<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION</title>
	<atom:link href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org</link>
	<description>Defending Free Speech and Your Right to Know</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 01:01:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Antiwar website says it was spied on by FBI</title>
		<link>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/antiwar-website-says-it-was-spied-on-by-fbi/</link>
		<comments>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/antiwar-website-says-it-was-spied-on-by-fbi/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 01:01:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dick Rogers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[1st Amendment News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/?p=25470</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A lawsuit in San Francisco federal court seeks documents showing that the FBI has conducted secret surveillance on an antiwar website operated by two Bay Area men. The suit asserts that the FBI began targeting antiwar.com a decade ago and has documents indicating it considered the site a threat to national security. While the suit [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/antiwar-website-says-it-was-spied-on-by-fbi/">Antiwar website says it was spied on by FBI</a> appeared first on <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org">FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/antiwar-website-says-it-was-spied-on-by-fbi/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court upholds paper&#8217;s right to publish minor&#8217;s name</title>
		<link>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/court-upholds-papers-right-to-publish-minors-name/</link>
		<comments>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/court-upholds-papers-right-to-publish-minors-name/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 00:26:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dick Rogers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[1st Amendment News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of Speech/Press News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/?p=25467</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A California appellate court has ruled that newspapers have a constitutional right to publish the names of children who suffer abuse, as long as the name is newsworthy. According to the Sacramento Bee, the decision in favor of the Redding Record Searchlight upheld a ruling in Shasta County Superior Court. Full story</p><p>The post <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/court-upholds-papers-right-to-publish-minors-name/">Court upholds paper&#8217;s right to publish minor&#8217;s name</a> appeared first on <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org">FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/court-upholds-papers-right-to-publish-minors-name/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Furor over naming reporter as co-conspirator in leak case</title>
		<link>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/furor-over-naming-reporter-as-co-conspirator-in-leak-case/</link>
		<comments>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/furor-over-naming-reporter-as-co-conspirator-in-leak-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 19:00:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>donal brown</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[1st Amendment News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News & Opinion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/?p=25464</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>On the heels of news that the Justice Department seized phone records of Associated Press reporters, the Obama administration has further roiled the press with the revelation that a Fox News reporter was named in a court affidavit as a co-conspirator in the leak of classified information on North Korean missile activity. The case centered [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/furor-over-naming-reporter-as-co-conspirator-in-leak-case/">Furor over naming reporter as co-conspirator in leak case</a> appeared first on <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org">FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/furor-over-naming-reporter-as-co-conspirator-in-leak-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A&amp;A: School district denies all complaint related CPRA requests</title>
		<link>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/aa-school-district-denies-all-complaint-related-cpra-requests/</link>
		<comments>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/aa-school-district-denies-all-complaint-related-cpra-requests/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 16:00:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>1stamendmnt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asked & Answered]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News & Opinion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/?p=25449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Q: According to Title 5, California Code of Regulations, Section 4630: &#8220;All parties involved in allegations in a complaint shall be notified when a complaint is filed, when a complaint meeting or hearing is scheduled, and when a decision or ruling is made.” Allegations via the above code were filed against our family by parents [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/aa-school-district-denies-all-complaint-related-cpra-requests/">A&#038;A: School district denies all complaint related CPRA requests</a> appeared first on <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org">FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/aa-school-district-denies-all-complaint-related-cpra-requests/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal appeals court hears case on Facebook &#8216;like&#8217; as protected speech</title>
		<link>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/federal-appeals-court-hears-case-on-facebook-like-as-protected-speech-heard/</link>
		<comments>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/federal-appeals-court-hears-case-on-facebook-like-as-protected-speech-heard/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 17:36:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>donal brown</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[1st Amendment News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News & Opinion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/?p=25457</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard arguments on whether a Facebook &#8220;like&#8221; should enjoy protection as free speech under the First Amendment. An employee of the Hampton, Virginia sheriff&#8217;s department was fired after clicking the &#8220;like&#8221; button on the sheriff&#8217;s political opponent&#8217;s Facebook page. (Bloomberg News, May 16, 2013, by Tom Schoenberg) A [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/federal-appeals-court-hears-case-on-facebook-like-as-protected-speech-heard/">Federal appeals court hears case on Facebook &#8216;like&#8217; as protected speech</a> appeared first on <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org">FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/federal-appeals-court-hears-case-on-facebook-like-as-protected-speech-heard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A&amp;A: Facebook comments deleted from Senator&#8217;s page</title>
		<link>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/aa-facebook-comments-deleted-from-senators-page/</link>
		<comments>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/aa-facebook-comments-deleted-from-senators-page/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 08:00:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>1stamendmnt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asked & Answered]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News & Opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/?p=25447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Q: I am wondering if  it is legal or legitimate for a government official, for example a NYS Senator or U.S. Senator, to block me from commenting on what I presume to be their Facebook page that is managed by them or a government employee on government payroll time? I have had this happen to [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/aa-facebook-comments-deleted-from-senators-page/">A&#038;A: Facebook comments deleted from Senator&#8217;s page</a> appeared first on <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org">FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/aa-facebook-comments-deleted-from-senators-page/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Real outrage is that surveillance of AP reporters&#8217; phone calls was probably legal</title>
		<link>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/real-outrage-is-that-the-surveillance-of-ap-reporters-was-probably-legal/</link>
		<comments>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/real-outrage-is-that-the-surveillance-of-ap-reporters-was-probably-legal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 07:01:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Scheer</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Peter Scheer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/?p=25455</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The real outrage about the Justice Department&#8217;s use of secret subpoenas for the phone records of Associated Press journalists is that, based on the information that has surfaced to date, it was probably legal. Under federal law the Justice Department needs only a subpoena&#8211;a piece of paper that a US Attorney generates unilaterally, without any [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/real-outrage-is-that-the-surveillance-of-ap-reporters-was-probably-legal/">Real outrage is that surveillance of AP reporters&#8217; phone calls was probably legal</a> appeared first on <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org">FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/real-outrage-is-that-the-surveillance-of-ap-reporters-was-probably-legal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A&amp;A: Can an individual publish a legal notice in a newspaper??</title>
		<link>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/aa-can-an-individual-publish-a-legal-notice-in-a-newspaper/</link>
		<comments>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/aa-can-an-individual-publish-a-legal-notice-in-a-newspaper/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 08:23:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>1stamendmnt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Asked & Answered]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News & Opinion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/?p=25429</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Q: Is there any legal reason why  an individual would not be allowed to place a paid legal notice in a newspaper? The content is to inform the public about a woman being unlawfully tormented and hunted in the judicial system. A: I believe you are asking whether a newspaper that publishes legal notices is [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/aa-can-an-individual-publish-a-legal-notice-in-a-newspaper/">A&#038;A: Can an individual publish a legal notice in a newspaper??</a> appeared first on <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org">FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/aa-can-an-individual-publish-a-legal-notice-in-a-newspaper/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Administration dives for cover in AP phone record incident</title>
		<link>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/administration-dives-for-cover-in-ap-phone-record-incident/</link>
		<comments>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/administration-dives-for-cover-in-ap-phone-record-incident/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 16:58:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>donal brown</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[1st Amendment News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News & Opinion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/?p=25407</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Attorney General Eric Holder defended the seizure of Associated Press phone records in an investigation of leaks involving the CIA, saying that it was necessary to uphold national security. (The New York Times, May 14, 2013, by Charlie Savage and Scott Shane) But to insure that everyone believed their statements about the importance of free [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/administration-dives-for-cover-in-ap-phone-record-incident/">Administration dives for cover in AP phone record incident</a> appeared first on <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org">FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/administration-dives-for-cover-in-ap-phone-record-incident/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appeal in free speech case over graphic abortion images</title>
		<link>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/appeal-in-free-speech-case-over-graphic-abortion-images/</link>
		<comments>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/appeal-in-free-speech-case-over-graphic-abortion-images/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 19:51:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>donal brown</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[1st Amendment News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News & Opinion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/?p=25402</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The Thomas Moore Society has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Colorado Supreme Court decision in a case in which an anti-abortion protester was ruled disruptive for displaying large photos of aborted fetuses near a Palm Sunday procession with about 200 children present. Some of the children were upset by [...]</p><p>The post <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/appeal-in-free-speech-case-over-graphic-abortion-images/">Appeal in free speech case over graphic abortion images</a> appeared first on <a href="http://firstamendmentcoalition.org">FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION</a>.</p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://firstamendmentcoalition.org/2013/05/appeal-in-free-speech-case-over-graphic-abortion-images/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
