红杏视频

PROVIDENCE, R.I. 鈥� Four arts organizations filed a motion for summary judgment today, arguing that the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is violating the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Administrative Procedure Act in its implementation of an executive order that prohibits federal funding for 鈥済ender ideology.鈥� If the motion is granted, the suit could be resolved without trial. The motion comes after the NEA admitted that it would judge projects based on whether they 鈥減romote鈥� what the government deems to be 鈥済ender ideology鈥� and after it reinstated a requirement that grant applicants agree to abide by all executive orders when applying. 鈥淭heatre is one of our most powerful reflections of humanity鈥攁 space where truth-tellers and artists hold up a mirror to our lives, our struggles, and our joys,鈥� said LaTeshia Ellerson, co-executive director of national engagement at Theatre Communications Group. 鈥淥n stage, we see ourselves through the eyes of artists who dare to reveal the deepest parts of who we are. The First Amendment protects this essential freedom to create without fear of censorship or discrimination. As we join our co-plaintiffs in filing this motion, we urge the court to affirm what is both constitutionally and morally clear: all artists and storytellers have the right to be heard.鈥� The suit was first filed in March after the NEA began requiring applicants to attest that they would not promote 鈥済ender ideology鈥� in order to be eligible for funding and blocked any projects that appeared to promote 鈥済ender ideology鈥� from getting an award. In April, the court held that the NEA鈥檚 decision to make any project that 鈥減romotes鈥� what the government calls 鈥済ender ideology鈥� ineligible for funds likely violated the First Amendment and exceeded its statutory authority. 鈥淭he First Amendment protects our right to artistic freedom,鈥� said Adam Odsess-Rubin, founding artistic director at National Queer Theater. 鈥淨ueer art is American art, and censorship is un-American. We will continue to fight for our constitutionally protected freedom of speech.鈥� In response to the litigation, the NEA paused the 鈥済ender ideology鈥�-specific certification requirement. More recently, however, it reinstated the requirement that applicants comply with all executive orders. 鈥淭he NEA has admitted that it is screening art projects for 鈥榞ender ideology,鈥欌�� said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the 红杏视频鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淭his is a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment. By judging projects based on whether they fit the government鈥檚 worldview, the NEA is abandoning its statutory role to fund works based on excellence and merit, as well as violating the free expression rights of artists across the country.鈥� 鈥淲e know that the NEA is not upholding the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment,鈥� said Steven Brown, executive director of the 红杏视频 of Rhode Island. 鈥淚f Rhode Island Latino Arts鈥� grant application, and all the plaintiffs鈥� applications, are denied funding because of ideology, then this would be a major step backward in our collective right to freedom of speech. We are hopeful the court will not accept the NEA鈥檚 troubling arguments.鈥� The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Rhode Island, David Cole, and Lynette Labinger, cooperating counsel for the 红杏视频-RI, filed the motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island on behalf of Rhode Island Latino Arts; National Queer Theater; The Theater Offensive; and the Theatre Communications Group. The motion can be viewed here.

WASHINGTON 鈥� The Supreme Court issued a blow to freedom of speech and privacy today by upholding Texas legislation that requires invasive age verification to access online content. Today鈥檚 ruling conflicts with decades of Supreme Court precedent protecting the free speech rights of adults to access sexual content online. But it is also a limited opinion that does not permit age verification for non-sexual content online. 鈥淭he Supreme Court has departed from decades of settled precedents that ensured that sweeping laws purportedly for the benefit of minors do not limit adults鈥� access to First Amendment-protected materials,鈥� said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the 红杏视频. 鈥淭he Texas statute at issue shows why those precedents applying strict scrutiny were needed. The legislature claims to be protecting children from sexually explicit materials, but the law will do little to block their access, and instead deters adults from viewing vast amounts of First Amendment-protected content.鈥� Texas鈥檚 H.B. 1181 mandates that any website where one-third or more of its content is deemed sexual in a way that is 鈥渉armful to minors鈥� must require visitors to prove they are adults before accessing the site. The act defines 鈥渟exual material harmful to minors鈥� as material that is obscene from the perspective of an average person considering the material鈥檚 effect on minors. 鈥淭oday's decision does not mean that age verification can be lawfully imposed across the internet,鈥� said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the 红杏视频 Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. 鈥淲ith this decision, the court has carved out an unprincipled pornography exception to the First Amendment. The Constitution should protect adults鈥� rights to access information about sex online, even if the government thinks it is too inappropriate for children to see." The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit鈥檚 ruling that mere rational basis scrutiny applies, instead imposing intermediate scrutiny, but it affirmed the Fifth Circuit Court鈥檚 ultimate conclusion that the law survives 鈥� and refused to apply strict scrutiny, as challenges to content-based laws typically do. However, the Texas law burdens adults鈥� ability to access sexual materials, requiring individuals to disclose personal information vulnerable to surveillance and data breaches just to access online content. The law also ultimately fails to achieve its intended purpose. Because the law only applies if one-third of a site鈥檚 content is explicit, the online sites where minors are most likely to be exposed to sexual content, like forums or social media platforms, are not affected. 鈥淎s it has been throughout history, pornography is once again the canary in the coal mine of free expression,鈥� said Alison Boden, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition. 鈥淭he government should not have the right to demand that we sacrifice our privacy and security to use the internet. This law has failed to keep minors away from sexual content yet continues to have a massive chilling effect on adults. The outcome is disastrous for Texans and for anyone who cares about freedom of speech and privacy online.鈥� The Supreme Court repeatedly heard cases on this issue in the past, many of which were brought by the 红杏视频, and had consistently held that requiring users to verify their age to access protected content is unconstitutional where there are less restrictive alternatives available, like filtering software. The Free Speech Coalition is represented by Quinn Emanuel, the 红杏视频, and the 红杏视频 of Texas. This case is a part of the 红杏视频鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket. The decision can be read here.

The 红杏视频 has served as counsel or filed amicus briefs in more than half of the cases that the Supreme Court will decide today.

WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of the District of Columbia (红杏视频-DC), the 红杏视频 of Colorado (红杏视频-CO), and the 红杏视频 of Minnesota (红杏视频-MN) filed amicus briefs urging the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to block the enforcement of President Trump鈥檚 recent executive order defunding National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The order, titled 鈥淓nding Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,鈥� directs the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal agencies to terminate all direct and indirect funding to NPR and PBS in explicit retaliation for the broadcasting organizations鈥� editorial and journalistic choices, which the order characterizes as 鈥渂iased鈥� and 鈥減artisan.鈥� NPR and PBS each filed lawsuits challenging the executive order, National Public Radio, Inc. v. Trump and Public Broadcasting Service v. Trump. The amicus briefs support the outlets鈥� respective motions for summary judgment in those cases, arguing that the executive order constitutes a flagrant violation of the First Amendment because it retaliates against both speakers solely for their constitutionally protected speech, including the words they choose to use in coverage and what stories they choose to highlight. The briefs also argue that the order unconstitutionally restricts federal funding, including funds appropriated for local public broadcasters throughout the country to use as they see fit, based on President Trump鈥檚 disapproval of NPR鈥檚 and PBS鈥� news coverage. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 have a Ministry of Propaganda in the United States,鈥� said Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney with the 红杏视频鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淭he First Amendment prohibits President Trump from withholding federal funds expressly appropriated to support the free and independent press as punishment for news coverage he hates.鈥� The executive order accuses NPR and PBS of 鈥渂iased and partisan news coverage鈥� and mandates punitive measures, including barring their receipt of any federal funds, prohibiting local public broadcasters from using any federal funds they receive to license NPR or PBS programming, and threatening to defund local public broadcasters who continue to associate with the outlets. The order鈥檚 accompanying fact sheet and press release further attack NPR鈥檚 and PBS鈥� editorial decisions on public health, transgender rights, and political investigations 鈥� reinforcing that the order is fundamentally rooted in viewpoint discriminatory animus against the outlets. The brief emphasizes that while the government may allocate funds to promote its own speech, it cannot penalize independent media outlets for expressing disfavored views, including by denying them access to subsidies appropriated by Congress to support independent, noncommercial programming on radio and television. NPR鈥檚 programming 鈥� including its flagship show 鈥淎ll Things Considered,鈥� the most listened-to afternoon drive-time news radio program in the country 鈥� is speech on matters of public concern lying at the heart of the First Amendment. Likewise, the public affairs programming produced and distributed by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) 鈥� including PBS NewsHour, which has a nightly audience of 2.1 million viewers 鈥� serves as a vital platform for public debate. In addition to punishing the outlets for their constitutionally protected speech, the order threatens the financial stability of local broadcasters who rely on federal funds to license the outlets鈥� programming. It also deprives local communities throughout the country of access to beloved, noncommercial sources of information about public affairs, educational programming for children, artistic expression, and cultural commentary. 鈥淛ust as the government cannot shut down a newspaper because it dislikes its editorials, it may not defund NPR and PBS because it disapproves of their reporting,鈥� said Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at the 红杏视频 of the District of Columbia. 鈥淩etaliating against journalists for doing their job is the antithesis of democracy and a clear violation of the freedom of press.鈥� 鈥淣PR, Colorado Public Radio, and other public radio stations help ensure that communities across the country are informed and can engage in civic life,鈥� said Tim Macdonald, legal director at the 红杏视频 of Colorado. 鈥淧unishing public media because the government does not like their reporting is characteristic of autocracies seeking to deprive communities of information, not democracies.鈥� 鈥淪imply put, this executive order is a violation of the First Amendment,鈥� said 红杏视频-MN legal director Teresa Nelson. 鈥淧resident Trump is free to voice his disagreements with PBS, NPR, and any other media outlet鈥檚 programing, but he cannot use the power of the presidency to arbitrarily defund media organizations he dislikes.鈥� The amicus briefs warn that the executive order threatens the editorial independence of local public broadcasters nationwide, undermines the congressionally mandated purpose of the Public Broadcasting Act, and endangers essential infrastructure like the Public Radio Satellite System, which reaches 99 percent of the U.S. population and plays a critical role in national emergency communications. You can find the briefs online here and here.