{"id":468922,"date":"2021-03-31T13:43:24","date_gmt":"2021-03-31T17:43:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.marketnewsdesk.com\/?p=468922"},"modified":"2021-03-31T13:43:24","modified_gmt":"2021-03-31T17:43:24","slug":"ncla-satirical-tweet-case-against-nlrb-garners-strong-amicus-support-over-free-speech-concerns","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.marketnewsdesk.com\/index.php\/ncla-satirical-tweet-case-against-nlrb-garners-strong-amicus-support-over-free-speech-concerns\/","title":{"rendered":"NCLA Satirical Tweet Case Against NLRB Garners Strong Amicus Support over Free Speech Concerns"},"content":{"rendered":"

\nFDRLST Media, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board
\n<\/h2>\n
\n

Washington, D.C., March 31, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Liberty-minded organizations, distinguished civil liberties activists, including former ACLU president Nadine Strossen, and prominent entertainers, Penn and Teller, are among the amici curiae<\/i>\u00a0who have filed briefs in support of the arguments presented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group in the satirical tweet case, FDRLST Media v. NLRB.<\/i><\/p>\n

NCLA\u2019s appellate brief<\/a> asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to reverse the flawed\u00a0ruling<\/a> of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from last November, which concluded that Mr. Domenech\u2019s\u00a0satirical tweet<\/a>\u00a0from his personal account constituted an unfair labor practice by his employer. FDRLST Media, publisher of the online magazine\u00a0The Federalist<\/em>, is fighting back because NLRB has neither subject-matter jurisdiction over this case nor personal jurisdiction over the company.<\/p>\n

Eighteen\u00a0amici curiae<\/i>\u00a0filed six amicus<\/i> briefs in support of FDRLST Media and against NLRB\u2019s deeply flawed power grab. Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, Individual Rights Foundation, DKT Liberty Project, Nadine Strossen, P.J. O\u2019Rourke, Clay Calvert, Robert Corn-Revere, Michael James Barton, and entertainers Penn & Teller<\/a> filed jointly; separate amicus<\/i> briefs were presented by TechFreedom<\/a>, Southeastern Legal Foundation and two of six FDRLST employees (Emily Jashinsky and Madeline Osburn)<\/a>, the Institute for Free Speech<\/a>, Pacific Legal Foundation<\/a>, and the National Federation of Independent Business<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Bridging the political divide, the amici curiae<\/i> briefs contend that individuals have the right to speak freely and satirically to express their personal views under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n

\n NCLA released the following statement:<\/b>\n <\/p>\n

\u201cWe are grateful that people from across the political spectrum, even those who would otherwise disagree on labor rights issues, have joined in support of FDRLST\u2019s arguments and against NLRB\u2019s. The Third Circuit should heed this clarion call.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n \u2014 Adi Dynar, NCLA Litigation Counsel<\/b>\n <\/p>\n

\n Excerpts from the six briefs amici curiae <\/i>submitted in support of NCLA follow:<\/b>\n <\/p>\n

\u201c[E]ven though Domenech\u2019s tweet was a joke, this case is not. If you can be hauled into court and found in violation of federal law on the basis of satire, sarcasm, or hyperbole, everyone will self-censor their humor, to the detriment of freewheeling discourse. \u2026 When the NLRB can\u2019t take a joke, the right to freewheeling speech both online and offline is threatened. The NLRB\u2019s order should not be enforced.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n \u2014 Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, Individual Rights Foundation (IRF), DKT Liberty Project, Nadine Strossen, P.J. O\u2019Rourke, Clay Calvert, Robert Corn-Revere, Michael James Barton, and Penn & Teller <\/b>\n <\/p>\n

\u201cThat we disagree with much of\u00a0The Federalist<\/i>\u2019s speech \u2026 makes it all the\u00a0more\u00a0important that we defend the right to free speech in\u00a0this\u00a0case.\u00a0There is no freedom for thought unless there is freedom for the thought that we hate. \u2026 What matters is that the petitioner has been unconstitutionally punished, its freedom of speech wrongfully curtailed.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n \u2014 TechFreedom<\/b>\n <\/p>\n

\u201cOn appeal, the employees submitted an amici curiae<\/i> brief to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in support of their employer. The NLRB rejected their amici<\/i> brief. The employees now come before this open and impartial Court seeking an opportunity to be heard. As members of the press, Amici<\/i> have a strong interest in protecting First Amendment freedoms to discuss public affairs without fear of reprisal.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n \u2014 FDRLST Media, LLC Employees Emily Jashinsky and Madeline Osburn and Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF)<\/b>\n <\/p>\n

\u201cLimiting the definition of \u201caggrieved person\u201d to those who are actually impacted by an alleged unfair labor practice still fulfills Congress\u2019s intent in passing the NLRA of securing workers\u2019 right to organize, while also avoiding infringement of First Amendment rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n \u2014 Institute for Free Speech (IFS)<\/b>\n <\/p>\n

\u201cShould the NLRB seek\u00a0Chevron<\/i>\u00a0deference for its regulation, this Court should not defer for four reasons. First,\u00a0Chevron<\/i>\u00a0should not apply to the agency\u2019s determination of when it has authority to institute proceedings against the regulated public. Second, at best Congress chose to remain silent, and an agency should not be entitled to expand its authority in the face of congressional silence. Third, the statute limits charging authority to \u201caggrieved\u201d persons. Fourth, even if the statute is ambiguous, the regulation is not a reasonable interpretation.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n \u2014 Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)<\/b>\n <\/p>\n

\u201cBy allowing someone with no specific injury or relationship to the charged party to file a charge, the Board weaponizes the NLRA against the business community. It flips the NLRA on its head, from being an administrative check on businesses, to being a tool ripe for abuse.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n \u2014 National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) Small Business Legal Center<\/b>\n <\/p>\n

\n For more information visit the case page <\/b>
\n here<\/a>
\n .<\/b>\n <\/p>\n

\n ABOUT NCLA<\/b>\n <\/p>\n

\n NCLA<\/a>\u00a0is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar\u00a0Philip Hamburger\u00a0<\/a>to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA\u2019s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans\u2019 fundamental rights.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0###<\/p>\n

\n Attachment<\/strong>\n <\/p>\n