Mediaboss Marketing

Another Fourth of July is upon us. Once again we are preparing to celebrate our Independence Day with parades, ball games, cookouts and community gatherings. Loudspeakers will resound with My Country Tis of Thee and America the Beautiful. Our hearts will swell at the familiar words, From every mountainside, let freedom ring and Brotherhood from sea to shining sea. Come night, loud explosions will fill the air. Will they accompany the bursting sprays of multicolored stars and spiraling rockets as the skies light up with spectacular displays? Or, while we ooh and aah at the glorious show, will other fireworks be taking place in our country, sowing death and destruction?

Americas 100 senators are on summer recess, thrilled with the compromise they have reached with their House colleagues. The just passed bipartisan Safer Communities Act will supposedly save countless lives with strengthened background checks of gun buyers, increased penalties for gun traffickers, protection of domestic violence victims and improved mental health services. All good ideas, but will they be effective as long as semiautomatic guns remain legally available?

The National Rifle Association lost no time registering its opposition to the act by trotting out its tired canard of the Second Amendment. That amendment is surprisingly short and reads: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Thats all it says, and one cant help but wonder what kind of arms our Founding Fathers were referring to in 1791. Revolutionary guns of that era included mostly muskets and flintlock pistols. A typical musket had a one-round magazine capacity and could fire about three effective rounds per minute in the hands of the most skilled wielder. The Uvalde gunman used an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle with a magazine that carries 30 rounds.

Among all the capable legal minds in our government, has anyone seriously argued the legal applicability of the Second Amendment when it comes to todays weapons? The semi-automatic and other assault guns did not exist in 1791. The authors of the amendment obviously referred to muskets and pistols. They could have, but did not specify any arms that may be invented in the future.

It is useful to compare the Second Amendment history and meaning with that of the First Amendment the right of free speech. Its meaning has been the subject of continuing interpretation and dispute over the years. Landmark Supreme Court cases have dealt with the right of citizens to protest U.S. involvement in foreign wars, flag burning and the publication of classified government documents. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) the U.S. Supreme Court established the fighting words doctrine that spells out certain limits to the freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment.

Our current Supreme Court has just ruled against the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade. A landmark constitutional right to abortion, established almost 50 years ago, is declared no longer valid. Those in favor of this far-reaching decision claim to be led by a pro-life philosophy. Is it not more than high time to also consider the right to life of Americas children who are already born and who are afraid to go to school?

Today, in America, can we really joyfully celebrate our independence and call ourselves free, until we have rid ourselves of these military-style weapons that have nothing to do with prudent self-defense or fair hunting practices but are used on an almost daily basis to murder innocent people?

Elisabeth Breslav is a regular essay writer for the Oronoque, Stratford, Villager magazine. Her memoir Blackouts, Bombs and Sugar Beets is currently being agented in the U.S, Canada and Europe.

See more here:
Opinion: On July 4th, a limited meaning of freedom - CTPost

Too often is Black history and American history viewed as two distinctly different timelines when, in reality, they are deeply intertwined. Holidays like the Fourth of July have long been understood to be white-centric, but as Killer Mike cites, the first American to die during the Boston Massacre (which led to the Revolutionary War) was a Black man named Crispus Attucks.

There would be no Fourth of July without a Black man, and the fact that Crispus Attucks was the first person to die on the behalf of what would become the republic called America, Mike tells me, as we discuss why he chose to deliver his first solo track in 10 years, Run, on Independence Day. The fact that all Americans dont know that is a problem for me.

Ever since Black people arrived in this country, we have played an intrinsic role in shaping American culture, economy, and infrastructure. Killer Mike has always been an advocate for Black liberation and a promoter of Black history in and out of his music, and Run continues to paint the picture of why he believes Black people deserve to feel just as patriotic as their white counterparts on the Fourth of July. The music video for the track drives that point home, including several historical Black figures who have played integral roles in contributing to American society as we know it today. I wanted people to understand that patriotism is not exclusive to white peoplethis republic is not here simply because of white Anglo-Saxon protestants, Mike explains. You have been here every step of the way, in fact. Everyone has been here every step of the way.

Run isnt about running away from tyranny or our oppressors, instead depicting how Black people have run towards knowledge, freedom, and adversity, and faced it head-on. The track also finds Mike rapping for the first time in a decade without his Run The Jewels partner El-P by his side. The rap veteran explains that this solo venture is only a spin-off from his music in the duo, and he wanted it to sound totally different from his work in RTJ. If Run The Jewels is the X-Men, this solo song represents a storyline thats just Logan, he says.

The No I.D.-produced song opens with soothing organ chords and narration from Dave Chappelle, like a Deacon ushering in the beginning of a church service. Later, we hear a rare Young Thug feature, which comes on the heels of the massive YSL indictment that has called the protection of Black art and the criminalization of rap lyrics into question. Killer Mike spent two weeks with Thug before they laid their verses down, and he says its not right that Thug, Gunna, or YFN Lucci are being penalized for song lyrics.

I think we have a First Amendment right, and I think it should be hands-off Black art, so I support those brothers and their campaign to get a bond and get free, Mike says. Just a year ago, they were paying peoples bonds who couldnt afford bonds to get out, and I see them as community leaders and providers of jobs for a lot of people.

Run was released today, alongside a powerful music video directed by Adrian Villagomez that illustrates why we should never forget the efforts made by our ancestors to push our community forward, while also advocating for the protection of Black art. In the video, Black historical figures like Booker T. Washington, Frederick Douglass, Jack Johnson, Sojourner Truth, Fannie Lou Hamer, Shirley Chissem, Tommie Smith, and John Carlos appear at different moments on the battlefield, while the main character is backed by Black folk and allies alike to defeat white supremacists. The video culminates in a portrait of the battle being observed in a museum, reflecting how Black history has always been American history.

In conversation about his first solo work in 10 years, Killer Mike spoke with Complex about the importance of knowing and understanding Black history, the reclamation of Independence Day, and if fans can expect more solo music in the future. You can watch the music video and hear the song here.

Visit link:
The Story Behind Killer Mike's New Song Run With Young Thug and Dave Chappelle - Complex

We do not condone violence, and law enforcement will and has responded to acts of violence when people do not honor their freedom to protest peacefully, but instead violate the laws of our country and the states within it, he continued.

A California man was recently arrested near the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and charged with plotting to kill him.

On Saturday, several dozen masked white nationalists, some with police shields and flags, marched through Boston. Last month, people believed to be associated with the same group, Patriot Front, were arrested in Idaho near a Pride event. They were found inside a U-Haul truck containing shields and at least one smoke grenade. Last week, members of the Proud Boys disrupted a drag show in Sacramento, Calif., and allegedly threatened violence. Police intervened and the event was rescheduled.

I have said and this has been echoed by the director of the FBI that domestic violent extremism is one of the greatest terrorism-related threats that we face in the homeland today, Mayorkas said to Brennan.

When asked if funding, recruitment and membership of such groups should be considered grounds for prosecution, Mayorkas said that law enforcement only becomes involved in response to acts of violence and threats to harm people.

We, of course, protect vigorously individuals right to express themselves peacefully, the First Amendment rights, and that is something that we safeguard, but violence and threats of violence we do not condone.

See the original post:
Homeland Security chief: 'We are in a heightened threat environment' - POLITICO

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

View original post here:
First Amendment to the Constitution | Community | hometownsource.com - ECM Publishers

A federal judge ruled today that four people at a George Floyd vigil on the Common on May 31, 2020 can try to convince a jury that Boston Police officers violated their First Amendment rights by attacking them with pepper spray, fists and a bicycle afterwards and that the city created a culture where such a thing could happen.

Among other reasons to seek dismissal, the cops alleged they did not violate the protesters' First Amendment rights because they did not know the four were on Tremont Street because of the Common protest and so did not know they had a First Amendment right to be there.

That assertion "strains credulity," US District Court Judge Alison Burroughs wrote in a decision today that rejected requests by the cops and the city to reject the First Amendment and civil-rights allegations by the four protesters for what happened after police broke up the vigil and ordered nearby T stops shut, on a night that ended with violence and looting across downtown, the Back Bay and the South End.

Here, the chronology of events, the location of each incident, and all other surrounding circumstances, plainly allow for a reasonable inference that each of the Officer Defendants would have known the Plaintiffs were protestors and that they used force against them for that reason. ... Nothing in the record thus far, which includes photos of the Plaintiffs with their arms up and backing away from officers, provides a plausible non-retaliatory motive for the Officer Defendants use of physical force against the Plaintiffs. Further, because the uses of force against Ackers, Hall, and Chambers-Maher occurred while the officers were being openly recorded, it would be reasonable to infer that the civilians filming of the officers formed an unlawful retaliatory motive for the use of force. ... Put simply, the Officer Defendants argument that they could not have known that the Plaintiffs participated in the protest is untenable. Based on the record currently before the Court, it is evident that each one of these incidents occurred while the BPD was seeking to disperse protesters.

Burroughs added, however, that the officers will be able to better rebut the allegation than they have to date during pre-trial discovery and then at trial;

The point of discovery and then trial will be to sort out whether these particular uses of force did or did not implicate the First Amendment.

But, she continued:

Courts around the country, flooded with First Amendments claims pleaded on similar facts following the May 2020 protests, have agreed that the use of force against non-violent protestors can support the inference that officers meant to intimidate protestors and deter antipolice messaging.

Burroughs also allowed the four to continue their lawsuit against the city itself for allegedly creating an atmosphere that allowed and even encouraged misbehavior by police, in large part by ignoring complaints against officers in the past, but also through "a custom of using excessive force." But as she did with the police on the First Amendment issue, she cautioned the four protesters haven't really made a good, detailed case of this to date - something they will have to do at trial to win against the city.

To be sure, Plaintiffs support for this claim is presently thin, particularly since Plaintiffs have done little to link their allegations together to present a systemic pattern of persistent failure to discipline or investigate, but more is not required at the pleading stage. Plaintiffs have specifically articulated that the City knew constitutional violations occurred and either chose not to investigate or otherwise delayed or discouraged investigation. Taking Plaintiffs factual allegations as true and viewing the Amended Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the allegations allow for a reasonable inference that the City has a custom of failing to discipline police misconduct.

Burroughs continued:

The Amended Complaint contains numerous allegations that officers used OC spray, batons, and other physical force against the four Plaintiffs during the May 31 protest. Plaintiffs sufficiently allege, though just barely, that similar constitutional violations occurred on May 29, giving decisionmakers sufficient notice that officers would continue to use unreasonable force against peaceful protestors in the demonstrations to come. The City's argument that the allegations are not enough to support a Monell claim because they rest only on "one night of civil unrest" is unavailing. In addition to the fact that Plaintiffs have suggested that similar conduct occurred during demonstrations on surrounding days, "egregious instances of misconduct" even when "relatively few in number but following a common design, may support an inference that the instances would not occur but for municipal tolerance of the practice in question." Foley v. City of Lowell, 948 F.2d 10, 14 (1st Cir. 1991). ... Here, Plaintiffs describe four similar incidents of excessive force used against peaceful protesters. Further, Plaintiffs may not know, or cannot know, without discovery the full extent of the unreasonable force used by the City against protesters during the May 2020 protests. This Court, in line with several other district courts presented with similar facts, finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded that the City had notice of the unlawful use of force against protestors and was deliberately indifferent to those constitutional violations.

She also pointed to a decision by Police Commissioner William Gross to have riot batons distributed to officers beforehand and to have nearby T stations shut as the vigil was dispersed as legitimate acts for a jury to consider whether BPD had a policy that led to the incidents:

Because three of the four Plaintiffs injuries occurred while they were trying to leave the protest area and some of the alleged injuries were caused by blows from riot batons, it can be reasonably inferred that Commissioner Grosss policy decisions led to the constitutional deprivations. ...

Plaintiffs will have to overcome significant issues of proof if they are to prevail at trial. Nonetheless, the Court finds that, at this stage, Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded municipal liability based on the role that City customs and policies allegedly played in the constitutional violations.

Original post:
Judge rejects request by Boston cops to dismiss First Amendment action over the way they pepper sprayed and hit George Floyd protesters in 2020 -...