by Sabrina Giacomini from https://www.rideapart.com Rising from the ashes. To say that 2020 has been an eventful year so far is an understatement. “2020, written by Stephen King” is probably the best description of this year’s events we found so far. Of course, with a pandemic forcing most of the global population into lockdown, the health crisis was bound to have an impact on the motorcycle industry. For several manufacturers, between suspended production and customers shying away from the dealers, the months of April and May 2020 have been challenging to say the least. Thankfully, with life gradually resuming, so are sales, and the numbers are bouncing back. Things Are Going Better Than Expected: An increasing number of people and publications suggest that the pandemic will encourage more people to turn to motorcycles and scooters for transportation—the perfect type of commuter for social distancing. In the U.S., buyers didn’t waste any time running for the hills—literally—as soon as COVID-19 poked its ugly head. Honda, BMW, Suzuki, and Yamaha’s North American branches reported that sales are thriving since the beginning of the year, particularly in the off-road segment. For instance, American Honda Motor Co. confirmed that motorcycle sales for May 2020 have more than doubled over May 2019—both in the road and off-road segments (+103% and +172% respectively). For BMW North America, while official sales numbers were not disclosed, the spokesperson did say that May 2020 sales were far exceeding last year’s. The European market is showing a similar, positive trend. Italian sales numbers for June 2020 show a 37-percent increase over June 2019—not even over the catastrophic month of May 2020. More bikes and scooters sold in Italy post-pandemic than last year, back when nobody had even heard of a coronavirus. A total of 39,085 motorcycles, scooters, and mopeds have been registered in Italy in June. The market is also on the mend in India where local branches are finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Though the June sales numbers remain significantly below the 2019 numbers, they are on the rise after the May 2020 slump. For Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India, the 210,879 units moved in June represent a 153 percent increase in sales over May. For Hero, sales increased by a staggering 300 percent between the two months. Royal Enfield is also back in the green with a total of 38,065 motorcycles sold in June versus 18,429 in May. Despite a rocky start to 2020, it looks like the motorcycle industry is faring far better than we initially anticipated.

However, given the resounding support so far for this First Amendment protection, it seems highly likely that the remaining federal appeal courts would reach the same conclusion if the issue appears on their docket.

The U.S. Supreme Court

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on the precise question of recording police activity, in Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), the High Court held that “without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated.” And in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment “goes beyond [the] protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” This particular “stock of
information”—recordings of police officers carrying out their duties in public—is critically important in enabling citizens to hold the government accountable for its actions, a central tenet of the First Amendment.

Utilizing smart phones and immediate Internet access, vast numbers of people now have the capability to document news in a way that only journalists and film crews could do in the past.

But do bystanders have the same First Amendment rights as journalists in gathering the news?

The courts have said yes.

The Supreme Court has been reluctant to define what constitutes a newsperson for purposes of constitutional protection, saying in Branzburg v. Haye s that such an effort “would present practical and conceptual difficulties of a high order.”

Diamond Reynolds recounts the incidents that led to the fatal shooting of her boyfriend Philando Castile by Minneapolis area police.

As the Supreme Court wrote in Hayes, the “liberty of the press is the right of the lonely
pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photo composition methods.”

And in U.S. v. Hastings (1983), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Hayes to mean that “the press generally has no right to information superior to that of the general public.”

Updating the “lonely pamphleteer” to the “lonely bystander” metaphor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled in Glik v. Cunniffe (2011): “The First Amendment right to gather news is… not one that inures solely to the benefit of the news media; rather, the public’s right of the [incorporated] press.”

“Ensuring the public’s right to gather information about their officials not only aids in the uncovering of abuses, but also may have a salutary effect on the functioning of government more generally,” said the unanimous First Circuit Court of Appeals in Glik.

Indeed, videos have stimulated widespread debate about how to reform harmful policing practices, especially concerning minority communities.

The Right to Record and Share
Corollary Rights

The First Amendment protects the act of recording as a necessary corollary to the right to publish and distribute the recording. Dissemination of video and audio information is clearly protected by the First Amendment. But what about the action of recording? Is the act of recording protected as well? Courts have had to deal with arguments that only dissemination is protected—not the act of recording itself. Courts recognize that the recording of video and audio is closely intertwined with the eventual dissemination of the information. Use of recording technology enables protected speech to occur, and thus the First Amendment must shield both.

“A freelance reporter may write a story, but he will rarely edit, print, and
deliver it to subscribers. To a government bent on suppressing speech, this
mode of organization presents opportunities: Control any cog in the machine,
and you can halt the whole apparatus.” ~ Justice Antonin Scalia, McConnell v.
FEC (2003).

As the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in ACLU v. Alvarez (2012): “The act of making an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment’s guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording. The
right to publish or broadcast an audio or audiovisual recording would be insecure, or largely ineffective, if the antecedent act of making the recording is wholly unprotected.

By way of a simple analogy, banning photography or note taking at a public event would raise serious First Amendment concerns; a law of that sort would obviously affect the right to publish the resulting photograph or disseminate a report derived from the notes. The same is true of a ban on audio and audiovisual recording.” The court concluded: “Restricting the use of an audio or audiovisual recording device suppresses speech just as effectively as restricting the dissemination of the resulting recording.”

Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions—And Other Limitations

Although the courts have recognized a First Amendment right to record the work of police officers in public, that right is not absolute. It is important to understand that recording in public is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions.

These are restrictions imposed on expression that are designed to maintain public safety and other valid concerns. Courts use a three-part test to assess whether they are consistent with the First Amendment. Restrictions must be content-neutral —meaning that they cannot be aimed at speech based on the subject matter. They must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication.

For example, a local government could prohibit a protest taking place at 1 a.m. in a residential neighborhood in order to preserve peace and quiet during a time when people seek rest.

As applied to the recording of police officers, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said in ACLU v. Alvarez : “It goes without saying that the police may take all reasonable steps to maintain safety and control, secure crime scenes and accident sites, and protect the integrity and confidentiality of investigations.

 

What kinds of time, place, and manner restrictions could a court find reasonable?

It would depend on the situation. Police have wide discretion to take reasonable steps to protect the public and their own safety, such as keeping people a reasonable distance (e.g., 20 to 30 feet) from an incident and limiting traffic around the incident. A journalist or bystander who crossed police barriers set up to protect public safety, or at a crime scene in order to get a better angle from which to record, might reasonably be asked to move, as would someone who got in the way of police officers and vehicles moving in and out of the area. Police dealing with an active shooter situation would obviously have even broader discretion.

However, as the First Circuit in Glik held, “peaceful recording of an arrest in a public space that does not interfere with the police officers’ performance of their duties is not reasonably subject to limitation.”

In King v. Ambs , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in 2008 that free speech rights are not protected when a bystander is interfering with an arrest by instructing a suspect not to cooperate with police. Demonstrations in public places like streets and parks are another situation in which people enjoy a strong First Amendment right to make recordings of police. However, the right to record
can be impacted by police actions during a protest—law enforcement may be able to order an individual to stop videotaping under certain circumstances. These might include, for example, if the police issue a broad-scale dispersal order that applies across the board and is not targeted at the person recording the police. It may also include situations in which the person recording is in violation of a generally applicable curfew law, or if the individual recording is too close to an officer arresting a disruptive protester. Some police dispersal orders and curfews , of course, might later be challenged by affected individuals on First Amendment grounds.

Public Versus Private Places

The court decisions discussed here relate to the recording of police officers performing their duties in public—on streets, on sidewalks, and in public parks. Journalists and bystanders do not have First Amendment protection to follow police officers when they go onto private property. They can record from a street or sidewalk, but entering private property without permission of the person who owns or occupies the property may be trespassing. Also, police cannot grant valid permission to reporters and other people to follow them onto private property.

 Nonconsensual Recordings

What about wiretapping and eavesdropping statutes—can newsgatherers sometimes violate those laws when exercising their First Amendment right to record? ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez (2012) answered this question for the U.S. Seventh Circuit (Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana) in a decision that proved influential elsewhere. It was about whether an Illinois eavesdropping statute that prohibited nonconsensual audio recordings applied to secret recordings of police working in public.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded that the statute
protects the privacy of conversations; however, “that interest is not implicated when police officers are performing their duties in public places and engaging in public communications audible to persons who witness the events.” Why? Because the police, by the nature of their office, are public servants and the recording is done on public property (or from one’s own private property, as did George Holliday when recording the beating of Rodney King in 1991).

Recording police in the line of duty does not, the court held, violate privacy laws meant for private citizens. In issuing a preliminary injunction against the enforcement in Illinois, the court said the application of an eavesdropping statute to the recording of police activity “likely violates the First Amendment’s free-speech and free-press guarantees.”

Police Cannot Seize or View Smartphone Recordings

It is critical to understand that search and seizure laws also apply to the question of
recording police. In the landmark case Riley v. California (2014), the U.S. Supreme
Court said that the Fourth Amendment prohibits police from seizing a person’s recording device or later searching through its contents
.
The only legal way for police to seize a phone is through an arrest and the only way to access its contents is to acquire a warrant. In writing for a unanimous Court, Chief
Justice Roberts said,“Modern cell phones are not just another technological
convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many
Americans ‘the privacies of life.’ The fact that technology now allows an individual to
carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the

 

Court Cases

Decisions by United Circuit Court of Appeals
1. Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security , No. 16-55719 (9th Cir. 2018)
First Amendment protects the photographing of patrol officers at ports of entry.

2. Fields v. Philadelphia , 862 F.3d 353 (3rd Cir. 2017) “First Amendment protects
the act of photographing, filming, or recording police conducting official duties in
public”.

3. Akins v. Knight , 863 F.3d 1084, 1088 (8th Cir. 2017) Has been mistakenly
identified in the press as ruling against citizens’ First Amendment rights to film
police in public. Akins was primarily ruled on procedural grounds, seeking the
judge’s recusal. It did not analyze the merits of the constitutional claims,
therefore cannot be categorized as either a pro- or anti-recording police case.

4. Turner v. Driver , 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017) “A First Amendment right to record
the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner
restrictions”.

5. Gericke v. Begin , 753 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) Under the First Amendment, “private
individuals possess a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying
out their duties.”

6. ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez , 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012) The Illinois’
eavesdropping statute did not apply to the recording of police activities in public.

7. Glik v. Cunniffe , 655 F. 3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) There is “a constitutionally protected
right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public” and that right was
“fundamental.”

8. King v. Ambs , 519 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2008) Free speech rights are not protected
when a bystander is interfering with an arrest by instructing a suspect not to
cooperate with police.

9. Smith v. City of Cumming , 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000) Affirmed “a First
Amendment right, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, to
photograph or videotape police conduct.”
10. Fordyce v. City of Seattle , 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995) “First Amendment right to
film matters of public interest,” as when Jerry Fordyce filmed police activity during
a public protest.

Masthead

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. ~ The First

First Amendment Watch

Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute
New York University
20 Cooper Square, NY, NY 10003
FirstAmendmentWatch.org

Stephen D. Solomon, J.D., Founding Editor and Marjorie Deane Professor of journalism, NYU
Mary Ellen Egan, Managing Editor
Soraya Ferdman, Staff Writer

The case studies produced by First Amendment Watch are intended for educational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Please consult an attorney in your state if you need legal representation.

Visit firstamendmentwatch.org to view other guides.
Contact us by email at firstamendment@nyu.edu

Use Code:

GrabYourFreedom40

…to receive your 40% discount on the items on this page.

Independence Day 2020

Tell ’em Bikernet Sent Ya.

Thanks,

–Bandit

by Daniel Patrascu from https://www.autoevolution.com

Even today, more than a century after the first Harley-Davidson motorcycle rolled, there’s no denying the appeal the Milwaukee-made machines have for the people in the custom industry.

First, we have the countless shops and individuals out there who keep working their magic on decades-old HDs, as highlighted by the recent The No Show ran by the bike maker last month. Designed to help all those builders who had no place to show their creations because of the ongoing health crisis, the online event brought to light a number of very unique creations, some of them amazing.

At the same time, the bigger and more visible shops have shifted their focus to the more recent models in the bike maker’s lineup. That’s not a bad thing in itself, but these newer machines have some too industrial about them. Take the Thunderbike line of custom Breakouts for instance: the Germans have around 40 of them, and despite each one being made to be unique, they do kind of look the same.

The Billy Bones we have here is a tad different, though. Based on the Cross Bones model that was produced briefly not long ago, it has a very distinct look about it, one that somehow links today’s mass-produced Harley’s with the ones of the olden days that are still so appreciated in the modern times.

This particular bike came to be in 2009, at a time when the Cross Bones was still around. It packs a great deal of custom parts (over 20 of them, and we’re told not all have been listed on the bike’s official page) that took about a month to assemble in the shape you see here, a shape the guys at Thunderbike call “vintage.”

The motorcycle has been christened Billy Bones by its makers, probably as a means to continue the pirate-themed nomenclature of the Milwaukee company.

 

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, 

and tortured before they died.

 

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

 

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; 

another had two sons captured.

 

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or

hardships of the Revolutionary War.

 

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, 

and their sacred honor.

 

What kind of men were they?

 

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.

 

Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large 

plantation owners; men of means, well-educated, but 

they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing 

full well that the penalty would be death if they were 

captured.

 

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, 

saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. 

He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and 

died in rags.

 

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he 

was forced to move his family almost constantly.  He served 

in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in 

hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty 

was his reward.

 

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, 

Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

 

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson,Jr., noted that 

the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson 

home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George 

Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and 

Nelson died bankrupt.

 

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed.  The

 enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

 

John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was 

dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and 

his  gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he 

lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife 

dead and his children vanished.

 

So, take a few minutes – hope you enjoyed your 4th of July 

holiday and silently thank these patriots.  It’s not much to 

ask for the price they paid.

 

Remember: freedom is never free! We thank these early

 patriots, as well as those patriots now fighting to KEEP our freedom!

–Joe Smith

by Elena Gorgan from https://www.autoevolution.com

Electrification is coming to motorcycles slowly, slower than it seems to be happening on the automotive market. the Harley-Davidson LiveWire, the first all-electric bike from the iconic American manufacturer, is a good example in this sense.

While certain riders will vouch for the LiveWire and its awesomeness in terms of rideability and performance, many still can’t get past the $30,000 price point – which, they believe, is simply too high for the kind of range it offers. Assuming money is not the issue, range anxiety can also not be a problem, as the first border-to-border trip across the U.S. on a LiveWire can attest.

Diego is a long-time Harley rider and an early adopter of EVs. He owns a LiveWire and, to mark his 50th birthday, he decided to use it to show the world that long-distance trips can (and should) be made on an all-electric motorcycle. With careful planning, backup plans crafted ahead of time, and patience, the experience can be an extremely beautiful and satisfying one. Bring your family along and you’ve got yourself an awesome road trip, one that will create memories to last a lifetime.

That’s what Diego did. He documented it all on social media (Harley-Davidson LiveWire Rider on Facebook): nearly one week and a half on the road, covering more than 1,300 miles (2,092 km) from the U.S.-Mexico border to the U.S.-Canada one and passing through California, Oregon and Washington. The trip was not rushed, so he wasn’t aiming for a certain number of miles to be covered daily.

The key to making it work on the LiveWire’s mixed city / highway range of 95 miles (153 km) was, of course, careful planning. He used the Plugshare app and only Charge Point and Electrify America stations. He would make sure to arrive to a station with a few miles of range left, which allowed him to travel to a second, backup station in case the first one was broken. When no charging station was available, he stopped for the night at a hotel.

His wife and daughter trailed behind in a Ford C-Max, and the daughter occasionally rode on the back of the LiveWire. They made tourist stops along the way and, though the bike never had any mechanical issues that required attention, he did lose his keyfob at a charging station when his wife fainted from heatstroke. The three had then to go back to search for the key, which they didn’t find, and wait until a spare shipped by FedEx. In total, the setback added some 200 miles (321 km) to their trip.

Reaching final destination was thrilling – a very satisfying outcome to a sometimes-hard but always fun ride.

“We made a 1400 all EV trip from the Mexican border to the Canadian border,” Diego says. “And it all ended the day of my birthday! Thanks to the manny people who we met in this journey to be the 1st #harleydavidson #livewire to do this and no one will take it from me.”

July 4th 1776

The Continental Congress approved the final wording of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. They’d been working on it for a couple of days after the draft was submitted on July 2nd and finally agreed on all of the edits and changes. It goes something like this….

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Amazing words from an amazing document and even more important as we witness anarchists and criminals defile our homes, businesses, lives and country. There are many in our country today that don’t value the words and their meanings found in the Declaration. However, the people who truly love this country and respect our flag, our culture and goals..these are the people who will fight and die for her while those other people stand on the sidelines and complain.
Remember our American veterans, active duty Sailors, Soldiers, Marines and First Responders while you are celebrating this great day, for its because of them that you get to celebrate!
God Bless America!

–Ben Kudon

American Prime

by Rick Barrett from https://www.tennessean.com

Harley-Davidson Inc. has pulled its Facebook ads and severed ties with one of its dealerships in response to hateful comments made on social media.

Hundreds of companies, including Harley, are pausing Facebook advertising this month as part of a larger boycott.

“Racism, hate or intolerance have no place in the Harley-Davidson community or anywhere — in person or online. We are pausing our Facebook ads in July to stand in support of efforts to stop the spread of hateful comment,” Harley says on its website.

The world’s largest manufacturer of heavyweight motorcycles also severed ties with Abernathy’s Cycle in Union City, Tennessee, following an alleged racist posting on the dealership’s Facebook page.

Screen shots, shared on social media, showed it said, “I’m sick of this black lives matter,” and those involved in the protests should go “back to Africa and stay.”

Dealership owner Russell Abernathy II denied making the Facebook post and said he rejected its content.

“And by extension, Abernathy’s Harley-Davidson have and always will be welcoming to all riders regardless of race. The derogatory nature of the comment in no way aligns with my personal beliefs or that of Harley-Davidson Motor Co. It personally saddens me that this post has caused such wide-reaching pain to those that have already been subject to so many social injustices. I vow to make certain that Abernathy’s Harley-Davidson provides a positive environment of diversity, equality and inclusion for all,” the dealership says on its website.

But for now, anyway, Harley says Abernathy’s “will no longer be part of our dealer network.”

Many of the traditions that we cherish surrounding the 4th of July will be missing this year. Whether it be a cancelled parade, fewer friends gathering for a BBQ or a postponed summer road trip, we know this Independence Day be will different for many of us. As author William Faulkner said, “We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it.” While the events and surroundings this 4th may be different, we hope that no matter how you celebrate, you take time to reflect on the cherished freedoms we have in this country. We at the Motorcycle Riders Foundation wish you a happy and safe Independence Day. Thank you for your support of the MRF and for your commitment to defending the rights of motorcyclists nationwide. And as always, RIDE FREE –MRF team About Motorcycle Riders Foundation The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) provides leadership at the federal level for states’ motorcyclists’ rights organizations as well as motorcycle clubs and individual riders. The MRF is chiefly concerned with issues at the national and international levels that impact the freedom and safety of American street motorcyclists. The MRF is committed to being a national advocate for the advancement of motorcycling and its associated lifestyle and works in conjunction with its partners to help educate elected officials and policymakers in Washington and beyond. And plan to vote and stand up for Freedom this year.–Bandit

These Are Still the Best of Times with News from Around the Globe

Hey,

I could go in a lot of bummer directions today, but that misses the major point. We are absolutely living in the best of times, yet I suppose some folks are bored, so they need attack shit.

But I am moved by the brothers and sisters who recognize our flag, our monuments, our heritage and all the greatness flourishing in this country.

I’m hiding out in Deadwood, South Dakota and it’s crowded with folks and bikers who have come to smell the Jack Pine trees, ride through amazing highways, inhale the history of the Badlands and check the action in Sturgis.

We will get through this virus thing and party once more. In the meantime, the best things you can do to stay healthy and safe are to work out and ride motorcycles.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE NEWS ON BIKERNET

Join the Cantina – Subscribe Today

https://www.bikernet.com/pages/custom/subscription.aspx