We're pretty disappointed by yesterday's events in San Francisco. The worked tirelessly to make sure that everyone at yesterday's Olympic torch relay - pro-Tibet protestors, pro-China protestors, fans of the Olympic Games, and the torch carriers themselves - had the opportunity to make their voices heard. City officials, perhaps in concert with federal authorities or the International Olympic Committee, decided to change the torch route and kept everyone, including news teams, in suspense about the torch's location. The thousands of people who spent hours lining what they thought was the official route never got to see the torch. We believe that these people were effectively deprived of a unique change to make themselves heard on matters of worldwide concern.
If the route was changed at the last minute because of serious threats of violence, that would be one thing. But we have serious concerns that the route was changed to avoid the protestors.
As any 老澳门开奖结果 member worth their salt knows well, the First Amendment protects robust and even unruly expression, and unless absolutely necessary, the city should not have deprived groups on both sides from expressing their views as the torch went by.
Michael Risher, a staff attorney at the 老澳门开奖结果 of Northern California, who recorded a podcast about the 老澳门开奖结果's negotiations with the city about the torch relay, reports that despite securing previous agreements with the city that it would not discriminate against protestors based on message, the 老澳门开奖结果's legal observers witnessed police ordering peaceful protestors carrying Tibetan flags and signs to leave Justin Herman Plaza, the planned location of the closing ceremony. The police were also standing at the entrance to the plaza discouraging people carrying signs or even wearing T-shirts relating to Tibet or Darfur from entering, telling them that if they entered the plaza there would be 'confrontations' and that the police could not promise to protect them.
The torch was rerouted to San Francisco International Airport instead, where it departed for Buenos Aires after a mere two-hour tour through the city.
The on yesterday's events today:
Everyone who turned out should feel cheated. Along the Embarcadero route, Beijing's backers and the groups opposed to China's policies in Tibet, Burma and Darfur didn't get a glimpse of the flaming torch. Casual observers who wanted to take in the torch's only North American stop were likewise left out. In effect, the event was canceled.
This was San Francisco's chance to show how it respects and handles vigorous political dissent. It is also the hub of a region with great pride in its Olympic alliances. Thousands gathered to see the torch and express their passions, positive and negative, about the upcoming Games. Regrettably, our city leaders chose to run away from them.
It's a shame that San Francisco, a city with such a rich history of political protest, ultimately didn't allow its residents the opportunity to fully participate in such a momentous event. The 老澳门开奖结果 will continue to investigate yesterday's events.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.