---

Emory University Hospital has now approved the surgery, but the fight is not over. Sign the card, to show support for A.J. and his family. SIGN THE CARD!

 

Last weekend, Emory University Hospital agreed to proceed with the lifesaving kidney transplant surgery for 2-year-old A.J.¹ The hospital’s CEO Dr. Jonathan Lewin finally admitted it was a mistake to delay important medical treatment.² Emory University was completely wrong in the first place. The surgery was supposed to occur early last month — even with the signoff from Gwinnett County Jail. Instead, the hospital canceled because the father, Anthony Dickerson has a criminal past. To punish a child for his father’s past offenses is blatant discrimination

The fight is not over. We are showing up for A.J. and his family to make sure no other family endures this type of stress and agony.

A.J and his family’s strength has never wavered. We are sending a card to the family to let them know they are not alone in the struggle. Carmen, will you please sign the card today?

In just a short time, over 43,000 Color Of Change members like you signed the petition calling on Emory University Hospital to do the surgery for A.J. With the outpouring of community support in Atlanta, A.J. is on the path to finally receive the surgery he desperately needs. Too often returning citizens and their families are pushed to the margins and struggle to gain fair access to the most basic human rights such as healthcare. We need to show an institution like Emory University Hospital that they are not above the law nor should they dictate the right of a parent. Now we must make sure, the hospital follows through on its promise.

Sign the card today and let A.J. and his family know we are on their side and are fighting for them.

It is good news that Emory University has now approved the surgery. But we still need to keep up the pressure for systemic changes that holds medical institutions accountable for negligence and abuse of power. There is a long and frightening legacy of such institutions ostracizing and exploiting Black people. No family should have to hope, beg, and plead for urgent and lifesaving care. And no parent should have to justify their right to provide and care for their child. A.J. deserves a speedy recovery and the right to live as a free, happy child.

Please sign the card.

Thanks for supporting A.J. and his family,

Scott, Rashad, Arisha, Anay, Clarise, Enchanta, Malaya, Kristen, Katrese, and the rest of the Color Of Change team

References:

1.”Emory Healthcare Approves Kidney Transplant For 2-Year-Old A.J. Burgess,” Ice Cream Convos, 11-03-2017 http://act.colorofchange.org/go/10246?t=9&akid=8140%2E1174326%2EmNpeVI

2. “Kidney transplant for toddler closer to reality after hospital CEO admits mistake,” The Telegraph, 11-03-2017 http://act.colorofchange.org/go/10247?t=11&akid=8140%2E1174326%2EmNpeVI

 

 

Last night, civil rights lawyer Larry Krasner won a crucial District Attorney’s race in Philadelphia.

Krasner, who has defended Black Lives Matter activists in court, is on the record saying: ¹

1. “Policing and prosecution are both systemically racist…You have to be willing to study that to know exactly what points need to change. Then you have to be willing to push against it and train against it if you want to change that.”
2. “We need to end cash bail. We need to fix civil asset forfeiture so no one’s property is taken without conviction. We need to decarcerate. We need to stop the death penalty.”
3. “Every study confirms that good public education means less crime and yet we won’t fund public education. We just fund jail cells. That has to stop.”

Larry Krasner gets it. And this is exactly the type of bold, transformative leadership we need if we’re going to fix America’s broken criminal justice system which unfairly targets Black folks and other people of color.

Color Of Change PAC helped Larry Krasner win. During the primary election, we mobilized and trained 50 volunteers in Philadelphia and held two text-a-thons in the city. Together we sent 100,000+ peer-to-peer text messages to Black voters in Philly asking them to vote for Krasner. And he won!

In 2018, we want to do this but at a much larger scale. Color of Change PAC has a plan to flip DA races across the country. Will you contribute?

Yes, I want to help elect more District Attorneys like Larry Krasner across America.

With your donation we will:

1. Train volunteers around the country on how to use technology to mobilize Black voters and our allies
2. Scale up our cutting edge peer-to-peer texting program to turn out voters when it matters
3. Deploy hyper-targeted Facebook persuasion ads. Republicans are already doing this to suppress Black voter turnout. We need the resources to fight back.
4. Scope and build new technology that can help us win even BIGGER in 2018

…and so much more!

Here’s what’s at stake:

Black folks are 5x more likely to be incarcerated than white folks. Black women are imprisoned at the twice the rate of white women. Black children make up almost a third of all children arrested in the United States. Black people are unfairly targeted and over-incarcerated at every level! District Attorneys can help change this.²

District Attorney is one of the most powerful roles in our criminal justice system. They set prosecutor priorities and help shape sentencing. They can either choose to acknowledge that policing and prosecution are systematically racist, and commit to changing this reality – as Larry Krasner has – or run their offices like a sports league where all that matters is maximizing conviction counts

Larry Krasner calls this “a failed approach.” ¹ We believe that America can do better. We believe that America must do better by Black folks and all those unfairly targeted by bad District Attorneys.

Please chip in $20.18 (or another amount) to help transform America’s criminal justice system.

Until justice is real,

Arisha, Jenni, Bhavik, and the rest of the Color Of Change PAC team

Let’s elect Larry Krasners across America!
Sources:

1. https://act.colorofchange.org/go/10219?t=9&akid=8136%2E1174326%2EK0wNsY

2. http://act.colorofchange.org/go/10220?t=11&akid=8136%2E1174326%2EK0wNsY

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

by 1 For ALL

1. What is the First Amendment?
The First Amendment consists of the first 45 words of the Bill of Rights, ratified in December 1791, that protect the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. It serves as the blueprint for freedom of expression and religious liberty.

2. What is the value of the First Amendment to us and to the nation?
The First Amendment enables citizens to express their thoughts and beliefs in a free society. It allows citizens to practice whatever religion they wish — or no religion at all. Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government could establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government and citizens could not mobilize for or against social change.

 

3.The First Amendment starts with the words “Congress shall make no law …” But don’t we sometimes limit First Amendment freedoms?
Yes, at times we do limit First Amendment freedoms. While the text of the First Amendment references that “Congress shall make no law,” there are some limited types of speech that do not receive free-speech protection. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously expressed this point when he wrote that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Holmes’s famous phrase means that not all forms of speech are protected. For example, the First Amendment does not protect obscenity, child pornography, true threats, fighting words, incitement to imminent lawless action, criminal solicitation or defamation.

4. Does the First Amendment apply to private companies and organizations?
No. The First Amendment applies to the government — to protect individuals from government censorship. While the text of the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” it means that no federal, state or local government official can infringe on your free-speech rights. A private company is not a government or state and therefore generally is not subject to the requirements of the First Amendment.

5. How does the First Amendment protect religious liberty?
It protects religious liberty through the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” — provides for separation between church and state. The free exercise clause — “or the free exercise thereof” — means that individuals can hold whatever beliefs they wish on religion or nonreligion and to freely practice those beliefs.

6. What does the establishment clause mean?
This is a difficult question that divides legislators, educators and members of the Supreme Court. It clearly means that the government may not establish a national religion. It also means that the government may not pass a law that favors one religious sect or group over another. To many, it also means that the government may not pass a law that favors religion over nonreligion. These individuals believe that the establishment clause erects a “wall of separation” between church and state.

Many agree that the establishment clause erects a degree of separation, but they simply disagree exactly how high that wall should be. Some believe that the government can acknowledge religious influences in public life. Others believe that even “In God We Trust” on money violates the church-state separation principle. Many — including Supreme Court justices — cannot agree on the constitutionality of posting Ten Commandments displays on government property.

7. What is an example of an establishment of religion?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public school teachers cannot lead their students in prayer. The Court reasoned that teachers leading students in school would place coercive pressure upon religious minorities and make it appear that the government supported a particular religion.

8. What does free exercise of religion mean under the First Amendment?
It means that people have the right to freely practice their religious faith or practice no religious faith at all. It provides absolute protection for freedom of belief and a strong degree of protection for religious conduct. People can believe whatever they wish. However, sometimes the government can step in and regulate religious practices if it has a strong enough interest — called a compelling government interest — such as the protection of children.

9. Does the First Amendment apply to schools?
Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District that students do not “shed” their free-speech rights “at the schoolhouse gate.” This means that public school students retain some level of free-expression rights, even during the school day.

10. Do students have the same level of First Amendment rights as adults?
No. The Supreme Court also said that students’ rights must be considered against the “special characteristics of the school environment.” Speech that substantially disrupts school activities, for example, is not protected by the First Amendment.

11. Is speech on the Internet entitled to as much protection as speech in more traditional media?
Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Reno v. ACLU that speech on the Internet receives the highest level of First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court explained that “our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium.” This was an important ruling, because the government had argued that speech on the Internet could be controlled to a greater extent, just like the broadcast medium. Several civil liberties groups countered that speech on the Internet should be free and open and entitled to just as much protection as the print medium.

12. May students pray or discuss religion in public schools?
Yes, students have the right to pray and discuss religion in school. Public misperception has persisted on this topic since the U.S. Supreme court struck down school-sponsored prayer in the early 1960s. In those decisions, the high court ruled that the establishment clause does prohibit schools from allowing or engaging in school-sponsored prayer or encouraging students to pray.

But the free exercise clause protects the rights of students to pray on their own time. In fact, singling out student religious speech for punishment would indicate hostility toward religion and violate the basic First Amendment principle that the government may not punish a particular viewpoint.

This does not mean that students have an unfettered right to speak on religious subjects. Students can be punished for interrupting class time for any type of speech. Also, school officials can make sure that students are not speaking to an audience that is forced to hear them, or that they are harassing others by overzealously advocating their religious beliefs.

13. Does freedom of the press mean the news media can write or say anything they want?
Unless restricted by a valid prior restraint — which is rare — the news media are free to publish any information or opinion they desire. This freedom, however, does not immunize them from liability for what they publish. A newspaper that publishes false information about a person, for example, can be sued for libel. A television station similarly can be sued if it broadcasts a story that unlawfully invades a person’s privacy. Because such liability can be staggering, most journalists strive to exercise their freedom to publish in a responsible and ethical manner.

14. Is truth a defense in libel lawsuits?
Truth is an absolute defense against libel claims, because one of the elements that must be proven in a defamation suit is falsity. If a statement is true, it cannot be false, and therefore there is no prima facie case of defamation. There are numerous jurisdictions, including Florida, that have adopted the substantial-truth doctrine, which offers protection to a defendant of a defamation claim as long as the “gist” of the story is true.

15. What difference does it make in defamation if a person is a public official?
It makes a huge difference, because public officials and public figures have a much higher burden of proof to prove defamation than do private persons. In the 1964 ruling New York Times v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements regarding public officials, unless the statement was made with actual malice — “with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.” The Court set a new standard by requiring that a public-official defamation plaintiff show evidence of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. If the plaintiff is a private person, then he or she generally only needs to show that the defamer was at fault — or negligent — in making the statement.

16. Why are public officials and public figures treated differently in defamation law?
The reason for the distinction between public and private figures is that public officials often have greater access to channels of communication to counteract false statements. If a celebrity is defamed, he or she can call a press conference and rebut the statement. If a private person is defamed, he or she usually doesn’t have nearly the same level of access.

17. What is indecent speech?
Indecent speech generally refers to speech that is of a sexual or vulgar nature but does not cross the line into unprotected obscenity, or even material that is “harmful to minors.” Indecent speech is protected speech for adults, but often can be regulated for minors, particularly younger minors. Under rules of the Federal Communications Commission, broadcast indecency is “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” By “contemporary community standards,” the FCC means the standard “of an average broadcast viewer or listener and not the sensibilities of any individual complainant.”

18. What is the difference between the freedom of assembly and the freedom of association?
Freedom of assembly is explicitly guaranteed in the First Amendment, securing the right of people to meet for any purpose connected with government. Freedom of association protects the activities and composition of such meetings. This right is not explicitly set out in the Constitution but is instead derived from fundamental privacy interests and the rights of speech, petition and assembly.

19. How has freedom of assembly helped society?
Freedom of assembly was the essential freedom in the women’s suffrage movement of the 1910s and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. These protesters — often the in the face of public scorn and official arrest — braved the streets and sidewalks to denounce policies and to advocate positions that placed them in direct opposition to official authorities. Freedom of assembly enables people to gather together to make a powerful statement, a statement much more potent than anyone could make as a single individual.

20. What is petitioning?
Historically, a petition was a written request stating a grievance and requesting relief from a ruling authority, such as a king. In modern America, petitioning embraces a range of expressive activities designed to influence public officials through legal, nonviolent means

21. What does the petition clause of the First Amendment guarantee?
Courts seldom address the petition clause in isolation, instead grouping it with other rights to free association and collective speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that the right to petition at least provides the opportunity to institute nonfrivolous lawsuits and mobilize popular support to change existing laws in a peaceful manner

 

created by 1forall.us

KFI radio host Bill Handel called U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson a derogatory slur on air, twice. Tell KFI’s parent company, iHeartMedia, to immediately fire Bill Handel for his derogatory attack on Rep. Wilson!

Dear Friends,

Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) was called a “whore” TWICE by KFI radio host Bill Handel — we need to have her back.¹

After exposing Trump’s appalling and disrespectful remarks to a Gold Star widow, Myeshia Johnson, whose husband, Sgt. La David Johnson, was killed in Niger earlier this month, Rep. Wilson was repeatedly targeted by Trump and his administration.² Emboldened by Trump, right-wing radio hosts like Bill Handel made misogynistic and degrading attacks.

We cannot allow attacks like this to stand. iHeartMedia, the parent company of KFI has the power to remove Bill Handel from the airwaves. It’s time iHeartMedia stops profiting from hosts that attack Black women.

Demand iHeartMedia immediately fire Bill Handel!

Bill Handel and KFI have used their position on L.A. radio for decades to disparage and humiliate Black people and Black culture. From mocking the Kwanzaa holiday to quips about the Congressional Black Caucus serving grape soda at their parties.³ In 2012, KFI afternoon drive hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou of the John and Ken Show finally got themselves suspended after they called the late singer Whitney Houston a “crack ho” after years of insulting people of color.

The comments KFI and iHeartMedia are allowing their hosts to make are dangerous.They shape perceptions of Black people in the minds of viewers, and thus endanger Black people in neighborhoods, courtrooms, and classrooms across the country.⁴

That’s why we’re demanding that iHeartMedia immediately fire Bill Handel. Black womanhood have always been political–and disturbing “jokes” about appearances are a common go-to for misogynistic white supremacists who are trying to belittle Black women’s power. In just the last few months we have seen efforts like this repeated from Trump and right-wing media outlets – attacking powerful black woman like Rep. Maxine Waters, journalist April Hill, and ESPN TV host Jemele Hill. Research shows there are real life consequences for Black women when these dehumanizing attacks rule the day including diminished economic opportunities, less attention from doctors, and harsher sentences from judges.

Rebuke Bill Handel’s attack on Black womanhood and tell iHeartMedia to apologize for the segment now.

Few things upset a racist more than a powerful Black woman unapologetically exposing the illegitimacy of white supremacy and the power it wields–and Representative Frederica Wilson did that when she challenged Trump’s appalling comments to Gold Star widow, Myeshia Johnson.

If we continue to let KFI and iHeartMedia produce segments like the one with Bill Handel, without repercussions, we say that it’s okay for this show and shows like it to attack Black womanhood for ratings. And it’s not–they must be accountable for their cruel attacks. We can’t let this continue. We stand with Representative Frederica Wilson and we call on iHeartMedia to rebuke Bill Handel’s attack on Black womanhood.

Stand with Representative Frederica Wilson and tell iHeartMedia to fire Bill Handel now.

Until justice is real,

— Brandi, Rashad, Arisha, Johnny, Evan, Jade, Chad, Corina, the rest of the Color Of Change team.

References:

1. “L.A. Radio Host Insults Congresswoman at Center of Trump Controversy,” LA Weekly, 24 October 2017. http://act.colorofchange.org/go/9755?t=9&akid=8097%2E1174326%2EXGzYYv

2. “As Loved Ones Say Goodbye to US Soldier Killed in Niger, Trump Continues to Disrespect Congresswoman Affiliated With His Family,” The Root, 22 October 2017. https://act.colorofchange.org/go/9756?t=11&akid=8097%2E1174326%2EXGzYYv

3. “KFI Audio,” Jasmyne A. Cannick, 25 October 2017. https://act.colorofchange.org/go/9757?t=13&akid=8097%2E1174326%2EXGzYYv

4. “Opportunity for Black Men and Boys: Public Opinion Media Depictions and Media Consumption,” Opportunity Agenda, 2011. https://act.colorofchange.org/go/9759?t=15&akid=8097%2E1174326%2EXGzYYv