Mediaboss Marketing

In August of 2021, approximately eight East Cleveland Police Department officers descended on the home of William Fambrough. His alleged infraction: a parking violation.

Or so they said. But Fambrough's story is much more insidious than that. It involves some serious alleged First Amendment transgressionscarried out by the government, not Fambrough.

The 74-year-old East Cleveland man had the audacity last year to promote a challenger to Brandon L. King, East Cleveland's mayor. Fambrough used his step vansomething he'd employed many times during the course of his long-running political advocacyto instead campaign for Juanita Gowdy, an East Cleveland city councilor who had a reputation for criticizing both King and law enforcement. Fambrough's media company produced advertisements for Gowdy, and he displayed Gowdy's likeness on his van while driving around playing recorded endorsements from East Clevelanders.

That didn't sit well with police, who began leveraging obscure municipal ordinances to criminalize Fambrough's behavior and paralyze Gowdy's campaign. Their visit to his home in August of last year was not their first, as they repeatedly harassed him for the crime of parking his van on the street. They ultimately towed the vehicle and caused thousands of dollars in damage in the process, kneecapping his ability to promote Gowdy's candidacy in the final stretch of the primary.

That ordinancewhich prohibits parking "a truck, commercial tractor, trailer, semi-trailer, a motor home or recreational vehicle" in a driveway or on a residential roadis almost never used, if ever. Between January 2016 and May 2022, the city hadn't enforced it once, according to a records request detailed in a civil rights lawsuit filed this week by Fambrough in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Yet no one could have made that more clear than the cops who initiated the tow and subsequent property destruction, as they turned a blind eye to a van violating the same ordinance about one or two houses down. They also cited Fambrough for "noise pollution," despite that he'd obtained a permit from East Cleveland's own police department and that the Supreme Court has ruled that the use of sound trucks is protected under the First Amendment.

Prior to Fambrough's court appearance, Assistant Law Director Heather McCollough, who serves as both prosecutor for East Cleveland and counsel for Mayor King, also said the quiet part out loud. After citing that Fambrough had "made complaints about the police department," filed "public records requests," and asked about election ordinances, McCollough told Fambrough's attorney that Fambrough needed to "stand down" if he hoped to achieve any sort of peaceful resolution.

He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and was told that such an ending may not come to him again if he did not "mind his own business."

The problem for McCollough is that none of the complaints she outlined are remotely criminal. On the contrary, they are the epitome of First Amendment-protected speech, allowing citizens to hold the government accountable without fear of reprisal for doing just that.

Such is the main thrust behind Fambrough's lawsuit, filed against the City of East Cleveland, King, McCollough, Chief of Police Scott Gardner, Law Director Willa Hemmons, Captain Kenneth Lundy, and Officers Mark Allen, Andrew Majercik, William Nevels, and Kyle Wood.

"It's actually incredibly and tragically common for governments to retaliate against citizens' political speech or for criticizing the government or the police," says Ben Field, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, the public interest law firm representing Fambrough. "Every single governmentwhether it's federal, state, or localjust has so many laws on the books that it's always possible to point to somebody and say, 'Well, you broke one of them,' and figure out what that law is after the fact. If governments are allowed to do that, then nobody's rights are safe."

Such was the case with Jerry Rogers Jr.,who was arrested in Louisiana for violating "14:00000"a crime that doesn't existafter police in St. Tammany Parish grew furious that he had criticized their failure to solve a local murder.

"I think that most people have the ideathat the First Amendment has never been more robust. And when it comes to governments actually writing down laws to restrict speech, that's true," adds Field. "But if the government doesn't write down a law but instead pre-textually uses a law to target speech it doesn't like, the protections are actually much, much weaker."

That's particularly relevant to East Cleveland when considering the city's high crime rate and short-staffed police department. It is the government's job to protect people from those who violate their rightsnot to waste their limited resources to protect the government from the people. Yet whether or not Fambrough will even get the chance to state his case before a jury will hinge on him overcoming a slew of immunity doctrines that protect the state from having to provide recourse when it violates someone's constitutional rights.

But this isn't just about Fambrough, and it's not just about East Cleveland. "Even if most people don't drive sound trucks around to support candidates," says Field, "the same thing that happened to William can happen to anybody."

The rest is here:
He Was Targeted by Police for His Political Speech. Now, He's Suing. - Reason

Event Announcements

Monday, June 13, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. ET: The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol will hold the second in its series of hearings discussing former President Trumps election fraud claims and how they are related to the Capitol attack. The select committee will hear testimony from two panels. The first panel will include former Fox news political director Chris Stirewalt. Former Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien was also scheduled to speak on the first panel, but will not testify due to a family emergency. The second panel will feature election lawyer Ben Ginsberg, former U.S. Attorney BJay Pak, and former Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt.

Monday, June 13, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. ET: Lawfare and the Brookings Institution will host an event to discuss the Special Immigrant Visa program, ongoing resettlement issues for Afghan evacuees, and Allies, Lawfares new narrative podcast series on the matter. The event will feature opening remarks from Benjamin Wittes, editor-in-chief of Lawfare, followed by a panel discussion. Panelists include: Bryce Klehm, associate editor of Lawfare; Shala Gafary, managing attorney of Project-Afghan Legal Assistance at Humans Rights First; Matt Zeller, senior adviser at Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; and Steven M. Miska, executive director of First Amendment Voice.

Monday, June 13, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. ET: The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) will host a panel discussion concerning the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, war in eastern Europe, and increase in energy prices on the European economy. Panelists include: Nathan Sheets, global chief economist at Citibank; Desmond Lachman, senior fellow at AEI; Carlo Cottarelli, director of the Osservatorio sui Conti Pubblici Italiani at LUniversit Cattolica; and Paolo Mauro, deputy director of the Fiscal Affairs Department within the International Monetary Fund.

Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. ET: The Atlantic Council will host its seventh annual central and eastern European energy security conference. The event will focus on promoting transatlantic cooperation and energy diversification in central and eastern Europe to weaken the influence of Russian oil and gas in the region. The event will feature remarks from a range of experts and leaders in government and the private sector.

Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. ET: AEI will host a panel discussion on efforts by American and European politicians to limit Chinese economic influence on western economies. Panelists include: Derek Scissors, senior fellow at AEI; Rep. Darin LaHood of Illinois; Adolfo Urso, chairman of the Italian Parliament Intelligence Committee; and James Palmer, deputy editor at Foreign Policy.

Tuesday, June 14, 2022 at 4:00 p.m. ET: The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University will host a talk about Indian military strategy in the Kargil War. . The event will feature the remarks fromArzan Tarapore, South Asia research scholar at Stanford University's Asia-Pacific Research Center.

Wednesday, June 15, 2022 at 12:30 p.m. ET: The Atlantic Council will host an event to launch a new report on cybersecurity and central bank digital currencies from its GeoEconomics Center. The event will include a panel discussion with Giulia Fanti, nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council; Neha Narula, director of theDigital Currency Initiative at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab; and Michael Mosier, former acting director of the U.S. Treasurys Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. ET: The Atlantic Council will host an event to examine the partnership between European Union and African Union leaders following the EU-AU Summit and how it connects to EU-U.S. cooperation in Africa. The event will feature remarks from a range of experts and leaders in government.

Employment Announcements (More details on the Job Board)

Director, Federal Government Affairs, R Street Institute

Program Associate and Special Assistant to the Executive Director, Reiss Center on Law and Security and NYU Center for Cybersecurity

Postdoc Research Position in Cybersecurity Policy, Tufts University

Program Assistant, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University

Program Associate, National Security Institute, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University

Summer Research Assistant, National Security Institute

Call for Papers, American Journal of International Law

Deputy Director, Security & Surveillance Project, Center for Democracy and Technology

Senior Associate, Center on Privacy & Technology at Georgetown Law

Program Coordinator, Asia Program, The German Marshall Fund

External Affairs Officer, Digital Innovation Democracy Initiative, The German Marshall Fund

Request for Resumes, Department of Defense Office of the General Counsel

Link:
The Week That Will Be - Lawfare - Lawfare

Were continuing to see reports of concerning efforts in Uvalde, Texas, to interfere with media coverage of the aftermath of the school shooting there, withlaw enforcementandbiker groupsappearing to take steps to keep photojournalists from documenting funerals, and officers threatening reporters with trespass onpublic streetsand as they try andask questionsof public officials.

Reporters Committee Executive Director Bruce Brownaddressed the issuein an op-ed that ran in both the Houston Chronicle and the San Antonio Express-News last week.

Though there is certainly an element of press safety at play here, this isnt about the press, Brown wrote. Its ultimately about the right of a community suffering unknowable loss to have information about what took place, how public officials and community members are responding, and what is being discussed to try to prevent it from happening again.

Concern mounted the week before last after a Chronicle reporter posted avideoshowing that he was physically surrounded by members of a biker group who appear to be trying to prevent him from walking toward a cemetery gate.

The Chronicle and the Express-News alsoreportedthat bikers from several groups physically obstructed cameras within designated media areas, followed reporters and harassed them as they walked closer toward the ceremonies. The same story reported that one member of the group Guardians of the Children, who declined to give her name, said the group was working with the police.

The executive editor for the Express-News, the closest daily newspaper to Uvalde, toldCNNlast week that law enforcement has been closing entire public streets around the funerals. She also said shed been told that bikers were telling family members who wanted to speak to reporters that you dont have to talk to them, just move along.

Additionally, CBS Newss Lilia Lucianoreportedthat a woman who ran into the school to rescue her children, on probation for decade-old charges, received a call from law enforcement who threatened her with obstruction if she spoke to the media. She only shared her story after a judge said she was brave, and that her probation would be shortened.

Were still gathering the facts here, and, legally, the facts will matter. That said, as Brown wrote in his op-ed, if there is any coordination between law enforcement and the biker groups, that is unacceptable.

Further, depending on the nature of any coordination, members of those groups could qualify as state actors, meaning that if they retaliate or harass journalists for their reporting, they could be exposed to legal liability (and theres some question whether they would have defenses, like qualified immunity, that would be available to police).

And if law enforcement or private individuals acting at their behest are trying to intimidate anyone who wants to speak to the press, there could be First Amendment implications as well.

Ultimately, though, what were hearing out of Uvalde suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the news media in documenting an event like the Robb Elementary School shooting and its aftermath.

No journalist should ever invade the privacy of a suffering parent or relative, and this is not an assignment that any reporter would relish. But all indications are the news media has been respectful of the families, while, rightly, seeking to report on the response to the shooting by law enforcement and public officials.

And, if there were ever a public interest in something, its allowing the families thatwantto tell their stories and share their grief with the nation to do so.

Like what youve read?Sign up to get the full This Week in Technology + Press Freedom newsletter delivered straight to your inbox!

The Technology and Press Freedom Project at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press uses integrated advocacy combining the law, policy analysis, and public education to defend and promote press rights on issues at the intersection of technology and press freedom, such as reporter-source confidentiality protections, electronic surveillance law and policy, and content regulation online and in other media. TPFP is directed by Reporters Committee attorney Gabe Rottman. He works with Stanton Foundation National Security/Free Press Legal Fellow Grayson Clary and Technology and Press Freedom Project Legal Fellow Gillian Vernick.

More here:
Troubling interference with media in Uvalde, Texas - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

On Friday the U.S. Attorney and the FBI issued a joint statement that said - yes - we are committed to the First Amendment and the American right to peacefully demonstrate, which is planned for Monday in Washington. But - no - We will not tolerate violence, destruction, interference with government functions, or trespassing on government property, which is also a distinct possibility as well-organized and quite determined protesters plan to block the entrances into The Supreme Court building tomorrow morning..

The idea is if protesters can block access to the building, they can disrupt the court and somehow stave the decision of Roe v.

The rare joint statement, issued by U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves and Assistant Director in Charge Steven M. DAntuono of the FBI Washington Field Office, read, The U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia and the FBIs Washington Field Office are committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of all Americans to express their views peacefully during demonstrations that take place on a regular basis in the nations capital, including at the Supreme Court.

We also have a responsibility to ensure public safety and the orderly conduct of government business, the statement continued.

We will not tolerate violence, destruction, interference with government functions, or trespassing on government property. We are committed to working closely with our local, state, and federal law enforcement partners to stop any individuals who intend to commit violence or criminal activity under the guise of carrying out a demonstration.

The protests thus far, in front of the judges residences, have become increasingly ugly and with the distinct chance the Roe decision could come tomorrow around 10 a.m., law enforcement has become increasingly stiffened. I think there is a lot of vitriol, said Capitol Police chief Tom Manger in an interview with CNN several days ago. Somebody would even say there is hate speech going on between the two sides and that is concerning to me.

Of equal concern to law enforcement is the arrest of an armed gunman at the house of Associate Justice Bret Cavanaugh last week. A 27-year-old identified at Nicholas John Roske flew from California with enough implements and deranged mind to kill Kavanaugh and then commit suicide. This is a lawmans biggest fear since such a lone wolf is nigh impossible to predict.

As it were, two U.S. Marshals were guarding the Kavanaugh home at about 1 a.m. Wednesday after nightly protests and their presence apparently spooked Roske, causing him to call 9-1-1 and turn himself in to Maryland law enforcement. He has been booked on attempted murder and, if found guilty, could serve up to 20 years in prison.

The Capitol police, Washingtons Metro police, and several other agencies admit they are ramping up their forces for tomorrow. The protest organizers plan to meet about 7 a.m., split into three groups, and block the three automobile entrances to the Supreme Court property. DC Metro will launch a Civil Disturbance Unit tomorrow and the Capitol Police are adding overtime shifts, beefing up security, and staying in near-constant contact with local, state, and national law enforcement.

THIS FROM CNN: The increased security comes as the Department of Homeland Security is warning that threats in the U.S. could become even more volatile throughout the summer and the midterm election season, fueled by election-year misinformation and potential violence surrounding a final Supreme Court opinion in a case that stands as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade's holding of a federal constitutional right to an abortion.

Capitol Police recently warned officers about an abortion-related "Shut Down SCOTUS" protest slated for Monday that's organized by the activist group ShutDownDC. Intelligence officials are particularly concerned about social media posts urging violence against abortion rights protests, according to the Capitol Police memo.

"Like recent large pro-abortion rights demonstrators, counter-protestors are likely, although there are no indications of organized counter protests," the memo said.

The memo notes ShutDownDC has not committed violence in the past, but instead uses nonviolent civil disobedience, which has resulted in arrests at protests. The group has also protested at the homes of members of Congress and Supreme Court justices, the memo said.

The Department of Homeland Security previously warned that the impassioned abortion debate presents risks to protesters, lawmakers, Supreme Court justices and others, and it warned the threats could come from both sides of the issue.

In addition to the pending abortion opinion, the Supreme Court is poised to issue a ruling in its first major Second Amendment case in more than a decade.

Within hours following the leak of a draft opinion from the Supreme Court that would strike down Roe v. Wade, protests broke out at the court, and within days materialized at the homes of several justices.

Security officials at the court responded by erecting a tall, non-scalable fence around the building two days after the leak. The small police department also has leaned on its law enforcement partners to help fill in the gaps in security, especially for justices. The US Marshals Service has said it is assisting.

* * *

You will want to follow this story. And pray everybody involved behaves.

royexum@aol.com

Read more:
Roy Exum: A Tempest In A Teapot - The Chattanoogan

The Kansas Reflector welcomes opinion pieces from writers who share our goal of widening the conversation about how public policies affect the day-to-day lives of people throughout our state. Max Kautsch is an attorney whose practice focuses on First Amendment rights and open government law.

Following one of the more contentious and veto-heavy legislative sessions in recent memory, our states legislators and their constituents have had a few weeks to reflect. Hopefully, we are all thinking about more than just why some bills passed and some didnt. Closely examining that question has become increasingly frustrating because of the way the Legislature operates.

Perhaps we should be thinking more about how those legislative outcomes are the result of a deeply flawed legislative process in desperate need of reform.

I began my post as president of the Kansas Coalition for Open Government at the beginning of this month. The coalition, previously known as the Sunshine Coalition, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that, since its inception in 1999, has helped make Kansas government more transparent.

As the legal hotline attorney for the Kansas Press Association and Kansas Association of Broadcasters, Ive been on the coalitions board of directors since 2015. The organization serves as a resource for Kansans with questions about the transparency of their state and local government.

Most recently, the coalition put together eight basic ideas for legislative reform that were included in an article published on the Kansas Reflectors website May 8. Those eight proposed reforms involve streamlining and making more transparent the process by which bills become laws. Those suggestions were:

The coalition put together eight basic ideas for legislative reform that were included in an article published on the Kansas Reflectors website May 8. Those eight proposed reforms involve streamlining and making more transparent the process by which bills become laws.

The Reflector tells me that according to its metrics, the May 8 article has been widely read, and it led to a column from the Reflectors Clay Wirestone on May 17 focusing on the eight reforms. But feedback from the legislators themselves?

Crickets, reports editor in chief Sherman Smith.

Kansas voters cannot allow our elected leaders to avoid this crucial issue. Indeed, to achieve the best government possible for the people of this state and prove that our legislators act in the public interest and not their own, they must, at minimum, show a willingness to entertain the suggestions from the May 8 article to improve the legislative process.

After all, if elected leaders are not sensitive to the concerns of their voters, why should they remain in office?

The coalition will be sending an email this week from [emailprotected] to each of the legislators asking: Do you support any of the eight legislative reforms suggested in the Reflectors articles published May 8 and May 17? Why or why not?

To make sure all the legislators receive the email, the coalition has contacted the Legislatures information technology department, and I am reasonably certain that the messages will not go to legislators spam folders. At the very least, we ought to find out whether they are checking their email when not in session.

You can expect a report about the responses a month or so from now in this space. Until then, give some thought to how the Legislature passes these bills, not just why.

Ask yourself: Would I be better off knowing more about how laws are made? If the answer is yes, encourage your legislator to answer the coalitions email. And keep their responses in mind when you vote in August and November.

Through its opinion section, the Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary,here.

Read more:
With open government on the line, we're calling Kansas legislators to account - Kansas Reflector