In lawsuit settlement, Smithfield, R.I. school district to unblock critic from social media accounts
The organization had alleged the block violated Mayer's First Amendment rights 'to speak and to petition the government for redress of grievances.' Both accounts are used to announce school policies and operations; 'to share content produced for the town's schools; and to communicate with constituents,' the ALCU said.
Get Rhode Map
A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Under the
The district will also pay for attorney's fees and court costs.
Advertisement
'Blocking a constituent from expressing their opinions on the basis of their identity or viewpoint undermines their fundamental First Amendment right to speak and to petition the government for redress of grievances,' ACLU cooperating attorney David Cass said in a statement. 'Thankfully, with the assistance of counsel for the Smithfield School Committee, we were able to achieve a quick resolution to the constitutionally inappropriate social media limitations that had been imposed by the Smithfield School Department and Superintendent.'
Bartz said in a statement on Thursday the district 'respects and values the right to free speech and remains committed to open communication with all members of our school community.'
'We recognize that social media is one avenue for public discourse, but we continue to believe that concerns are best addressed through the many in-person meetings and discussions we regularly offer to families and community members with any questions or concerns,' Bartz said. 'My focus remains on serving our students and ensuring our schools are safe, supportive, and welcoming environments for all.'
Richard Iannitelli, chair of the Smithfield School Committee, said the committee 'respects our legal guidance and is moving forward in full compliance with the settlement.'
Inannitelli also reaffirmed the committee's 'full support' for Bartz.
'While public officials must accept scrutiny, no one should be subjected to targeted or persistent negative online comments –particularly when there have been continued pathways for discussion and in-person engagement. We're focused on our leading priority – providing the best possible education for our students," Inannitelli said in a statement.
In 2021,
Advertisement
Material from a previous Globe story was used in this report.
Christopher Gavin can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
6 hours ago
Federal judge refuses to block Alabama law banning DEI initiatives in public schools
A federal judge on Wednesday declined a request to block an Alabama law that bans diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in public schools and the teaching of what Republican lawmakers dubbed 'divisive concepts' related to race and gender. U.S. District Judge David Proctor wrote that University of Alabama students and professors who filed a lawsuit challenging the law as unconstitutional did not meet the legal burden required for a preliminary injunction, which he called 'an extraordinary and drastic remedy.' The civil lawsuit challenging the statute will go forward, but the law will remain in place while it does. The Alabama measure, which took effect Oct. 1, is part of a wave of proposals from Republican lawmakers across the country taking aim at DEI programs on college campuses. The Alabama law prohibits public schools from funding or sponsoring any DEI program. It also prohibits schools from requiring students to assent to eight 'divisive concepts' including that fault, blame or bias should be assigned to a race or sex or that any person should acknowledge a sense of guilt, complicity or a need to apologize because of their race, sex or national origin. Six professors and students at the University of Alabama filed a lawsuit arguing that the law violates the First Amendment by placing viewpoint-based restrictions on what educators teach. The lawsuit also said the law unconstitutionally targets Black students because it limits programs that benefit them. Professors said they had altered what they taught in their classes in the wake of the law and the university's guidance about it. A professor said he reduced coverage of the Black Power movement, the Black Lives Matter movement and the white nationalist movement in the wake of the law. Another said five students had made complaints suggesting that the interdisciplinary honors program she administered had potential conflicts with the new legislation. The university also shuttered designated spaces for the Black Student Union and a resource center for LGBTQ+ students in the wake of the law. Proctor wrote that a professor's academic freedom does not override a university's decisions about the content of classroom instruction. 'Importantly, SB 129 does not banish all teaching or discussion of these concepts from campus or, for that matter, even from the classroom," Proctor wrote. 'To the contrary, it expressly permits classroom instruction that includes 'discussion' of the listed concepts so long as the 'instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement' of the concepts.' He added that the law appears to give notice about what is a violation. For example, he said a professor could not 'indoctrinate' students to believe that racial health disparities were the fault of one race of people but could still discuss the role of racism in health disparities. 'If, alternatively, the theory she teaches about is that there is empirical evidence that racism may be a cause for health disparities, or if she frames such teaching as merely a theory, she would not violate SB 129,' Proctor wrote. Will Creeley, legal director of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan First Amendment group, criticized the decision as dangerous and at odds with decades of Supreme Court precedent on academic freedom. 'Academic freedom protects the search for knowledge and truth from political pressure. That's the whole point," Creeley wrote in a statement. 'Faculty are hired to share and hone their expertise in a given field of study, not to read from a government script.'
San Francisco Chronicle
10 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
9 people plead not guilty in a Texas elections probe involving 'vote harvesting'
HOUSTON (AP) — Nine people, including a former mayor and city council member and the chief of staff to a state representative, pleaded not guilty on Wednesday to felony charges brought forth in a rural Texas county by Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton as part of a widening elections investigation that is being criticized by Latino rights activists as being politically driven. The nine people appeared either in person or by Zoom during a court hearing in Pearsall, Texas, before state District Judge Sid Harle. All of the nine people, who were indicted in late June, have been charged with what is known in Texas as vote harvesting, a felony that often involves payment for collecting and dropping off other people's absentee ballots. In May, six other people, including Frio County Judge Rochelle Camacho, the top elected official in the county, were indicted as part of Paxton's investigation. One of the individuals who pleaded not guilty on Wednesday was Juan Manuel Medina, who is the chief of staff for state Rep. Elizabeth Campos. Medina is also former chairman of the Democratic Party of Bexar County, where San Antonio is located. Medina's lawyer, Gerry Goldstein, declined to comment on Wednesday. 'I'm going to do my talking in the courtroom,' Goldstein said. On Wednesday, Goldstein filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against Medina, who is accused of providing compensation as a third party to two people for vote harvesting in February 2024. In the motion to dismiss, Goldstein said the vote-harvesting statute is overbroad, vague and 'restricts Constitutionally protected rights to speech and to participate in the election and voting process in violation of the First Amendment.' Goldstein said in the motion that the vote-harvesting statute 'would appear to punish a broad range of protected speech, including non-coercive voter assistance and core political expression, without requiring any actual voter fraud, coercion, or intimidation.' 'This indictment charges Medina in a capacity that is not a crime and the indictment should be dismissed,' Goldstein said in his 20-page motion. The vote-harvesting charges are third-degree felonies and carry up to 10 years in prison. The other people who were indicted in June are: Cecilia Castellano, a former candidate for state representative; Frio County Commissioner Raul Carrizales; former Dilley Mayor Mary Ann Obregon; former Dilley City Council member Inelda Rodriguez; Petra Davina Trevino, a former candidate for Pearsall city council; Pearsall school district trustee Mari Benavides; Susanna Carrizales; and Rachel Leal. Attorneys for Raul Carrizales, Susanna Carrizales, Castellano, Obregon and Rodriguez did not immediately return calls seeking comment. Attorneys for Benavides, Leal and Trevino could not immediately be reached for comment. Paxton's office and 81st Judicial District Attorney Audrey Gossett Louis, whose office presented the case to a grand jury with the Texas Attorney General's Office, did not return a call or email seeking comment. Last month, Paxton said that any elected official 'trying to cheat the system will have to answer for it.' 'Under my watch, attempts to rig elections and silence the will of the voters will be met with the full force of the law. I will continue to fight to ensure Texas has free and fair elections,' Paxton said in a statement. The indictments were the latest development in an investigation that Paxton started after the 2020 election to root out voter fraud, which is rare and typically occurs in isolated instances. Texas has tightened its voter laws in recent years and increased penalties that Democrats and opponents say are attempts to suppress turnout among Black and Latino voters.
Newsweek
11 hours ago
- Newsweek
Full List of Supreme Court Cases to Be Heard This Coming Fall Term
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court has released its October and November oral argument calendars for the 2025 term. Why It Matters The Supreme Court will begin its 2025 term on October 6. The justices are expected to hear several cases about issues that have drawn public interest, including redistricting and conversion therapy bans. A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, in Washington. A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, in Washington. Aaron M. Sprecher via AP Villareal v. Texas Oral arguments in Villareal v. Texas are scheduled for October 6. The case presents the question of whether a court violates a defendant's right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess. The petitioner, David Asa Villareal, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 60 years in prison. Villareal testified during the trial. On the first day of his testimony, the court declared a recess and dismissed the jury due to a previously scheduled administrative commitment. The court instructed Villarreal and his attorneys not to discuss his testimony during the 24-hour recess. "When a defendant confers with his attorney, the defendant's testimony permeates every aspect of counsel's advice," attorneys for Villareal wrote in a petition for a writ of certiorari. "There is no way to separate discussions of testimony from discussions of trial strategy. Prohibiting counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess is tantamount to preventing counsel from doing his or her job." Berk v. Choy The justices will also hear oral arguments in Berk v. Choy on October 6. The question presented in this case is whether a state law requiring the dismissal of a complaint if it is not accompanied by an expert affidavit may apply in federal court. Chiles v. Salazar The Court will hear arguments in Chiles v. Salazar on October 7. The justices will consider whether a Colorado state law banning conversion therapy for minors by mental health counselors violates free speech rights. The petitioner, Kaley Chiles, is a licensed counselor. "A practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God's design, including their biological sex," attorneys for Chiles wrote in a petition for a writ of certiorari. "Many of her clients seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires. But Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express." Attorneys for the respondents said legal precedent holds that the First Amendment permits states to regulate the practice of conversion therapy, "like other unsafe and ineffective health care treatments, even when those treatments involve speech." Barrett v. United States Oral arguments in Barrett v. United States are scheduled for October 7. The petitioner, Dwayne Barrett, was convicted of aiding a robbery by driving the codefendant to the scene, aiding the use of a gun during that robbery, a "crime of violence," and aiding the use of a gun used to kill during a "crime of violence." The justices will consider whether Barrett's sentencing on two charges violated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections The justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments in Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections on October 8. One petitioner in this case is Representative Mike Bost, a Republican from Illinois. The Court will consider whether the petitioners have presented sufficient factual allegations to challenge state time, place and manner regulations concerning federal elections. Postal Service v. Konan Oral arguments in Postal Service v. Konan are scheduled for October 8. The case centers around an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act barring lawsuits for claims arising out of the "loss" or "miscarriage" of "letters or postal matter." The justices will consider whether the exception applies to claims that arise from a USPS employee's intentional failure to deliver mail to a designated address. Bowe v. United States The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Bowe v. United States on October 14. The case centers around procedural questions related to the application of the federal laws governing post-conviction relief for federal prisoners. Ellingburg v. United States Oral arguments in Ellingburg v. United States are scheduled for October 14. The Court will consider whether a restitution order, imposed as part of a criminal sentence, violates a clause of the Constitution barring laws that retroactively increase the punishment for a crime or criminalize conduct that was legal when it occurred. Louisiana v. Callais Louisiana v. Callais, a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map, is set for reargument on October 15. The justices first heard arguments in the redistricting case earlier this year. The Court will consider whether the map is racially gerrymandered to create majority-minority districts and whether the new districts violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The case was consolidated with Robinson v. Callais. Case v. Montana The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Case v. Montana on October 15. The justices will consider whether law enforcement can enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring. Petitioner William Trevor Case alleges that law enforcement entered his home without a warrant and seized evidence used to prosecute Case for a felony. Case's ex-girlfriend had previously called law enforcement and said Case had threatened suicide during an argument over the phone. Rico v. United States Oral arguments in Rico v. United States are scheduled for November 3. The Court will consider whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release. Petitioner Isabel Rico had her supervised release revoked by a court because she had been deemed a fugitive by a probation office in 2018. Hencely v. Fluor Corporation The Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Hencely v. Fluor Corporation on November 3. The justices will consider whether a member of the U.S. armed forces who was injured in a military base bombing can sue the government contractor who employed the bomber. Hamm v. Smith The Court will hear arguments in Hamm v. Smith on November 4. The question presented is whether and how courts should assess a claim by a defendant that he cannot be executed because he is intellectually disabled. The Alabama Department of Corrections argues that Joseph Smith is not intellectually disabled, citing multiple IQ tests where he scored higher than the level required to prove intellectual disability under the law. The Department of Corrections is asking the Court to reverse a lower court's decision overturning Smith's sentence. Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist Oral arguments in Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist are scheduled for November 4. The case asks whether a district court's final judgment must be vacated when an appeals court later determines that it erroneously dismissed a party from the case when it was transferred to federal court. Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton The justices will hear oral arguments in Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton on November 5. Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety Oral arguments in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety are set for November 10. The Court will consider whether an inmate can file a lawsuit against a government official for violations of a federal law that protects the religious rights of prisoners, rather than the government entity that employs the official. Damon Landor, the petitioner, is a practicing Rastafarian. He alleges that he was held down by two prison guards while his head was shaved. Landor sued several officials and the Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety. A district court found that the law does not allow for damages against individual state officials. The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal The Court is expected to hear arguments in The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal on November 10. Fernandez v. United States The justices will hear arguments in Fernandez v. United States on November 12. The Court will consider whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" that may justify a lower sentence can also be cited as reasons to vacate a sentence in a motion for post-conviction relief. Rutherford v. United States Oral arguments in Rutherford v. United States are scheduled for November 12. The case has been consolidated with Carter v. United States. The case also relates to "extraordinary and compelling reasons" allowing for a reduced sentence. The justices will consider whether a district court can address disparities created by the First Step Act's prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentencing reduction. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
