Videos

Town Wants Mural Torn Down Because it Shows ... Donuts

Town officials in Conway, New Hampshire, are trying to force a local bakery to paint over a mural made by local school students.

In June, students from Kennett High School painted ...a colorful mural above the front door of Leavitt’s Country Bakery on White Mountain Highway. The mural features a New England mountain landscape made entirely of baked goods, such as donuts, scones and muffins. Leavitt’s owner Sean Young said at the time, he thought the mural “would be a fun project for kids and good for the community.”

But no good deed goes unpunished. Two months later, town officials decided that they would treat the students’ mural as a “sign” subject to strict size and location restrictions. Why? Simply because the mural’s mountainscape depicts baked goods like those sold at the bakery. Thus, officials believe the sign should be treated as an advertisement.

But Conway’s treatment of Leavitt’s mural as a “sign” is discriminatory and contrary to the First Amendment. The Institute for Justice is helping the bakery fight back.

Learn more about this case here: https://ij.org/case/new-hampshire-donut-mural/[+] Show More

Town Wants Mural Torn Down Because it Shows ... Donuts

Town officials in Conway, New Hampshire, are trying to force a local ...

Home Bakers Win Big Victory over Interest Groups

#shorts Learn more details about this case at ...

EXPOSED: Seattle's "Affordable" Housing Law

Seattle, like many cities, is experiencing a housing shortage—or what ...

Seattle, like many cities, is experiencing a housing shortage—or what some city leaders call a “crisis.” But in an attempt to address it, Seattle has only made matters worse.

https://ij.org/case/seattle-housing-affordability/

In 2019, ...the city created the Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA) Program, which places unique burdens on anyone building in certain zones throughout the city. In so doing, the city’s attempt to make housing more affordable has done just the opposite: it has made it more expensive to build affordable housing.

The city was warned that this would happen. The city-commissioned report on MHA’s “economic feasibility” acknowledged that its burdensome costs would stall new housing construction in the bottom third of the housing market. Nevertheless, the city put MHA into effect—trumpeting it as a “grand bargain” with “major players,” including large developers. But for ordinary Seattleites, MHA is no bargain.

Longtime Central District homeowner Anita Adams knows this firsthand. Anita wants to build a modest addition to house her two adult children. But before she can get a building permit, the city demands that she either build additional “affordable” housing units or pay nearly $77,000 into the MHA program. Those fees make Anita’s plans impossible—and leave the city with fewer affordable housing units.

Anita is not alone. Across the city, anyone wishing to construct a home must face incomprehensibly high fees or burdensome and intrusive new housing mandates levied in the name of “affordable housing.” And yet, the laws of basic economics (and common sense) dictate that these costs result in higher rents and fewer housing options.

Fortunately for Anita, the Constitution dictates that governments cannot use the permitting process as an opportunity to coerce money from property owners, and certainly not at the expense of the city’s middle- and low-income residents. Anita has partnered with the Institute for Justice to challenge Seattle’s counterproductive and unconstitutional MHA program and clear the way for homeowners to develop their own land without paying exorbitant fees.[+] Show More

California criminalizes... drawing maps??

Learn more about Ryan's case at ...

Judge CAUGHT leading an illegal search party

Learn more about Matthew's case here: ...

Modern day involuntary servitude??

#shorts Learn more about IJ's petition to the Supreme Court here: ...

Citizen Journalist Arrested and Prosecuted for His Reporting

Justin Pulliam was standing still when a Fort Bend County deputy ...

Justin Pulliam was standing still when a Fort Bend County deputy walked up and arrested him for interfering with the police in December 2021. While Justin had permission from the ...property owner to record a mental health call and was far from the active scene, the deputy cuffed him and put him in a squad car. Justin was forced to undergo a strip search and spent several hours in jail, during which the Sheriff personally called Justin in for a meeting and became angry when Justin refused to speak to him without a lawyer present.

This was not the first time that Justin had problems with the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Office. In July 2021, Justin was excluded from a press conference at Sheriff Eric Fagan’s explicit direction. The First Amendment prohibits government officials from unreasonably restricting an individual’s right to record the police, and it doesn’t let them decide who is or isn’t a journalist. Today, Justin filed a federal lawsuit against the Sheriff and his deputies with the Institute for Justice (IJ), a non-profit public interest law firm that defends free speech nationwide.

“Arresting and prosecuting Justin is a violation of his First Amendment rights, and it can’t stand,” said IJ Attorney Tori Clark. “The Sheriff may not like Justin’s style, but the government doesn’t have the power to single out journalists because they don’t like their viewpoint.”

Justin believes that local government has the greatest impact on our daily lives and that our freedom depends on its transparency and accountability. He reports on everything from city council meetings to vehicle accidents—events that traditional media outlets typically do not cover. His videos are uploaded onto his YouTube channels, such as Corruption Report, and other social-media sites.

“Sheriff Fagan is unfairly discriminating against me because I sometimes criticize the police and other government officials,” said Justin. “It’s outrageous that I was harassed, arrested and prosecuted for exercising our constitutionally protected rights to film and report about activities by public officials from a different perspective. Filming the police makes communities safer and increases accountability.”

Journalism and political commentary like Justin’s are at the heart of the First Amendment. Justin gathers information about, broadcasts, and reports on government officials’ public activities. Independent journalists like Justin are increasingly stepping into gaps left by traditional media outlets in recent years.

The lawsuit seeks to protect Justin’s First Amendment rights in two ways. First, the public is allowed to record police subject only to reasonable restrictions. Again, Justin was far from interfering with police activities. Second, government officials cannot treat independent journalists differently from members of the established media or other members of the public. The deputy who arrested Justin singled him out from others on the scene just because Justin was recording. And the Sheriff excluded Justin from the press conference, which occurred at a public park, while choosing to answer questions from other news crews on site.

“Filming the police and other officials conducting public business is good for everyone,” said IJ Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes. “It protects the public from police abuse, and it protects the police from false accusations of wrongdoing. We want to protect the rights of Justin and every other American to document government officials.”

Background music via https://www.FesliyanStudios.com[+] Show More

[DASHCAM] Police Caught Red-handed Making Bogus Traffic Stop

We expect police officers to pull people over for speeding or running ...

WATCH: Rogue Judge Leads Warrantless Search Party Through Man's Home

Man fights to uphold court ruling that judges aren't above the law. ...

Man fights to uphold court ruling that judges aren't above the law.

https://ij.org/case/west-virginia-judicial-field-trip/

Judges are not entitled to do whatever they want, and then demand special treatment just because they happen to ...wear a robe at work. But that’s exactly what happened in Raleigh County, West Virginia.

During divorce proceedings between Matthew Gibson and his ex-wife, Raleigh County family-court judge Louise Goldston personally forced her way into Matthew’s home to search for items that were in dispute. Goldston—accompanied by Matthew’s ex-wife and the ex-wife’s attorney, among others—walked barefoot through the house, ordering Matthew’s ex-wife to seize DVDs, yearbooks, and pictures off the wall. Some of the items didn’t even belong to Matthew’s ex-wife. And when Matthew tried to record the encounter, the judge threatened him with arrest. Goldston was ultimately censured and fined, and roundly condemned, by the West Virginia high court for violating the state’s code of judicial conduct.

When Matthew sued for these egregious violations of his privacy and free-speech rights, Goldston argued that she was not liable—even if she had violated the Constitution—by invoking a court-made doctrine called judicial immunity. Judicial immunity, as the name suggests, shields judges from liability only for things they do in their roles as judges. Goldston argued that she was entitled to judicial immunity’s special protections for leading a search party through Matthew’s home.

But judicial immunity is reserved for judicial actions, and searching someone’s home is not a judicial act. Just like police officers cannot act like judges, judges cannot act like police officers. The trial court correctly recognized this principle and denied Goldston judicial immunity for her actions. Nonetheless, Goldston is now appealing that decision to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On appeal, Matthew is teaming up with the Institute for Justice to protect important constitutional guarantees by holding judges accountable.[+] Show More

78-Yr-Old Grandma Arrested for Feeding the Needy??

Watch the full case video here: ...

NY Cops Took $8k from an Innocent Woman, Offered to Split her Money

Watch the full case video here: ...

Arrested at Gunpoint for Joking About COVID and Zombies

https://ij.org/case/bailey-v-iles/

Do THIS when police pull you over for no reason.

Learn more: http://www.ij.org

The Eric André Airport Search Is Not an Isolated Incident

For 30 years, IJ has come to the aid of real people fighting ...

Grandma Arrested for Feeding People in Need

In Bullhead City, Arizona, your kindness might cost you your freedom. ...

In Bullhead City, Arizona, your kindness might cost you your freedom. It nearly did for Norma Thornton, a 78-year-old grandmother who was arrested and criminally charged for feeding those in ...need in Bullhead City. Under a new ordinance, the city has deemed it a criminal misdemeanor—punishable by fines and even imprisonment—to share prepared food in a public park “for charitable purposes.” As the city attorney clarified, people may freely share food in public parks at “social events, which would include a party.” But be sure your “party” doesn’t include any homeless people, or you might go to jail.

https://ij.org/case/arizona-charitable-giving/

That’s the city’s lesson for Norma Thornton. Norma operated a restaurant before retiring to Bullhead City in 2017. Bullhead City is a city of 40,000, neighboring the Colorado River on Arizona’s western border. In Bullhead City Community Park, Norma encountered people in need—that is, people who could barely afford housing nearby, as well as people experiencing homelessness. Though no one spends nights at the park (retreating to federal land nearby), some come together in the day in the public park, where they can take advantage of shade, benches, and restrooms. She learned that the nearest shelters and food pantries are miles away, and their resources and availability are limited, leaving dozens hungry each night. So Norma decided to use her career skills to share nutritious, hot, homecooked meals with people in the park. For more than four years, Norma would regularly bring her food to the picnic tables there, sharing with anyone who asked.

That all changed on March 8, 2022. Just as she was performing her usual cleanup of the area, Norma was arrested and criminally charged with violating the city’s ordinance. Norma refused to plead guilty as she felt she’d done nothing wrong; months later (after hearings in criminal court), the city dropped the charge—but only while clarifying that if Norma does it again, the city would throw her in jail. Now, Norma shares her food in a private alley—without shade in the scorching heat, without tables or a seating area, without a place for people to wash their hands, and out of sight of people who could use her help.

Homelessness is, of course, a complicated and serious problem. But criminalizing acts of charity isn’t the solution. What’s more, it’s unconstitutional. That’s why on October 25, 2022, Norma joined with the Institute for Justice (IJ) in filing a new federal lawsuit against Bullhead City. The lawsuit asks the court to strike down the city’s ordinance and allow Norma, and people like her, to share food in the park.[+] Show More

Videos

Town Wants Mural Torn Down Because it Shows ... Donuts

Stay Informed