桃子视频

For more than 40 years, equal access to educational opportunities of Los Angeles students under the California Constitution have been protected by a court order. Now, those court-ordered protections are being challenged.

ST. LOUIS 鈥� The 桃子视频 and the 桃子视频of North Dakota filed an amicus brief today with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Thunderhawk v. Kirchmeier, a case that challenges the government鈥檚 decision to close a public road during a Standing Rock protest, preventing people from assembling to express their opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. In the brief, the 桃子视频argues that roads of every kind 鈥� including rural roads, multi-lane roads and high-speed roads 鈥� have served as sites of protest throughout United States history, from the civil rights marches and anti-war demonstrations of the 1960s and 鈥�70s to more recent protests, including marches in opposition to abortion, in support of rural healthcare and against police brutality. Courts across the country have long recognized that roads are quintessential traditional public forums and open for public assembly, debate, and the communication of ideas. 鈥淭he government鈥檚 argument disregards our history of protest in the United States and misinterprets our fundamental First Amendment rights. Our right to assemble and protest in the streets should never depend on the type of roadway chosen,鈥� said Andrew Malone, senior staff attorney for the 桃子视频of North Dakota. 鈥淭he Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that protesting in public streets is a time-honored American right. It is long overdue for police officers, prosecutors and government officials to uphold this constitutional standard.鈥� For nearly eight years and through multiple rounds of dismissals and appeals, the government has argued that some streets, including rural roads, don鈥檛 belong to the community and that the road at issue in this case doesn鈥檛 deserve the same protection afforded to other public spaces. But, the 桃子视频argues in the brief, as one of the few communal spaces in rural areas, these roads are uniquely positioned to offer rural communities 鈥� and those wishing to address them 鈥� a public space in which to associate, communicate thoughts and discuss public issues. 鈥淧rotesting on public roads is as American as apple pie, and that doesn鈥檛 change whether the road is a rural highway in North Dakota or 42nd St in New York City,鈥� said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淧eople can turn the page in a magazine or change the channel on TV, but streets remain one of the few places where we have to confront ideas we might otherwise tune out鈥攁nd that鈥檚 why our rights to protest on streets, sidewalks, and in public parks are so important.鈥�

Congressional investments should reach the communities they were intended to serve.

WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, Congressman Obernolte and Congresswoman Trahan released a draft regulatory framework for Artificial Intelligence, which they may soon introduce in the House of Representatives. This draft bill 鈥� if enacted into law 鈥� would largely prohibit states from regulating AI developers. It would block states from enforcing existing state protections and from enacting new protections This could include anything from privacy regulations to antidiscrimination requirements to AI safety laws. Congress has twice overwhelmingly rejected legislative proposals to block states from regulating AI, also known as 鈥減reemption.鈥� This includes a 99-1 Senate vote last year against an amendment that would have created a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation. Seventeen Republican governors joined the bipartisan opposition to that failed amendment. In response, Jina John, senior policy counsel for AI, privacy and technology at the 桃子视频released the following statement: "This draft bill fails to learn from Congress鈥檚 previous attempts to block state AI regulations. States must be able to protect their own residents from harm, hold tech companies accountable, and ensure that AI is safe and trustworthy. "Governors, attorneys general, and lawmakers from both parties have opposed the efforts to push states aside for good reason. AI touches all aspects of people鈥檚 lives in this country, including employment, healthcare, lending, education, and so much more. So far, it has been governors and state legislatures鈥攁nd largely not Congress or the president鈥攚ho have been trying to protect the American people from harms that AI may cause. The federal government must not grant tech giants a blank check to deploy these technologies without the oversight of states."