</div><div>
</div><div>sf 2015:</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>D. San Francisco Soda Warning Ordinance </div><div>
</div><div>In 2015, San Francisco became the first United States jurisdiction to pass legislation requiring soda companies to include a statement on advertisements warning of the health impacts of consuming sugar sweetened beverages.181 Specifically, the ordinance required companies to place warnings on advertisements on billboards, vehicles, and similar structures, stating: “WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. This is a message from the City and County of San Francisco.”182 </div><div>
</div><div>The ordinance required that this warning occupy twenty percent of the total advertisement space.183 It applied to advertisements for non-alcoholic beverages containing caloric sweeteners and more than twenty-five calories per twelve ounces of beverage, with exemptions for milk, milk alternatives, and 100% natural fruit and vegetable juices.184 San Francisco’s purpose in requiring the warning was to “inform the public of the presence of added sugars and thus promote informed consumer choice that may result in reduced caloric intake and improved diet and health, thereby reducing illnesses to which [sugar-sweetened beverages] contribute and associated economic burdens.”185</div><div>
</div><div>Shortly after the City passed the ordinance, the ABA, the California Retailers Association, and the California State Outdoor Advertising Association filed a suit in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, to preliminarily enjoin the ordinance, alleging that it violated the plaintiffs’ freedom of speech and unjustly targeted sugar-sweetened beverages as a contributing factor to the obesity epidemic.186 To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”187 At the district court level, the judge found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim and were unlikely to suffer irreparable harm if the ordinance went into effect.188 Furthermore, the district court found that even if the plaintiffs may succeed on the merits, the balancing test would weigh in favor of denying the injunction.189 </div><div>
</div><div>The district court noted that the city had a reasonable basis to enforce the ordinance due to its interest in public health and safety.190 The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court’s decision and upheld the preliminary injunction to enjoin the San Francisco ordinance.191 First, the court of appeals found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claims.192 The plaintiffs claimed that the warning label requirements infringed on their First Amendment right to freedom of speech.193 While the First Amendment freedom of speech protections may traditionally be associated with individual liberty, the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed that these protections extend to commercial speech.194</div><div>
</div><div>p 1080...</div>=<div> = </div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">420 random grab drilled</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">f<a href="http://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwtUMuOgzAM_JrmiJIApRxyWFXa30BOYmjUPFBi2vL3G-hKlmyN7bFnDBAuKe9qTYXYVjBPzio5XPk4cmZVZ8WtvzFXpjkjBnBeUd6QrZv2zgC5FI-F9jpywR5KzAim67jsNYdhlkbqgRujb72xXPQjO85MsFmH0aDCF-Y9RWRePYjWcml_LvK3hod3o8GTCymjcbQ3S3pVvDjCUrPFGTZPtZqdP5G7d6Fquche8vsD4vJfprB6cJGa1c7MKckl550QXHDZ9o1o3pjjp8DwAX3peFhkUzZdCMyzMSmwrFagYJ6ird3l0H_CVf5Uc9hi_W3CCNqj_TpDXytPobSvqCK-i0cizF_wtKsbhWT1kk2VMyqbna8Mx-gfZJ2KEQ" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJwtUMuOgzAM_JrmiJIApRxyWFXa30BOYmjUPFBi2vL3G-hKlmyN7bFnDBAuKe9qTYXYVjBPzio5XPk4cmZVZ8WtvzFXpjkjBnBeUd6QrZv2zgC5FI-F9jpywR5KzAim67jsNYdhlkbqgRujb72xXPQjO85MsFmH0aDCF-Y9RWRePYjWcml_LvK3hod3o8GTCymjcbQ3S3pVvDjCUrPFGTZPtZqdP5G7d6Fquche8vsD4vJfprB6cJGa1c7MKckl550QXHDZ9o1o3pjjp8DwAX3peFhkUzZdCMyzMSmwrFagYJ6ird3l0H_CVf5Uc9hi_W3CCNqj_TpDXytPobSvqCK-i0cizF_wtKsbhWT1kk2VMyqbna8Mx-gfZJ2KEQ&source=gmail&ust=1586805136365000&usg=AFQjCNEAhMZgFO1d8CrGI_idwqx6RM7stA" style="text-decoration-line: none;">ossil Fuel Companies Try Again to Shake Baltimore’s Climate Liability Suit</a>ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP, along with nearly two dozen other fossil fuel defendants named in a climate liability suit by the city of Baltimore, have asked a state court to dismiss the case, in part because they maintain it is a violation of their First Amendment right to free speech. Story coming soon!</div></div><div></div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/07/us/politics/erik-prince-project-veritas.html">https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/07/us/politics/erik-prince-project-veritas.html</a></div><div>
</div><div><div>no lnx</div><div>
</div><div>Erik Prince Recruits Ex-Spies to Help Infiltrate Liberal Groups</div><div>
</div><div>Mr. Prince, a contractor close to the Trump administration, contacted veteran spies for operations by Project Veritas, the conservative group known for conducting stings on news organizations and other groups.</div><div>
</div><div>Erik Prince, the former head of Blackwater Worldwide and the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, has at times served as an informal adviser to Trump administration officials.</div><div>Erik Prince, the former head of Blackwater Worldwide and the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, has at times served as an informal adviser to Trump administration officials.Credit...Jeenah Moon/Reuters</div><div>Mark MazzettiAdam Goldman</div><div>By Mark Mazzetti and Adam Goldman</div><div>March 7, 2020</div><div>
</div><div>WASHINGTON — Erik Prince, the security contractor with close ties to the Trump administration, has in recent years helped recruit former American and British spies for secretive intelligence-gathering operations that included infiltrating Democratic congressional campaigns, labor organizations and other groups considered hostile to the Trump agenda, according to interviews and documents.</div><div>
</div><div>One of the former spies, an ex-MI6 officer named Richard Seddon, helped run a 2017 operation to copy files and record conversations in a Michigan office of the American Federation of Teachers, one of the largest teachers’ unions in the nation. Mr. Seddon directed an undercover operative to secretly tape the union’s local leaders and try to gather information that could be made public to damage the organization, documents show.</div><div>
</div><div>Using a different alias the next year, the same undercover operative infiltrated the congressional campaign of Abigail Spanberger, then a former C.I.A. officer who went on to win an important House seat in Virginia as a Democrat. The campaign discovered the operative and fired her.</div><div>
</div><div>Both operations were run by Project Veritas, a conservative group that has gained attention using hidden cameras and microphones for sting operations on news organizations, Democratic politicians and liberal advocacy groups. Mr. Seddon’s role in the teachers’ union operation — detailed in internal Project Veritas emails that have emerged from the discovery process of a court battle between the group and the union — has not previously been reported, nor has Mr. Prince’s role in recruiting Mr. Seddon for the group’s activities.</div><div>
</div><div>Both Project Veritas and Mr. Prince have ties to President Trump’s aides and family. Whether any Trump administration officials or advisers to the president were involved in the operations, even tacitly, is unclear. But the effort is a glimpse of a vigorous private campaign to try to undermine political groups or individuals perceived to be in opposition to Mr. Trump’s agenda.</div><div>
</div><div>Mr. Prince, the former head of Blackwater Worldwide and the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, has at times served as an informal adviser to Trump administration officials. He worked with the former national security adviser Michael T. Flynn during the presidential transition. In 2017, he met with White House and Pentagon officials to pitch a plan to privatize the Afghan war using contractors in lieu of American troops. Jim Mattis, then the defense secretary, rejected the idea.</div><div>
</div><div>Mr. Prince appears to have become interested in using former spies to train Project Veritas operatives in espionage tactics sometime during the 2016 presidential campaign. Reaching out to several intelligence veterans — and occasionally using Mr. Seddon to make the pitch — Mr. Prince said he wanted the Project Veritas employees to learn skills like how to recruit sources and how to conduct clandestine recordings, among other surveillance techniques.</div><div>
</div><div>James O’Keefe, the head of Project Veritas, declined to answer detailed questions about Mr. Prince, Mr. Seddon and other topics, but he called his group a “proud independent news organization” that is involved in dozens of investigations. He said that numerous sources were coming to the group “providing confidential documents, insights into internal processes and wearing hidden cameras to expose corruption and misconduct.”</div><div>
</div><div>“No one tells Project Veritas who or what to investigate,” he said.</div><div>
</div><div>A spokesman for Mr. Prince declined to comment. Emails sent to Mr. Seddon went unanswered.</div><div>
</div><div>Mr. Prince is under investigation by the Justice Department over whether he lied to a congressional committee examining Russian interference in the 2016 election, and for possible violations of American export laws. Last year, the House Intelligence Committee made a criminal referral to the Justice Department about Mr. Prince, saying he lied about the circumstances of his meeting with a Russian banker in the Seychelles in January 2017.</div><div>
</div><div>Once a small operation running on a shoestring budget, Project Veritas in recent years has had a surge in donations from both private donors and conservative foundations. According to its latest publicly available tax filing, Project Veritas received $8.6 million in contributions and grants in 2018. Mr. O’Keefe earned about $387,000.</div><div>
</div><div>Last year, the group received a $1 million contribution made through the law firm Alston & Bird, a financial document obtained by The New York Times showed. A spokesman for the firm said that Alston & Bird “has never contributed to Project Veritas on its own behalf, nor is it a client of ours.” The spokesman declined to say on whose behalf the contribution was made.</div><div>
</div><div>The financial document also listed the names of others who gave much smaller amounts to Project Veritas last year. Several of them confirmed their donations.</div><div>
</div><div>The group has also become intertwined with the political activities of Mr. Trump and his family. The Trump Foundation gave $20,000 to Project Veritas in 2015, the year that Mr. Trump began his bid for the presidency. The next year, during a presidential debate with Hillary Clinton, Mr. Trump claimed without substantiation that videos released by Mr. O’Keefe showed that Mrs. Clinton and President Barack Obama had paid people to incite violence at rallies for Mr. Trump.</div><div>
</div><div>In a book published in 2018, Mr. O’Keefe wrote that Mr. Trump years earlier had encouraged him to infiltrate Columbia University and obtain Mr. Obama’s records.</div><div>
</div><div>Last month, Project Veritas made public secretly recorded video of a longtime ABC News correspondent who was critical of the network’s political coverage and its emphasis on business considerations over journalism. Many conservatives have gleefully pounced on Project Veritas’s disclosures, including one particularly influential voice: Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son.</div><div>
</div><div>The website for Mr. O’Keefe’s coming wedding listed Donald Trump Jr. as an invited guest.</div><div>
</div><div>Mr. Prince invited Project Veritas operatives — including Mr. O’Keefe — to his family’s Wyoming ranch for training in 2017, The Intercept reported last year. Mr. O’Keefe and others shared social media photos of taking target practice with guns at the ranch, including one post from Mr. O’Keefe saying that with the training, Project Veritas will be “the next great intelligence agency.” Mr. Prince had hired a former MI6 officer to help train the Project Veritas operatives, The Intercept wrote, but it did not identify the officer.</div><div>
</div><div>Mr. Seddon regularly updated Mr. O’Keefe about the operation against the Michigan teachers’ union, according to internal Project Veritas emails, where the language of the group’s leaders is marbled with spy jargon.</div><div>
</div><div>They used a code name — LibertyU — for their operative inside the organization, Marisa Jorge, who graduated from Liberty University in Virginia, one of the nation’s largest Christian colleges. Mr. Seddon wrote that Ms. Jorge “copied a great many documents from the file room,” and Mr. O’Keefe bragged that the group would be able to get “a ton more access agents inside the educational establishment.”</div><div>
</div><div>The emails refer to other operations, including weekly case updates, along with training activities that involved “operational targeting.” Project Veritas redacted specifics about those operations from the messages.</div><div>
</div><div>In August 2017, Ms. Jorge wrote to Mr. Seddon that she had managed to record a local union leader talking about Ms. DeVos and other topics.</div><div>
</div><div>“Good stuff,” Mr. Seddon wrote back. “Did you receive the spare camera yet?”</div><div>
</div><div>As education secretary, Ms. DeVos has been a vocal critic of teachers’ unions, saying in 2018 that they have a “stranglehold” over politicians at the federal and state levels. She and Mr. Prince grew up in Michigan, where their father made a fortune in the auto parts business.</div><div>
</div><div>AFT Michigan sued Project Veritas in federal court, alleging trespassing, eavesdropping and other offenses. The teachers’ union is asking for more than $3 million in damages, accusing the group of being a “vigilante organization which claims to be dedicated to exposing corruption. It is, instead, an entity dedicated to a specific political agenda.”</div><div>
</div><div>Project Veritas has said its activities are legal and protected by the First Amendment, and the case is scheduled to go to trial in the fall.</div><div>
</div><div>Other Project Veritas employees on the emails include Joe Halderman, an award-winning former television producer who in 2010 pleaded guilty to trying to extort $2 million from the comedian David Letterman. Mr. Halderman was copied on several messages providing updates about the Michigan operation, and in one message, he gave instructions to Ms. Jorge. Project Veritas tax filings list Mr. Halderman as a “project manager.”</div><div>
</div><div>Two other employees, Gaz Thomas and Samuel Chamberlain, were also identified in emails and appeared to play important roles in the Michigan operation. Efforts to locate Mr. Thomas were unsuccessful. A man named Samuel Chamberlain who matched the description of the one employed by Mr. O’Keefe denied he worked for Project Veritas. He did not respond to follow-up phone messages or an email.</div><div>
</div><div>Last year, Project Veritas submitted a proposed list of witnesses for the trial over the lawsuit. Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Thomas were on the list. Mr. Seddon was not.</div><div>
</div><div>Ms. Jorge, 23, did not respond to email addresses associated with her Liberty University account. In an archived version of her LinkedIn page, Ms. Jorge wrote she had a deep interest in the conservative movement and hoped one day to serve on the Supreme Court after attending law school.</div><div>
</div><div>In a YouTube video, Mr. O’Keefe described the lawsuit as “frivolous” and pointed to a portion of the deposition in which David Hecker, the president of AFT Michigan, said that one of the goals of the lawsuit was to “stop Project Veritas from doing the kind of work that it does.”</div><div>
</div><div>Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a statement: “Let’s be clear who the wrongdoer is here: Project Veritas used a fake intern to lie her way into our Michigan office, to steal documents and to spy — and they got caught. We’re just trying to hold them accountable for this industrial espionage.”</div><div>
</div><div>In 2018, Ms. Jorge infiltrated the congressional campaign of Ms. Spanberger, posing as a campaign volunteer. At the time, Ms. Spanberger was running to unseat a sitting Republican congressman in a race both parties considered important for control of the House. Ms. Jorge was eventually exposed and kicked out of the campaign office.</div><div>
</div><div>It was unclear whether Mr. Seddon was involved in planning that operation.</div><div>
</div><div>Mr. Seddon was a longtime British intelligence officer who served around the world, including in Washington in the years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He is married to an American diplomat, Alice Seddon, who is serving in the American consulate in Lagos, Nigeria.</div><div>
</div><div>Mr. O’Keefe and his group have taken aim at targets over the years including Planned Parenthood, The New York Times, The Washington Post and Democracy Partners, a group that consults with liberal and progressive electoral causes. In 2016, a Project Veritas operative infiltrated Democracy Partners using a fake name and fabricated résumé and made secret recordings of the staff. The year after the sting, Democracy Partners sued Project Veritas, and its lawyers have since deposed Mr. O’Keefe.</div><div>
</div><div>In that deposition, Mr. O’Keefe defended the group’s undercover tactics, saying they were part of a long tradition of investigative journalism going back to muckraking reporters like Upton Sinclair. “I’m not ashamed of the methods that we use or the recordings that we use,” he said.</div><div>
</div><div>He was asked whether he had provided any of the group’s secret recordings of Democracy Partners to the Republican National Committee or any member of the Trump family. He said that he did not think so.</div><div>
</div><div>In 2010, Mr. O’ Keefe and three others pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor after admitting they entered a government building in New Orleans under false pretenses as part of a sting.</div><div>
</div><div>Kitty Bennett contributed research.</div><div>
</div></div><div>
</div><div></div><div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">jeffery stone schenk v US 100 anniv</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Free speech century</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a href="https://kpfa.org/episode/letters-and-politics-june-3-2019/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://kpfa.org/episode/letters-and-politics-june-3-2019/</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">sedition acts and censorship</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">abrams led to brandenberg v ohio</div><div>=</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">=</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="">great website:</div><div style="">
</div><div style=""><a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/01/16/exxon-continues-first-amendment-defense-climate-fraud-probes/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/01/16/exxon-continues-first-amendment-defense-climate-fraud-probes/</a></div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Karen SavageExxon continues to cry foul, alleging that two state attorneys general are violating its First Amendment right to express its  opinion on climate change.In a brief filed last week in New York, attorneys for Exxon once again asserted that that investigations by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and New York Attorney Eric Schneiderman are part of a politically motivated conspiracy against the company and an attempt to silence the oil giant through intimidation.The filing was the latest effort by Exxon to thwart investigations by the attorneys general into possible climate change-related deception by the company. It follows <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122017/exxon-climate-change-disclosure-state-investor-fraud-investigations-court-documents" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">a filing by the AGs</a> in December urging a dismissal of Exxon’s suit against them, based on the company’s <a href="https://tools.ceres.org/resources/tools/resolutions/exxon-2-degrees-scenario-analysis-2017/@@s3_view" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;">recent announcement</a> that it would begin considering climate risks on its business in disclosures to its stockholders. Healey and Schneiderman contend that announcement equates to an admission that Exxon has not been forthcoming about those risks as the AGs have alleged.But Exxon continues to insist that the investigations are an abuse of Healey’s and Schneiderman’s political positions and are violations of the oil giant’s First, Fourth and Fourteenth amendment rights.In November, New York U.S. District Court Judge Valerie Caproni ordered each side to submit written arguments in the case, which was first filed by Exxon in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in June 2016, but has since<a href="http://www.mass.gov/ago/docs/energy-utilities/exxon/3-29-17-order-transferring-case-to-new-york.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;"> been transferred</a> to New York.In its most recent brief, attorneys for Exxon<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4349504-Exxon-Response-Jan-12-2018.html" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;"> said</a> the attorneys general are targeting Exxon with “burdensome” and “harassing” investigations because of the company’s views on climate change. Attorneys also link Healey and Schneiderman to climate activists who Exxon says are seeking to “harass perceived political opponents” and “delegitimize” Exxon.Attorneys for Healey call Exxon’s allegations absurd, particularly considering Exxon has taken the public stance of supporting the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.  “Exxon asserts that Attorney General Healey has joined in an illegal conspiracy to violate Exxon’s rights because she does not agree with Exxon’s views about climate change. Yet Exxon also states that it now endorses climate science, the existence of climate change, and efforts to combat it—consistent with Attorney Healey’s position,” Healey’s attorneys wrote in a recent brief.Schneiderman’s attorneys said that for Exxon to prevail on a free speech allegation, it must plead and prove its right to free speech has been violated, something they contend Exxon has not done.They point to Exxon’s own court filings, in which the company said it speaks publicly about the risks of climate change and shares its perspective on climate change on the company’s<a href="http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;"> website</a>.In a website posting last week, Exxon denounced a recent climate change-related lawsuit<a href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/01/10/new-york-city-climate-lawsuit-liability-bill-de-blasio/" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;"> filed</a> against it by New York City and reiterated its climate change perspective.A<a href="https://twitter.com/exxonmobil/status/951205494978433024" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; background-color: transparent; box-sizing: inherit;"> video</a> shared on the company’s Twitter page carried a similar message.“These public statements demonstrate that, far from being muzzled, Exxon<a href="http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-ny-attorney-generals-reckless-and-false-allegations-misstate-climate-polici" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;"> regularly</a><a href="http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-asks-federal-court-invalidate-new-york-attorney-generals-subpoena" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;"> engages in corporate</a><a href="http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-asks-federal-court-invalidate-new-york-attorney-generals-subpoena" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit;"> advocacy</a> concerning climate change,” wrote attorneys for Schneiderman, adding that a state investigation is not a violation of Exxon’s constitutionally protected rights.Schneiderman also said that fraudulent statements are not protected by the First Amendment.Exxon fired back, alleging that not only are its statements protected but also the company has been harmed by having to endure the “burden and expense” of the investigations.“Based on the record before this Court, there is no basis to classify ExxonMobil’s speech on climate change and climate policy as anything but fully protected by the First Amendment,” wrote attorneys for Exxon.But attorneys for Healey said Exxon’s <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000003408817000057/r8k121117.htm" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;">recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission</a> that promised climate risk disclosure raises further questions about the company’s truthfulness.That decision came after 62 percent of Exxon shareholders <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/31052017/exxon-shareholder-climate-change-disclosure-resolution-approved" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent;">voted</a> in favor of requiring the company to produce a report outlining financial risks to the company from global efforts to prevent temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celcius.“This filing makes clear that, at a minimum, Exxon’s prior disclosures to investors, including Massachusetts investors, may not have adequately accounted for the effect of climate change on its business and assets,” attorneys for Healey wrote.<p class="jp-relatedposts-post jp-relatedposts-post0" data-post-id="3381" data-post-format="false" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 20px; overflow: hidden; float: left; width: 750px; clear: both;"><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/04/23/exxon-climate-probe-new-york-massachusetts/" title="Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General

By Karen Savage Exxon continues to try to shake probes by two state attorneys general into possible climate fraud by the company. The oil giant filed notice on Friday that it will appeal the decision by a federal judge to dismiss its suit against Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and…" rel="nofollow" data-origin="2951" data-position="0" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; opacity: 1;">Exxon Will Continue to Fight Climate Probes by State Attorneys General</a><p class="jp-relatedposts-post jp-relatedposts-post1" data-post-id="2845" data-post-format="false" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 20px; overflow: hidden; float: left; width: 750px; clear: both;"><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2017/11/30/exxon-climate-fraud-case-schneiderman-healey/" title="Exxon's First Amendment Claims in Climate Fraud Case Draw Judge's Skepticism

By Karen Savage Exxon’s quest to convince a federal judge that two state attorneys general are stifling their right to free speech is proving to be no easy task. In a hearing Thursday in New York, U.S. District Court Judge Valerie Caproni said the oil giant’s rationale involved “wild leaps…" rel="nofollow" data-origin="2951" data-position="1" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; opacity: 1;">Exxon's First Amendment Claims in Climate Fraud Case Draw Judge's Skepticism</a><p class="jp-relatedposts-post jp-relatedposts-post2" data-post-id="3220" data-post-format="false" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em; box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 20px; overflow: hidden; float: left; width: 750px; clear: both;"><a class="jp-relatedposts-post-a" href="https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2018/03/29/exxon-climate-fraud-lawsuit-ny-mass-schneiderman-healey/" title="Federal Judge Dismisses Exxon Lawsuit Challenging State Climate Probes

By Karen Savage A federal judge dismissed Exxon’s lawsuit attempting to stop investigations by two state attorneys general into potential climate fraud by the company, which the company claimed are politically motivated and in violation of its Constitutional rights. Ruling that Exxon’s allegations against Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and…" rel="nofollow" data-origin="2951" data-position="2" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; opacity: 1;">Federal Judge Dismisses Exxon Lawsuit Challenging State Climate Probes</a></div>  =<h1 class="single-title" itemprop="headline" rel="bookmark" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; clear: both; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.222em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The Corporate “Free Speech” Racket</h1><h4 class="entry-subtitle single-subtitle" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0.3em 0px; padding: 0px; clear: both; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">How corporations are using the First Amendment to destroy government regulation.</h4><div class="author-info" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; margin-left: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">by <a href="http://washingtonmonthly.com/people/haley-sweetland-edwards/" class="author-name" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: transparent; position: relative; display: inline-block; outline: none; text-decoration-line: none; text-shadow: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.3) 0px 0px 1px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);">Haley Sweetland Edwards</a></div>
<a href="http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/janfeb-2014/the-corporate-free-speech-racket/">http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/janfeb-2014/the-corporate-free-speech-racket/</a>
=<div class="c-entry-heroheader-wrap" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; display: flex; -webkit-box-orient: horizontal; -webkit-box-direction: normal; flex-flow: row nowrap; -webkit-box-pack: justify; justify-content: space-between;"><h1 class="c-page-title" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 0.6rem; padding: 0.6rem 0px 0px; -webkit-box-flex: 1; flex: 1 1 0px;">Corporations like Exxon are using spurious free speech claims to fend off regulation</h1></div><div class="c-byline" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Updated by <a href="http://www.vox.com/users/J.%20Clements%20and%20J.%20Coates" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s ease 0s, background-color 0.1s ease 0s, fill 0.1s ease 0s;">Jeff Clements and John Coates</a> <time class="c-byline__item" data-ui="timestamp" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"> Feb 14, 2017, 8:40am EST</time></div><a href="http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/14/14601932/exxon-first-amendment-free-speech-citizens-global-warming">http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/14/14601932/exxon-first-amendment-free-speech-citizens-global-warming</a>Why is the attorney general of Massachusetts, Maura Healey, being forced to justify to a Texas judge why and how she is doing her job?In the latest instance of the <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2566785" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">corporate takeover</a> of the First Amendment — and other constitutional rights — Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest oil and gas corporation, has invented a constitutional right to obstruct state investigations into allegations of fraud.Investigations by the Massachusetts and New York attorneys general began late last year after <a href="http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">the Los Angeles Times reported</a> that Exxon scientists and executives have known for decades about the connection between fossil fuel consumption and the likelihood of catastrophic changes in the Earth’s atmosphere and climate.The report alleged that as early as the 1980s, Exxon scientists were warning the company in internal communications that global climate change could "indeed be catastrophic (at least for a substantial fraction of the earth's population)." According to the journalists’ report, Exxon’s internal teams used that information for purposes of assessing the potential for profitable investment in new oil exploration and production. Yet these were the same climate models that Exxon “dismissed as unreliable and based on uncertain science” in statements to investors, consumers, and the general public

The attorneys general embarked on investigations on behalf of their citizens, asking whether Exxon was guilty of selling products and equity while concealing information about their risks.The similarity of these allegations to the illegal conspiracy of the tobacco industry — a cover-up of internal corporate knowledge about deadly consequences of continued consumption of its products — did not escape notice. In January 2016, the Department of Justice asked the FBI to investigate whether Exxon should be prosecuted under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as the tobacco industry was. The investigations by the Massachusetts and New York attorneys general, focusing on whether Exxon had been forthright in its disclosures to investors, soon followed.Given identified sources and specific studies cited in news reports, it is not surprising that chief law enforcement officers of federal and state governments would investigate. Indeed, it would be extremely troubling if they did not.But rather than show that the allegations of investor and consumer fraud are baseless, Exxon Mobil is misusing the Constitution to continue to conceal what it knew about the connection between catastrophic climate change and continued fossil fuel use, and when.It is not uncommon, of course, for companies to resist subpoenas from attorneys general on a variety of legal grounds. For example, Exxon could have filed a motion in Massachusetts asking a judge to set aside the subpoena on the grounds that it was overly broad, and arguing that the investigation exceeded the jurisdiction of the attorney general. (In fact, Exxon did just that, and lost.)<h3 id="MTpjvC" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; text-align: left; box-sizing: border-box; vertical-align: inherit; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 0.6rem; padding: 0px;">Until fairly recently, no US court would have entertained free speech claims by a corporation that wanted to strike down regulation</h3>But Exxon has gone much further. It has filed a federal “civil rights” lawsuit in its home court of Texas against the New York and Massachusetts attorneys general. The multibillion-dollar global corporation claims that the state investigations violate a previously unrecognized corporate right under the Constitution both to “speak” and to “not speak” about climate change any way it wants, however deceptive that speech may be.This is where the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is taking the country. That 2010 ruling is infamous for opening the floodgates of big, dark money in our elections by deciding that any limits on supposedly “independent” political ads violate the speech rights of corporations, unions, and billionaires. What is less well-known about Citizens United is how radically it empowers corporations to misuse the First Amendment in other ways — ways we now see playing out in the Exxon case, and elsewhere.Citizens United was the capstone on a remarkable series of cases, dating only to the 1970s, that revolutionized the application of the First Amendment in the corporate context. Very few people realize just how quickly this constitutional revolution has occurred; very few people realize that American corporations thrived for the first two centuries of American history with virtually no First Amendment protections.In the early 20th century, First Amendment cases involving firms tended to involve media companies, as when Louisiana Gov. Huey Long imposed special taxes on newspapers (a clear attempt to punish them). It was generally assumed that the “speech” of business corporations was no more free from court scrutiny than the language of their contracts or their SEC filings.<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">That finding was then broadened and expanded in <em times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration="text-decoration" inherit="inherit" box-sizing="box-sizing" border-box="border-box" vertical-align="vertical-align" line-height="line-height" margin="margin" px="px" padding="padding" style="text-decoration: inherit;">National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), which held that corporations can contribute to ballot initiatives, and again in <em times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration="text-decoration" inherit="inherit" box-sizing="box-sizing" border-box="border-box" vertical-align="vertical-align" line-height="line-height" margin="margin" px="px" padding="padding" style="text-decoration: inherit;">Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980), which asserted that a utility could run advertisements promoting the use of electricity. Those two cases continue to be cited in almost all commercial speech cases — and they are cited more and more frequently. <em times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" text-decoration="text-decoration" inherit="inherit" box-sizing="box-sizing" border-box="border-box" vertical-align="vertical-align" line-height="line-height" margin="margin" px="px" padding="padding" style="text-decoration: inherit;">Citizens United affirmed those cases and extended them to campaign finance laws.After his appointment to the high court in 1971, however, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., a former business lawyer who ardently believed that corporate America was being undermined by the public’s support for reformers like Ralph Nader, helped reinvent the Court’s doctrine in this area. In Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976), the Court said, on First Amendment grounds, that the state could not forbid pharmacists from advertising prescription drug price — a remarkable departure from precedent.</div>Despite the “free speech” rhetoric, corporations are not simply seeking to offer opinions about public policy issues. They do that all the time, routinely spending millions to fund ads, research, policy papers, and lobbying activities. Today corporations are claiming that their “rights” to speak clash with longstanding forms of regulation of business activity. Whenever they are required to disclose information to consumers, regulators, the public, or enforcement officials, they argue, their First Amendment rights are implicated. Whenever they seek or transmit information, they say, they are “speaking,” and the First Amendment gives them the right to do that without fear of consequences.<h3 id="3xPUBv" style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; vertical-align: inherit; line-height: 1.2; margin: 0px 0px 0.6rem; padding: 0px;">A growing number of constitutional challenges to reasonable regulations</h3>In recent years, large corporations have been emboldened to argue that corporate speech rights entitle them to strike down <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v.IMS_Health_Inc" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s ease 0s, background-color 0.1s ease 0s, fill 0.1s ease 0s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent;">state health care prescription information laws</a> — those forbidding pharmaceutical companies from selling information about the prescribing patterns of individual doctors, for example. They have argued that speech rights forbid certain <a href="http://www.fedregsadvisor.com/2014/04/14/d-c-circuit-vacates-dodd-frank-conflict-minerals-provision-sec-rule-as-violating-first-amendment-free-speech/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s ease 0s, background-color 0.1s ease 0s, fill 0.1s ease 0s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent;">securities regulations</a> — specifically, those requiring investigation and disclosure of whether a company sells “conflict minerals” from the Democratic Republic of Congo. They have said that the First Amendment gives them a right to <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/food-labeling-laws-could-be-undermined-first-amendment-court-challenge-1587213" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">decline to say on product labels</a> that the meat they sell comes from foreign countries, or that food products contain genetically modified ingredients.In a related egregious constitutional expansion, corporations have even <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/10/06/the-fight-for-living-wages-is-for-workers-not-corporations/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; font-style: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s ease 0s, background-color 0.1s ease 0s, fill 0.1s ease 0s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent;">attacked minimum wage laws</a> as violating their rights under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause — when, as is typical, such laws treat firms differently based on size (or form of organization). The corporate misuse of the First Amendment and the Constitution more broadly, has gone viral. It now might be considered corporate legal malpractice not to take a swing at challenging, on constitutional grounds, any law that gets in the way of the largest corporate profits.Investigations by public agents, including attorneys general, are a necessary component of law enforcement. Efforts by public agents to ascertain facts in such investigations should not create constitutional controversy, provided the agents respect due process and other constraints on how they perform these duties. If corporations can invoke “free speech” as a way to conceal relevant information about allegedly false statements — if they can effectively create immunity from investigation by playing a constitutional trump card — then we are on a slippery slope to the civic incapacity and relative weakness in both rule of law and economic growth that characterizes Russia and other regimes that collapse the distinction between economic and political power.That’s why Exxon’s attack on the state investigations says so much about the damage to our constitutional framework wrought by the Supreme Court’s invention of these new corporate rights. In our federal system, attorneys general are the highest law enforcement officers in the state, generally elected directly by people, and charged with protecting the public interest and checking the abuse of corporate power. Yet in the post–Citizens United world, Exxon — with a virtually unlimited budget — can summon any officials with the temerity to do their job into physically distant courts. Trumped-up “civil rights” litigation of this kind has self-evident potential for the harassment and intimidation of would-be investigators.Even the majority of justices in Citizens United did not argue that corporate speech rights protected fraudulent statements. Yet unless the Court revisits its First Amendment doctrines, Exxon’s attack on efforts by the states to investigate its conduct shows that such nuances may not matter. Whether Exxon wins or loses its “free speech” claims, it has already delivered its real message: Those who stand up for the public interest will face a high cost.Jeff Clements is the president of <a href="http://www.americanpromise.net/" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: inherit; vertical-align: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; transition: color 0.1s, background-color 0.1s, fill 0.1s; border-bottom: 1px solid transparent; font-weight: 600;">American Promise</a>, a national nonpartisan group of American citizen leaders working for the 28th Amendment to secure government of the people, not money. He previously was a partner in a Boston law firm and served as chief of the Public Protection Bureau in the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office.John Coates is the John F. Cogan Jr. professor of law and economics, as well as research director of the Center on the Legal Profession, at Harvard Law School. Before joining Harvard, he was a partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz specializing in financial institutions and mergers and acquisitions.<div style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;">=</div><div style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;">ref 1</div><div style="text-align: left; text-decoration: inherit;"><h1 style="font-style: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 5px; line-height: 36px; max-width: 700px;">Corporate Speech and the First Amendment: History, Data, and Implications</h1><div class="reference-info" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 13px;">Constitutional Commentary, Forthcoming</div>41 Pages Posted: 9 Mar 2015 Last revised: 14 May 2015<div class="authors" style="box-sizing: border-box; max-width: 570px;"><h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: 500; line-height: 24px; margin: 14px 0px 0px;"><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=130268" target="blank" title="View other papers by this author" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">John C. Coates, IV</a></h2>Harvard Law School</div>Date Written: February 27, 2015<div class="abstract-text" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><h3 style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 30px; margin-top: 20px; margin-bottom: 5px;">Abstract</h3>This Article draws on empirical analysis, history, and economic theory to show that corporations have begun to displace individuals as direct beneficiaries of the First Amendment and to outline an argument that the shift reflects economically harmful rent seeking. The history of corporations, regulation of commercial speech, and First Amendment case law is retold, with an emphasis on the role of constitutional entrepreneur Justice Lewis Powell, who prompted the Supreme Court to invent corporate and commercial speech rights. The chronology shows that First Amendment doctrine long post-dated both pervasive regulation of commercial speech and the rise of the U.S. as the world’s leading economic power – a chronology with implications for originalists, and for policy. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals decisions are analyzed to quantify the degree to which corporations have displaced individuals as direct beneficiaries of First Amendment rights, and to show that they have done so recently, but with growing speed since Virginia Pharmacy, Bellotti, and Central Hudson. Nearly half of First Amendment challenges now benefit business corporations and trade groups, rather than other kinds of organizations or individuals, and the trend-line is up. Such cases commonly constitute a form of corruption: the use of litigation by managers to entrench reregulation in their personal interests at the expense of shareholders, consumers, and employees. In aggregate, they degrade the rule of law, rendering it less predictable, general and clear. This corruption risks significant economic harms in addition to the loss of a republican form of government.</div><center style="box-sizing: border-box;">Keywords: First Amendment, corporations, Court of Appeals, Virginia Pharmacy, Bellotti, Central HudsonJEL Classification: D72, K10, K22, K23, K42, L51Suggested Citation:Coates, IV, John C., Corporate Speech and the First Amendment: History, Data, and Implications (February 27, 2015). Constitutional Commentary, Forthcoming . Available at SSRN: <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=2566785" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">https://ssrn.com/abstract=2566785</a> or <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2566785" class="textlink" target="blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; text-decoration: none;">http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2566785</a></center></div><div style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;"></div><div style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;"><div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="rc" data-hveid="27" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQFQgbKAAwAA" style="position: relative;"><h3 class="r" style="text-align: left; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">Does Exxon Have a Constitutional Right to Deny Climate Change ...</a></h3><h3 class="r" style="text-align: left; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;">
</h3><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><div class="f kv SWb" style="height: 18px; line-height: 16px; white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: left;">www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment</div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="Fmb ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&oq=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&aqs=chrome..69i57.24497j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b0" aria-label="Result details" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQ7B0IHTAA" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px; border-width: 5px 4px 0px !important;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQqR8IHjAA" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XSFgCDD_ihkJ:www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XSFgCDD_ihkJ:www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/06/exxon-ken-paxton-first-amendment+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-align: left; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Jun 30, 2016 - Does Exxon Mobil have a constitutional right to sow doubt about climate science? ...Exxon, he wrote, had a First Amendment right to withhold the ... when the government must act toprotect the integrity of the market, even if it ...</a></div></div></div><div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="rc" data-hveid="33" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQFQghKAEwAQ" style="position: relative;"><h3 class="r" style="text-align: left; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/14/14601932/exxon-first-amendment-free-speech-citizens-global-warming" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">Corporations like Exxon are using spurious free speech claims to fend ...</a></h3><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><div class="f kv SWb" style="height: 18px; line-height: 16px; white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: left;">www.vox.com/the.../exxon-first-amendment-free-speech-citizens-global-warming</div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="Fmb ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&oq=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&aqs=chrome..69i57.24497j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b1" aria-label="Result details" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQ7B0IIzAB" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px; border-width: 5px 4px 0px !important;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQqR8IJDAB" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MbpABkRe1o8J:www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/14/14601932/exxon-first-amendment-free-speech-citizens-global-warming+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MbpABkRe1o8J:www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/14/14601932/exxon-first-amendment-free-speech-citizens-global-warming+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-align: left; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">3 days ago - ... of the First Amendment — and other constitutional rights — Exxon Mobil, ... of American history with virtually no First Amendment protections.</a></div></div></div><div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="rc" data-hveid="39" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQFQgnKAIwAg" style="position: relative;"><h3 class="r" style="text-align: left; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/exxonmobils-climate-change-smoke-screen/2016/06/24/2df8b29c-38c4-11e6-9ccd-d6005beac8b3_story.html" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">Exxon-Mobil is abusing the first amendment - The Washington Post</a></h3><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><div class="f kv SWb" style="text-align: left; height: 18px; line-height: 16px; white-space: nowrap;"><cite class="Rm" style="font-style: normal;">https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../exxonmobils.../2df8b29c-38c4-11e6-9ccd-d6005be...</cite></div><div style="text-align: left;">Jun 24, 2016 - The oil giant is brazenly invoking the First <span style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" font-style="font-style" inherit="inherit" text-decoration="text-decoration" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold">Amendment to block a subpoena by state attorneys ... If <span style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" font-style="font-style" inherit="inherit" text-decoration="text-decoration" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold">ExxonMobil has committed fraud, its speech would not merit First <span style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" font-style="font-style" inherit="inherit" text-decoration="text-decoration" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold">Amendment protection. ... Lando unequivocally held that the <span style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" font-style="font-style" inherit="inherit" text-decoration="text-decoration" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold">Constitution does not preclude ordinary discovery of .... Play <span style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" font-style="font-style" inherit="inherit" text-decoration="text-decoration" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold">right from this page ...</div></div></div></div><div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="rc" data-hveid="42" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQFQgqKAMwAw" style="position: relative;"><h3 class="r" style="text-align: left; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="http://www.climateinvestigations.org/exxon_mimics_big_tobacco_s_first_amendment_plea" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">Exxon Mimics Big Tobacco's First Amendment Plea</a></h3><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><div class="f kv SWb" style="height: 18px; line-height: 16px; white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: left;">www.climateinvestigations.org/exxonmimics_big_tobacco_s_firstamendmentplea</div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="Fmb ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&oq=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&aqs=chrome..69i57.24497j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b3" aria-label="Result details" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQ7B0ILDAD" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px; border-width: 5px 4px 0px !important;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQqR8ILTAD" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dXoM_EIAjkgJ:www.climateinvestigations.org/exxon_mimics_big_tobacco_s_first_amendment_plea+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dXoM_EIAjkgJ:www.climateinvestigations.org/exxon_mimics_big_tobacco_s_first_amendment_plea+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-align: left; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Apr 19, 2016 - ExxonMobil raised the First Amendment defense when it sued in Tarrant ... as a violation of ExxonMobil's constitutional right to participate "in ongoing public ... It held that no First Amendment protection applies to Nike's false ...</a></div></div></div><div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="rc" data-hveid="48" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQFQgwKAQwBA" style="position: relative;"><h3 class="r" style="text-align: left; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13042016/exxon-virgin-islands-subpoena-climate-change-investigation-violates-rights-claude-walker" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">Exxon Fights Subpoena in Widening Climate Probe, Citing Violation of ...</a></h3><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><div class="f kv _SWb" style="height: 18px; line-height: 16px; white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: left;">https://insideclimatenews.org/.../exxon-virgin-islands-subpoena-climate-change-invest...</div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="Fmb ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&oq=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&aqs=chrome..69i57.24497j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b4" aria-label="Result details" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQ7B0IMjAE" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px; border-width: 5px 4px 0px !important;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQqR8IMzAE" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:crD1FR813QsJ:https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13042016/exxon-virgin-islands-subpoena-climate-change-investigation-violates-rights-claude-walker+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:crD1FR813QsJ:https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13042016/exxon-virgin-islands-subpoena-climate-change-investigation-violates-rights-claude-walker+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-align: left; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Apr 14, 2016 - ExxonMobil Corp. sued to block a subpoena issued last month by the ... and that it violates the company's constitutional rights and "constitutes an abuse of ... strikes at protected speech at the core of the First Amendment.".</a></div></div></div><div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="rc" data-hveid="54" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQFQg2KAUwBQ" style="position: relative;"><h3 class="r" style="text-align: left; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21042016/exxon-competitive-enterprise-institute-cei-climate-change-fraud-investigation-first-amendment-rights" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">Exxon and Its Allies Invoke First Amendment to Fight Climate Fraud ...</a></h3><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><div class="f kv SWb" style="height: 18px; line-height: 16px; white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: left;">https://insideclimatenews.org/.../exxon-competitive-enterprise-institute-cei-climate-cha...</div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="Fmb ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&oq=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&aqs=chrome..69i57.24497j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b5" aria-label="Result details" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQ7B0IODAF" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px; border-width: 5px 4px 0px !important;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQqR8IOTAF" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xssKUpOsYBAJ:https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21042016/exxon-competitive-enterprise-institute-cei-climate-change-fraud-investigation-first-amendment-rights+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xssKUpOsYBAJ:https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21042016/exxon-competitive-enterprise-institute-cei-climate-change-fraud-investigation-first-amendment-rights+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-align: left; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Apr 22, 2016 - Exxon and Its Allies Invoke First Amendment to Fight Climate Fraud Probes ... the FirstAmendment rights of those who question climate science. ... at protected speech at the core of the FirstAmendment." .... Exxon Fights Subpoena in Widening Climate Probe, Citing Violation of ItsConstitutional Rights.</a></div></div></div><div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="rc" data-hveid="60" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQFQg8KAYwBg" style="position: relative;"><h3 class="r" style="text-align: left; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/we-oppose-a-congressional-move-to-protect-exxon-1946424984.html" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">3 Reasons We Oppose a Congressional Move to Protect Exxon ...</a></h3><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><div class="f kv SWb" style="height: 18px; line-height: 16px; white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: left;">www.ecowatch.com/we-oppose-a-congressional-move-to-protect-exxon-1946424984...</div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="Fmb ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&oq=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&aqs=chrome..69i57.24497j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b6" aria-label="Result details" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQ7B0IPjAG" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px; border-width: 5px 4px 0px !important;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQqR8IPzAG" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SkkuJ-Pi3FEJ:www.ecowatch.com/we-oppose-a-congressional-move-to-protect-exxon-1946424984.html+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SkkuJ-Pi3FEJ:www.ecowatch.com/we-oppose-a-congressional-move-to-protect-exxon-1946424984.html+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-align: left; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Jul 27, 2016 - Constitutional Rights Violations ... colleagues bombastically claim that their crusade is toprotect ExxonMobil's First Amendment rights, as well ...</a></div></div></div><div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="rc" data-hveid="66" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQFQhCKAcwBw" style="position: relative;"><h3 class="r" style="text-align: left; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1982/81-1020" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">Exxon Corporation v. Eagerton | Oyez</a></h3><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><div class="f kv SWb" style="height: 18px; line-height: 16px; white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: left;">https://www.oyez.org/cases/1982/81-1020</div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="Fmb ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&oq=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&aqs=chrome..69i57.24497j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b7" aria-label="Result details" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQ7B0IRDAH" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px; border-width: 5px 4px 0px !important;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQqR8IRTAH" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oXf4WwGg5dQJ:https://www.oyez.org/cases/1982/81-1020+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://www.oyez.org/cases/1982/81-1020+exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQHwhHMAc" style="text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><a class="fl" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=related:https://www.oyez.org/cases/1982/81-1020+exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&tbo=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQHwhHMAc" style="text-align: left; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Feb 22, 1983 - Exxon Corporation (Exxon), along with other gas and oil producers in Alabama, ... EqualProtection Clause of the 14th amendment and the Contract Clause. ... rights under the Equal ProtectionClause of the U.S. Constitution?</a></div></div></div><div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 26px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="rc" data-hveid="73" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQFQhJKAgwCA" style="position: relative;"><h3 class="r" style="text-align: left; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">Exxon Tries To Bury Climate Documents By Claiming First ...</a></h3><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><div class="f kv SWb" style="height: 18px; line-height: 16px; white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: left;">www.huffingtonpost.com/.../exxon-first-amendmentus_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d6...</div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="Fmb ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&oq=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&aqs=chrome..69i57.24497j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b8" aria-label="Result details" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQ7B0ISzAI" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px; border-width: 5px 4px 0px !important;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQqR8ITDAI" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:w2Iz09M6rjAJ:www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:w2Iz09M6rjAJ:www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exxon-first-amendment_us_571662c6e4b0060ccda46d63+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-align: left; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Apr 19, 2016 - Exxon's invocation of the First Amendment is fairly unusual for a ... But others have tried to defend the oil company's free speech rights on this ...</a></div></div></div><div class="g" style="line-height: 1.2; margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 28px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="rc" data-hveid="79" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQFQhPKAkwCQ" style="position: relative;"><h3 class="r" style="text-align: left; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; overflow: hidden; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a href="http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/02/texas-is-fighting-back-against-the-activist-ags-dangerous-climate-subpoena/" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">First Amendment Freedoms Must Be Protected | The Daily Caller</a></h3><div class="s" style="max-width: 48em; line-height: 18px;"><div class="f kv _SWb" style="height: 18px; line-height: 16px; white-space: nowrap;"><div style="text-align: left;">dailycaller.com/.../texas-is-fighting-back-against-the-activist-ags-dangerous-climate-su...</div><div class="action-menu ab_ctl" style="display: inline; position: relative; margin: 1px 3px 0px; user-select: none; vertical-align: middle;"><a class="Fmb ab_button" href="https://www.google.com/search?q=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&oq=exxon+constitution+right+amendment+protection&aqs=chrome..69i57.24497j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#" id="am-b9" aria-label="Result details" aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" role="button" jsaction="m.tdd;keydown:m.hbke;keypress:m.mskpe" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQ7B0IUTAJ" style="border-radius: 0px; cursor: default; font-weight: bold; height: 12px; line-height: 27px; margin: 1px 0px 2px; min-width: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; transition: none; user-select: none; background-image: none; border: 0px; box-shadow: 0px 0px 0px 0px; filter: none; width: 13px; text-decoration: none; display: inline-block;"><span class="mn-dwn-arw" style="text-align: left; border-color: rgb(0, 102, 33) transparent; border-style: solid; width: 0px; height: 0px; margin-left: 3px; top: 7.5px; margin-top: -4px; position: absolute; left: 0px; border-width: 5px 4px 0px !important;" /></a><div class="action-menu-panel ab_dropdown" role="menu" tabindex="-1" jsaction="keydown:m.hdke;mouseover:m.hdhne;mouseout:m.hdhue" data-ved="0ahUKEwivpf_fipjSAhXHQSYKHWKvDzYQqR8IUjAJ" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2); padding: 0px; position: absolute; right: auto; top: 12px; z-index: 3; transition: opacity 0.218s; box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 2px 4px; left: 0px; visibility: hidden;"><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LKWST6WTZaQJ:dailycaller.com/2016/06/02/texas-is-fighting-back-against-the-activist-ags-dangerous-climate-subpoena/+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;" /></li></ol></div></div></div><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LKWST6WTZaQJ:dailycaller.com/2016/06/02/texas-is-fighting-back-against-the-activist-ags-dangerous-climate-subpoena/+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-align: left; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">Jun 2, 2016 - A view of the Exxon Mobil refinery in Baytown, Texas, in this ... Texas AG's Decision To Fight In Favor Of ExxonMobile's Constitutional Rights?</a></div></div></div></div><div style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;"><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LKWST6WTZaQJ:dailycaller.com/2016/06/02/texas-is-fighting-back-against-the-activist-ags-dangerous-climate-subpoena/+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-align: left; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">=</a></div><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LKWST6WTZaQJ:dailycaller.com/2016/06/02/texas-is-fighting-back-against-the-activist-ags-dangerous-climate-subpoena/+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-align: left; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">=</a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LKWST6WTZaQJ:dailycaller.com/2016/06/02/texas-is-fighting-back-against-the-activist-ags-dangerous-climate-subpoena/+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-align: left; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">gore </a><a class="fl" href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LKWST6WTZaQJ:dailycaller.com/2016/06/02/texas-is-fighting-back-against-the-activist-ags-dangerous-climate-subpoena/+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" style="text-align: left; text-decoration: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;">dapl 1st amend protectors  activist suppression, nat am</a><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/al-gore-dakota-access-pipeline-2064996220.html">http://www.ecowatch.com/al-gore-dakota-access-pipeline-2064996220.html</a>al gore...In the process, those trying to force completion of this pipeline have—according to independent news reports—been <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/arrests-dakota-access-pipeline-2061419170.html" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">using oppressive practices</a> against this community. In response, Standing Rock Chairman David Archambault has requested that the Justice Department deploy observers to ensure that the First Amendment rights of those peacefully opposing this pipeline are protected. I hope his request is honored.The non-violent resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline is also one of the frontline struggles that collectively mark a turning point in the decision by humanity to turn away from the destructive path we have been following and aim instead toward a clean energy future for all.press suppressiondapl<a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/dakota-access-pipeline-amy-goodman-deia-schlosberg-2050793154.html">http://www.ecowatch.com/dakota-access-pipeline-amy-goodman-deia-schlosberg-2050793154.html</a>amy arrested dog attacks
North Dakota has charged journalist <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/amy-goodman-dakota-access-pipeline-2044127399.html" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Amy Goodman</a> and filmmaker <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/arrest-dakota-access-pipeline-josh-fox-2043414741.html" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Deia Schlosberg</a> for doing their jobs: reporting and documenting the peaceful protests against the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/dakota-access-pipeline-1991972867.html" style="text-decoration-color: rgb(82, 149, 70); line-height: 1.5;">Dakota Access Pipeline</a>. This string of arrests constitutes nothing less than a war on journalism and a victory for fossil fuel interests that have banked on the pipeline.We call on the Department of Justice (DOJ) to act to protect the first amendment rights of those attempting to tell the stories of the water protectors fighting the risky pipeline. The DOJ must investigate the arrests of Amy Goodman and Deia Schlosberg at the hands of North Dakota police. see also J&J:<h2 dir="ltr" style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; margin: 0.8em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Drug Corporation’s Free Speech “Rights” Trump FDA’s Approval Process</h2><a href="https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-3">https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-3</a><div style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; line-height: 16.26px;">In early August 2015 a U.S. District Court judge in New York City held that the First Amendment protects a drug corporation’s right to market drugs to doctors for purposes not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (Amarin Pharma, Inc vs. U.S. FDA).“This is huge,” said Jacob Sherkow, an associate professor at New York Law School.  “… This is the first time that any federal court has held in such a clear, full-throated way that off-label marketing is protected by the First Amendment."<a href="https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-3#1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">1</a>The decision technically applies only to the district in which it was made and will likely be appealed by the agency.  The FDA has limited pharmaceutical corporations’ claims about its products to only the approved “intended use.”  Any additional uses for the drug, known as “off label” uses, must undergo clinical trials before approval.<a href="https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-3#2" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">2</a>Amarin Pharma Inc. won this ruling in regard to its drug Vascepa used to treat high fat levels in the blood.  Doctors are being advised by the company to prescribe it to patients with lower blood fat levels.  The drug was neither tested nor approved for such use.  The court said the “off label” promotion must rely on “truthful” information, a condition that critics believe is open to interpretation.  Companies could cherry-pick the studies to put their product in a favorable light.<a href="https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-3#3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">3</a>Harvard Medical School professor, Jerry Avron found the decision very troubling. “It’s a big push onto… a very steep, slippery slope toward removing government’s authority to limit the claims that drug companies can make about the effectiveness of their products.”<h3 dir="ltr" style="text-align: left; margin: 0.8em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">First Amendment Rights for Corporations?</h3>This ruling by a federal court is another example of corporations claiming their rights of legal “personhood”-- in this case, the right of protected speech, and commercial speech at that.  It reminds us again how important it is for us natural persons to understand the consequences of our corporate creations, mere legal fictions, having been granted such powers.  How can we protect ourselves from risk-laden drug marketing schemes when we have no authority to prevent such corporate assaults at the doctor’s office or behind the prescription counter?  The regulatory agency at issue is, once again, behind events not in charge of them.  <h3 dir="ltr" style="text-align: left; margin: 0.8em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">What is the purpose of the First Amendment and to whom or what institutions does it apply?  Is it meant for political speech? Should it reach to commercial speech?  </h3>Alexander Meiklejohn, a scholar of the First Amendment, wrote that freedom of speech “does not intend to guarantee men freedom to say what some private interest pays them to say for its own advantage.  It intends only to make men free to say what, as citizens, they think, what they believe, about the general welfare.”<a href="https://movetoamend.org/corporate-rule-examples-3#4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">4</a>Clearly these are matters that call for people’s attention and engagement.  In our commercial culture driven by corporate profit, an increasing number of people are contesting the growing power of private interests over public interests.Move to Amend invites us to act against such private, corporate takings of people’s rightful authority and to join its work toward democratic possibility.<h3 dir="ltr" style="text-align: left; margin: 0.8em 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">To learn more:</h3><a name="1" id="1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">1.</a> National Constitution Center - <a href="http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/08/constitution-check-is-the-first-amendment-a-threat-to-the-safety-of-medicines/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/08/constitution-check-is-the-first-amendment-a-threat-to-the-safety-of-medicines/</a><a name="2" id="2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">2.</a> The New York Times - <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/business/dealbook/fdas-off-label-drug-policy-leads-to-free-speech-fight.html?r=0" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/business/dealbook/fdas-off-label-drug-policy-leads-to-free-speech-fight.html?r=0</a><a name="3" id="3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">3.</a> The New York Times - <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/business/court-forbids-fda-from-blocking-truthful-promotion-of-drug.html?r=0" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/business/court-forbids-fda-from-blocking-truthful-promotion-of-drug.html?r=0</a><a name="4" id="4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">4.</a> Alexander Meiklejohn, Political Freedom: the Constitutional Powers of the People, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960. <a name="5" id="5" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">5.</a> Exploring Constitutional conflicts -<a href="http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commercial.htm" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commercial.htm</a></div>

2x?

James H. Davidson believes in the First Amendment. The former college newspaper editor turned lawyer turned Senate aide is now one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington.

For two decades, Davidson has been the point man for the advertising industry in free speech issues. More recently his clients have also included food and beverage companies in alliance with advertisers. They have joined forces to lead the fight against the proposed government guidelines on sugar, salt and fat in food marketed to 2- to 17-year-olds.

Davidson also says there is no proof that food marketing causes obesity, and without it, there is no legal basis for restricting the ads.

"The First Amendment protects this type of speech," he said.

Other lobbyists pointed to the role of potentially unlimited political donations in explaining how industry has been able to so thoroughly defeat the proposed salt, sugar and fat guidelines.

In 2009, Congress passed a measure proposed by Harkin and Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) to ask the FTC and three other agencies -- the CDC, the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration -- to draft voluntary nutrition standards for children's food marketing. The two senators were motivated by studies showing that children develop lifelong preferences from watching ads that target them with saltier, sweeter foods than adults.

===

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/05/20/1528932/-Republicans-write-sad-letters-saying-investigations-into-Exxon-are-First-Amendment-rights-violations

House Republicans on the House Science Committee sent a series of letters to 17 state attorneys general and eight climate change organizations, from Greenpeace to the <a href="https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/05.18.16%20SST%20Letter%20to%20RFF.pdf" target="_blank" title="" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background: transparent;">Rockefeller Family Fund</a>, that accuses them of a:

[...] coordinated attempt to deprive companies, [exxon] nonprofit organizations  [CEI?] , and scientists [who Happer, Hacks?]of their First Amendment rights and ability to fund and conduct scientific research free from intimidation and threats of prosecution.

</blockquote>

This is in response to the 17 attorneys general who announced that they will be going after ExxonMobil and others for <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/30032016/climate-change-fraud-investigation-exxon-eric-shneiderman-18-attorneys-general" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background: transparent;">perpetuating a fraud on every single person on the planet.</a>

"The First Amendment, ladies and gentlemen, does not give you the right to commit fraud," said Schneiderman, who in November <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/05112015/new-york-attorney-general-eric-schneiderman-subpoena-Exxon-climate-documents" title="" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background: transparent;">issued a subpoena to ExxonMobil</a> under the state's far-reaching securities and consumer protection statutes.

"Every attorney general does work on fraud cases, and we are pursuing this as we would any other fraud matter. You have to tell the truth, you can't make misrepresentations of the kinds we've seen here," he said on Tuesday. "The scope of the problem we are facing, the size of the corporate entities and their alliances, the trade associations and other groups, is massive and it requires a multistate effort."

</blockquote>

Schneiderman <a href="http://insideclimatenews.org/news/19052016/house-republicans-assail-climate-fraud-investigations-exxon-lamar-smith" target="_blank" title="" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background: transparent;">had this to say about the do-nothing Congress:</a>

"It is remarkable that a do-nothing Congress that has refused to take any action on climate change is now attempting to disrupt this important investigation into potential corporate malfeasance," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's spokesman Eric Soufer said in a statement.

"The irony of this letter is breathtaking, as its signatories appear to be part of a multi-pronged media campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry aimed at suppressing the free exchange of ideas among scientists, academics, and responsible law enforcement. New York will continue to work with and collaborate with its colleagues across the country, and those with expertise in this area, to protect its citizens from fraud," said Soufer.

</blockquote>

Pathetic. The globe is burning and there is clear evidence that companies like ExxonMobil were well aware of the dangers companies like themselves posed to the climate, and not only did they hide that information for decades, they actively worked to cast doubt on the very facts they themselves suspected.

You can go <a href="https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-scrutinizes-motive-green-20" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none; box-sizing: border-box; background: transparent;">here to find the letters and the idiots writing them.</a>

<div style="text-align: left;">404 <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180205174242/https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-scrutinizes-motive-green-20">https://web.archive.org/web/20180205174242/https://science.house.gov/news/press-releases/committee-scrutinizes-motive-green-20</a></div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div><div style="text-align: left;"><h1 class="title" id="page-title" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 10px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.1; padding: 15px 15px 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Committee Scrutinizes Motive of “Green 20”</h1><div class="block block-system block-main block-system-main odd block-without-title" id="block-system-main" style="box-sizing: border-box; background: none 0px 0px repeat scroll rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-bottom: 0px; padding: 0em; border: medium none;"><div class="block-inner clearfix" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="content clearfix" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding: 1em;"><div class="panel-display boxton clearfix container " style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; width: auto;"><div class="row-fluid" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="boxton-container boxton-content boxton-content-region panel-panel span12" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="panel-pane pane-node-created" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding-right: 8px; display: inline;"><div class="pane-content" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline;">May 18, 2016 </div></div><div class="panel-pane pane-token pane-node-content-type" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline;">Press Release</div><div class="panel-pane pane-entity-field pane-node-body" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="pane-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding-top: 10px;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline;"><div class="field-item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;">Washington, D.C. –  Today, 13 Science, Space, and Technology Committee Republicans sent letters to 17 state attorneys general and eight environmental activist organizations. The letters request documents related to the groups’ coordinated efforts to deprive companies, nonprofit organizations, scientists and scholars of their First Amendment rights and their ability to fund and conduct scientific research free from intimidation and threats of prosecution.Americans are entitled to express their views on matters of science and public policy even if certain groups disagree.“On March 29, 2016, you and other state attorneys general – the self-proclaimed ‘Green 20’ – announced that you were cooperating on an unprecedented effort against those who have questioned the causes, magnitude, or best ways to address climate change,” the letter states. “The Committee is concerned that these efforts to silence speech are based on political theater rather than legal or scientific arguments, and that they run counter to an attorney general’s duty to serve ‘as the guardian of the legal rights of the citizens’ and to ‘assert, protect, and defend the rights of the people.’”Former Vice President Al Gore spoke at the March 29 press conference and addressed the need to prosecute fossil fuel energy companies for engaging in fraud. Gore and the Green 20’s efforts are part of a larger strategy to achieve the president’s sweeping, job-killing climate change agenda. Reports show 14 green-tech firms that Gore invested in benefited from over $2.5 billion in loans, grants and tax breaks as part of the administration’s push to fund U.S. renewable energy industry with taxpayer funds. In testimony before the Committee, scientists projected the cost of the administration’s carbon dioxide regulations at $39 billion to American consumers and businesses annually.  However, senior administration officials themselves have admitted that these regulations will have a negligible effect on global temperatures.Since the March 29 press conference, members of the Green 20 have rapidly expanded their legal actions against those who question the administration’s climate change agenda. These legal actions include subpoenas for documents, communications and research that would capture the work of more than 100 academic institutions, scientists and nonprofit organizations. The Committee has a responsibility to protect the First Amendment prerogatives of academic institutions, scientists and nonprofit organizations and will continue to do so.The letter(s) to the attorneys general can be found <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180205174242/https://science.house.gov/news/letters/gop-member-letter-state-attorneys-general-coordinated-efforts-deprive-scientists-first" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">HERE</a>. The letter(s) to environmental organizations can be found <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180205174242/https://science.house.gov/news/letters/gop-member-letter-enviromental-activist-organizations-coordinated-efforts-deprive" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">HERE</a>. </div></div></div></div></div><div class="panel-pane pane-entity-field pane-node-field-congress-issues" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-top: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);"><div class="pane-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="field field-name-field-congress-issues field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-inline clearfix" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; padding: 0.25em 0px;"><div class="field-label" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-weight: bold; float: left; display: inline;">Issues: </div><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline; float: left;"><div class="field-item even" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline;"><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180205174242/https://science.house.gov/issues/chilling-scientific-debate" style="box-sizing: border-box; background-color: transparent; text-decoration-line: none;">Chilling Scientific Debate</a></div></div></div></div></div><div class="panel-pane pane-entity-field pane-node-field-congress-number" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="pane-content" style="box-sizing: border-box;"><div class="field field-name-field-congress-number field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline;"><div class="field-items" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: inline;"><div class="field-item even" style="box-sizing: border-box;">114th Congress</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>

==

ref tag <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20180122041625/https://science.house.gov/issues/chilling-scientific-debate">https://web.archive.org/web/20180122041625/https://science.house.gov/issues/chilling-scientific-debate</a>no lnxChilling Scientific DebateMore on Chilling Scientific DebateGetting to the Bottom of a Climate CrusadeMar 9, 2017 In The NewsBy Lamar Smith
Full Committee Hearing - Affirming Congress’ Constitutional Oversight Responsibilities: Subpoena Authority and Recourse for Failure to Comply with Lawfully Issued SubpoenasSep 14, 2016 HearingAffirming Congress’ Constitutional Oversight Responsibilities: Subpoena Authority and Recourse for Failure to Comply with Lawfully Issued Subpoenas
Hearing Charter
 


Smith Letter to Attorney General Healey on objections to subpoenaAug 24, 2016 LetterThe letter can be found HERE.
Smith Refutes Attorney General Healey’s Objections to SubpoenaAug 24, 2016 Press ReleaseWASHINGTON – Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today sent a letter to Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey in response to her objections to the committee’s validly-issued subpoena served on July 13 and accepted on July 14. Today’s letter, sent one day after Chairman Smith’s similar letter to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, states the committee finds Attorney General Healey’s objections without merit.
Smith Letter to Attorney General Schneiderman on objections to subpoenaAug 23, 2016 LetterThe letter can be found HERE.
Smith Refutes Attorney General Schneiderman’s Objections to SubpoenaAug 23, 2016 Press ReleaseWASHINGTON – Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today sent a letter to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in response to his objections to the committee’s validly-issued subpoena served and accepted on July 13. Today’s letter states the committee finds Attorney General Schneiderman’s objections without merit.
Panel devoted to protecting scientific inquiryAug 4, 2016 In The NewsRe: “AGs fighting Smith’s latest climate change crusade,” Rick Casey, Other Views, Saturday:
This opinion piece attacked the Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s oversight of the effects of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s climate change investigations. Mr. Casey’s piece included a number of incorrect assertions that I write to correct.
Smith Subpoenas MA, NY Attorneys General, Environmental GroupsJul 13, 2016 Press ReleaseWASHINGTON –  Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) today issued subpoenas to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, and eight environmental organizations to obtain documents related to coordinated efforts to deprive companies, nonprofit organizations, scientists and scholars of their First Amendment rights.
Committee Ramps Up Investigation, Threatens Use of Compulsory Process Against Members of Green 20Jul 6, 2016 Press Release 
Smith Letter to NY, MA Attorneys General Reiterating Requests, Threatening Use of Compulsory ProcessJul 6, 2016 LetterLetter to Attorney General of Massachusetts
Letter to Attorney General of New York
 from wayback

==

exxon knew:

<div style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" font-style="font-style" inherit="inherit" text-decoration="text-decoration">“The chilling effect of this inquiry, which discriminates based on viewpoint to target one side of an ongoing policy debate, strikes at protected speech at the core of the First Amendment,”<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" font-style="font-style" inherit="inherit" text-decoration="text-decoration"> <a target="_blank" href="https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2801448/Response.pdf" style="font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" font-style="font-style" inherit="inherit">wrote Wells and the Exxon legal team</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); font-family: " times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-size="font-size" large="large" font-style="font-style" inherit="inherit" text-decoration="text-decoration">.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">The Virgin Islands rebutted Wells and Exxon in an April 25 response. </div>

<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;">“Your argument that this investigation targets protected speech mirrors arguments that were decisively rejected in the United States’s case against tobacco, which held tobacco companies financially responsible for and imposed sweeping injunctive relief to address a decades-long scheme by those defendants to misrepresent the scientific facts regarding smoking,” <a target="_blank" href="http://usvidoj.codemeta.com/documents/ltr.%20to%20Gregory%20Hodges%204.25.16.pdf" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;">reads the letter</a> signed by Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Earl Walker. “If ExxonMobil knowingly deceived consumers and investors about climate change, it, too, is not above the law.”</div>

<div style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; text-align: left;">Numerous conservative groups — some with ties to the climate change denial echo chamber such as Koch-funded groups like <a target="blank" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-environmental-campaign-that-punishes-free-speech/2016/04/22/e2eafd88-07bc-11e6-b283-e79d81c63c1b_story.html">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a>, <a target="blank" href="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/276081-government-turns-up-the-heat-on-the-first-amendment">Pacific Legal Foundation</a>, and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/04/08/outrageous-violation-of-the-first-amendment-state-ags-take-the-next-step-in-going-after-climate-change-skeptics/">Heritage Foundation</a> — have also called the Virgin Islands subpoena a First Amendment attack.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">So too did the editorial boards of the <a target="blank" href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-police-escalate-1461968775" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;">Wall Street Journal </a>and the <a target="blank" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434167/competitive-enterprise-institute-subpoena-attack-exxon-us-all" style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;">National Review Magazine</a>. The <a target="_blank" href="https://www.freespeechinscience.org/">Free Speech in Science Project</a>, a group whose funding stream has yet to be revealed, has also pushed a First Amendment argument.</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">SODA sugar</div><div style="text-align: left;"> </div>

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION

For two decades, Davidson has been the point man for the advertising industry in free speech issues. More recently his clients have also included food and beverage companies in alliance with advertisers. They have joined forces to lead the fight against the proposed government guidelines on sugar, salt and fat in food marketed to 2- to 17-year-olds.

Davidson also says there is no proof that food marketing causes obesity, and without it, there is no legal basis for restricting the ads.

"The First Amendment protects this type of speech," he said.

In 2009, Congress passed a measure proposed by Harkin and Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) to ask the FTC and three other agencies -- the CDC, the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration -- to draft voluntary nutrition standards for children's food marketing. The two senators were motivated by studies showing that children develop lifelong preferences from watching ads that target them with saltier, sweeter foods than adults.

</div>

The First Amendment right to free speech has been broadened by the courts to allow corporations to give campaign contributions, lobby legislators, run advertisements that support their interests, exercise the right not to speak, and paint their activities as "green."

<div style="text-align: left;">
</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" white-space="white-space" pre-wrap="pre-wrap" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">When President George W. Bush ran for governor of Texas<span style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" white-space="white-space" pre-wrap="pre-wrap" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">, he received more than $4 million in campaign donations from companies that have benefited greatly from the Texas Environmental, Health, and Safety Audit Privilege Act, which he signed soon after taking office.2 This law says that <span style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" font-weight="font-weight" bold="bold" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" white-space="white-space" pre-wrap="pre-wrap" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">companies need not report their violations of environmental regulations to law enforcement officials or to the public. Nor can they be penalized for self-reported violations<span style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit;" times="Times" new="New" roman="Roman" vertical-align="vertical-align" baseline="baseline" white-space="white-space" pre-wrap="pre-wrap" background-color="background-color" rgb="rgb">. Some 25 other states have passed similar audit privilege laws in the past decade.3</div>

==

<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Barrett Brown is a US journalist whose work has appeared in the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/barrett-brown" target="blank" style="font-weight: normal; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Guardian</a>, <a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/contributors/barrett-brown" target="blank" style="font-weight: normal; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Vanity Fair</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barrett-brown" target="blank" style="font-weight: normal; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Huffington Post</a>, <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/panelists/51376-barrett-brown" target="blank" style="font-weight: normal; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Businessweek</a>, <a href="http://trueslant.com/barrettbrown/" target="blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">True/Slant</a>, <a href="http://www.csicop.org/author/barrettbrown" target="blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Skeptical Inquirer</a> and many other outlets.

<span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">He was originally charged with forwarding a link<span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"> to the information exposed about <a href="http://www.stratfor.com/" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">Stratfor</a> that also included information about Stratfor employees, including their credit card details. But this formed only a tiny part of the vast amount of data. Nor, it should be added, did Brown use this data<span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">for financial gain. <span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">In the end t<span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">he US government agreed to <span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">d<span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">ro<span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">p<span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"> the <span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">more serious <span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">charges <span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">after lawyers filed <a href="http://freebarrettbrown.org/files/BB_motiontodismiss2.pdf" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">a legal memorandum</a>: <span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">they correctly<span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"> <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/mar/04/attorneys-barrett-brown-hyperlink-hacked-material-want-case-dismissed" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">argued</a> the<span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">se charges were <span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">effectively <span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">a violation of the First Amendment, pointing out that “<span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">publishing a hy<span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"><span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102); background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">perlink does not itself move, convey, select, place or otherwise transfer, a file or document from one location to another”.<span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"> Ahmed Ghappour (who directs the Liberty, Security and Technology Clinic, at the University of California Hastings College of Law) <span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-color: transparent; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">stated<span style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">: “<span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Looking at that [the sharing of an online link] as criminal conduct would probably bring an end to all digital journalism, period. There would be no reporting on leaks.”

<span style=" border: 0px; border-image-source: initial; border-image-slice: initial; border-image-width: initial; border-image-outset: initial; border-image-repeat: initial; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">The remaining charges included transmitting a threat in interstate commerce, being an accessory after the fact to an unauthorized access to a protected computer (i.e. the exposure by Hammond of the Stratfor data) and obstructing the execution of a search warrant (by allegedly hiding his laptops). These laptops contained journalistic sources and work product, including a book-in-progress.The First Amendment protects reporters from revealing confidential information or sources. The New York Court of Appeals recently held that “There is no principle more fundamental or well-established than the right of a reporter to refuse to divulge a confidential source.”

With Brown (and Hammond – see below) the fundamentals of a <a href="http://freebarrettbrown.org/files/BB_memorandum.pdf" target="_blank" style=" border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; background: transparent;">reporter’s</a> rights were completely ignored. The intention of the US Government here was simple: to imprison and silence those intent on using the advances of the information age to expose unpalatable truths, including the extensive connections between private security companies to government, the military, the defense world and think-tanks.

===

jones day (lettow jr?)

<li class="last-item" style="text-align: left; box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; padding: 2px 10px 2px 0px; line-height: normal; margin: 0px 8px 0px 0px; float: left; border: none; font-weight: bold; font-stretch: normal; background: none;">Author: <a class="internal-link view-user-profile" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/members/Michael-Lefkowitz/default.aspx" data-di-id="di-id-c063cecd-9e557d28" style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; transition-duration: 0.2s; outline: none; padding-right: 0px; float: none; margin: 0px;">Michael Lefkowitz</a></li>

</ul>

<h1 style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin: 0.67em 0px; text-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) 0px 1px 1px; letter-spacing: -0.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Graphic Warnings Violate Tobacco Companies’ Rights, Federal Appeals Court Rules</h1>

WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey's) Graphic cigarette pack warnings proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration violate tobacco companies' First Amendment right against compelled speech, a federal appeals court ruled Aug. 24, setting up a split between circuits on the issue (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration, et al., No. 11-5332, D.C. Cir.) [<a target="nw" href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&ORIGINATION_CODE=00271&searchtype=get&search=2012%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2017925&view=full" title="Opens in a new window" class="nwv" data-di-id="di-id-9914db-a0cf4e4e" style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; -webkit-transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-duration: 0.2s; outline: none; padding-right: 0px; display: inline !important; background: url(http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver-components-sitefiles/images/icon_2D00_new_2D00_window.png) 100% 3px no-repeat;">enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers</a>].

(<a target="nw" href="https://www3.lexis.com/LENS/EndUser?Action=PDF_AUTH&pdfId=04120919006Z" title="Opens in a new window" class="nwv" data-di-id="di-id-356fae61-9e7a56a6" style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; -webkit-transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-duration: 0.2s; outline: none; padding-right: 0px; display: inline !important; background: url(http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver-components-sitefiles/images/icon_2D00_new_2D00_window.png) 100% 3px no-repeat;">Opinion available.  Document #04-120919-006Z.</a>)

"The First Amendment requires the government not only to state a substantial interest justifying a regulation on commercial speech, but also to show that its regulation directly advances that goal," the panel of the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said, citing Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp., v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n (447 U.S. 557, 566 [1980]).  "FDA has not provided a shred of evidence-much less the 'substantial evidence' required by the APA [Administrative Procedure Act]-showing that the graphic warnings will 'directly advance' its interest in reducing the number of Americans who smoke."

Unlike in Warner-Lambert Co. v. FTC, 562 F.2d 749 (D.C. Cir. 1977), the panel said, the FDA has not shown that the graphic warnings were designed to correct past false or misleading claims or that, absent disclosure, consumers would likely be deceived by the packaging in the future.

General Disclosures

"Rather, FDA framed the warnings as general disclosures about the negative health effects of smoking," the panel said.  "The warnings thus represent an ongoing effort to discourage consumers from buying the Companies' products, rather than, as in Warner-Lambert, a measure designed to combat specific deceptive claims."

"In fact, many of the images do not convey any warning information at all, much less make an 'accurate statement' about cigarettes," the panel said.  "For example, the images of a woman crying, a small child, and the man wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the words 'I QUIT' do not offer any information about the health effects of smoking."

The opinion is by Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown, with Senior Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph concurring.

Circuit Judge Judith W. Rogers dissented, saying that in light of decades of tobacco industry deception about the risks of smoking, the court should have applied the less-stringent, rational-basis review of Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Council of the Supreme Court of Ohio (471 U.S. 626, 650-51 [1985]), not the intermediate scrutiny of Central Hudson.

"Because the warning labels present factually accurate information and address misleading commercial speech, as defined in Supreme Court precedent, Zauderer scrutiny applies, and the government need show only that the warning label requirement is reasonably related to its stated and substantial interest in effectively conveying this information to consumers," Judge Rogers said.

Appeal

The case is on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where Judge Richard J. Leon on March 1 ruled against the government (R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration, et al., No. 1:11-1482, D. D.C.; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26257).  A similar case in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals went in the government's favor, albeit with a dissent (Discount Tobacco City & Lottery Inc., et al. v. United States of America, et al., No. 10-5234 and 10-5235, 6th Cir.; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5614).

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. are represented by Geoffrey K. Beach of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice in Winston-Salem, N.C., and Noel J. Francisco and Warren Postman of Jones Day in Washington.  Lorillard Inc. is represented by Floyd Abrams, Joel L. Kurtzberg and Kayvan Sadeghi of Cahill, Gordon & Reindel in New York and Scott D. Danzis of Covington & Burling in Washington.  Commonwealth Brands Inc. is represented by Philip J. Perry of Latham & Watkins in Washington.  Liggett Vector Brands LLC is represented by Jonathan D. Hacker of O'Melveny & Myers in Washington.  The government is represented by Drake S. Cutini and Daniel K. Crane-Hirsch of the U.S. Justice Department in Washington.

[Editor's Note:  Lexis subscribers may download the document using the link above. The document(s) are also available at <a target="nw" href="http://www.mealeysonline.com/" title="Opens in a new window" class="nwv" data-di-id="di-id-23a70241-a4f5e8de" style=" box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; -webkit-transition-duration: 0.2s; transition-duration: 0.2s; outline: none; padding-right: 0px; display: inline !important; background: url(http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communityserver-components-sitefiles/images/icon_2D00_new_2D00_window.png) 100% 3px no-repeat;">http://www.mealeysonline.com/</a> or by calling the Customer Support Department at 1-800-833-9844.]

===

cigarette label mixed ruling?<div style="text-align: left;"> </div>

http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2012/03/showdown-sixth-circuit-oks-new-cigarette-warning.html

<h1 id="page-title" class="asset-name entry-title" style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.25em; padding: 0px;">Showdown? Sixth Circuit OKs New Cigarette Warning Label</h1>

<div class="asset-meta" style="text-align: left; margin: 0.25em 0px 0px; padding: 2px 0px 0.3em; border-top: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);">By Robyn Hagan Cain on <abbr class="published" title="2012-03-19T15:03:05-05:00" style=" border: 0px;">March 19, 2012 </abbr></div>

</div>

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the new, graphic cigarette warning labels <a title="Appeals court upholds tobacco warning labels" href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74182.html" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none;">do not violate tobacco companies’ free speech rights</a>, reports Politico.

In a lengthy opinion, the court affirmed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act’s restrictions on the marketing of modified-risk tobacco products and bans on event sponsorship, branding non-tobacco merchandise, and free sampling, as well as the requirement that tobacco manufacturers reserve significant packaging space for textual health warnings.

The court also agreed with the district court that the new color graphic and non-graphic warning label requirement is constitutional.

But it wasn't all good news for the government: the court appellate court rejected black-and-white, text-only advertising restrictions imposed on tobacco companies.

</div>

Discount Tobacco City & Lottery, Inc., a coalition of manufacturers and sellers, challenged the advertising restrictions under the Act approximately two months after President Obama signed it into law. The group sued the U.S. government, claiming that the Act violates their free speech rights under the First Amendment, constitutes an unlawful taking under the Fifth Amendment, and infringes on their Fifth Amendment due process rights.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals largely disagreed. Writing for the majority, Judge Eric Clay concluded, "The warning labels required by the Act do not impose any restriction on Plaintiffs' dissemination of speech, nor do they touch upon Plaintiffs' core speech. Instead, the labels serve as disclaimers to the public regarding the incontestable health consequences of using tobacco."

That's a far cry from last month's D.C. district court decision, finding that the new cigarette warning requirement violated the tobacco industry's free speech rights <a title="Judge Takes a Match to New Cigarette Warning Label Requirement" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/dc_circuit/2012/03/judge-takes-a-match-to-new-cigarette-warning-label-requirement.html" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none;">without a compelling government interest</a>. While the D.C. decision may still be appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the split could lead to a Supreme Court showdown between tobacco companies and the government.

Related Resources:

<li style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px;"><a title="Discount Tobacco City & Lottery v. USA" href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0076p-06.pdf" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Discount Tobacco City & Lottery v. USA</a> (Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)</li>

<li style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px;"><a title="Cigarette Warnings Violate 1st Amendment, Federal Judge Rules" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/2012/03/cigarette-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-federal-judge-rules.html" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Cigarette Warnings Violate 1st Amendment, Federal Judge Rules</a> (FindLaw's Decided)</li>

<li style="text-align: left; margin: 0px 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px;"><a title="Contribution Prohibition is Lawful Limit on Free Speech Rights" href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/fourth_circuit/2011/11/contribution-prohibition-is-lawful-limit-on-free-speech-rights.html" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none;">Contribution Prohibition is Lawful Limit on Free Speech Rights</a> (FindLaw's Fourth Circuit Blog)</li>

</ul>

</div>

===

==

<a href="http://www.southernstudies.org/2015/04/color-coded-cancer-sticks.html">http://www.southernstudies.org/2015/04/color-coded-cancer-sticks.html</a>

By Phil Mattera, <a href="http://dirtdiggersdigest.org/archives/4723" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Dirt Diggers Digest</a>

At the headquarters of Reynolds American (parent of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco) in North Carolina and the Virginia headquarters of Altria (parent of Philip Morris USA) time is apparently running backwards. The two companies just <a href="http://fortune.com/2015/04/14/tobacco-co-sue-fda-over-label-approvals/" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">filed</a> a lawsuit in DC federal court that reads like it was written in 1995, not 2015.

The target of the suit (15-CV-00544) is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which the companies apparently have forgotten was given <a href="http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm298595.htm" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">authority</a> by Congress in 2009 to regulate tobacco marketing, including the introduction of new products. That law came after years of vociferous opposition by Big Tobacco.

What has the companies up in arms is an FDA <a href="http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM436468.pdf" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">guidance document</a> issued in March concerning review requirements for packaging changes. The agency takes the position that certain modifications in background color, logo and descriptors can be significant enough to trigger the stricter rules regarding new products.

Presenting themselves as victims of government overreach, the companies argue that their First Amendment rights are being violated: "FDA's unlawful actions already have harmed Plaintiffs and threaten greater harms in the future by restricting Plaintiffs' ability to modify their product labels without FDA preauthorization and by chilling and restricting protected speech."

Although the case does not involve the federal warning labels that have been required for decades, it makes the puzzling argument that the FDA guidelines also violate the industry's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

While it is not unusual for big business to assert free speech rights to oppose regulations, this position is particularly galling when it comes from the tobacco industry. These are the companies, after all, that for decades concealed and denied the hazards of smoking, asserting it was their right to "believe" their products were non-addictive and did not cause cancer despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. Their dishonest claims were made all the more fraudulent when documents came to light indicating that firms such as Brown & Williamson (now part of Reynolds American) <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/07/us/tobacco-company-was-silent-on-hazards.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">knew</a> about the dangers at least as far back as the early 1960s.

The issue of control over tobacco packaging was already fought, and the industry lost. In 2006 a federal court, finding that the industry had caused "an immeasurable amount of suffering,"<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/18/washington/18tobacco.html?_r=0" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">ordered</a> it stop labeling cigarettes with designations such as low tar, light and natural that gave the misleading impression that they were safe.

Tobacco companies began using techniques such as package coloring to get around the restriction. In 2010 a New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/business/19smoke.html" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; font-style: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">article</a> on the practice quoted Prof. Gregory Connolly of the Harvard School of Public Health as saying the industry was "circumventing the law." He added: "They're using color coding to perpetuate one of the biggest public health myths into the next century."

At the heart of the new case is the tension between public policies designed to discourage tobacco use and the continued existence of an industry which has to attract customers to survive. The industry's lawsuit, with its assertion of free speech rights, proceeds from the assumption that producing and selling tobacco products is a legitimate activity. A more appropriate premise might be that tobacco is a public health menace that should be controlled as tightly as possible until the last smoker has kicked the habit and the companies can shut down.

Big Tobacco would do well to stop wrapping itself in the Bill of Rights and acknowledge that it is lucky it is still allowed to sell its deadly products at all.

(Note: This piece draws from my new Corporate Rap Sheets on <a href="http://corp-research.org/reynolds_american" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Reynolds American</a> and <a href="http://corp-research.org/altria_pmi" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-weight: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-decoration: none; outline-style: none; outline-width: medium;">Altria</a>.)

</div>

</div>

<div style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">take back st louis http://freespeechforpeople.org/print/834</div>

</div>

<div style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">https://tui.1ittlecup.com/ronfein</div>

</div>

<div style="text-align: left;"> John C. Coates @jciv (Cambridge, MA)</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">Professor of Law and Economics, Harvard Law School</div>

</div>

</div>

<div style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> A recent study claims that "corporations have begun to displace individuals as direct beneficiaries of the First Amendment." Its author joins HuffPost Live to discuss his findings and explain what they mean for free speech</div>

</div>

<div style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/first-amendment-corporations-problems/5510363002a760ec7b000620</div>

</div>

<div style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">altlantic corp 1st amed grab https://tui.1ittlecup.com/ronfein/status/583373794959589376?p=v</div>

==

A recent study claims that "corporations have begun to displace individuals as direct beneficiaries of the First Amendment." Its author joins HuffPost Live to discuss his findings and explain what they mean for free speech.  John C. Coates @jciv (Cambridge, MA)

Professor of Law and Economics, Harvard Law School

==

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/us/first-amendment-patron-saint-of-protesters-is-embraced-by-corporations.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/us/first-amendment-patron-saint-of-protesters-is-embraced-by-corporations.html</a>?_r=0

Liberals used to love the First Amendment. But that was in an era when courts used it mostly to protect powerless people like civil rights activists and war protesters.

These days, a provocative new study says, there has been a “corporate takeover of the First Amendment.” The assertion is backed by data, and it comes from an unlikely source: John C. Coates IV, who teaches business law at Harvard and used to be a partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, the prominent corporate law firm.

“Corporations have begun to displace individuals as the direct beneficiaries of the First Amendment,” Professor Coates wrote. The trend, he added, is “recent but accelerating.”

Professor Coates’s study was only partly concerned with the Supreme Court’s recent decisions amplifying the role of money in politics.

“It’s not just Citizens United,” he said in an interview, referring to the 2010 decision that allowed unlimited independent spending by corporations in elections. His study, he said, analyzed First Amendment challenges from businesses to an array of economic regulation.

<a title="About Professor Wu." href="http://www.timwu.org/" style=" line-height: 1.4375rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Tim Wu</a>, a law professor at Columbia,<a title="New Republic article." href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113294/how-corporations-hijacked-first-amendment-evade-regulation" style=" line-height: 1.4375rem; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">described the shift</a> in First Amendment doctrine in 2013 in The New Republic.

“Once the patron saint of protesters and the disenfranchised, the First Amendment has become the darling of economic libertarians and corporate lawyers who have recognized its power to immunize private enterprise from legal restraint,” Professor Wu wrote.

“Madison’s Music,” a new book by <a title="About Professor Neuborne." href="https://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/profile.cfm?section=bio&personID=20165">Burt Neuborne</a>, a law professor at New York University, gives a detailed history of the transformation of First Amendment law. In his account, “the American right discovered the First Amendment” in the early 1970s.

“An expansive conception of free speech became attractive to Republican justices,” he wrote, “both because robust free-speech protection fit neatly into the right’s skeptical, deregulatory approach to government generally, and because it encouraged vigorous transmission by powerful speakers of the right’s newly energized collection of ideas.”

Those conservative justices, Professor Neuborne wrote, found willing allies in liberal justices long committed to free speech.

In the next two decades, the Supreme Court continued to protect dissent, twice voting to strike down laws banning flag burning. But now, Professor Neuborne wrote, broad coalitions of justices also voted to protect the powerful.

In 1976 alone, he wrote, the court shielded both unrestricted election spending by rich people, “giving the 1 percent a tangible reason to celebrate a muscular First Amendment,” and commercial advertising, “giving corporate management a strong stake in the First Amendment.”

By the time the left woke up and realized it had made “a Faustian bargain,” Professor Neuborne wrote, “the bipartisan coalition had generated an enormously powerful body of precedent establishing an imperial free speech clause.”

The case on commercial speech, Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, was a turning point, Professor Coates found in his study. After that ruling, the average number of First Amendment cases in the Supreme Court involving businesses started to rise to 2.2 a year from 1.5, and the number involving individuals started to fall, to 3.6 from 4.3.

More striking, the success rates for both groups increased, but far more for businesses. Individuals won 55 percent of the time, up from 41 percent. Businesses also won 55 percent of the time, up from 20 percent.

Before 1976, First Amendment challenges from corporations generally involved companies in the business of free expression, like newspapers, book publishers and film producers. More recently, companies have filed free-speech challenges to laws regulating how ordinary products may be marketed or advertised.

Professor Coates also analyzed data from federal appeals courts, finding that “businesses are growing steadily more aggressive in their use of the First Amendment.” Court dockets these days are full of free-speech challenges from pharmaceutical firms, tobacco companies, miners, meat producers and airlines.

Such lawsuits, he wrote, have pernicious consequences for both free enterprise and the rule of law. Corporations are diverting resources from research and innovation to litigation, he wrote.

“Concentrated, moneyed interests, represented by those in control of the country’s largest business corporations,” he wrote, “are increasingly able to turn law into a lottery, reducing law’s predictability, impairing property rights, and increasing the share of the economy devoted to rent-seeking rather than productive activity.”

The court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has been receptive to arguments based on corporations’ free-speech rights.

In a recent essay, Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, offered a cautious partial defense of the Citizens United decision. But he said it was an instance of a larger phenomenon.

“It is part of a trend in First Amendment law that is transforming that body of doctrine into a charter of largely untrammeled libertarianism,” he wrote, “in which the regulation of virtually all forms of speech and all kinds of speakers is treated with the same heavy dose of judicial skepticism, with exceptions perversely calculated to expose particularly vulnerable and valuable sorts of expression to unconvincingly justified suppression.”

Professor Tribe gave examples of the sorts of people whose First Amendment arguments have not fared well in the Roberts court: students, prisoners, pacifists and whistle-blowers.

Floyd Abrams, a leading First Amendment lawyer who has defended The New York Times and was on the winning side in Citizens United, reflected on the trend toward protecting the powerful in a speech last week at Temple University.

“There is truth in the proposition that a number of recent First Amendment victories in recent years have been on behalf of the ‘haves’ — some of them corporations, some individuals,” he said. “But that is no basis for concluding that the decisions were wrongly analyzed or wrongly decided.”

==

in  several states, Republican lawmakers are sponsoring bills that would allow employers to use “religious liberty” as an excuse to do whatever they want – including discriminate against customers or employees on the basis of religion.

Georgia's version of this religious liberty bill has already passed the state senate, but is running into trouble in the house, where even <a href="http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/03/19/david-ralston-on-religious-liberty-bills-closing-the-door-to-anyone-is-closing-the-door-to-all/" style="text-decoration: none;">the speaker, a Republican, has expressed skepticism</a> about the legislation.

Progressive activists in the state are leaving nothing to chance, realizing that if the bill passes, the state could see a new wave of discrimination similar to Jim Crow-style restrictions on African Americans. Some women's organizations are particularly concerned that right-wing employers could, for example, fire women who've had abortions.

<div style="font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; text-align: left;">On Monday, four women – Megan Harrison, Lorraine Fontana, Emma Stitt, and Jessica Reznicek – sought an audience with the bill's chief Senate sponsor, Republican Josh McKoon. Not only were the four women denied a meeting with McKoon, they were arrested.</div><div style="text-align: left;">
</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">The American Friends Service Committee shared a few photos of the arrest</div>

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/gender/georgia-women-arrested-protesting-bill-would-let-employers-fire-women-whove-had-abortion">http://www.alternet.org/gender/georgia-women-arrested-protesting-bill-would-let-employers-fire-women-whove-had-abortion</a>

===

Another significant shift in the law since Powell’s memo was circulated has been the gradual expansion of corporate constitutional rights (referred to by some business groups as “business civil liberties”), especially in the realms of commercial and political speech. The most infamous example is the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/" class="zoom" target="_blank" style=" outline-style: none; font-style: normal; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; padding: 0px 15px 0px 0px; background: url(http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Templates/Planet3/Styles/images/bg-zoom.gif) 100% 2px no-repeat;">Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission</a>. In the commercial sphere, companies have similarly used corporate speech doctrines to challenge various restrictions on corporate advertising (e.g. direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs for off-label uses), limits on media ownership, and product safety labeling requirements (e.g. cigarettes and genetically modified foods).

Corporate constitutional rights are regularly claimed (with the implicit threat of litigation) in opposition to new or proposed regulations. One recent example came during recent attacks on regulations created by the Dodd-Frank financial reform package, which contained a provision requiring that companies report their use of tin, gold and other minerals that can be traced back to the conflict-ridden Democratic Republic of the Congo. In its comments to the SEC, <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/judicial/#tiffany" style=" outline-style: none; font-stretch: normal;">Tiffany & Co. claimed</a> the SEC rules would “compel speech in a manner that violates the First Amendment.”

==

<div class="pressRel_Title" style="text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; font-weight: 900; padding-top: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">New York Town Repeals Fracking Gag Order After Free Speech Lawsuit</div>

NEW YORK (April 17, 2013) – The Town Board of Sanford, NY, has repealed the gag order it passed last summer on discussing fracking at their meetings, following a First Amendment lawsuit filed in February by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy. As a result, the groups are dropping their Freedom of Speech lawsuit today.

Statements follow from NRDC and CCSE:

“The people of Sanford will no longer be silenced. With this action, the Town Board has rightly recognized the validity of residents’ concerns about this controversial heavy industrial activity moving into their backyards, and the need for their local representatives to hear them. This is especially important in light of the board’s history of support for fracking. This is a vindication of the right to free speech. And it sends a message to communities everywhere. As Americans, we have the right to speak up when we feel threatened. And it is our government’s responsibility to listen.” –Kate Sinding, Director of the Community Fracking Defense Project at NRDC.

“We are gratified that Sanford dropped its unconstitutional ban on free speech. It's unfortunate that it required litigation to re-establish this fundamental right for the citizens of Sanford, but by rescinding the ban now, the Town Board at least spared the taxpayers the expense of a protracted and costly lawsuit.” –Tom Wilinsky of Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy.

Background on the lawsuit here: <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/media/2013/130212.asp">http://www.nrdc.org/media/2013/130212.asp</a>.

</div>

==

yay

And yesterday, these 10 were found “not guilty” by New York City Criminal Court Judge Robert Mandelbaum. According to <a href="http://floodwallstreet.net/media/" target="_blank" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">Flood Wall Street</a>, Judge Mandelbaum ruled that the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) order to disperse violated the First Amendment. In his ruling, the judge also found “that by ordering protesters to leave the entire Wall Street area, police violated protesters’ First Amendment right to carry their message directly to its intended recipients: the Wall Street bankers who bankroll <a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s;">climate change</a>.”

Defense Attorney Jonathan Wallace successfully argued that the Constitution protects Americans’ rights to “express political speech within proximity to the target of the protest. In this case, the NYPD first prevented protesters from entering Wall Street before later ordering them to leave the area altogether.” This method of policing proved to be unlawful.

That is a victory in and of itself for the 10 individuals, as well as, the general American public and its right to protest. But the judge went even further “by taking judicial notice that climate change is happening, is a serious problem, requires immediate action and is caused by human activity,” said Flood Wall Street.

“The importance of judicial notice is that the judge accepted climate change and the need to do something about it as a fact without the necessity of any evidentiary support or proof at trial,” said Defense Attorney Martin Stolar. “To the best of my knowledge, this is unprecedented and has significance for future litigation involving climate change.”

The ruling sets an important legal precedent in recognizing the constitutional legitimacy of mass civil disobedience actions protesting climate change, according to Flood Wall Street. The 10 defendants gave passionate testimony to the court, “<a href="http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/04/david-suzuki-climate-change-real-threat/" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; transition: color 0.2s linear 0s; background: transparent;">affirming that their actions were justified</a>.”...

http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/06/found-not-guilty-flood-wall-street

===

...

So the law had already been stacked on behalf of corporations when attorney Lewis Powell penned his memorandum to the Chamber of Commerce in 1971 and when former Treasury Secretary William Simon started soliciting corporate millions. Justice For Sale describes what is only the latest in a long history of corporate efforts to use judges and the law to shape legal doctrines governing investment, production, natural resources, the rights of workers, the rights of stockholders, the liabilities of corporations and their executives. Simon's initiative is but another corporate campaign to limit citizens' constitutional rights, to close off the courts as a means of redress against concentrations of capital.

By virtue of their claimed right to influence the electoral process (upheld by the courts under the doctrine of "commercial free speech"), corporations have been major opponents of citizen referenda and initiatives to stop corporate harms, and major proponents of referenda and initiatives to shape government intervention in the economy. Via contributions to House and Senate candidates, they have bought the best Congress money can buy. Via campaign contributions to state legislators and with help from the American Bar Association and state bar associations, they have been rewriting corporation, tort, contract, property and liability laws. Never known for thinking small, they are today unabashedly writing such laws for former Soviet Union and Eastern European countries -- places where these same corporations are seeking natural resources, cheap labor and vast markets....

===

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[1]</a>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" style="">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution</a>

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution" title="United States Constitution" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">United States Constitution</a> prohibits the making of any law <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause" title="Establishment Clause" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">respecting an establishment of religion</a>, impeding the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause" title="Free Exercise Clause" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">free exercise of religion</a>, abridging the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States" title="Freedom of speech in the United States" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">freedom of speech</a>, infringing on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_the_United_States" title="Freedom of the press in the United States" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">freedom of the press</a>, interfering with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_assembly" title="Freedom of assembly" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">right to peaceably assemble</a> or prohibiting the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_petition" title="Right to petition" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances</a>. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights" title="United States Bill of Rights" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Bill of Rights</a>.

The Bill of Rights was originally proposed as a measure to assuage <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalist" title="Anti-Federalist" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Anti-Federalist</a> opposition to Constitutional ratification. Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress" title="United States Congress" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Congress</a>, and many of its provisions were interpreted more narrowly than they are today. Beginning with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York" title="Gitlow v. New York" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Gitlow v. New York</a> (1925), the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Supreme Court</a> applied the First Amendment to states—a process known as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Amendment_I" title="Incorporation of the Bill of Rights" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">incorporation</a>—through the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Due_Process_Clause" title="Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment</a>.

In <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v.Board_of_Education" title="Everson v. Board of Education" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Everson v. Board of Education</a> (1947), the Court drew on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States" title="Founding Fathers of the United States" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Founding Father</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson" title="Thomas Jefferson" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Thomas Jefferson</a>'s correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute. Speech rights were expanded significantly in a series of 20th and 21st-century court decisions which protected various forms of political speech, anonymous speech, campaign financing, pornography, and school speech; these rulings also defined a series of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions" title="United States free speech exceptions" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">exceptions to First Amendment protections</a>. The Supreme Court overturned <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_common_law" title="English common law" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">English common law</a> precedent to increase the burden of proof for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation" title="Defamation" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">defamation</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel" title="Libel" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">libel</a> suits, most notably in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co.v._Sullivan" title="New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">New York Times Co. v. Sullivan</a> (1964). Commercial speech, however, is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation.

The Free Press Clause protects publication of information and opinions, and applies to a wide variety of media. In <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_v.Minnesota" title="Near v. Minnesota" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Near v. Minnesota</a> (1931) and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_v.United_States" title="New York Times v. United States" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">New York Times v. United States</a>(1971), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected against <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint" title="Prior restraint" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">prior restraint</a>—pre-publication censorship—in almost all cases. The Petition Clause protects the right to petition all branches and agencies of government for action. In addition to the right of assembly guaranteed by this clause, the Court has also ruled that the amendment implicitly protects <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association" title="Freedom of association" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">freedom of association</a>.

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Background" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">2 Background</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Establishment_of_religion" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">3 Establishment of religion</a>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Separationists" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">3.1 Separationists</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Accommodationists" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">3.2 Accommodationists</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-6" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Free_exercise_of_religion" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">4 Free exercise of religion</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-7" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Freedom_of_speech" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5 Freedom of speech</a>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-8" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Speech_critical_of_the_government" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5.1 Speech critical of the government</a>

<li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-9" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#World_War_I" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5.1.1 World War I</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-10" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Extending_protections" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5.1.2 Extending protections</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-11" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Political_speech" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5.2 Political speech</a>

<li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-12" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Anonymous_speech" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5.2.1 Anonymous speech</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-13" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Campaign_finance" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5.2.2 Campaign finance</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-14" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Flag_desecration" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5.2.3 Flag desecration</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-15" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Falsifying_military_awards" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5.2.4 Falsifying military awards</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-16" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Commercial_speech" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5.3 Commercial speech</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-17" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#School_speech" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5.4 School speech</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-18" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Obscenity" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5.5 Obscenity</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-19" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Memoirs_of_convicted_criminals" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5.6 Memoirs of convicted criminals</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-20" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Defamation" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5.7 Defamation</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-21" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Private_action" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">5.8 Private action</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-22" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Freedom_of_the_press" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">6 Freedom of the press</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-23" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Petition_and_assembly" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">7 Petition and assembly</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-24" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Freedom_of_association" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">8 Freedom of association</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-26" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#References" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">10 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-27" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Further_reading" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">11 Further reading</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-28" style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#External_links" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">12 External links</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

==

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, Attorney General of Mass, 533 U.S. 525 (2001)

In Lorillard, the U. S. Supreme Court held that the Massachusetts regulations prohibiting

smokeless tobacco or cigar advertising within 1,000 feet of a school or playground violated the

tobacco corporation's First Amendment free speech (commercial speech) rights.

Issue: Does the Massachusetts' cigarette advertising and sales practices regulation for tobacco

products (cigarette, smokeless tobacco, and cigar) violate the First Amendment?

Rule: Massachusetts' outdoor and point-of-sale (indoor) advertising relating to smokeless

tobacco and cigars is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment free speech

clause.

Application: Massachusetts created comprehensive regulations governing the advertising and

sale of cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and cigars. The outdoor advertising regulation prohibited

advertising within 1,000 feet of a school or playground. The indoor, point-of-sale, advertising

regulation prohibited advertisements lower than 5 feet from the floor of a retail establishment

located within 1,000 feet of a school or playground.

For commercial speech to come within protection of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court

applied the four part test from Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Commission of

N. Y., 447 U. S. 557, at 566: 1) the expression must at least concern lawful activity and not be

misleading, 2) the asserted governmental interest must be substantial, 3) the regulation must

directly advance the governmental interest asserted, 4) the expression must not be more

extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.

The Attorney General of Massachusetts presented studies, one from the FDA, which cited the

Surgeon General's report as well as the Institute of Medicine's report. These two reports found

that "there is sufficient evidence to conclude that advertising and labeling play a significant and

important contributory role in a young person's decision to use cigarettes or smokeless tobacco

products."

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the outdoor advertising regulations are invalid under

the fourth step of the Central Hudson analysis. The Supreme Court also ruled that the indoor

advertising regulation on the height of indoor advertising is invalid under Central Hudson's

third and fourth prongs. The Supreme Court concluded that the sales practices regulations

withstood First Amendment scrutiny and were valid.

Transformation: Corporations can spend massive amounts of money to advertise products,

including dangerous products such as cigarettes and other tobacco products, even to children.

Effect: Massachusetts state law regulating cigarette advertising was invalidated, which gives

corporations the right to target advertising tobacco products to children. The effect is that the

tobacco industry can advertise in such as way as to target children in order to create more

tobacco consumers.

loss of:

<div class="node-info" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left; font-style: inherit; text-decoration: inherit; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; line-height: 19.2px;">By <a href="http://www.progressive.org/users/matthew-rothschild" title="View user profile." class="username" xml:lang="" about="/users/matthew-rothschild" typeof="sioc:UserAccount" property="foaf:name" datatype="" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;" xmlns:xml="xml">Matthew Rothschild</a> on October 16, 2004</div>

<h2 class="node-title" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin: 1em 0px 0.5em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.25;"><a href="http://www.progressive.org/node/2362" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Three Teachers Evicted from Bush Event for Wearing "Protect Our Civil Liberties" T-Shirts</a></h2>

</div>

<div class="sharethis-wrapper" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Three Teachers Evicted from Bush Event for Wearing "Protect Our Civil Liberties" T-Shirts</div>

</div>

About 20 years ago, the former editor of The Progressive magazine, Erwin Knoll, wanted to make a point about the lack of free speech in shopping malls. So he and a few colleagues and friends distributed copies of the Bill of Rights in a mall in Madison, Wisconsin. They were arrested for doing so.

<div id="headline" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Three Teachers Evicted from Bush Event for Wearing "Protect Our Civil Liberties" T-Shirts</div>

<div id="by" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Matthew Rothschild</div>

October 16, 2004

About 20 years ago, the former editor of The Progressive magazine, Erwin Knoll, wanted to make a point about the lack of free speech in shopping malls. So he and a few colleagues and friends distributed copies of the Bill of Rights in a mall in Madison, Wisconsin. They were arrested for doing so.

A recent action by three teachers in Oregon reminded me of that perfect snapshot of lost freedom.

On October 14, they decided to attend a Bush rally at the Jackson County Fairgrounds near Medford, where they teach. They wanted to see their President, and they also wanted to stand up for First Amendment rights, since they had heard on NPR that the Bush campaign was curtailing such rights all along the trail.

So they came up with an ingenious idea. They obtained tickets for the event, and they made and wore T-shirts that said, "Protect Our Civil Liberties." Alas, they were not allowed to hear the President. In fact, they were threatened with arrest.

I talked with two of the three teachers, Tania Tong and her sister, Candice Julian, both of whom teach special education to elementary school children in Medford. The third is a student teacher named Janet Voorhies, who works with Tong.

"We didn't want to come up with anything that was offensive or antagonistic," says Julian, who says it was her idea to have the shirts say, "Protect Our Civil Liberties."

"We were concerned about stories we had heard about people trying to go to participate in rallies and being denied access because they had paraphernalia that said something about Kerry," Tong explains. "We wanted to voice our opinion in a way that wasn't degrading to anybody. The shirt was really kind of benign."

They picked up their tickets the day before the event, but even there they had a hard time. The woman handing tickets out raised a question about Julian being from Ashland, a liberal town. "She asked me if I was going to protest or whether I was going to vote for Bush," says Julian. "And she said, 'I'll give you the ticket if you don't protest.' "

Julian agreed that she would not disrupt the event.

On October 14, they proceeded to the fairgrounds. They showed their driver's licenses and tickets at the first checkpoint. Campaign officials "were scrutinizing our T-shirts," Julian says, but they let the three in.

At the second checkpoint, which consisted of a metal detector staffed by the Secret Service, more questions arose.

"People came up and said, 'Do you know this is a Bush rally? We're concerned about your T-shirts,' " recalls Tong.

"We asked them why.

"They said, 'We don't want anything that's going to cause a disruption.'

"Then they asked, 'Are you going to vote for Bush?'

"And I said that I was undecided and my sister Candice said she was choosing not to answer because it's a personal decision."

The campaign officials said they could go in if they could guarantee they would not make a scene, Tong says. "We assured them that we did not come with any intention of being disorderly, so they said fine and said they respected our differing opinions," she recalls.

At that point, the three teachers assumed they were in, and that they could take their seats and listen to the President.

No such luck.

"As we were walking over to sit down, a woman grabbed me by the arm from the back and grabbed my shirt," Tong says. "She said she would have to look under my shirt for offensive language. I told her she wouldn't find any there. She still looked. Then we walked about two more steps and a man came up and asked to see our IDs again and then made a comment abut my sister living in Ashland. But he gave us our IDs back, and we proceeded to sit down."

Campaign officials did not leave the three alone, however. They followed them to their seats, and when Janet Voorhies got up to go to the bathroom, she was tailed, Tong and Julian say.

When Voorhies did not return promptly, they became concerned and got up to see what was going on.

"A guy had Janet by the elbow and was leading her away," says Julian.

"And he said to us, 'Give us your tickets.' "

"We said, 'Why?' And I put the ticket behind my back, and one of the guys who had been following us ripped it out of my hands."

Seeing what happened to her sister's ticket, Tong put hers down her pants, she says.

Campaign officials then told all three women to leave.

"They said it was a private event, for invited guests," Tong recalls.

"We said we were invited because we were given tickets.

"One said, 'You don't have tickets anymore.'

"We said, 'We did until you ripped them out of our hands.'

"And we asked him, 'Are you offended by our shirts?'

"He said our shirts were 'obscene.' "

Tong and Julian say that about ten men, including Secret Service officers and sheriff's deputies, proceeded to surround them.

"They weren't letting us move anywhere," Tong says. Campaign officials told law enforcement, "These people need to leave," she recalls.

"We asked what would happen if we didn't, and the police said we'd be arrested for disorderly conduct," Tong says.

So the three teachers headed away.

"They walked us out past the parking lot and said if you come back, we're going to arrest you," Julian says. She told one of the men, "I just wanted to see my President." And he said, "You're just going to have to watch him on TV,"

"The more and more I think about it the more and more I'm really ticked off," Julian says. "I should have the right to exercise my First Amendment rights. We were of no risk. The Secret Service had already screened us, and they had let us through. It had nothing to do with security. It had everything to do with us having differing views."

Tong is equally angry. "I'm just shocked that the statement on our shirts is even controversial," she says. "I thought that was one of our founding principles and that we have certain rights and freedoms that should be protected."

The Bush campaign and the Oregon Republican Party did not return calls and e-mails for comment.

Deputy Michael Hermant of the Jackson County Sheriff's Department says he doesn't know who was involved in this incident. "There were so many agencies there you couldn't believe it," he says. "Agencies from out of state, out of county, every available agency within the county, plus Secret Service. I have no way of knowing" who escorted the women out of the event or why.

"I can't imagine why the campaign would have asked them to leave," says Dave Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon ACLU, who stresses that the event was on public property at the county fairgrounds. "For a Presidential campaign to eject people who are not being disruptive seems out of character with the America I know."

</div>

- See more at: http://www.progressive.org/node/2362#sthash.BCvVd6mi.dpuf

---

IRATE:

Powell Era Supreme Court

Corporation's First Amendment Free Speech Rights (Political & Commercial Speech)

Political Speech:

Democracy of the People, by the People, and for the People

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978)

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)

American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Steve Bullock, Attorney General of

Montana, 567 U.S. (2012)

Commercial Speech:

Whose speech is heard, the corporation's or the people's?

Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557

(1980)

Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 475 U.S. 1, reh. den., 475 U.S.

1133 (1986)

Safe Community / Health, Safety and Well-being of the People:

International Dairy Foods Assoc'n v. Amestoy, No.876, Docket 95-7819 (2nd Cir

1996). rGBH proto GMO?

Safe Community & Right to Protect the Children in our

<a href="http://scc-mta.org/sites/default/files/MTA_IRATE_Doc_Version_02_04_13.pdf">http://scc-mta.org/sites/default/files/MTA_IRATE_Doc_Version_02_04_13.pdf</a>

===

IRATE:

Pacific Gas and Electric v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 475 U.S. 1 (1986)

In PG&E, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a corporation has the right not to be associated with

the speech of others. In this case, PG&E was not required to include a message from Toward

Utility Rate Normalization (TURN) with PG&E's bill to customers.

Issue: Does compelling a private corporation to provide a forum for views other than its own

infringe on the corporation's freedom of speech?

Rule: The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of

speech . . .”

Application: An independent consumer group, TURN, urged the Public Utilities Commission

(PUC) to require that PG&E include a pamphlet from TURN four times per year, in the PG&E

billing envelope, provided that the pamphlet use space not used for the billing and required

notices. TURN proposed to use their space to provide alternative information about PG&E

issues to the PG&E customers. [Cit U decision argued more info is good?)

The PUC's order required PG&E to associate with speech with which PG&E may disagree. For

corporations as for individuals, the choice to speak includes within it the choice of what not to

say.

The Supreme Court concluded that the envelope, bill, and postage were paid for by the

corporation and therefore were property of PG&E, not the customer. Thus, the Court decided

that the PUC's order for PG&E to disseminate TURN's speech with potentially hostile views in

envelopes that PG&E owns risks forcing PG&E to speak where it would prefer not to speak.

Burdens on free speech can be valid, if they are a narrowly tailored means of serving a

compelling state interest. The Court concluded that the PUC's order did not meet this

requirement.

Transformation: This decision gives a corporation negative speech rights under the First

Amendment, which protects it against state regulatory action. Any person or group that wishes

to speak out against a particular corporate policy or activity must do so through independent

news media or independent mailings. Reaching the particular customers affected by the

corporation is now extraordinarily expensive, therefore usually beyond the means of any

citizens group.

Effect: The First Amendment has been extended to protect a corporation from being required

to transfer information other than what the corporation itself has deemed appropriate to its

customers. No PUC or other regulatory body may impinge on that negative free speech.

Fictional Representational Story: I own a small, four-generation farm in West Virginia,

where we raise and support the family with vegetables and fruits and the sale of hogs, chickens,

and eggs. The farm is near a coal mine operated by a major corporation, the Freedom Mining

Company. Weekly, I and many of my farming neighbors receive a multi-color brochure from

Freedom outlining all the "benefits" of selling our farms to them so they can rip up the soil in a

big strip-mining operation. The brochures are filled with statements from various politicians

and "scientists", explaining the need for “energy independence” for America, and questioning

why so many Americans are opposed to their efforts. I want to tell my own story, but I know

there is no way that Freedom would print my story alongside theirs. Our newspapers, mostly

owned by big corporations, all seem to tell the Freedom story: the few opposing views that get

printed appear as letters to the editor. To make it worse, most of my neighbors are inclined to

sell out, leaving me and a few others to fight off this wealthy corporation on our own.

Written by: W. A. Barrett Disclaimer: For educational purpose only.

==

<a href="http://www.alternet.org/obamas-first-amendment-defense-political-liars">http://www.alternet.org/obamas-first-amendment-defense-political-liars</a>

apr 2014

President Obama, through his U.S. Solicitor General, arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court, has now stated that lying in political campaigns isn't merely protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, but that it is an especially protected form of speech, which must not be hindered by any state government, such as by the state of Ohio. Ohio has outlawed such intentional deception of voters, and has established heavy criminal penalties against it, when it can be proven. The idea behind this law is that any democracy in which lying in political campaigns isn't penalized by severe penalties, won't remain a democracy much longer, but will instead descend into a kleptocracy: theft of elections themselves (via lies), so that they become just nominal "elections," which are controlled by whatever aristocrats can put up the most money, to lie the most effectively, to the biggest number of voters: lying-contests.

It's an important Supreme Court case. As Constitutional lawyer Lyle Denniston has noted, in his <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/argument-preview-attack-ads-and-the-first-amendment/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">"Argument preview: Attack ads and the First Amendment"</a>: "In all of the history of the First Amendment, the Court has never ruled that false statements are totally without protection under the Constitution." However, this Supreme Court will have an opportunity to do that here, in the case <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/susan-b-anthony-list-v-driehaus/" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration: none;">SBA List v. Dreihaus</a>; or else, to do the exact opposite -- to open wide (even wider than they now are) the floodgates to political lies.

Public opinion (e.g., <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/are-political-lies-consti_b_5162824.html" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">this</a>), and the President of the United States (via his Solicitor General, to be discussed here below), seem to favor opening the floodgates. If that were to happen, then the recently unleashed outpouring of sheer corporate and billionaire cash (via the Citizens United decision, and the more recent McCutcheon decision) into political contests, will become even more unrestrained by (and disconnected from) any consideration of the truthfulness (or not) of this "free speech," so that the U.S. public will naturally be inundated by torrents, not only of aristocratic money pouring over public opinions, but of outright and provable lies financed by the richest aristocrats, polluting and poisoning those torrents, which will drench voters' minds, and will thus poison political outcomes (which is why that money is spent -- to do precisely this)....

==

<h2 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left; font-style: inherit; font-weight: 900; text-decoration: inherit; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170);">Notable opinions </h2><h2 style="background: none rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left; font-style: inherit; font-weight: 900; text-decoration: inherit; margin: 1em 0px 0.25em; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(170, 170, 170);"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Owen">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Owen</a></h2>

In 2010, Judge Owen joined <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilio_M.Garza" title="Emilio M. Garza" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Emilio M. Garza</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Brown_Clement" title="Edith Brown Clement" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Edith Brown Clement</a> in affirming the dismissal of the complaint in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doe_v.Silsbee_Independent_School_District&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Doe v. Silsbee Independent School District (page does not exist)" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Doe v. Silsbee Independent School District</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Owen#cite_note-ca5.uscourts.gov-8" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[8]</a> The plaintiff ("H.S.") was a cheerleader who was ordered by her high school to cheer for her alleged rapist, a basketball player named Rakheem Bolton.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Owen#cite_note-independent.co.uk-9" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[9]</a> H.S. refused and was kicked off the team. She sued, claiming aviolation of her <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="First Amendment to the United States Constitution" style="text-decoration: none; background: none rgb(255, 255, 102);">First Amendment</a> right to free speech. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_District_of_Texas" title="Eastern District of Texas" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Eastern District of Texas</a>, Judge <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thad_Heartfield" title="Thad Heartfield" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Thad Heartfield</a>, granted the school district's motion to dismiss,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Owen#cite_note-10" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[10]</a> and Judges Clement, Garza, andOwen affirmed.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Owen#cite_note-ca5.uscourts.gov-8" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[8]</a> H.S. was ordered to pay the school $45,000 in legal fees for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Owen#cite_note-independent.co.uk-9" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[9]</a>

Here’s what passes for good news when it comes to a free press these days: two weeks ago, the Supreme Court <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/james-risen-faces-jail-time-for-refusing-to-identify-a-confidential-source.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">refused without comment</a> to hear a case involving New York Times reporter James Risen.  It concerned his unwillingness to testify before a grand jury under subpoena and reveal a confidential source of information in his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0743270673/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20" target="blank" style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;">State of War</a> on the secret U.S. campaign against the Iranian nuclear program.  The case will now go back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which has already ordered him to testify.  He says he will instead go to jail, if necessary.

That’s the bad news, right?  Really bad news!  The Supremes, the highest court in the land, refused to protect a reporter protecting a source at a moment when the Obama administration is in the midst of a wide-ranging <a href="http://wemeantwell.com/blog/2014/06/11/government-demands-whistleblower-organizations-encrypted-files/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">crackdown</a> on leakers and whistleblowers of all sorts (and those in the media considered to be aiding and abetting them).  Actually, in a world in which Congress has not yet managed to pass a <a href="http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/24275-the-james-risen-case-cuts-to-the-heart-of-freedom-of-the-press" target="blank" style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none;">federal shield law</a> that would protect reporters, it turns out that that’s actually the good news -- or so at least various media commentators say.  Follow the logic here (and it is logic of a sort).  Right now the Richmond, Virginia-based Appeals court decision applies only to courts in states under its jurisdiction.  Had the Supremes agreed to take on the case, given their conservative and generally government-friendly bent on matters of executive power and what passes for national security, they would likely have ruled against Risen and that ruling would have applied nationally.

So, phew!  Their rejection was a “<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-did-james-risen-and-first-amendment-favor-253151" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">blessing</a>” (in disguise).  The only harm they did, after all, was to confirm the atmospherics of a moment in which the Obama administration has been <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/10/obama-leaks-aggressive-nixon-report-prosecution" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">eager</a> to shut down the leaking of unauthorized government information in a big way -- oh yes, and drive another modest nail into the coffin of a free-to-report-what-our-government-actually-does media.  That’s the minimal, not the maximal damage claim; so say various relieved <a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-james-risen-supreme-court-freedom-of-the-press-20140606-story.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">commentators</a>.  As for Risen, he now has to depend on the kindness of strangers, of in fact Attorney General Eric Holder, who may briefly <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/us/holder-hints-reporter-may-be-spared-jail-in-leak.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">declare a truce</a> in the administration’s “war on the press” and not jail him.

Best news we’ve had in a while!  And should Congress pass that shield law (even if it <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58045428-82/administration-case-media-obama.html.csp" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">leaves national security out</a>), uncork the champagne!  And we’ll all toast the Supreme Court and the attorney general and the president and his top officials for their grace under pressure.  Or rather, hold on just a sec there.  Maybe that isn’t quite the classic American way of preserving our freedoms -- i.e, allowing our government free rein to preserve them for us, if its officials happen to be in the mood.  In fact, as State Department whistleblower and <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175792/tomgram%3A_peter_van_buren,we_have_to_destroy_our_constitution_to_save_it/" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">TomDispatch regular</a> Peter Van Buren suggests, we may be entering a grim new era when it comes to our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Tom

What We've Lost Since 9/11

Taking Down the First Amendment in Post-Constitutional America

By <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/authors/petervanburen" target="_blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-decoration: none;">Peter Van Buren</a>

America has entered its third great era: the post-constitutional one. In the first, in the colonial years, a unitary executive, the King of England, ruled without checks and balances, allowing no freedom of speech, due process, or privacy when it came to protecting his power.

In the second, the principles of the Enlightenment and an armed rebellion were used to push back the king’s abuses. The result was a new country and a new constitution with a Bill of Rights expressly meant to check the government's power. Now, we are wading into the shallow waters of a third era, a time when that government is abandoning the basic ideas that saw our nation through centuries of challenges far more daunting than terrorism. Those ideas -- enshrined in the Bill of Rights -- are disarmingly concise. Think of them as the haiku of a genuine people's government.

Deeper, darker waters lie ahead and we seem drawn down into them. For here there be monsters.

</blockquote>

The Powers of a Police State Denied

America in its pre-constitutional days may seem eerily familiar even to casual readers of current events. We lived then under the control of a king. (Think now: the imperial presidency.) That king was a powerful, unitary executive who ruled at a distance. His goal was simple: to use his power over “his” American colonies to draw the maximum financial gain while suppressing any dissent that might endanger his control.

In those years, <a href="http://www.shmoop.com/american-revolution/politics.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">protest</a> was dangerous. Speech could indeed make you the enemy of the government. Journalism could be a crime if you didn’t write in support of those in power. A citizen needed to watch what he said, for there were spies everywhere, including fellow colonists hoping for a few crumbs from the king's table. Laws could be brutal and punishments swift as well as extra-judicial. In extreme cases, troops <a href="http://www.bostonmassacre.net/timeline.htm" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">shot down</a> those simply assembling to speak out.

Among the many offenses against liberty in pre-constitutional America, one pivotal event, the <a href="http://www.history.org/history/teaching/tchcrsta.cfm" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Stamp Act</a> of 1765, stands out. To enforce the taxes imposed by the Act, the king's men used "<a href="http://www.constitution.org/bor/otis_against_writs.htm" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">writs of assistance</a>" that allowed them to burst into any home or business, with or without suspicion of wrongdoing. American privacy was violated and property ransacked, often simply as a warning of the king’s power. Some colonist was then undoubtedly the first American to mutter, “But if I have nothing to hide, why should I be afraid?” He soon learned that when a population is categorically treated as a potential enemy, everyone has something to hide if the government claims they do.

The Stamp Act and the flood of kingly offenses that followed created in those who founded the United States a profound suspicion of what an unchecked government could do, and a sense that power and freedom are not likely to coexist comfortably in a democracy. A balancing mechanism was required. In addition to the body of the Constitution outlining what the new nation's government could do, needed was an accounting of what it could not do. The answer was the Bill of Rights.

The Bill's <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">preamble</a> explained the matter this way: “...in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the government's] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.” Thomas Jefferson <a href="https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/bill-rights-brief-history" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">commented </a> separately, "[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."

In other words, the Bill of Rights was written to make sure that the new government would not replicate the abuses of power of the old one. Each amendment spoke directly to a specific offense committed by the king. Their purpose collectively was to lay out what the government could never take away. Knowing first-hand the dangers of a police state and unchecked power, those who wrote the Constitution wanted to be clear: never again.

It needs to be said that those imperfect men were very much of their era. They were right about much, but desperately wrong about other things. They addressed “humanity,” but ignored the rights of women and Native Americans. Above all, they did not abolish the institution of slavery, our nation’s Original Sin. It would take many years, and much blood, to begin to rectify those mistakes.

Still, for more than two centuries, the meaning of the Bill of Rights was generally expanded, though -- especially in wartime -- it sometimes temporarily contracted. Yet the basic principles that guided America were sustained despite civil war, world wars, depressions, and endless challenges. Then, one September morning, our Post-Constitutional era began amid falling towers and empty skies. What have we lost since? More than we imagine. A look at the Bill of Rights, amendment by amendment, tells the tale.

The First Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The <a href="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">First Amendment</a> was meant to make one thing indisputably clear: free speech was the basis for a government of the people. Without a free press, as well as the ability to openly gather, debate, protest, and criticize, how would the people be able to judge their government's adherence to the other rights? How could people vote knowledgeably if they didn’t know what was being done in their name by their government? An informed citizenry, Thomas Jefferson <a href="http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/educated-citizenry-vital-requisite-our-survival-free-people-quotation" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">stated</a>, was "a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."

That was how it was seen long ago. In Post-Constitutional America, however, the government strives to "control the message," to actively thwart efforts to maintain a citizenry informed about what’s done in its name, a concept that these days seems as quaint as Jefferson's powdered wig. There are far too many examples of the post-9/11 erosion of the First Amendment to list here. Let's just look at a few important ones that tell the tale of what we have lost since 9/11.

(Lack of) Freedom of Information

In 1966, an idea for keeping Americans better informed on the workings of their government was hatched: the Freedom of Information Act (<a href="http://www.foia.gov/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">FOIA</a>). Strengthened in 1974, it began with the premise that, except for some obvious <a href="http://foia.state.gov/Learn/FOIA.aspx" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">categories</a> (like serious national security matters and personal information), the position of the government should be: everything it does is available to the public. Like the Bill of Rights, which made specific the limits of government, FOIA began with a presumption that it was the government’s duty to make information available -- and quickly -- to the people, unless a convincing case could be made otherwise. The default position of the FOIA switch was set to ON.

Three decades later, the FOIA system works far differently. Agencies are generally loath to release documents of any sort and instead put their efforts into creating roadblocks to legitimate requests. Some still require signatures on paper. (The State Department <a href="http://foia.state.gov/Request/Submit.aspx" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">notes</a>, “Requests for personal information cannot be submitted electronically and should be submitted by mail.”) Others demand hyper-detailed information like the precise dates and titles of documents whose dates and titles may be classified and unavailable. The NSA simply <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/06/1221694/-NSA-Rejecting-Every-FOIA-Request-Made-by-U-S-Citizens" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">denies</a> almost all FOIA requests out of hand, absent a court order.

Most federal agencies now regard the <a href="http://www.foia.gov/faq.html#howlong" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">deadline</a>mandated for a response as the time period to send out a “request received” note. They tend to assign only a few staff members to processing requests, leading to near-endless <a href="http://wemeantwell.com/blog/2014/05/13/state-dept-pulls-lowest-ranking-for-foia-request-replies/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">delays</a>. At the State Department, most FOIA work is done on a part-time basis by retirees. The CIA won’t directly release electronic versions of documents. Even when a request is fulfilled, “free” copying is often denied and reproduction costs exaggerated.

In some cases, the requested records have a way of disappearing or are simply <a href="http://www.wired.com/2014/06/feds-seize-stingray-documents/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">removed</a>. The ACLU’s experience when it filed an FOIA-style request with the Sarasota police department on its use of the cell phone surveillance tool <a href="http://www.wired.com/2013/04/verizon-rigmaiden-aircard/all/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Stingray</a>could be considered typical. The morning the ACLU was to review the files, Federal Marshals arrived and physically took possession of them, claiming they had deputized the local cops and made the files federal property. An ACLU spokesperson <a href="http://www.wired.com/2014/06/feds-seize-stingray-documents/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">noted</a> that, in other cases, federal authorities have invoked the <a href="http://www.dhs.gov/homeland-security-act-2002" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Homeland Security Act</a> to prevent the release of records.

John Young, who runs the web site <a href="http://cryptome.org/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Cryptome</a> and is a steadfast FOIA requester,<a href="https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2013/nov/15/interview-john-young-founder-cryptome/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">stated</a>, “Stonewalling, delay, brush-off, lying are normal. It is a delusion for ordinary requesters and a bitch of a challenge for professionals. Churning has become a way of life for FOIA, costly as hell for little results.”

Sealed Lips and the Whistleblower

All government agencies have regulations requiring employees to obtain permission before speaking to the representatives of the people -- that is, journalists. The U.S. Intelligence Community has among the <a href="http://www.dailydot.com/politics/james-clapper-media-contact-directive/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">most restrictive</a> of these policies, banning employees and contractors completely from talking with the media without prior authorization. Even speaking about unclassified information is a no-no that may cost you your job. A government ever more in lockdown mode has created what one journalist <a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/TopStories/Features/When-Censorship-Becomes-a-Cultural-Norm2014-05-15T11-11-19" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">calls</a> a “culture where censorship is the norm.”

So who does speak to Americans about their government? Growing hordes of spokespeople, communications staff, trained PR crews, and those anonymous “senior officials” who pop up so regularly in news articles in major papers.

With the government obsessively seeking to hide or spin what it does, in-the-sunlight contact barred, and those inside locked behind an iron curtain of secrecy, the whistleblower has become the paradigmatic figure of the era. Not surprisingly, anyone who blows a whistle has, in these years, come under fierce attack.

Pick a case: <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175500/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Tom Drake</a> exposing early NSA efforts to turn its spy tools on Americans, <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175719/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Edward Snowden</a> proving that the government has us under constant surveillance, <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175414/chase_madar_bradley_manning_american_hero" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Chelsea Manning</a> documenting war crimes in Iraq and sleazy diplomacy everywhere, <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175591/tomgram:peter_van_buren,our_9_11_torturers/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">John Kiriakou</a> acknowledging torture by his former employer the CIA, or <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175814/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Robert MacLean</a> revealing Transportation Safety Administration malfeasance. In each instance, the threat of jail was quick to surface. The nuclear option against such truthtellers is the <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Espionage+Act+of+1917" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Espionage Act</a>, a law that<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917#World_War_I" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">offended</a> the Constitution when implemented in the midst of World War I. It has been resurrected by the Obama administration as a blunt “wartime” tool for silencing and punishing whistleblowers.

The Obama administration has already charged <a href="http://pogoblog.typepad.com/pogo/2012/01/six-americans-obama-and-holder-charged-under-the-espionage-act-and-one-bonus-whistleblower.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">six</a> people under that act for allegedly mishandling classified information. Even Richard Nixon only invoked it once, in a failed prosecution against Pentagon Papers whistleblower <a href="http://www.ellsberg.net/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Daniel Ellsberg</a>.

Indeed, the very word “espionage” couldn’t be stranger in the context of these cases. None of those charged spied. None sought to aid an enemy or make money selling secrets. No matter. In Post-Constitutional America, the powers-that-be stand ready to twist language in whatever Orwellian direction is necessary to bridge the gap between reality and the king's needs. In the Espionage Act case of State Department contractor <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/us/politics/ex-state-department-contractor-pleads-guilty-in-leak-case.html?r=0" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Stephen Kim</a>, a judge <a href="http://blogs.fas.org/secrecy/2013/07/prosecutors-burden/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">departed</a> from previous precedent,<a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/kim/072413-opinion3.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">ruling</a> that the prosecution need not even show that the information leaked to a Fox news reporter from a CIA report on North Korea could damage U.S. national security or benefit a foreign power. It could still be a part of an “espionage” charge.

A final question might be: How could a law designed almost 100 years ago to stop German spies in wartime have become a tool to silence the few Americans willing to risk everything to exercise their First Amendment rights? When did free speech become a crime?

Self-Censorship and the Press

Each person charged under the Espionage Act in these years was primarily a source for a journalist. The writers of the Bill of Rights chose to include the term “press” in the First Amendment, specifically carving out a special place for journalists in our democracy. The press was necessary to question government officials directly, comment on their actions, and inform the citizenry about what its government was doing. Sadly, as the Obama administration is moving ever more fiercely against those who might reveal its acts or documents, the bulk of the media have acquiesced. Glenn Greenwald said it <a href="http://m.sfgate.com/default/article/No-Place-to-Hide-by-Glenn-Greenwald-5484817.php#page-1" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">plainly</a>: too many journalists have gone into a self-censoring mode, practicing "obsequious journalism."

For example, a survey of reporters <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/05/15/american_journalism_needs_more_edward_snowdens/" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">showed</a> “the percentage of U.S. journalists endorsing the occasional use of ‘confidential business or government documents without authorization,’ dropped significantly from 81.8% in 1992 to 57.7% in 2013.” About 40% of American journalists would not have published documents like those Edward Snowden revealed.

And the same has been true of the management of newspapers. In mid-2004, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">uncovered</a> George W. Bush's illegal warrantless eavesdropping program, but the New York Times held the story for <a href="http://m.sfgate.com/default/article/No-Place-to-Hide-by-Glenn-Greenwald-5484817.php#page-1" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">15 months</a>, until after Bush's reelection. Executives at the Times were told by administration officials that if they ran the story, they'd be helping terrorists. They accepted that. In 2006, the Los Angeles Times similarly gave in to the NSA and <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2007/03/whistleblower_h/" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">suppressed</a> a story on government wiretaps of Americans.

Government Efforts to Stop Journalists

Reporters need sources. Increasingly, the government is classifying just about any document it produces -- <a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175570/tomgram%3A_engelhardt,the_national_security_complex_and_you/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">92 million documents</a> in 2011 alone. Its intelligence agencies have even <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/28/cia-over-classification-report_n_4680479.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">classified reports</a> about the over-classification of documents.  As a result, journalistic sources are often pressed into discussing, at great personal risk, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/28/nsa-surveillance-too-many-documents-classified" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">classified</a> information. Forcing a reporter to reveal such sources discourages future whistleblowing.

In one of the first of a series of attempts to make journalists reveal their sources, former Fox News reporter <a href="http://boingboing.net/2014/05/30/house-passes-federal-shield.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Mike Levine</a> stated that the Justice Department persuaded a federal grand jury to subpoena him in January 2011. The demand was that he reveal his sources for a 2009 <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/07/02/somali-americans-accused-al-qaeda-ties-indicted-on-terror-charges-sources-say/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">story</a> about Somali-Americans who were secretly indicted in Minneapolis for joining an al-Qaeda-linked group in Somalia. Levine fought the order and the Department of Justice finally dropped it without comment in April 2012. Call it a failed test case.

<a href="http://my.firedoglake.com/Jane-2/2014/05/20/the-price-of-whistleblowing-manning-greenwald-assange-kiriakou-and-snowden/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">According</a> to Washington lawyer Abbe Lowell, who defended Stephen Kim, significant amounts of time have been spent by the Department of Justice in the search for a legal rationale for indicting journalists for their participation in exposing classified documents. A crucial test case is James Risen's 2006 book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0743270673/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">State of War</a>, which had an anonymously sourced chapter on a failed CIA operation to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program. When Risen, citing the First Amendment, <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/02/08/journalist-james-risen-facing-threat-prison-wins-freedom-press-award/gXiatUVYP9q8q4TXtpCVEI/story.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">refused</a> to identify his source or testify in the trial of the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010604001.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">former CIA officer</a> accused of being that source, the government sought to imprison him. He <a href="http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/protecting-a-source-james-risen-takes-his-case-to-the-supreme-court/?php=true&type=blogs&r=0" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">responded</a> that the “Obama administration... wants to use this case and others like it to intimidate reporters and whistleblowers. But I am appealing to the Supreme Court because it is too dangerous to allow the government to conduct national security policy completely in the dark.”

In June 2014, the Supreme Court <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/06/02/the-supreme-court-wont-intervene-in-the-james-risen-case-whats-next/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">refused</a> to take Risen's case on appeal, essentially ratifying a U.S. Court of Appeals <a href="http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/published/115028.p.pdf" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">decision</a> that the First Amendment didn’t protect a reporter from being forced to testify about “criminal conduct that the reporter personally witnessed or participated in.” That decision makes clear that a reporter receiving classified information from a source is part of the crime of “leaking.”

Risen has said he will go to prison rather than testify. It is possible that, having secured the precedent-setting right to send Risen to jail, the government will bring the suspected leaker to trial without calling on him. Attorney General Eric Holder recently <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/us/holder-hints-reporter-may-be-spared-jail-in-leak.html" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">hinted</a> that his Justice Department might take that path -- a break for Risen himself, but not for reporters more generally who now know that they can be jailed for refusing to divulge a source without hope of recourse to the Supreme Court.

The Descent Into Post-Constitutionalism

As with the King of England once upon a time, many of the things the government now does have been approved in secret, sometimes in <a href="http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/fisc.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">secret courts</a> according to a secret body of law. Sometimes, they were even approved openly by Congress. In constitutional America, the actions of the executive and the laws passed by Congress were only legal when they did not conflict with the underlying constitutional principles of our democracy. Not any more. “Law” made in secret, including pretzeled legal interpretations by the Justice Department for the White House, opened the way, for instance, to the use of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/ref/international/24MEMO-GUIDE.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">torture</a> on prisoners and in the Obama years to the <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/02/obama-released-torture-memos-why-not-targeted-killing-memos" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">drone assassination</a> of Americans. Because such “legalities” remain officially classified, they are, of course, doubly difficult to challenge.

But can’t we count on the usual pendulum swings in American life to change this? There were indeed notable moments in American history when parts of the Constitution were put aside, but none are truly comparable to our current situation. The Civil War lasted five years, with Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus limited in geography and robustly <a href="http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0029.205/--lincoln-s-suspension-of-the-writ-of-habeas-corpus?rgn=main;view=fulltext" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">contested</a>. The World War II Japanese internment camps <a href="http://web2.uconn.edu/aasi/Research/jarl.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">closed</a> after three years and the persecuted were a sub-set of Japanese-Americans from the West Coast. Senator McCarthy’s notorious career as a communist-hunter lasted four years and ended in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">shame</a>.

Almost 13 years after the 9/11 attacks, it remains “wartime.” For the war on terror, the driver, excuse, and raison d'être for the tattering of the Bill of Rights, there is no end in sight. Recently retired NSA head Keith Alexander is typical of key figures in the national security state when he <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/05/were-at-greater-risk-q-a-with-general-keith-alexander.html" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">claims</a> that despite, well, everything, the country is at greater risk today than ever before. These days, wartime is forever, which means that a government working ever more in secret has ever more latitude to decide which rights in which form applied in what manner are still inalienable.

The usual critical history of our descent into a post-constitutional state goes something like this: in the panic after the 9/11 attacks, under the leadership of Vice President Dick Cheney with the support of President George W. Bush, a cabal of top government officials pushed through legal-lite measures to (as they liked to say) “<a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/63903/mark_danner_bush's_state_of_exception" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">take the gloves off</a>” and allow <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/05/a-staggering-map-of-the-54-countries-that-reportedly-participated-in-the-cias-rendition-program/" style="text-decoration: none;">kidnapping</a>, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Investigation/story?id=1322866" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">torture</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/independent-review-board-says-nsa-phone-data-program-is-illegal-and-should-end/2014/01/22/4cebd470-83dd-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">illegal surveillance</a>, and <a href="http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/reports/report:-torture-and-cruel,-inhuman,-and-degrading-treatment-prisoners-guantanamo-" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">offshore imprisonment</a> along with <a href="https://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-issues-executive-order-institutionalizing-indefinite-detention" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">indefinite detention</a> without charges or trial.

Barack Obama, elected on a series of (false) promises to roll back the worst of the Bush-era crimes, while rejecting torture and closing America’s overseas “black sites,” still pushed the process forward in his own way. He expanded executive power, emphasized drone assassinations (including against American citizens), gave amnesty to torturers, increased government secrecy, targeted whistleblowers, and heightened surveillance. In other words, two successive administrations lied, performed legal acrobatics, and bullied their way toward a kind of absolute power that hasn’t been seen since the days of King George. That's the common narrative and, while not wrong, it is incomplete.

Missing Are the People

One key factor remains missing in such a version of post-9/11 events in America: the people. Even today, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/05/14/america_china_amnesty_torture_survey_32_percent_of_united_states_citizens.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">45%</a> of Americans, when polled on the subject, agree that torture is “sometimes necessary and acceptable to gain information that may protect the public.” Americans as a group seem unsure about whether the NSA's global and domestic surveillance is justified, and many remain convinced that Edward Snowden and the journalists who published his material are <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/books/review/no-place-to-hide-by-glenn-greenwald.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">criminals</a>. The most common meme related to whistleblowers is still “patriot or traitor?” and toward the war on terror, “security or freedom?”

It’s not that Americans are incorrect to be fearful and feel in need of protection. The main thing we need to protect ourselves against, however, is not the modest domestic threat from terrorists, but a new king, a unitary executive that has taken the law for its own, aided and abetted by the courts, supported by a powerful national security state, and unopposed by a riven and weakened Congress. Without a strong Bill of Rights to protect us -- indeed, secure us -- from the dangers of our own government, we will have gone full-circle to a Post-Constitutional America that shares much in common with the pre-constitutional British colonies.

Yet there is no widespread, mainstream movement of opposition to what the government has been doing. It seems, in fact, that many Americans are willing to accept, perhaps even welcome out of fear, the death of the Bill of Rights, one amendment at a time.

We are the first to see, in however shadowy a form, the outlines of what a Post-Constitutional America might look like. We could be the last who might be able to stop it. 

Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805096817/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People</a>. A<a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175838/tomgram:peter_van_buren,regime_change_in_america/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">TomDispatch regular</a>, he writes about current events at his blog <a href="http://www.wemeantwell.com/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">We Meant Well</a>. His new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1935462911/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99Percent</a>, is available now.  In future pieces at TomDispatch he will consider other amendments being dismantled in the post-9/11 era.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/tomdispatch" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Facebook</a> and <a href="http://tomdispatch.tumblr.com/" target="blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Tumblr</a>. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Rebecca Solnit's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1608463869/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20" target="_blank" style="text-decoration: none;">Men Explain Things to Me</a>.

</blockquote>

===

<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-style: normal; font-weight: 900; text-decoration: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">us 1st to label tobacco</div>

</div>

<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: inherit; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#Cigarettes">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#Cigarettes</a></div>

</div>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health (1966–1970)</li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;">Warning: The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgeon_General_of_the_United_States" title="Surgeon General of the United States" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Surgeon General</a> Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health (1970–1985)</li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;">SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_Disease" title="Heart Disease" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Heart Disease</a>,<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphysema" title="Emphysema" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Emphysema</a>, And May Complicate Pregnancy. (1985–)</li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;">SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health. (1985–)</li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;">SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_Birth" title="Premature Birth" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Premature Birth</a>, And Low Birth Weight. (1985–)</li>

<li style=" margin-bottom: 0.1em;">SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Monoxide" title="Carbon Monoxide" class="mw-redirect" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Carbon Monoxide</a>. (1985–)</li>

</ul>

In 1973, the Assistant Director of Research at R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company wrote an internal memorandum regarding new brands of cigarettes for the youth market. He observed that, "psychologically, at eighteen, one is immortal" and theorized that "the desire to be daring is part of the motivation to start smoking." He stated, "in this sense the warning label on the package may be a plus." <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#cite_note-29" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[29]</a>

In 1999, Philip Morris U.S.A. purchased three brands of cigarettes from Liggett Group Inc. The brands were: Chesterfield, L&M, and Lark. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#cite_note-30" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[30]</a> At the time Philip Morris purchased the brands from Liggett, the packaging for those cigarettes included the statement, "Smoking is Addictive." After Philip Morris acquired the three Liggett brands, it removed the statement "Smoking is Addictive" from the packages. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#cite_note-31" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[31]</a>

Though the United States started the trend of labeling cigarette packages with health warnings, today the country has one of the smallest, least prominent warnings placed on their packages.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#cite_note-dumas-32" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[32]</a> Warnings are usually in small typeface placed along one of the sides of the cigarette packs with colors and fonts that closely resemble the rest of the package, so the warnings essentially are integrated and do not stand out with the rest of the cigarette package.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#cite_note-dumas-32" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[32]</a>

However, this is subject to change as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Smoking_Prevention_and_Tobacco_Control_Act" title="Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act" style="text-decoration: none; background: none;">Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act</a> of 2009 requires color graphics with supplemental text that depicts the negative consequences of smoking to cover 50 percent of the front and rear of each pack. The nine new graphic warning labels were announced by the FDA in June 2011 and were required to appear on packaging by September 2012, though this was delayed by legal challenges.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#cite_note-33" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[33]</a>

In August 2011, five tobacco companies filed a lawsuit against the FDA in an effort to reverse the new warning mandate. Tobacco companies claimed that being required to promote government anti-smoking campaigns by placing the new warnings on packaging violates the companies' free speech rights.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#cite_note-BBCCigaretteLawsuit-34" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[34]</a> Additionally, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.J._Reynolds" title="R.J. Reynolds" class="mw-redirect" style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; background: none;">R.J. Reynolds</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorillard" title="Lorillard" class="mw-redirect" style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; background: none;">Lorillard</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commonwealth_Brands_Inc.&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Commonwealth Brands Inc. (page does not exist)" style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; background: none;">Commonwealth Brands Inc.</a>, Liggett Group LLC and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Natural_Tobacco_Company" title="Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company" style="font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; background: none;">Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company</a> Inc. claimed that the graphic labels are an unconstitutional way of forcing tobacco companies to engage in anti-smoking advocacy on the government's behalf

.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#cite_note-35" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[35]</a>

A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="First Amendment to the United States Constitution" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">First Amendment</a> lawyer, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Abrams" title="Floyd Abrams" style="text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">Floyd Abrams</a>, represented the tobacco companies in the case, contending that requiring graphic warning labels on a lawful product cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#cite_note-36" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[36]</a> The Association of National Advertisers and the American Advertising Federation also filed a brief in the suit, arguing that the labels infringe on commercial free speech and could lead to further government intrusion if left unchallenged.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#cite_note-37" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[37]</a>

On 29 February 2012, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled that the labels violate the right to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States" title="Freedom of speech in the United States" style=" text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">free speech</a> in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="First Amendment to the United States Constitution" style=" text-decoration: none; background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;">First Amendment</a>.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#cite_note-38" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[38]</a> However, the following month the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the majority of the Tobacco Control Act of 2009, including the part requiring graphic warning labels. In April 2013 the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal to this ruling, allowing the new labels to stand. As the original ruling against the FDA images was not actually reversed, the FDA will again need to go through the process of developing the new warning labels, and the timetable and final product remain unknown.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#cite_note-39" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[39]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#cite_note-40" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[40]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#cite_note-41" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[41]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#cite_note-42" style="text-decoration: none; white-space: nowrap; background: none;">[42]</a>

</div>

===

measure I-522 in Washington State

<div class="byline environment" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/" style="">Center for Food Safety </a>[1] / By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/michele-simon" style="">Michele Simon</a> [2]</div>

<h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title" style="text-align: left;">Junk Food Lobbyists Sued for Money Laundering in Washington State</h1>

</div>

<div class="story-date" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left;">October 16, 2013  |  </div>

In the final weeks leading up to Election Day, the debate over measure I-522 in Washington State is getting even uglier. As I recently <a href="http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/2013/09/17/are-junk-food-corporations-hiding-behind-lobbyists-to-stop-ge-food-labeling-in-washington-state/" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">explained</a> [3], the Grocery Manufacturer Association, the nation’s largest trade group for the processed food industry, has been flexing its muscle to oppose the labeling of genetically-engineered food, both at the federal and state levels. Now, a <a href="http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2013/09/17/1379461953-complaint.pdf" target="blank" style="">lawsuit</a> [4] brought by a non-profit called “Moms for Labeling” alleges that GMA crossed the line by not properly disclosing who is behind the whopping $7 million-plus the trade group has <a href="http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=Tk81MjIgIDUwNw%3D%3D%3D%3D&year=2013&type=initiative" target="_blank" style="">donated</a> [5] to the No on 522 campaign so far.

The main goal of a lobbying organization like GMA is to pool the massive resources of its members, which include heavy-hitters such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and General Mills; each has a huge stake in this fight. While last year in California, these companies donated millions to stop Proposition 37, this year, the game plan has changed. GMA is now doing industry’s dirty work by donating on behalf of its members and possibly violating Washington State’s lobbying rules in the process. Here is how the Seattle Post-Intelligencer<a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/09/17/grocery-manufacturers-laundered-donations-suit/" target="_blank" style="">explains</a> [6] the case:

Under Washington’s public disclosure law, any organization that “bundles” contributions must declare itself as a political action committee. Moms for Labeling is citing underground industry sources to support its claim that the Grocery Manufacturers Association is fronting for the companies that gave heavily in California last year.

</blockquote>

While Superior Court judge Chris Wickham recently <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/10/04/corporate-laundering-suit-dismissed-for-now/" target="blank" style="">dismissed</a> [7] the lawsuit, the attorney for the No on 522 campaign may have overstated the decision when she called it a “<a href="http://www.theolympian.com/2013/10/04/2759071/olympia-judge-rejects-lawsuit.html" target="blank" style="">complete victory</a> [8].” The judge did not actually rule on the merits of the case, so the allegations that GMA is fighting with junk food companies’ money still stands. Instead, <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/10/04/corporate-laundering-suit-dismissed-for-now/" target="blank" style="">the judge said</a> [7] that the timing of the case wasn’t right, “not that there isn’t merit in the underlying claim.” In other words, as the <a href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/10/04/corporate-laundering-suit-dismissed-for-now/" target="blank" style="">Post-Intelligencer put it</a> [7]: “The basic issue of the suit — the public’s right to know where money spent in the I-522 campaign comes from — remains unresolved.”

While dismissing the lawsuit based on timing, Judge Wickam also hit the non-profit with a $10,000 sanction (plus defendant attorney’s fees) under a statute meant, ironically, to protect against frivolous lawsuits brought by large corporations to stop public interest groups from speaking out. Known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, anti-SLAPP laws are designed to protect David from Goliath. But GMA turned the tables, accusing Moms for Labeling of making a “strategic attempt to suppress [its] political speech.” And the judge agreed.

Still, the attorney who filed the suit on behalf of Moms for Labeling, Knoll Lowney, says he’s not backing down. Last week, he <a href="http://fusewashington.org/momsforlabeling/" target="blank" style="">filed </a> [9]a legal notice to give the state attorney general’s office ten days to file its own case, after which Lowney says Moms for Labeling will have met the requirements to bring the lawsuit again themselves. According to the letter, newly released 2012 tax filings show that GMA received contributions from member companies that it funneled to the No on Prop 37 campaign in California last year. “The new evidence we delivered to the attorney general makes it even more clear that No on 522 is illegally concealing its donors,” <a href="http://fusewashington.org/momsforlabeling/" target="blank" style="">says </a> [9]Pam Johnson, co-chair of Moms for Labeling.

In addition, Lowney says sources within these companies told him the $7 million is the result of GMA’s soliciting “voluntary special assessments” (donations on top of usual dues) from its members. While his whistleblowers can’t say with certainty that the special assessments are for I-522, “everyone knows where the money is going.” That GMA has yet to issue a flat out denial is also suspect, Lowney says.

It’s really not hard to figure out. Just take a look at the executives running the show at GMA. The Board of Directors is a veritable who’s who of Big Food. For starters, <a href="http://www.gmaonline.org/forms/meeting/Microsite/EmergingLeaders13,1" target="_blank" style="">Ken Powell</a> [10], Chairman and CEO of cereal giant General Mills is board chair. Other notable GMA board members include:

<li style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.diversityinc.com/john-bryant/" target="_blank" style="">John Bryant</a> [11], President and CEO of Kellogg</li>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://littlesis.org/person/1384/Brian_C_Cornell" target="_blank" style="">Brian C. Cornell</a> [12], Chief Executive Officer, PepsiCo Americas Foods</li>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://littlesis.org/person/107194/W_Anthony_Vernon" target="_blank" style="">W. Anthony Vernon</a> [13], Chief Executive Officer, Kraft Foods</li>

<li style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/operations-leadership-j-alexander-m-douglas-jr" target="_blank" style="">J. Alexander M. Douglas Jr.</a> [14], Senior Vice President and Global Chief Customer Officer, Coca-Cola</li>

</ul>

Each of these companies relies heavily upon on genetically-engineered ingredients to make its products, so it’s really no mystery what’s going on. During the California fight, food companies suffered significant backlash for opposing Prop 37. No wonder these corporations want to let GMA be the public face of their opposition this time around. But doing so just may be a violation of law. The question is: will they get away with it?

Meanwhile, overall the opposition has donated $17 million to keep Washington State consumers in the dark. You can help support the Yes on 522 campaign by <a href="https://secure.yeson522.com/page/contribute/default?source=site-header" target="_blank" style="">donating here</a> [15].

</div>

<div class="tags" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div style="text-align: left;">See more stories tagged with:</div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden" style="font-style: inherit;">

<div class="field-item odd" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/labeling" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" style="">labeling</a> [17],</div>

<div class="field-item even" style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/right-know" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" style="">right to know</a> [18],</div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="font-style: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left;">Source URL: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/junk-food-lobbyists-sued-money-laundering-washington-state" style="">http://www.alternet.org/food/junk-food-lobbyists-sued-money-laundering-washington-state</a></div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">Links:</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[1] http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/michele-simon</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[3] http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/2013/09/17/are-junk-food-corporations-hiding-behind-lobbyists-to-stop-ge-food-labeling-in-washington-state/</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[4] http://www.thestranger.com/images/blogimages/2013/09/17/1379461953-complaint.pdf</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[5] http://www.pdc.wa.gov/MvcQuerySystem/CommitteeData/contributions?param=Tk81MjIgIDUwNw%3D%3D%3D%3D&year=2013&type=initiative</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[6] http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/09/17/grocery-manufacturers-laundered-donations-suit/</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[7] http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/10/04/corporate-laundering-suit-dismissed-for-now/</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[8] http://www.theolympian.com/2013/10/04/2759071/olympia-judge-rejects-lawsuit.html</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[9] http://fusewashington.org/momsforlabeling/</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[10] http://www.gmaonline.org/forms/meeting/Microsite/EmergingLeaders13,1</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[11] http://www.diversityinc.com/john-bryant/</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[12] http://littlesis.org/person/1384/Brian_C_Cornell</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[13] http://littlesis.org/person/107194/W_Anthony_Vernon</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[14] http://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/operations-leadership-j-alexander-m-douglas-jr</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[15] https://secure.yeson522.com/page/contribute/default?source=site-header</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[16] http://www.alternet.org/tags/food-0</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[17] http://www.alternet.org/tags/labeling</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[18] http://www.alternet.org/tags/right-know</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[19] http://www.alternet.org/tags/gmo</div>

<div style=" text-align: left;">[20] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B</div>

</div>

===

Right to free speech  (First Amendment)

<a href="http://infochangeindia.org/corporate-responsibility/analysis/corporate-personhood-rights-without-responsibilities.html">http://infochangeindia.org/corporate-responsibility/analysis/corporate-personhood-rights-without-responsibilities.html</a>

No less eventful is the  process of gradual acquisition of the right to free speech by corporations.  Free speech was included as part of the bill of rights in the First Amendment  to the American constitution almost immediately after its adoption in the late-18th  century as it was realised that sufficient guarantees were not available for  civil liberties. There is a long history of corporate attempts at appropriating  rights under the First Amendment and acquiring natural person entitlements. One  of the landmarks is the First National Bank of Boston case in 1978 where the court ruled  that the bank had the First Amendment right to political speech like any  person. But more interestingly the bank argued that since the corporation does  not have a tongue it should be allowed to speak through its pocket and thus for  a corporation, spending money and making political contributions was the same  as free speech! The bank won the case in the Supreme Court based on the precedent  set by the 1886 Santa Clara  case.

The corporation’s right  to influence elections was taken several degrees further by the momentous  Citizen’s United vs Federal Election Committee case last year where the Supreme  Court overturned a 1907 Act giving corporations a free hand for as much  commercial spending as they would like during elections, again as a ‘natural  person’ under the First Amendment free speech right.  In the Citizen’s United 2010 case Supreme Court  Judge Kennedy remarked, “The government has [I]muffled the voices[/I] (of  corporations)[I] that best represent the most significant segments[/I] of the  economy. And the electorate has been deprived of information, knowledge and  opinion vital to its function (emphasis added).”

Now, what kind of ‘essential  information’ has the electorate been thus far ‘deprived of’ which was corrected  by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2010? This takes a very  interesting turn if we read the 2010 judgment with another landmark Nike vs  Kasky case. Against a barrage of reports on slave-like conditions in which Nike  shoes were being manufactured in Vietnam and elsewhere, Nike went on a public  relations overdrive and in 1997 its sports marketing director pledged in a  letter to athletic programme directors and presidents of US universities that  Nike’s manufacturers complied with “government regulations regarding minimum  wages and overtime as well as occupational health and safety, environment  regulations, workers’ insurance, and equal opportunity provisions.” When Mark  Kasky discovered that this was all a fabrication and filed a case, a US Court  of Appeals ruled in 2000 that Nike was only promoting its products, as any  company would, could and should, and telling untruths was “within the core area  of expression protected by the First Amendment”, thus implying that a  corporation has a right to lie quite like any of us in our personal talk as  part of the right to free speech. The judgment was overturned by the California  Supreme Court but the case went all the way to the US Supreme Court in 2003  where the who’s who of big business and media, like Microsoft, Pfizer, Exxon,  Bank of America, Fox, New York Times and a large number of other corporations  and surprisingly, the American Civil Liberties Union and even AFL-CIO (the  largest federation of unions in the US), all stood in solidarity with Nike  supposedly for the corporation’s right to ‘free speech’. Nike claimed, “To say  that we have to only say things that are accurate [I]violates our First Amendment  rights to free speech[/I] (emphasis added).” Most amazingly, after the  arguments began, at some point the court decided to send it back to the California court and  Nike settled it out of court with complainants for a trivial sum! So the  corporate ‘right to lie’ stands as it is under the First Amendment and when  read with the Citizens United case, gives an interesting turn to the meaning of  free speech and elections in the ‘world’s oldest democracy’.

===

In the 1990s, the athletic company Nike was accused of running sweatshops -- factories that employ labor at substandard conditions and low wages -- in developing Asian countries. The story came to the fore even more in 2001. That year, Nike launched a shoe line that allowed customers to have whatever they pleased embroidered on the company's shoes. One MIT graduate student lodged his order: He wanted the word "sweatshop" embroidered on his pair.

The company refused his order, and the student circulated the e-mail Nike had sent him. The media took notice. In short order, stories of Nike's overseas labor practices made it into the pages of news outlets like the Wall Street Journal [source: The Industry Standard].

In an ongoing public relations campaign, Nike said it did not use exploitative labor practices, and it actually protected workers' rights abroad. Based on proof that contradicted the PR blitz, a California man sued the company in 1998 for false advertising [source: BBC]. The company challenged the issue, saying that as an artificial person, it was allowed to lie. Lying, after all, is protected by the freedom of speech granted in the First Amendment.

Nike lost in the California Supreme Court, but appealed. After accepting the case, the Supreme Court deferred it back to the lower courts [source: New York Times]. Ultimately, the company settled the suit for $1.5 million, which went to a labor rights group [source: BBC]. In 2005, Nike published a report of the working conditions in its overseas factories, which included admissions of employee mistreatment [source: The Guardian].

==

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Animal-welfare activists filed a lawsuit Monday to overturn a Utah law that prohibits undercover filming while trespassing at farm operations, saying it restricts free expression.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filed the legal action in federal court in Salt Lake City.

The Utah law makes it a misdemeanor to trespass on private property to record images or sounds of a livestock operation.

Supporters of the law say it's intended to protect property rights.

"It has nothing to do with animals — it's people trespassing on farms" to make recordings, said state Sen. David Hinkins, R-Orangeville, a cattle operator who also breeds race horses. "If people can sneak onto anybody's property, then we don't have any rights."

The groups behind the lawsuit have the backing of attorneys at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law and constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinksy of the University of California at Irvine.

"The Utah law is very much directed at restricting speech, and especially particular messages," Chemerinksy said. "This is exactly what the First Amendment prohibits."...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/utah-ag-gag_n_3636036.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

outcome?

==

teacher at bush rally arrested

MEDFORD – President Bush taught three Oregon schoolteachers a new lesson in irony – or tragedy – Thursday night when his campaign removed them from a Bush speech and threatened them with arrest simply for wearing t-shirts that said “Protect Our Civil Liberties,” the Democratic Party of Oregon reported.

The women were ticketed to the event, admitted into the event, and were then approached by event officials before the president’s speech. They were asked to leave and to turn over their tickets – two of the three tickets were seized, but the third was saved when one of the teachers put it underneath an article of clothing.

<div style="font-style: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left;">http://www.bendbugle.com/2004/10/teachers-t-shirts-bring-bush-speech-ouster/  see teacherTshirt pix saved</div>

</div>

<div>The federal government has agreed to pay $80,000 to a Texas couple arrested for wearing anti-President Bush T-shirts at a 2004 event with the president in Charleston.</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>Jeff and Nicole Rank went to Bush's Fourth of July speech at the state Capitol wearing homemade T-shirts with a red circle with a bar through it over the word "Bush."</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>On the back, hers read "Love America, Hate Bush" and his read "Regime Change Starts At Home."</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>When the couple refused to cover up their shirts, they were arrested and charged with trespassing. Those charges were later dropped by the city of Charleston, and city officials later apologized.</div>

<div>

</div>

<div>The American Civil Liberties Union subsequently filed a lawsuit on the Ranks' behalf in federal court in Charleston, alleging that the Ranks' First Amendment right to free political speech had been violated. </div>

<div>

</div>

<div> http://www.commondreams.org/news/2007/08/17/couple-arrested-bush-rally-settles-lawsuit-80000</div>

</div>

As they made their way through security, they wore shirts over the white undershirts with the slogans, he said. Their intention was not to attract a lot of attention when they revealed their handiwork, but to avoid antagonizing Bush supporters as they stood in line.

"It's kind of ironic that we wore the outer shirts to minimize the impact of our shirts, not to maximize," he said.

About 10 minutes after they displayed their undershirts, two Shelley Moore Capito staffers who were working the event approached them and told the couple they had to take off their T-shirts or leave the event, Jeff Rank said.

"We tried to explain to them that it was well within our right to stand there and wear these T-shirts, just as people around us had the right to wear pro-Bush and Cheney T-shirts," he said.

When it became clear that they were going to be ejected, they sat down and made the officers handcuff them, he said, because they wanted it clear that they were being involuntarily removed.

"To add to the thickness of the irony, as we're being led out, 'America the Beautiful' is playing over the loudspeaker," Jeff Rank recalled.

According to an edited version of an October 2002 Presidential Advance Manual posted on the ACLU's Web site, organizers actively tried to prevent protesters from going to presidential appearances.

"Proper ticket distribution is vital to creating a well-balanced crowd and deterring potential protesters from attending events," the manual states.

"Rally squads" were also used to drown out protesters by creating a shield between demonstrators and the press, according to the manual.

When Nicole Rank returned to work after the holiday weekend, FEMA officials sent her home to Texas.

"I was told that my actions had compromised FEMA's mission in West Virginia and I was being relieved from duty," she said.

Shortly thereafter, the couple contacted the state branch of the ACLU....

</div>

<div style="font-style: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left;">see also commercial free sp, right to lie, unlimited campaign $ secret</div>

</div>

</div>

<div style="font-style: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/11/18.php">http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/11/18.php</a> ?</div>

</div>

<div style="font-style: inherit; text-align: left;"><a href="http://pharmamkting.blogspot.com/2005/06/wlf-watches-fda-watching-drug-ads.html" style="">http://pharmamkting.blogspot.com/2005/06/wlf-watches-fda-watching-drug-ads.html</a></div>

</div>

<div style="font-style: inherit; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left;">Washington Legal Fdn is to the first amendment what the NRA is to the second amendment. That is, every argument by WLF begins and ends with the first amendment as it applies to a special interest group -- i.e., businesses like the pharmaceutical industry.</div>

</div>

Warning: include(/Templates/headermain.php) [<a href="http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/11/function.include" style="">function.include</a>]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/ahrp/public_html/infomail/04/11/18.php on line 19

Warning: include() [<a href="http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/11/function.include" style="">function.include</a>]: Failed opening '/Templates/headermain.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/ahrp/public_html/infomail/04/11/18.php on line 19

Daniel Troy Legacy: Public Virtually Defenseless against Unsafe Drugs

Thu, 18 Nov 2004

The Associated Press reports that at a Congressional hearing today, Dr. David Graham a drug safety expert at the FDA told the Senate Finance Committee that the public is "virtually defenseless" if another medication such as Vioxx proves unsafe after it has won Food and Drug Administration approval.

"I would argue that the FDA as currently configured is incapable of protecting America against another Vioxx." Dr. Graham warned that the arthritis drug had been linked to an increased risk of heart attack and stroke. He also testified that there were at least five other drugs on the market that warrant scrutiny: the acne drug Accutane, the weight loss drug Meridia, the anti-cholesterol drug Crestor, the pain reliever Bextra, and the asthma drug Serevent.

Dr. Sandra Kweder of FDA's office of new drugs, did not agree with Graham's assessment of the risk posed by the five drugs. She said "there is no magic formula" to determine which drugs most raise the most serious safety concerns.

If the FDA would at least monitor MedWatch--its own database of adverse drug event reports - we would not have to wait for a "magic formula."

Dikinson's FDA Webview reports (below) that Daniel Troy hand-picked Gerald F. Masoudi as his successor as Chief Counsel. Thus, Troy's legacy may not be over. Dickinson and Newsday (excerpt below) provide insight into how the FDA became the permissive lap dog of the food, drug, and cosmetics industry when Troy, a political appointee with long standing ties to industry, ran the agency and methodically downgraded public safety issues.

There are many speculations about what prompted Daniel Troy to resign: perhaps the prospect of having to testify under oath before congressional committees may have influenced his resignation which was announced on Nov 16, effective Nov 28.

There has been growing public criticism of FDA's failure to protect the public from hazardous drugs and the agency's continued failure to monitor drug safety, coupled with the inordinate influence of industry in setting policy. Troy's active intervention on behalf of drug manufacturers in lawsuits filed by individuals who had been harmed by drugs or devices--whose adverse effects were concealed--was a radical departure from FDA policy. Troy's legal argument rested on the infallibility of "FDA's scientific judgment" about safety.

One of the legal briefs submitted by Daniel Troy denied the need for a suicide warning on the drug label. However, FDA's judgments have been shown to be unscientific--inasmuch as crucial safety evidence from clinical trials had been concealed. Industry selectively reported clinical trial results, hiding the adverse findings. When challenged publicly with evidence from antidepressant pediatric trials, the FDA was forced to re-analyze the complete data. Only then did the FDA reach a scientifically valid judgment: Black Box warnings were issued (Oct 15, 2004), acknowledging a causal relation between antidepressants and increased suicide risk.

The basis for Troy's claims rested on scientifically faulty FDA-judgments that had relied on partial - therefore unscientific - information. This demonstrates that entrusting health / safety issues to a single agency is bad public policy. It invites manipulation by powerful stakeholders, undermining rational, science-based health / safety determinations. Neither the FDA nor any of us mortals is infallible; we all prone to errors in judgment.

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav 

212-595-8974

FDA Webview Reports /Review/Update/DTC Marketer)

FDAers Think Troy Weakened Them, Worry About Masoudi

11/17/2004

As chief counsel Daniel E. Troy's impending departure from FDA is being noisily applauded by external critics, it is also being welcomed, quietly, by many program managers inside the agency who say that he has weakened them in meeting new regulatory and scientific public health challenges. And they worry about his apparent successor, raw newcomer Gerald F. Masoudi, who is an unknown factor but who they see as having been hand-picked by Troy.

For example, a high official told us 11/17, in sharply narrowing FDA's traditional broad interpretations of statutory authority, Troy removed many previously effective tools for dealing with complex new issues not addressed in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, such as biotechnology, gene transplants, dietary supplements, health claims for foods and others.

"Of course, Dan would say 'Well, you have tried to interpret the statute in a broad way in the past, and now you've started losing in court,'" this official said. Such court losses - e.g., on the agency's tobacco rule, and a string of First Amendment cases - were seen by Troy as being likely to continue so long as the agency persisted in exercising its traditional broad statutory interpretations, so he set about trimming the agency's sails.

Instead of helping his "client" (FDA management) attain its goals, Troy routinely advised that it lacked statutory authority to reach those goals, this official said. "In writing regulations, we have attempted to put in requirements that might not have been explicitly in the statute, but that we would traditionally have used, be it records authority, or requirements for certain sorts of reporting by a firm. He would say, 'Well, no, you don't have that authority, I'm going to scale that back.'"

One example of this was Troy's rejection of a CVM plan to regulate genetic transfers in food-producing animals under the new animal drug regulations. CVM protested that the 1938 FD&C Act could not have anticipated gene transfer technology, and that Congress has not been able to deal effectively with this issue, so creative regulation is the only way. "You're putting a compound in a fish or a cow to cause it to grow differently - the scientists think that's essentially the same as putting a drug in the animal," a senior CVM official said. Troy refused to budge.

In a lengthening stream of such narrowing decisions, Troy managed to restrict FDA's ability to use its statutes creatively, and this in turn deterred mid-level managers from advocating new approaches to emerging scientific issues, leaving the agency looking - and feeling - weak. There is a philosophical basis for this result that many see in Bush Administration policies: reduce the power of government to "interfere" in the free working of the marketplace.

Troy's past use of forums provided by the ultra-conservative/libertarian Federalist Society and his actions since as chief counsel present a sharp contradiction between FDA's traditional modus operandi and that society's dictum: "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequences would be the substitution of their pleasure for that of the legislative body." In other words, if FDA did not get from Congress what it needs, it should not try litigation, or regulatory initiatives that might lead to litigation.

There are two ways FDAers look at this posture: (1) Troy was trying to protect the agency from losing any cases in court, and (2) Troy was trying to prevent it from winning any cases in courts that could, in Federalist parlance, legislate from the bench.

Troy's resignation has thrust his apparent choice of successor onto center stage. As expected, HHS general counsel Alex Azar named Masoudi acting chief counsel "until a permanent replacement is appointed," according to an 11/16 statement by acting commissioner Lester Crawford. Informed sources speculated that Masoudi could be that appointee. A 1993 graduate of the University of Chicago Law School, he joined FDA as deputy associate general counsel/deputy chief counsel earlier this month, and did not respond to requests for his biography and an interview.

However, an Internet search revealed that he authored in 1993, University of Chicago Law Review article, Kosher Food Regulation and the Religion Clause of the First Amendment, which has since become very widely referenced on various legal Web sites and by other scholars.

At Kirkland & Ellis, whose Web site no longer mentions him, he was one of four attorneys who in 1999 sued three cable Internet companies for client GTE in Western Pennsylvania federal court alleging Sherman Antitrust Act violations in the bundling of high-speed cable data transport services. In 2001, he represented the H.J. Heinz Co. in defending against a Federal Trade Commission suit that sought to block a proposed merger between Heinz and Beech-Nut Foods.

One of Masoudi's most recent cases at Kirkland & Ellis involved a rate-regulation case this year before the Louisiana Public Service Commission in which he represented Arkansas Electric Energy Consumers, Inc.

Meanwhile, outside critics of Troy have raised their rhetoric against him. In a public e-mail to acting commissioner Lester Crawford 11/17, Alliance for Human Research Protection director Vera Hassner Sharav charged that Troy "was a symbol of what is rotten at the FDA: the pharmaceutical industry's influence has ensured that business interests take precedence over public safety.

"Industry-influenced advisory committees," she continued, "have led to the approval of lethal drugs that were widely marketed until the death toll became publicly known. Troy actively intervened on behalf of pharmaceutical companies in civil cases brought by individuals who sought justice in the court. Let us hope that other senior FDA officials who have similarly disregarded their role as public servants and have shielded drug manufacturers who concealed the hazardous effects of their products, resulting in preventable deaths, will resign as well.

"The FDA has been derailed from its mission, which is to ensure that the public is protected from unsafe and ineffective drugs, and that physicians and the public rare provided scientifically accurate information.

"Whereas Troy intervened on behalf of pharmaceutical companies claiming that the FDA's authority pre-empted all others in matters of drug safety - even when they concealed lethal drug effects - New York State Attorney General, Eliot Spitzer, brought action against GlaxoSmithKline, charging the company with fraudulent marketing of Paxil (seroxat). That action undermined Troy's pre-emption authority argument - and ultimately undermined his standing.

"In light of the skyrocketing expenditures for prescription drugs - U.S. consumers spent $216 billion on prescription drugs last year, up 11.5% in a year (according to IMS Health) - Dr. Lester Crawford's claim that Daniel Troy's 'reforms' saved consumers $35 billion, is not credible." Meanwhile, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), who has had several policy run-ins with Troy, said 11/16 the resignation announcement (see earlier story) "is a rare bright spot in what has been a dark period for FDA." According to Hinchey, Troy worked tirelessly to weaken FDA's ability to face challenges such as the withdrawal of Vioxx and the flu vaccine shortage. "Under Troy's direction," he said, "the agency has argued in court that manufacturers, some of whom he represented in private practice, should not be held responsible if their products injure customers. He wasted precious taxpayer dollars on other personal ideological pursuits as well. Instead of working to strengthen FDA's mandated role as a guardian of public health, Troy has made it the agency's mission to protect corporate profits." Hinchey called on Crawford to "return FDA to its appropriate mission... by removing politics from the chief counsel's office and appointing a career civil servant" as Troy's replacement.

<a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/ny-usfda114002814oct11,0,5464956,print.story">http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/ny-usfda114002814oct11,0,5464956,print.story</a>

NEWSDAY

ERASING THE RULES Industry has some friends on the inside

Bush-appointed administrators at the FDA have consistently sided with the interests of business

BY THOMAS FRANK

October 11, 2004

Two years ago, California walnut growers conceived the perfect promotion: put labels on packages saying walnut consumption reduces the risk of heart disease.

There was one problem.

The Food and Drug Administration demanded substantial evidence to allow such claims, and it found that studies the growers touted were "of poor to moderate quality" or "not directly relevant."

Even three outside experts the FDA hired said a link between walnuts and heart disease was "uncertain."

But then the agency relaxed its standards. And on March 9, it reached an unprecedented decision: Labels could claim that walnuts "may" reduce heart-disease risk while noting that research was "not conclusive."

The eased standards were long sought by the food industry, which found key allies in the Bush administration FDA. Top appointees who once advocated for FDA-regulated industries have heeded industry lobbying in ways that medical groups and consumer advocates say jeopardize public health.

After food-industry groups complained, a top appointee killed a measure to discourage consuming a cholesterol-raising fat. Plans to eliminate misleading sunscreen labels have been tabled following cosmetics-industry complaints. A post-Sept. 11 plan to help contain food contamination is nearly a year late as food-processing groups have objected.

Letters directing drug companies to stop false or misleading ads are reduced and delayed under new policy that some critics say increases the public's exposure to misinformation.

In a dramatic legal novelty, the FDA has intervened for manufacturers in lawsuits, urging courts to dismiss damages claims against them. FDA briefs have helped the world's two largest drug companies win product-liability cases.

The FDA says courts are not equipped to judge a product's safety. On regulation, officials say their position reflects court rulings that warn about restricting commercial speech. Allowing inconclusive health claims on food labels such as walnuts gives consumers more information, the agency says.

"Naturally, our approach to enforcement may evolve as we adapt to new FDA legal authorities or evolving science and technology," the FDA said in a recent statement. "But the goal of judicious enforcement of the law, to fulfill our mission of promoting and protecting the public health, remains constant."

The walnut industry is already profiting from the new labels that will start next year. Walnut processing giant Diamond of California says publicity about them has helped lift sales 30 percent over last year.

But the American Medical Association said consumers may be duped. The walnut claims "have a reasonable chance of being erroneous," it said. "An educated consumer will not know whether to believe or not to believe the claim."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) wrote the 1991 law requiring "substantial scientific evidence" for health claims. "Congress didn't want food manufacturers to make claims without substantiation," he said. "The clear language of the statute is just being ignored."

The influence behind many FDA decisions is chief counsel Daniel Troy, who was a sharp critic of the agency before President George W. Bush put him in charge of its legal affairs.

A Queens-born Columbia Law School standout, Troy, 44, came to the FDA primed for activism: Clerk for conservative icon Robert Bork; partner at blue-chip Wiley, Rein & Fielding; scholar at the pro-business American Enterprise Institute; litigant for the anti-regulatory Washington Legal Foundation.

Representing a tobacco company against the FDA in the late 1990s, Troy helped win a landmark Supreme Court ruling blocking the agency's attempt to regulate tobacco products.

Litigating for the legal foundation, which drug-company foundations help fund, Troy challenged the FDA's restrictions on promoting drugs for uses the FDA has not approved.

The policy, Troy wrote in 1999, reflects "an overzealous FDA."

Appointed in August, 2001, Troy had vast authority. With no FDA commissioner until November 2002, Troy reigned for more than a year as top administrator in an agency that regulates 22 percent of the U.S. economy.

"He sent a signal to companies that if you want to deal with the FDA on a number of issues, he's the man to see," said a senior FDA official.

In three years, Troy has held 129 meetings with lobbyists and others with issues before the FDA.

Mark McClellan, commissioner from October 2002 to March 2004, held 30 such meetings, FDA records show.

From 1998 to 2001, Troy's predecessor, Margaret Porter, held one meeting.

"She did not directly interact with industry," said Jane Henney, FDA commissioner in 1999 and 2000. "She felt those interactions were done by the staff, and [lobbyists] should make their case to them."

But the Bush administration made the chief counsel a political appointee for the first time since the 1980s, easing out civil-servant Porter and empowering Troy.

At the end of a meeting with cosmetics-industry officials two months into his job, Troy decided to delay indefinitely sunscreen regulations the industry opposed.

"We asked them to put it off. They've done what we asked," said Tom Donegan, general counsel of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association.

Donegan's group opposed a proposed ban on sun-protection factors higher than 30, which the FDA found provided "extremely small" amounts of extra protection. Donegan told Troy the ban raised free-speech issues.

"He's very receptive," Donegan said.

The regulations, developed after 21 years of study and debate, also would have banned from sunscreen labels starting in 2003 terms such as "sunblock" and "waterproof," which it determined were "misleading" and "unsupported." Their use remains common.

Food-industry officials got Troy's help after a National Academy of Sciences study requested by the FDA recommended "trans fat consumption be as low as possible" because it raised cholesterol. The FDA wanted that statement on food labels starting in 2006.

Industry officials who met Troy said the label may violate the First Amendment and could lead consumers and food processors to substitute similarly harmful saturated fat for trans fat.

Xxxcut xxx

</div>

Warning: include(/Templates/footermain.php) [<a href="http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/11/function.include" style="">function.include</a>]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/ahrp/public_html/infomail/04/11/18.php on line 322

Warning: include() [<a href="http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/11/function.include" style="">function.include</a>]: Failed opening '/Templates/footermain.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/ahrp/public_html/infomail/04/11/18.php on line 322</div>

</div>

<div class="byline news-politics" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-style: inherit; text-align: left;"><a href="http://courthousenews.com/" style="">Courthouse News</a> [1] / By <a href="http://www.alternet.org/authors/lorraine-bailey" style="">Lorraine Bailey</a> [2]</div>

</div>

<h1 property="dc:title" datatype="" class="node-title" style=" text-align: left;">Ex-Marine Arrested for Wearing Wrong T-Shirt at Supreme Court!</h1>

</div>

<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-style: inherit; text-align: left;">Police had probable cause to arrest a Marine Corps veteran in the Supreme Court building for wearing a jacket that said "Occupy Everywhere," a federal judge ruled.</div>

<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-style: inherit; text-align: left;">     Fitzgerald Scott, a Marine Corps veteran, entered the Supreme Court building on Jan. 20, 2012, wearing a jacket painted with the words, "Occupy Everywhere." The Occupy movement had scheduled that day for an organized protest outside of the courthouse.</div>

</div>

<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-style: inherit; text-align: left;">     While Scott was looking at the exhibits on display, Deputy Chief Timothy Dolan approached him and told Scott that he could not wear the jacket in the building because it was comparable to a sign or demonstration.</div>

</div>

<div style="font-style: inherit; text-align: left;">     Dolan told Scott he must either take off the jacket or leave the building. When Scott refused to do either, Dolan instructed another officer to place Scott under arrest for unlawful entry. Scott was released the same day, and charges against him were later dropped.</div>

</div>

<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-style: inherit; text-align: left;">     Scott then filed <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/10/19/51454.htm" style="">suit </a> [3], arguing that the "United States is liable for the false arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Scott because Pfc. Freeman arrested Mr. Scott without probable cause."</div>

<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-style: inherit; text-align: left;">     U.S. District Judge Amy Jackson dismissed the action Tuesday, finding that the "Supreme Court Police had probable cause to arrest Scott for violating section 6135 because Scott's actions fell squarely within the plain language of the display clause: he was displaying a device (his jacket) in the building which had been adapted to bring public attention to the 'Occupy' movement." (Parentheses in original.)</div>

</div>

<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-style: inherit; text-align: left;">     Jackson noted that her ruling in this case is not based on "whether a court could ultimately find that the application of the display clause in this instance violated Scott's First Amendment rights, but whether the officers knowingly ignored settled, indisputable law when they made the determination on the scene to effect the arrest."</div>

<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-style: inherit; text-align: left;">     Scott has no First Amendment ground for his claims because "at the time of Scott's arrest, the application of section 6135 - and its predecessor 40 U.S.C. § 13k8 - to individuals in the Supreme Court building and plaza had been upheld as constitutional," the 14-page opinion states.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-style: inherit; text-align: left;">
</div>

<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-style: inherit; text-align: left;">     "The fact that long after Cohen [v. California], this statute had been upheld as constitutional on its face and as applied to individuals in similar situations defeats Scott's assertion that his arrest violated clear constitutional law," Jackson added.</div><div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-style: inherit; text-align: left;">
</div>

</div>

<div style="text-align: left;">See more stories tagged with:</div>

<div class="field-item even" style=" text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/supreme-court" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" style="">supreme court</a> [4],</div>

<div class="field-item odd" style=" text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/occupy-movement-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" style="">occupy movement</a> [5],</div>

<div class="field-item even" style=" text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/marine-corp-vet" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" style="">Marine Corp Vet</a> [6],</div>

<div class="field-item odd" style=" text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/tags/freedom-expression-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" style="">freedom of expression</a> [7]</div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left;">Source URL: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/vet-arrested-wearing-wrong-t-shirt" style="">http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/vet-arrested-wearing-wrong-t-shirt</a></div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left;">mcclatchy blog</div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Supreme Court 'Occupy Everywhere' protester loses suit</div><div class="print-source_url" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="">A #Scotus protester arrested while wearing an "Occupy Everywhere" slogan on a jacket has lost a false-arrest lawsuit.</div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="">In a 14-page decision, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissed the 2012 lawsuit brought by Fitzgerald Scott. Scott was arrested in January 2012 and charged with unlawful entry, after a Supreme Court police officer told him he could not be inside the court building wearing the slogan-bearing jacket. (There actually is some dispute over what, exactly, the jacket's slogan said, but it definitely had the word Occupy.)</div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">The criminal charges were eventually dropped. Scott sued, and brought into his arguments the claim that his arrest violated the First Amendment.</div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Jackson concluded police had reasonable cause to arrest Scott, under a federal statute that makes it unlawful to parade, stand or move in processions or assemblages" inside the court, or to display "a flag, banner or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization or movement."</div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Intriguingly, just a few weeks ago, a different D.C.-based judge found the statute unconstitutional, a finding that Jackson did not impinge on the facts in Scott's cas</div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">- See more at: http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/law/2013/07/supreme-court-occupy-everywhere-protestor-loses-suit.html#sthash.GQbUtLTD.dpuf</div>

</div>

<div class="print-source_url" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Read more here: http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/law/2013/07/supreme-court-occupy-everywhere-protestor-loses-suit.html#storylink=cpy</div>

</div>

<h2 class="entry-header entry-title" style="text-align: left; margin: 0px;">Supreme Court 'Occupy Everywhere' protester loses suit</h2>

A #Scotus protester arrested while wearing an "Occupy Everywhere" slogan on a jacket has lost a false-arrest lawsuit.

In a <a href="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1696-17" target="_self" style="text-decoration: none;">14-page decision</a>, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissed the 2012 lawsuit brought by Fitzgerald Scott. Scott was arrested in January 2012 and charged with unlawful entry, after a Supreme Court police officer told him he could not be inside the court building wearing the slogan-bearing jacket. (There actually is some dispute over what, exactly, the jacket's slogan said, but it definitely had the word Occupy.)

The criminal charges were eventually dropped. Scott sued, and brought into his arguments the claim that his arrest violated the First Amendment.

Jackson concluded police had reasonable cause to arrest Scott, under a federal statute that makes it unlawful to parade, stand or move in processions or assemblages" inside the court, or to display "a flag, banner or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization or movement."

Intriguingly, just a few weeks ago, a different D.C.-based judge <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Hodge-ruling.pdf" target="_self" style="text-decoration: none;">found the statute unconstitutional,</a> a finding that Jackson did not impinge on the facts in Scott's case.

</div>

</div><div style="text-align: left;">- See more at: http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/law/2013/07/supreme-court-occupy-everywhere-protestor-loses-suit.html#sthash.GQbUtLTD.dpuf</div></div>

Read more here: http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/law/2013/07/supreme-court-occupy-everywhere-protestor-loses-suit.html#storylink=cpy</div>

<h2 class="entry-header entry-title" style="text-align: left; margin: 0px;">Supreme Court 'Occupy Everywhere' protester loses suit</h2>

A #Scotus protester arrested while wearing an "Occupy Everywhere" slogan on a jacket has lost a false-arrest lawsuit.

The criminal charges were eventually dropped. Scott sued, and brought into his arguments the claim that his arrest violated the First Amendment.

</div>

Read more here: http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/law/2013/07/supreme-court-occupy-everywhere-protestor-loses-suit.html#storylink=cpy</div>

</div>

</div>

</div>