Mountain Top Media
Man killed in Pike crash
PIKEVILLE, Ky. — One man was killed Wednesday in a single-vehicle crash along U.S. 23 in Pikeville.
According to Kentucky State Police, the crash happened just before 4 p.m. The preliminary investigation indicates that Paul Bisbee was traveling south in a 1988 Dodge Ram SUV when his vehicle crossed into the northbound lanes and struck the concrete bridge wall.
Bisbee was pronounced deceased at the scene by the Pike County Coroner’s Office.
The collision remains under investigation by Trooper Braxton Whitmore. Trooper Whitmore was assisted at the scene by personnel from Post 9 and local first responder agencies.
The post Man killed in Pike crash appeared first on Mountain Top Media.
ACLU, Jenkins schools clash over no-trespass order in federal court
LONDON, Ky. — The legal battle between the Jenkins Independent School District and a Letcher County woman banned from school property has intensified, with both sides filing competing arguments over whether a federal judge should temporarily lift the ban while the case proceeds.
Elizabeth Jones, represented by the ACLU of Kentucky, is asking the court to issue a preliminary injunction allowing her to attend school sporting events and other public activities while her First Amendment lawsuit moves forward. The school district argues the ban is necessary to protect students from harassment and should remain in place.
Jones was initially barred from all Jenkins Independent School District property in December after posting Facebook comments and photos of student-athletes. The district later modified the order to allow her to attend parent-teacher conferences, meetings involving her children, and public school board meetings, while continuing to prohibit her from attending athletic events and most other school activities.
In her original motion, Jones argues the district violated her constitutional rights by banning her because of protected online speech. She contends the no-trespass orders are content-based restrictions that are overbroad, vague and retaliatory, and notes she was given no advance notice or opportunity to challenge the ban.
The school district rejects those claims, arguing Jones has no constitutional right to unrestricted access to school property.
“Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights have not been violated,” the board says in its response. “The Board’s narrowly tailored ban does not regulate Plaintiff’s speech; it merely regulates her presence on school grounds, to which she has no constitutional right.”
The district also contends Jones monetizes her social media content through her Hillbilly Crime platform and says she used controversy involving students to generate subscribers. According to the response, her actions “publicly ridicule, shame, and harass minor students” and caused a “severe and substantial disruption” to school operations, prompting numerous complaints from parents and requiring administrators to divert time and resources to address the situation.
Jones disputes that characterization in her reply.
She argues the case is not about gaining unlimited access to school property, but whether government officials may exclude someone from events open to the public because they disagree with the content of that person’s speech.
“Once JISD made the decision to allow the general public to attend those events, it cannot then withhold that access based upon a content-based speech restriction barring constitutionally protected expression with which it disagrees,” the ACLU replied.
Jones also rejects the district’s claim that her Facebook posts constitute commercial speech simply because they contained links to her Hillbilly Crime platform. “The mere fact that social media posts on Plaintiff’s personal Facebook page may contain links to her commercial platform does not ipso facto convert those posts to commercial speech.”
Her attorneys further argue the district is attempting to apply legal standards governing student speech to an adult’s off-campus social media posts: “Defendants seek to justify their access bans by asserting that this Court should conclude that they may regulate adults’ speech to the same extent as students’ speech.”
The district counters that schools have a substantial interest in protecting students from bullying, harassment and invasions of privacy, arguing that the public interest favors keeping the restrictions in place while the lawsuit is litigated.
The arguments are currently in the hands of U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove, who has not yet issued a decision. A ruling would determine whether the modified no-trespass order remains in effect while the broader constitutional challenge proceeds.
Full copies of the arguments follow:
The post ACLU, Jenkins schools clash over no-trespass order in federal court appeared first on Mountain Top Media.
Viewing page 5 of 5|Previous Page