Mediaboss Marketing

Jehovah's Witnesses are marking the 20th anniversary next week of a landmark Supreme Court decision that upheld their right to knock on doors and share their faith without getting government permission.

The 8-1 ruling in Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of N.Y., Inc. v. the Village of Stratton, Ohio, et. al. struck down a town ordinance that made it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first filling out a registration form and obtaining a permit from the mayor.

The ruling was a victory -- not only for the organization, but for anyone who wants to knock on a neighbor's door and talk about religion or politics.

A live webinar highlighting the significance of the decision is scheduled for Friday, 20 years to the day after its release. See tinyurl.com/a6bb9wbb.

Witnesses have paused going door-to-door, voluntarily, due to covid-19, but they plan to resume once it is safe to do so.

No matter a member's occupation, "We're ministers first. We go out door to door, we write letters, we make phone calls. If we didn't, we would not be fulfilling our obligations as Christians," said Robert Hendriks, the Witnesses' U.S. national spokesman.

The tract society, founded in the 1880s, has distributed literature to every corner of the globe.

FUNDAMENTAL TENET

For members of the group, spreading the faith is a fundamental tenet, according to Paul Polidoro, the Witnesses' associate general counsel and the man who made the case to the court during oral arguments.

"From a religious perspective, Christ Jesus gave his followers the command to share the message of the Kingdom with everyone. And so this Good News of hope and comfort and peace is something very important to Jehovah's Witnesses," Polidoro said in an interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette this week.

Commanded in Matthew 28:19 to "Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations," the Witnesses had made inroads in many communities, but not Stratton.

Witnesses did not have a place of worship, known as a Kingdom Hall, within the township, a community of 278 that is nestled against the Ohio River, a stone's throw from the Pennsylvania state line.

But members of the faith were visiting from nearby Wellsville and knocking on doors, a practice that irked Stratton's mayor, John M. Abdalla.

So village officials passed the ordinance, ostensibly to deter crime and protect residents from con artists.

But the law was not limited to door-to-door salesmen or to commercial speech. It covered a broad range of activities, including religious and political speech.

Abdalla denied the measure targeted Witnesses, who had offered to bypass any house posting a "No Solicitation" sign.

COURT HEARING

The ordinance -- which had the backing of the state of Ohio and the National League of Cities -- was largely upheld by the lower courts, but it failed to impress the nine people sitting on the nation's high court.

During oral arguments on Feb. 26, 2002, they, at times, sounded incredulous.

Abraham Cantor, the attorney representing Stratton, told the justices that the ordinance targeted "canvassers, hawkers, and those who are going door to door for a cause."

But it covered plenty of other people, too, the justices were quick to note.

"Well, how about trick-or-treaters? Do they have to get a permit," asked Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, prompting chuckles in the courtroom.

Somehow, Cantor managed to side-step the question.

But Polidoro, the attorney representing the Witnesses, circled back around to address it, telling O'Connor that under the language adopted by Stratton, "trick-or-treaters during Halloween are mentioned, so they're encompassed under the ordinance."

Throughout the oral arguments, Cantor was peppered with questions -- and laughter, which broke out 11 times, according to the official court transcript. See tinyurl.com/ycxjs25n.

Would youngsters be required to get a permit to sell Girl Scouts cookies, one justice asked?

"Yes, Girl Scouts would be covered," Cantor replied.

"Or Christmas carolers?" a justice asked on follow up.

"Or how about borrowing a cup of sugar from your neighbor," asked another.

Cantor said sugar borrowing would be exempt.

POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS SPEECH

Antonin Scalia noted that the ordinance limited not only commercial speech, but also political and religious speech.

"Do you know any other case of ours [the Supreme Court] that has even involved an ordinance of this breadth, that involves solicitation, not asking for money, not selling goods, but even, you know, 'I want to talk about Jesus Christ,' or 'I want to talk about protecting the environment?' Have we had a case like that?" he asked. "I don't even know of such cases, over two centuries."

On June 17, 2002, the Supreme Court issued its ruling. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said that "making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment."

"The mere fact that the ordinance covers so much speech raises constitutional concerns. It is offensive -- not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so."

Only Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented and argued that the ordinance imposed, "at most, a negligible burden on door to door communication."

STRATTON'S IMPACT

According to Josh McDaniel, director of the Religious Freedom Clinic at the Harvard Law School, the decision has had a "wide-ranging impact" on free speech for all.

"Stratton is an important but underappreciated decision because it affects citizens throughout the country without us realizing it. The case recognized that the First Amendment protects our right to cross the street and ring our neighbor's doorbell to talk about anything from religion to political candidates to issues affecting our neighborhood," he said in an email. "Without this decision, going door to door without first getting government approval could be a criminal offense."

Jason Scott Smith, an Arkansas Witness who has shared his faith for more than 35 years, said Stratton "has allowed more than 13,000 witnesses in Arkansas to continue to do that, following the example of the First Century congregation," adding, "This decision brought great joy to every minister of Jehovah's Witnesses in Arkansas and the United States.

The ruling had an effect on every faithful Witness.

Each of them is engaged in evangelism -- even members of the organization's legal department.

Asked whether the church's attorneys are required to go door-to-door like everyone else, Polidoro said the Bible commands all Witnesses to share their faith.

"We're all ministers first. Our obligation is to Jehovah God so it's a privilege for us personally to go from door to door," he said.

Phillip Brumley, the group's general counsel, portrayed the task as a privilege, not a chore.

"It's not so much that we have to do it; we get to do it," he said.

"I've had the privilege of helping seven [people get] to the point of baptism and they came right out of door-to-door work. When I look over at them, one is still in my congregation, boy, there's just a sense of joy," Brumley said. "I know what his life was like before he knew Jehovah and Jesus. And I know what his life is like today. And I think to myself, 'Wow, I had a little part in helping him understand these things,'" he said.

Audio of oral arguments is here: tinyurl.com/3nbsw83x.

The court's ruling is here: tinyurl.com/ye28tc8n.

Read more:
Knock on any door: Jehovah's Witnesses mark anniversary of landmark decision - Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

The House Jan. 6 committee on Thursday night laid out in horrifying detail the overwhelming evidence of a deliberate and well-planned effort to overturn the 2020 election. In future hearings we will surely hear more, much more.

A critically important set of questions remains, though: Where did the money come from? Who paid for this over two-month effort to reverse the results of an election that President Joe Biden won by over eight million votes? And who paid for what almost became a military coup as well as a violent insurrection?

There are several key areas where the Jan. 6 committee should be directing their focus.

Who paid for this over two-month effort to reverse the results of an election?

First, the committee (and the Federal Election Commission for that matter) should investigate how political funds were used in connection with Jan. 6. It is illegal for a candidate to use campaign funds to pay for a fur coat, a fancy car or vacation travel. It is also illegal to use campaign funds to pay for an insurrection or any other illegal conduct.

Many of the insurrectionists came to Washington on bus trips organized and paid for by political organizations in their states of origin, in many cases with funds from state Republican Party organizations, campaigns or related political entities. Political funds can be used for legal challenges to the results of an election when a legitimate challenge can be made. Likewise, campaign funds can be used to stage a rally to support the election of a candidate before the election or a rally to claim victory or concede defeat after the election.

But campaign funds cannot legally be used to attempt to overturn an election by anti-democratic means. Moreover, campaign funds cannot legally be used to encourage political supporters to break the law. Both the Trump campaign and state GOP organizations should have known as much.

Noticeably absent in the evidentiary record so far is any communications from the Trump campaign or from any of the many state Republican parties telling the rally participants sent to Washington that they were to obey the law there. There was no warning not to, for example, threaten lawmakers or Vice President Mike Pence. Most of the heated rhetoric from Republican Party organizers, including from former President Donald Trump, pointed in the opposite direction.

The second source of funding that should be considered wasnt cash, but the in-kind donations that came from the conservative media outlets that spread the Big Lie. Fox News of course comes to mind, but there were many others, including talk radio stations, blogs and more.

Here, of course, the First Amendment gives broad protection. Even calling for the reversal of a clearly valid election result is likely protected, so long as there are no concrete calls to violence or other acts that would violate criminal laws prohibiting incitement of insurrection. Indeed, a few of Trumps more unhinged critics seriously, or perhaps jokingly, used blog posts to call for a military coup against him before the election in 2020.

Nonetheless, the Jan. 6 committee should expose the actions of the largest media companies, including not just cable television and radio stations but social media giants like Facebook as well. Congress already has heard from the Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen about how Facebook was adjusting its rules to accommodate false statements posted by Trump, his campaign and his supporters up to Jan. 6. Likewise, these companies were happy to take campaign money to post and air ads that spread these lies after the election.

Facebook, Twitter and many of the media outlets that helped spread the Big Lie are public companies. If they are going to allow their platforms to be used for misinformation and incitement of insurrection, using shareholders and other investors money not just to promote a very conservative worldview, but to help destroy Americas status as a representative democracy, they are legally required at least to inform their investors that that is part of their business plan. Facebook didnt do that and has already been sued by its investors over this lack of disclosure.

Congress should follow up on the allegations in this complaint, as knowingly lying to investors is a securities fraud that can be prosecuted not only civilly but criminally. Furthermore, there needs to be a lot more explanation of what happened at a 2019 White House dinner attended by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Trump. The two reportedly discussed an understanding where Facebook would continue to avoid policing clearly false items posted by Trump and his supporters in return for the Trump administration going easy on regulation of Facebook.

Finally, Congress should investigate how taxpayers own money was used to foment insurrection inside the United States government. We heard on Thursday about the overwhelming evidence that Trump pressured the Justice Department to reverse the results of the election. Congress has already enacted a statute making it a felony for anyone to order or coerce a federal employee to engage in partisan political activity. That is exactly what happened at the DOJ and probably at other agencies as well.

In sum, the Jan. 6 insurrection did not come cheap.

In addition to criminal statutes prohibiting insurrection and sedition, the Jan. 6 committee should address the obvious violations of the political coercion statute, which Trump probably already had violated before the election by coercing high ranking officials in several federal agencies to support his re-election bid. The intensity of this coercion of federal officials accelerated after Trump lost the election and it was clearly illegal.

In sum, the Jan. 6 insurrection did not come cheap. Campaign money was used to spread the Big Lie and incite insurrection. Media companies, cable TV anchors and radio talk show hosts joined in. Social media companies allowed their platforms to be used for similar purposes and may have lied to their shareholders about what they were doing. Finally, taxpayers money was likely used to support the false claim that Trump had won the 2020 election and actions to turn that fantasy into a reality.

For all the evidence it has clearly gathered, the Jan. 6 committee has a lot of work to do. The most important part of that effort can be summed up with that old, all too familiar, adage: Follow the money.

Richard W. Painterwas the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007, underPresident George W. Bush. He is currently the S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Minnesota, and is a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School.

Read more from the original source:
The Jan. 6 committee investigation needs to track the money - MSNBC

Our view| Abilene Reporter-News

Askedtoday, What's in your wallet?, we'd all probably acknowledge "not as much."

Prices for gas, groceries and other items are draining our finances.

Yet, a bigger question in Abilene last week was, "What's in your library?"

Another large crowd gathered Thursday at a morning meeting of the Abilene City Council, which addressed why certain books wereon shelves in the children's section of the Abilene Public Library.

This issue has taken hold in Abilene, beginning with questions this spring aboutpublic school libraries. Of particular concern are books with themes that aredeemed not age appropriate. Particularly targeted areLGBTQbooks.

Coincidentally, or not, the latest effort was mounted at the start of Pride Month.

It seems as if location is the issue. A book ban is not being ordered, but moving the books elsewhere requested.

That, others say, would senda demeaning message.

This issue indeedis tricky.

We should know what's in our libraries. We usually don't, until we try to locate a certain book only to findit's checked out or not available here.

It's likelyfew considered what's in the children's section until they started lookingfor certain titles with content deemed offensive or inappropriate. Lists are available to conduct these literary scavenger hunts.

The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of expression, which includes a person's right to receive information. The American Library Associationin 1948 developed the Library Bill of Rights, which affirmed this protection.

We see school libraries and public libraries differently.

School libraries are intended to support the education of students, based on expertise on what is appropriate for grades. Diversity in books is important because the student population of a school can vary greatly in ethnicity, gender, life experiences, socio-economic status - all the things that make us different. A good lesson to learn.

While teachers and librarians are their guides, children are more on their own. Parents may not discover what a child has picked until the book arrives at home.

A public library is different.

For starters, youngsters and parents/guardians shouldgo togetherto choose books.

It's like going to the grocery store. A child may grab the box of sugar-laden cereal, say Kellogg's Honey Smacks, but an adult replaces it with something healthier. Or at this time, something less expensive. The decision provides the adult the opportunity to explain to the child why Box B is better than Box A.

It's unlikely the adult will go to the store manager to have Box A banned, unless to complain that only sugary cereals are for sale.

A library is a grocery store for readers. You pick and choose, and you let others do the same.

What you like, someone else may not like.

What you don't find offensive, someone else could.

Are Stephen King books too long? A fan might argue otherwise.

Library hunts for "bad books" come and go in history. The efforts are more about going on in society. We know too well we currently live in a divisive time.

There seems to be two stumbling blocks.

Today, it's more "our way or the highway."Are we afraid we'd find our views faulty, or, at least, better understand one contrary to ours? Would our friends run us off the road if we did?

More troubling is blaming someone else. The school. The public library. The City Council.

While some parents are championing their right to parent, parents are not taking the responsibility to parent.

It can't work that way.

There was no local public library issue until one was created. Now that we have, let's review current procedure toaffirm it. A Questionable Books Section is out of the question.

There is no need to create more divisiveness and a retaliatory cycle. Anyone's favorite books could be targeted next.

Visit link:
The new librarygate: Let's affirm the freedom to pick and choose - Abilene Reporter-News

Lawyers for Gov. Ron DeSantis and Attorney General Ashley Moody are fighting an attempt to block a state law and regulations that limit the way race-related issues can be taught in public schools and in workplace training.

In a court document filed last week, the lawyers argued Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker should reject a request for a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed in April after DeSantis signed the controversial law (HB 7). Walker is scheduled to hold a hearing June 21 on the preliminary-injunction issue, according to a court docket.

Plaintiffs in the case allege that the law and regulations violate First Amendment rights and are unconstitutionally vague. But in the 60-page document filed last week, lawyers for DeSantis and Moody disputed that the restrictions violate speech rights in schools and workplaces.

Here, the act does not prevent the states educators from espousing whatever views they may hold, on race or anything else, on their own time, and it does not prevent students from seeking them out and listening to them, the document said. All it says is that state-employed teachers may not espouse or advocate in the classroom views contrary to the principles enshrined in the act, while they are on the state clock, in exchange for a state paycheck. The First Amendment does not compel Florida to pay educators to advocate ideas, in its name, that it finds repugnant.

But in an April motion for a preliminary injunction, lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that DeSantis and other Republican leaders banned teachers and employers from endorsing a litany of opinions about race that had been stuck in their craw, such as institutional racism, white privilege and critical race theory.

This constitutional challenge is not about whether these ideas are right or whether they should be taught throughout Floridas schools and workplaces, the 53-page motion said. Rather, it is about an attempt by Floridas conservative politicians to silence exchange of these ideas and win a so-called culture war through legislative and executive fiat.

DeSantis this year made a priority of passing the law which he dubbed the Stop Wrongs Against our Kids and Employees Act, or Stop WOKE Act. It came after the State Board of Education last year passed regulations that included banning the use of critical race theory, which is based on the premise that racism is embedded in American society and institutions.

The law, which is scheduled to take effect July 1, lists a series of race-related concepts that would constitute discrimination if taught in classrooms or in required workplace-training programs.

As an example, part of the law labels instruction discriminatory if it leads people to believe that they bear responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin or sex.

As another example, the law seeks to prohibit instruction that would cause students to feel guilt, anguish or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the person played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, national origin or sex.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are two public-school teachers, a University of Central Florida associate professor, a child who will be a public-school student in the coming year and the president of a firm that provides workplace training.

In the motion for a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs attorneys from the Jacksonville firm of Sheppard, White, Kachergus, DeMaggio & Wilkison, P.A. wrote that the law and regulations intrude on the free expression and academic freedom of Floridas teachers by imposing a pall of orthodoxy over the classrooms.

These provisions suppress a wide range of viewpoints accepted by academics for the sole reason that Floridas conservative lawmakers disagree with them, the motion said. Even if such disagreement could form a legitimate government interest, Governor DeSantis failed to identify any actual examples of what he calls critical race theory being taught in Florida public school classrooms.

The plaintiffs attorneys also alleged that the restrictions ensure students learn only a white-washed version of history and sociological theories that ignore systemic problems in our society that create racial injustices.

But in the document filed last week, the lawyers for DeSantis and Moody wrote that the plaintiffs who are educators have no constitutional right of academic freedom to override curriculum policies adopted by democratically elected lawmakers.

Plaintiffs First Amendment challenge to the educational provisions fails because the act regulates pure government speech the curriculum used in state schools and the in-class instruction offered by state employees and the First Amendment simply has no application in this context, the document said.

The states lawyers, who also separately filed a motion last week seeking to dismiss the case, argued in the preliminary-injunction document that the state restrictions are intended at stamping out discrimination.

The balance of the equities and the public interest weigh decisively against enjoining the act. (The) state has a compelling constitutionally imperative interest in ending discrimination based on race and other immutable characteristics, and enjoining the act will sanction conduct and curricular speech that Florida has determined, in the exercise of its sovereign judgment, is pernicious and contrary to the states most cherished ideals, wrote the states lawyers, including attorneys from the Washington. D.C. firm of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC.

See the original post here:
State fires back in race-related instruction fight - Palm Coast Observer

After Johnny Depps successful defamation claim against Amber Heard, many observers are wondering if a recalibration of First Amendment law is occurring in the United States.

By all indications, it was a close case. The jury spent dozens of hours deliberating, evaluating six weeks worth of testimony and evidence. It ultimately decided that the preponderance of evidence favored Depp. Thats a purely probabilistic judgment, reflecting a conclusion that Johnny Depp was at least 1 percent more likely to be telling the truth than Amber Heard. Clearly the jury did not find Depp wholly credible, either: It also (somewhat paradoxically) held Depp liable to the tune of $2 million for statements his attorney made calling Heards claims a hoax.

In other words, it was a toss-up, and it would be a mistake to draw any sweeping conclusions from it, even though thats exactly whats happening right now on social media.

I cant help but think of similar alarm bells rung by many in the media back in 2016. That was when the former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan obtained a judgment against the website Gawker for publishing snippets of a video depicting him having sex. It was a shocking verdictnot because Gawker was found liable (there is absolutely no reasonable argument for publishing a surreptitiously recorded private sexual encounter between consenting adults)but because the jury saw fit to award Hogan $140 million in damages, sending Gawker into bankruptcy.

How could journalists critically report about public figures without facing the same fate as Gawker? As it turned out, just fine. Shortly after Gawkers demise, The New Yorker and The New York Times catalyzed the #MeToo movement by exposing Harvey Weinsteins behavior. In the years that followed, hundreds more powerful men have been exposed as abusers. Hardly any of them have challenged the allegations in court. Indeed, the majority of defamation lawsuits arising out of #MeToo have been filed by victims suing abusers for calling them liars, not vice versa.

If you ask practicing First Amendment lawyers how the Gawker verdict changed the way they do their job, most will tell you it had little effect. More than anything, it was a wake-up call that juries value privacy differently than they do reputation. When the dust settles in the Depp-Heard case, the same is likely to be true. The First Amendment is enormously protective of media reporting on credible accusations of sexual abuse. It is telling that Depp did not name the ACLU, which helped draft the op-ed at the center of the case, or The Washington Post (which published it).

Lara Bazelon: The ACLU has lost its way

Though the robust protection enjoyed by news media may be cold comfort to Amber Heard, the reality is that cases like this defy easy categorization because they are so dependent on the specific facts at issue. Unlike other First Amendment protections (for example, an article that accurately describes a judicial proceeding is absolutely protected under the fair-report doctrine), a truth defense usually requires a credibility assessment by a jury. That can come only at the end of an expensive, time-consuming, and highly invasive public trial. There was never any reasonable possibility of a judge throwing the case out on Heards behalf, and those expressing shock that Depp went the distance were engaging in wishful thinking.

Depp has more wealth and fame than Heard, but both parties had the benefit of experienced, well-resourced attorneys who presented comprehensive narratives to the public. Dozens of witnesses were called, expensive expert witnesses were retained, and videos and text messages were presented as evidence. No stone was left unturned by either side. The jury got to hear from both parties directly. It was a fair trial.

Despite the verdict, to call this a clean sweep for Depp is misguided. He won his case on a narrow question of whether he physically assaulted his wife. To do so, he had to admit to shocking behavior that anyone could call abuse. That is hardly an exoneration. There are no real winners here, and the simultaneous celebration of #JusticeForJohnny and piling on against Heard online is disturbing, particularly because it began well before any of the evidence was even presented.

Every case is different, and every jury is unique. If Depp and Heard re-ran this trial (yet) again, it may well have gone the other way. The bottom line is that seven Fairfax County, Virginia, residents found in favor of Depp. They have no more say about the future of the First Amendment than the six Pinellas County, Florida, jurors in the Gawker case. First Amendment advocates need not view this as an insurmountable blow to free speech.

Follow this link:
The First Amendment Will Survive Depp v. Heard - The Atlantic