First Amendment

The snapshots seemed harmless, or so Chip Py thought. Strolling around downtown Silver Spring on a recent afternoon, the amateur photographer began shooting the architecture of one of the city's grandest revitalization efforts -- a popular mix of shops, restaurants and outdoor gathering spaces that has transformed the once sleepy downtown area. The photo shoot was cut short when a security guard ordered Py to stop, saying that photographs were not allowed on the private property. Py was upset.

THE SAME politicos and usual suspects who never understood that the only function of any impeachment is not punishment but removal from office now don't seem to understand that the collapse of impeachment against President Clinton does not and should not end a criminal process whose aim is punishment -- if indeed a crime has been committed. Even if the crime was committed not by the president but by Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr.Two investigations of Mr. Starr's tactics now are under way. The first is by the Justice Department to determine whether Mr. Starr breached any of the departmental prosecutorial guidelines that bind him. The other and more crucial one for Mr. Starr is by a special master appointed by Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson to determine whether Mr. Starr violated criminal law by leaking secret grand jury material to the press.

AGAIN, CONGRESS is moving toward a constitutional ban on desecration of the U.S. flag.Not a burning issue, you say?Perhaps that's because instances of flag desecration are so rare -- fewer than 50 since 1777, by one count.Yet, to outlaw so uncommon an offense, proponents of a constitutional amendment would place limits on the First Amendment -- a very bad idea that has a troubling amount of support in the 106th Congress.On an emotional level, it's easy to understand why so many lawmakers have lined up to be co-sponsors of the proposed amendment.

To offset thousands of dollars in costs for police and other services, Annapolis should toughen requirements for block parties, fun runs and other events staged in the city, a mayoral committee recommended yesterday.The committee urged that all nonprofit groups be required to foot half of Annapolis' event-related costs and that city officials re-examine their stadium parking agreement with the Naval Academy Athletic Association."This sets down a policy, which we really don't have now," said former Annapolis City Administrator John L. Prehn Jr., who chaired the committee.

An American Civil Liberties Union lawyer sharply criticized yesterday Annapolis officials' claims that protest marches might not be covered by the free speech guarantees of the Constitution."

WASHINGTON -- Believing that they are living up to the crusading tradition of Nellie Bly, but finding that the legal risks of doing so resemble the "Perils of Pauline," America's journalists who work undercover have come upon uncertain, even threatening, times.Like Bly, the New York World reporter in the late 19th century who pretended to be insane so she could get the inside story about abuses in asylums, today's scandal-pursuing journalists sometimes use deception to investigate stories that otherwise could be out of their reach.

An American Civil Liberties Union lawyer sharply criticized yesterday Annapolis officials' claims that protest marches might not be covered by the free speech guarantees of the Constitution."

MEMBERS of the U.S. Senate who may be wavering on whether to vote for the proposed flag-burning amendment would be well advised to remember what that flag symbolizes.Freedom of speech -- even objectionable and obnoxious expression, to be sure. So, to pass the amendment would be to agree to place limits on the First Amendment.The flag also represents acceptance of certain other values. Among those is respect for a Constitution that has served this country well and, therefore, should not be amended any and every time there's a Supreme Court decision that's unpopular in some circles.

PORTLAND, Ore. -- In an elegant federal courtroom 15 stories above the Willamette River, a jury will decide if posters and a Web site created by abortion opponents are protected by the First Amendment or are an invitation to violence.A civil suit by four doctors and two Portland women's clinics alleges that "wanted" posters and a Web site with the names, addresses and photographs of physicians who perform abortions amounted to a hit list that made them fear for their lives.The lawsuit seeks $200 million from 12 individuals and two anti-abortion groups.

WASHINGTON -- Ever since Britain's Princess Diana died in a Paris tunnel as her chauffeur tried to outrun a pack of paparazzi, the nation has been torn between its appetite for candid pictures of famous people and its distaste for the methods used to get them. Lawmakers have tried for years to rein in a tabloid media and still protect the public's right to know, each time running afoul of the First Amendment.But legislation sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and slated for introduction later this month could turn the tables in the skirmishes between the famous and the photographers who pursue them -- not to mention assuage the conscience of a nation hopelessly star-struck, but still believing that even celebrities need some space.

WASHINGTON - -The Supreme Court set the stage for a historic ruling on gun rights and the Second Amendment by agreeing Wednesday to hear a challenge to Chicago's ban on handguns. At issue is whether state and local gun-control ordinances can be struck down as violating the "right to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment. A ruling on the issue, expected by summer, could open the door to legal challenges to gun-control measures in other cities and states. The case also will decide whether the Second Amendment protects a broad constitutional right, similar to the First Amendment right to free speech or the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The O'Malley administration's attempt to ensure state police can pursue covert operations of legitimate concern on protest groups while protecting civil liberties falls short. That's because it favors the investigators. The legislation now before the Maryland General Assembly has loopholes that even the clumsiest spy could slip through, with or without his trench coat. The state police's past foray into domestic spying demonstrated what can happen when agents work on their own without adequate supervision and guidelines and for an indeterminate period of time: Groups of peaceniks, death penalty opponents and environmentalists are infiltrated without good cause.

Fairness Doctrine would protect public Re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine, or some version of it, would hardly be, as Ron Smith suggests, an imposition upon the First Amendment ("Will we let government squelch political speech?" Commentary, Oct. 29). Rush Limbaugh would remain free to spew his hate-filled tirades throughout our great land. Mr. Smith says that requiring stations to give equal time to opposing views might undermine talk radio's commercial viability. That is far from clear, but in any case, the First Amendment is silent on the question of its commercial success.

As one of the members of the Baltimore Pledge of Resistance who has been spied on by the Maryland State Police, I feel it important that people understand we in the Pledge of Resistance are the most peaceful, nonterrorist-type folks you could ever hope to meet. We are committed to raising awareness about the destructive forces of violence in our society and our country, which is one of the reasons we have protested the invasion of Iraq since before it occurred. It is because we love and value this country so much that we work to make it better, and we start by insisting that those in power obey its laws.

America has plenty of flaws - just look at how it elects a president. But for something to feel good about, consider this: When you learn that a magazine is on trial for, among other things, injuring the "dignity, feelings and self-respect" of a certain group of people, you can be sure such a thing isn't happening in the U.S. We often hear that America's stature is in decline, but it still seems as if the whole world drinks Coke, watches Lost and yearns...

You have no right to read this. The First Amendment gives me the right to write it but doesn't necessarily give you the right to read it. Or so I was once told by an attorney. While the right to free speech certainly implies a corresponding right to hear what is being spoken, he said, the First Amendment doesn't explicitly grant such a right. So theoretically, it could be argued that no such right exists. The key word being "theoretically." As a practical matter, the freedom to read whatever we choose is such an intrinsic part of our national character as to make legal theory superfluous.

In 1989, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. famously wrote in a case protecting the unpopular right to burn the American flag in protest "that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Late last month, a jury in Baltimore added a footnote to that legal aphorism that carved out an exception when that expression involves the ideas of the Rev. Fred Phelps and his Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro Baptist Church.

Leading constitutional scholars say the multimillion-dollar damages awarded this week to the father of a Marine killed in Iraq is likely to be overturned because the church members who protested at his son's funeral enjoy broad protection under the First Amendment. On Wednesday, a jury in federal District Court in Baltimore found in favor of Albert Snyder, the Marine's father. Jurors unanimously agreed that the Snyders' privacy had been breached by members of Westboro Baptist Church, who assembled on public property in Westminster on March 10, 2006, and waved anti-gay signs.

When a political party that has been a minority suddenly gains power, the change can be intoxicating. After Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in 1994, you didn't need a Breathalyzer to detect the effect. It became obvious the instant they started batting around ideas for amending the Constitution - everything from banning flag desecration to inventing new rights for crime victims. None of these went anywhere. Even the hyperkinetic Newt Gingrich soon realized he had his hands full with the normal business of legislating.

The snapshots seemed harmless, or so Chip Py thought. Strolling around downtown Silver Spring on a recent afternoon, the amateur photographer began shooting the architecture of one of the city's grandest revitalization efforts -- a popular mix of shops, restaurants and outdoor gathering spaces that has transformed the once sleepy downtown area. The photo shoot was cut short when a security guard ordered Py to stop, saying that photographs were not allowed on the private property. Py was upset.