Podcasts about legal services corp

Types of speech restrictions. The Supreme Court has recognized several different types of laws that restrict speech, and subjects each type of law to a different level of scrutiny. Content-based restrictions. Content-based restrictions "are presumptively unconstitutional regardless of the government's benign motive, content-neutral justification, or lack of animus toward the ideas contained in the regulated speech." Restrictions that require examining the content of speech to be applied must pass strict scrutiny. Content-based restrictions can either discriminate based on viewpoint or subject matter. An example of a law regulating the subject matter of speech would be a city ordinance that forbids all picketing in front of a school except for labor picketing. This law would amount to subject matter discrimination because it favors one subject over another in deciding who it will allow to speak. An example of a law that regulates a speaker's viewpoint would be a policy of a government official who permitted ‘‘pro-life'' proponents to speak on government property but banned ‘‘pro-choice'' proponents because of their views would be engaged in ‘‘viewpoint discrimination.'' Restrictions that apply to certain viewpoints but not others face the highest level of scrutiny, and are usually overturned, unless they fall into one of the court's special exceptions. An example of this is found in the United States Supreme Court's decision in Legal Services Corp. v Velazquez in 2001. In this case, the Court held that government subsidies cannot be used to discriminate against a specific instance of viewpoint advocacy. The Court pointed out in Snyder v Phelps (2011) that one way to ascertain whether a restriction is content-based versus content-neutral is to consider if the speaker had delivered a different message under exactly the same circumstances: "A group of parishioners standing at the very spot where Westboro stood, holding signs that said 'God Bless America' and 'God Loves You,' would not have been subjected to liability. It was what Westboro said that exposed it to tort damages."

From coal plants to large-scale agriculture, industrial activities contributing to the environmental crisis tend to concentrate in minority communities with little power, wealth, or legal knowledge to defend themselves. The consequences to health and livelihoods are frequently devastating.  To help them protect themselves, the nonprofit Namati trains paralegals to educate and organize ordinary citizens to fight for justice within the legal system and change the laws that threaten their well-being. This episode tells the story of Namati and founder Vivek Maru's lifelong campaign to give the vulnerable a voice in the legal systems that impact their lives. Now, as climate change exacerbates nearly every form of social injustice, Namati is doubling down on the threats to land and environmental rights by forming a coordinated movement of environmental justice organizations around the world. This episode: begins with a landmark land-grab case in Sierra Leone that illustrates the power of a community exercising its rights (0:06); explains how years of deep experience in individual cases can lead to systemic changes in laws that benefit entire societies (07:21); traces Maru's personal history from the influence of his grandfather, a disciple of Mahatma Gandhi, through his college studies of the social movements of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X (09:00); describes the origins of the Namati strategy in 1950s South Africa (11:52) and Maru's first experience in combining law and community organizing in Sierra Leone (12:47);   chronicles the work of Namati on abuses of land, citizenship, and other rights from Myanmar to Kenya, and the formation of an international network of justice empowerment organizations (16:47); highlights Namati's plans to turbo-charge its response to land and environmental abuses (22:05); and how Namati is now transferring its experience in developing countries back home to address environmental injustices in the United States (26:18). Additional Resources: Source articles for this episode include: Justice for All, the report of the Task Force on Justice, details the “justice gap” around the world. The Impact of Legal Empowerment on Barriers to Health Care describes Namati's impact on health care rights in Mozambique. Justice and Identity in Kibera chronicles the efforts of paralegals to win Kenyan citizenship for the Nubian minority. The Escazú Agreement about the landmark regional treaty for environmental defenders. The Justice Gap Report of the Legal Services Corp. details the lack of access to justice in the United States. Financing People-Centered Justice in Africa unveils plans for the new Grassroots Legal Empowerment Fund. The full transcript of the episode can be found at https://ssir.org/podcasts/category/unchartedground.

Asked to reflect on his nine-year tenure as president of the Legal Services Corp., Jim Sandman says he is proud of many things that he and his team accomplished. Under Sandman’s leadership, the LSC produced its seminal work, which found that 86% of civil legal needs reported by low-income Americans in the past year were either inadequately addressed or not met at all. Special thanks to our sponsor, Nexa.

Asked to reflect on his nine-year tenure as president of the Legal Services Corp., Jim Sandman says he is proud of many things that he and his team accomplished. Under Sandman’s leadership, the LSC produced its seminal work, which found that 86% of civil legal needs reported by low-income Americans in the past year were either inadequately addressed or not met at all. Special thanks to our sponsor, Nexa.

Asked to reflect on his nine-year tenure as president of the Legal Services Corp., Jim Sandman says he is proud of many things that he and his team accomplished. Under Sandman’s leadership, the LSC produced its seminal work, which found that 86% of civil legal needs reported by low-income Americans in the past year were either inadequately addressed or not met at all. Special thanks to our sponsor, Nexa.

Since the late 1990s, Joyce Raby has spent a career bringing technology to legal aid. While a booster and believer in technology’s potential to improve America’s legal system, her experience is tempering. “We’ve been saying for a very long time that technology was going to be the saving grace for the justice ecosystem,” she says. “I don’t think it is.” Having worked with the Legal Services Corp. and the Washington State Bar Association, she continues her legal technology trajectory as executive director of the Florida Justice Technology Center.

Since the late 1990s, Joyce Raby has spent a career bringing technology to legal aid. While a booster and believer in technology’s potential to improve America’s legal system, her experience is tempering. “We’ve been saying for a very long time that technology was going to be the saving grace for the justice ecosystem,” she says. “I don’t think it is.” Having worked with the Legal Services Corp. and the Washington State Bar Association, she continues her legal technology trajectory as executive director of the Florida Justice Technology Center.

Jada Breegle, the Legal Services Corp.’s chief information officer, tells Jason Miller on Federal News Radio's Ask the CIO a new solicitation will help detail the current grant making processes.