Mediaboss Marketing

Alexandria Sheriff Sean Casey says the recent actions of a deputy against a YouTuber outside the city jail are inconsistent with its policies and procedures.

In a video that posted today (Jan. 20), an Alexandria Sheriffs Deputy asked that Constitutional activist SeanPaulReyes of Long Island Audit not film outside the city jail. Reyes tells the deputy that he is an independent journalist exercising his First Amendment rights, and then refuses to provide the deputy with his full name.

This is a public area, Reyes tells the deputy. I havent committed a crime.

After refusing to provide his name, the deputy says, Well, I can also detain you, if you like.

Casey said that he is aware of the video, and that a full inquiry is underway.

The Alexandria Sheriffs Office is aware of the Youtube video posted on January 20 documenting an interaction between a deputy and a member of the public, Casey posted on social media. We are actively investigating this incident and understand the publics concern. Based on our initial review of the video, the actions of the deputy are inconsistent with our policies and procedures. A full inquiry is underway.

Reyes, who has 182,000 subscribers, and filmed dozens of other videos with law enforcement around the country.

Were here today to peacefully exercise our First Amendment right to film in public and publicly accessible areas to promote transparency and accountability within our government and to ensure that our public servants respect our rights and treat us with respect, Reyes said.

The deputy later drove away from the jail.

Oh, thank you for leaving, deputy, Reyes says as the deputy drives away. Appreciate it. Please just go.

The Sheriffs Office did not comment further.

Via Youtube

Read more:
JUST IN: Sheriff says deputy was wrong in interaction with YouTuber filming outside city jail - ALXnow

For two years now, weve seen Republicans cry My body, my choice in response to the stay-at-home orders and mask mandates put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. A popular saying among the left, pro-choice crowd has become the new chant for the right, anti-masker agenda as if wearing a cloth over ones face is as invasive as a pregnancy.

As much as I hate to admit it, it makes sense that the political right has adopted such a saying. They claim to be, after all, the defenders of our first amendment rights defenders of our freedom of speech.

So why is it that a year since Donald Trumps presidency ended, and a year since the Jan. 6 insurrection, these supposed freedom of speech warriors are censoring themselves? Lets go Brandon is not as powerful or impactful of a phrase as they think it is. In fact, its a display of the constant irony within pro-Trump groups.

The phrase Lets go Brandon grew in popularity among right-wing circles because its a coded, clean version for F Joe Biden. The phrase started during an NBC interview with NASCAR driver Brandon Brown in October. Behind Brown and the reporter, the crowd chanted F Joe Biden, which the interviewer misheard as Lets go Brandon.

The slogan quickly took off within right-wing groups and became yet another catchphrase that Trump supporters like to stick to the bumper of their cars.

Republicans like to proclaim themselves as defenders of our first amendment rights. However, like any political party, they tend to be hypocritical from time to time. For example, When Twitter banned Trump a year ago, Republicans seethed at the idea that Big Tech was infringing upon the first amendment. At the same time, Republicans have been fierce advocates against trans people using their desired bathroom, which is just as much, if not more, of an infringement on first amendment rights.

Being freedom of speech warriors is only one of the many titles Republicans have given themselves over the years. They also used to claim to be the party that advocates for traditional familial values. However, with the rise of Republican superstars like Matt Gaetz and cheating adulterer Trump, these traditional values Republicans once highlighted during the Nixon and Reagan eras seem to be deteriorating.

And even though these traditional values are breaking down, it is apparently still too controversial to say f out loud. Ill admit, the f-word might be too strong of a word to use, I suppose it may corrupt the ears of little children around the country, after all. Oh no! For next time, it might be useful to invest in a thesaurus. There are quite literally thousands of different synonyms to replace the F in FJB.

Many Republicans claim that Democrats want to establish an Orwellian, 1984-esque communist regime. They claim their Democratic neighbors are communists, socialists and Marxists without ever fully grasping the difference between the three. There is no Big Brother waiting to smite you for going against the Democratic agenda. You will not be hunted down and slaughtered if you criticize the president or call him names. If there was a Big Brother who did these things, most people would have died a long time ago.

The reality is, I think there really is not much else to defend when it comes to our freedom of speech we already have it. With the exception of incitement, defamation and a few other kinds of speech that obviously should not be protected, most of what you say is protected under the first amendment. You could say the most heinous and disgusting things, but guess what? Hate speech is protected by the Constitution, and so is your right to cuss out the president.

So why not just say F Joe Biden? Its not a call to arms nor is it some kind of wicked battle-cry. And its definitely not some funny inside joke especially because everyones in on it. I wish I could say that this catchphrase is one big Gen-Z meme created to get a laugh out of people, but of course it isnt. Maybe we truly are living in some dystopian novel.

Representatives on the House floor are sporting Lets go Brandon merch and Florida Republican Bill Posey went as far as to end an October floor speech with the popular saying and a fist bump. Its not just in Washington either. A cryptocurrency called LGBcoin, or Lets Go Brandon Coin, attempted to sponsor Brown, whose name started this charade.

There are many Democrats and non-Trump supporters who think this whole ordeal is ridiculous. At the same time, many Republicans seem to actually enjoy the self-censorship they are participating in. Republican ad maker Jim Innocenzi said this new saying is done with a little bit of a class.

I think many would say that there really is nothing classy about this whatsoever. But regardless of whether the public thinks its classy or not, this whole ordeal just screams idiocy and highlights the hypocrisy of the GOP. The party of freedom of speech once spoke freely and didnt censor themselves on live TV. But now, months after the incident, pro-Trump Republicans are censoring themselves when that is the very thing they swore to fight against.

Honestly, if you want to criticize, ridicule or simply just cuss out the president or any other elected official just do it. There is no need to censor your language or hide behind a thinly veiled joke in order to get your point across. Its cowardly. Those that chant Lets go Brandon are playing into the exact thing they are supposedly trying to protect this country from.

Just swear next time. Itll save you from embarrassment.

Livia LaMarca mostly writes about American politics and pop culture. Write to her at [emailprotected].

Read more:
Opinion | The party of freedom of speech is censoring themselves - The Pitt News

A key reason for the nations polarization can be found in the newly released Knight Foundation study on free expression. It is clear that too many Americans fail to understand the importance of free expression and the functional interdependence required to implement that basic human right. Basically, citizens get to express themselves in exchange for allowing other citizens the same freedom. Further, the Constitutions First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting the citizens broad expression rights. The Knight study shows too many Americans are oblivious to these notions that are essential in a free society.

A healthy democracy requires a healthy First Amendment atmosphere. When corners of the society get comfortable with squelching the expression of alternate views, oppression and authoritarianism necessarily follow. That sort of community censorship is bad enough, but when some citizens want to greenlight the government to crack down on nonconformist or unapproved perspectives, a nation is on the road to despotism. Evidence of such warning signs is found in the Knight report, which surveyed over 4,000 American adults across the nation.

A disappointing 26 percent of respondents believe government should prohibit a person from sharing political views that are offensive to some. Granted, the survey statement lacks context and is hypothetical, but this statement should be easy for any red-blooded American to handle. Just as scary, 32 percent of those surveyed are okay with the government having the ability to block or censor online news providers. The constitutional framers would be shocked to see even a fraction of Americans willing to allow such government regulation of expression, regardless of content.

The Knight study also indicates Americans are confused about the importance of allowing a wide-ranging and lively marketplace of ideas.

Some citizens apparently think they have a corner on reasonable ideas and see no need for anybody else to think otherwise. Only 77 percent of Americans agree with the statement, Having different points of view, including those that are bad or offensive to some, promotes healthy debate in society. The other 23 percent are obviously confident their own ideas are not bad or offensive.

Only 90 percent of respondents agree that People should be allowed to express unpopular opinions. In the United States, that percentage should be 100. Throughout American history, unpopular opinions engaged the rhetorical sphere, survived, and with the help of debate and reason, emerged into acceptance, new policy and altered attitudes. Respondents who dont agree with letting unpopular opinions circulate themselves likely have opinions that their fellow citizens might perceive to be unpopular. The First Amendment was formulated exactly to let offbeat or unpopular opinions enter the discussion. Otherwise, the mob of community censorship extinguishes societal debate.

Not surprisingly, the Knight report shows a partisan divide regarding perceptions of free expression. Democrats, for example, are much more concerned than Republicans are about the spread of misinformation in society. There is also partisan disagreement over content regulation on social media platforms and what constitutes legitimate public protest. It appears how one views free expression rights is affected by the lens of party affiliation.

It is difficult to assess why Americans have such incomplete understanding and appreciation for the free expression principle. The nations education system must shoulder part of the responsibility, beginning from elementary school up through college. Insufficient education about civics, American history and the Constitution leaves students clueless as to why the framers created a First Amendment and how, despite some bumps in the road, it has functioned to keep the nation free for all these years.

A more discouraging explanation for this national lack of commitment to free expression is that a large swath of the citizenry simply doesnt support the concept. Perhaps they fear their views cant withstand scrutiny in the marketplace and thus are comfortable with allowing suppression from the cancel mobs or even government. The raw power of censorship serves authoritarian impulses. That might seem attractive to certain people who want to shut other voices out of the dialogue, but that sounds good only until it is your opinion that gets disfavored.

Restricting the flow of expression is bound to cause societal division, as is being witnessed in America today. Suppression ultimately doesnt work in free societies.

A first step in reducing polarization is to gain recognition that fellow citizens are allowed to have and express their views and that such occasionally raucous freedom is preferable to forced conformity of thought.

Until Americans more fully understand the principle of free expression, coaxing civil dialogue into the nations deliberations will be difficult, and polarization will continue to reign.

Jeffrey McCall is a media critic and professor of communication at DePauw University. He has worked as a radio news director, a newspaper reporter and as a political media consultant. Follow him on Twitter@Prof_McCall.

Read more:
Ending nation's polarization begins with understanding First Amendment | TheHill - The Hill

The religious right has an extraordinarily high win rate before the current, Republican-dominated Supreme Court, even when it asks for accommodations that endanger human lives. So there probably isnt much doubt how the Court will rule in Shurtleff v. Boston, a free speech case brought by a conservative Christian group.

But unlike several other cases, where this Supreme Court has scrambled longstanding legal doctrines to hand victories to religious conservatives, the plaintiffs in Shurtleff raise genuinely strong arguments under existing legal precedents. Indeed, the best arguments for these plaintiffs position are strong enough that President Joe Bidens administration filed a brief urging the Court to rule in their favor.

Shurtleff involves three flagpoles that stand outside of Bostons city hall. One of these flagpoles displays the US flag, with a flag honoring prisoners of war and missing soldiers displayed below it. The second features Massachusettss flag. And the third displays the city of Bostons flag but only most of the time.

On many occasions, the city will replace its flag with another honoring an ethnic group, a cultural celebration, a historic event or individual, or some other flag requested by private citizens. At various points, Boston has displayed the flags of many nations, including Brazil, China, Ethiopia, Italy, Mexico, and Turkey. Its also displayed an LGBTQ Pride flag, a flag memorializing victims of murder, a flag commemorating the Battle of Bunker Hill, and a flag intended to honor Malcolm X.

But Boston will not display a Christian flag in particular, a mostly white flag featuring a red cross on a blue background in its corner. And it wont do so despite the fact that Camp Constitution, a group founded to promote free enterprise and to enhance understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage, formally requested that the city display this flag.

The Boston city commissioner who denied this request says he did so because displaying a religious flag could be interpreted as an endorsement by the city of a particular religion, in violation of separation of church and state or the [C]onstitution. (In fairness, there are older Supreme Court cases suggesting that the government cannot take actions that could reasonably be perceived as endorsing a religious viewpoint, but those older cases are out of favor with the current Court. And they are not at issue in Shurtleff.)

The legal question in Shurtleff turns on who, exactly, is expressing a pro-Christian message when a private group asks the city to display this flag on its own flagpole, and Boston agrees to do so. Is it the city who owns the pole, or the group who requested the flag?

When the government speaks in its own voice, it is allowed to say what it wants without having to worry about whether other viewpoints are excluded. As the Supreme Court put it in 2015, in a line that has tremendous resonance for the nations current political divide, How could a state government effectively develop programs designed to encourage and provide vaccinations, if officials also had to voice the perspective of those who oppose this type of immunization?

Yet, if the government creates a forum where other people are invited to express their own views, then the government is subject to strict safeguards against discrimination. As the Court put it in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (2009), once a forum is opened to private speakers, restrictions based on viewpoint are prohibited.

In any event, determining who is responsible, as a legal matter, for a flag displayed on Bostons third flagpole is not an easy question.

The First Amendment ordinarily forbids viewpoint discrimination of any kind by the government. A public school could not, for example, provide meeting space to a student Republican organization but not a student Democratic organization, if both groups are otherwise qualified to use that space.

Notably, this bar on viewpoint discrimination is absolute. If the Supreme Court determines that it applies in the Shurtleff case, then Boston would be unable to exclude a Nazi group from flying a flag for as long as the flagpole is available to people with other viewpoints.

But the bar on viewpoint discrimination does not apply when the government expresses its own opinions in its own voice. As the Supreme Court put it in one case, the government is allowed to express the message Fight Terrorism without having to give equal time to al Qaeda.

In Summum, the Court rejected a demand from a religious group who claimed that, because a Utah city already displayed 15 monuments in a public park, it must also display a 16th monument proclaiming the Seven Aphorisms of SUMMUM. The Court reasoned that permanent monuments displayed on public property typically represent government speech.

Then, in Walker v. Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (2015), the Court reached a similar conclusion with respect to license plates. Texas permitted private individuals to design specialty license plates that had to be approved by the state. After a pro-Confederate organization designed a plate that incorporated the slaveholding confederations battle flag, the Court held that the state could reject this plate design.

Both cases looked to three factors to determine whether speech should be attributed to the government or to an individual and therefore whether the government is allowed to exclude disfavored viewpoints. These include the history of the kind of forum where the speech takes place, whether the government maintained control over that forum, and whether persons who observe the speech would reasonably conclude that it comes from the government (These three factors can overlap somewhat, as a court may need to look at the history of a particular forum to determine whether the government maintains control over it.)

But these factors cut in different directions in the Shurtleff case. Historically, between 2005 and 2017, the city considered 284 requests to raise a flag on city halls third flagpole, and it approved every single one of these requests before it rejected Camp Constitutions request to display a Christian flag. That suggests that the flagpole operated more as a public forum that was open to all comers, and less as a place where the city displays carefully curated messages.

On the other hand, the state maintains the land where the flagpole stands. It requires a city employee to be present when a new flag is raised on the flagpole. And it keeps a tight grip on the hand-crank that must be used to raise and lower flags. Boston, in other words, retains control over the flagpole.

And, while Summum and Walker asked whether someone who observes a message would reasonably understand that message to come from the government, the answer to that question is likely to depend on the observer.

Imagine someone who jogs by Boston City Hall every morning. This observer could see a Brazilian flag one day, a Pride flag the next day, and a flag honoring Malcolm X on the next. If they jogged by one day and saw a Christian flag on the same flagpole, theyd probably believe that the state flies a diversity of flags that dont necessarily reflect the citys official views.

Now imagine a one-time visitor to Boston who, lacking any context about why a particular flag is being displayed on a city flagpole, observes a Christian flag flying outside of city hall. That observer would reasonably conclude that the city aligns itself with Christianity potentially to the exclusion of other faiths.

All of which is a long way of saying that, under existing law, Shurtleff is a tough case.

Although there are plausible arguments that the three factors identified in Summum and Walker cut in either direction, the purpose of those factors is to determine who is actually expressing a particular message the government or a private citizen. And, as the Biden administration argues in its brief, its tough to argue that the contested flagpole is really a place where Bostonians can learn about their governments views.

The city, the Justice Department notes, has not exercised any meaningful control over, or selectively chosen among, the flags flown during flag-raising events. The city neither designs the flags that are displayed, nor asks people requesting that their flag be displayed to alter those flags. Indeed, for a dozen years, the city appears to have rubber-stamped applications to display a flag. In most cases, it approved requests without seeing the actual flag that would be displayed.

Boston, in other words, has hardly treated its flagpole as a place where the government displays its own carefully curated messages. Its treated it much more like a public meeting space that anyone is allowed to use except, apparently, for Camp Constitution.

Given this reality, and a majority of the justices sympathy for religious conservatives, it appears likely that Camp Constitution will prevail in Shurtleff.

That said, that doesnt necessarily mean that a Christian flag will soon fly beside Boston City Hall. Shortly after the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the Shurtleff case, the city made an announcement of its own the City of Boston is no longer accepting flag-raising applications. Boston says that it is re-evaluating the program in light of the U.S. Supreme Courts recent decision to consider whether the program as currently operated complies with Constitutional requirements.

Thats an understandable decision because, as mentioned above, if the flagpole is subject to the rule against viewpoint discrimination, then this rule is absolute. Not only would Boston be forbidden from excluding religious flags, it would also be forbidden from rejecting swastikas, Confederate flags, or flags endorsing the failed January 6 effort to install former President Donald Trump as an unelected leader.

This outcome might have been avoided if Boston had maintained more control over its own flagpole although any exclusion of a conservative Christian group could still run into problems with a conservative Supreme Court. But, under the facts of this particular case, Boston wasnt even able to convince the Biden administration to take its side.

See original here:
Supreme Court: The Christian right brings a case it deserves to win - Vox.com

Updated Information

Find a statement from the Vigo County Health Department at the bottom of this story.

VIGO COUNTY, Ind. (WTHI) - We now know some of the next steps forward in the lawsuit against the Vigo County Health Department.

We first told you about this lawsuit in late October of last year.

Vigo County resident Doug Springer filed a federal lawsuit against the health department, claiming it violated his rights by banning him from its Facebook page.

Springer says in January of 2021, he commented on a health department post involving COVID-19 cases in the county. It's an action he claims got him banned.

A pre-trial conference is set for Monday, January 24, via telephone. By Monday, those involved need to file a proposed case management plan. It will include deadlines for witnesses and evidence.

Springer said he reacted to a Facebook post from the department, writing that positive COVID-19 test results aren't the same as cases of sick patients.

Court documents say, Springer, to the best of his recollection, posted the following:

"They are NOT cases; they are positive test results and the majority of them will never get sick from the virus. The very fact that the number of positives without accompanying illness is so high shows that the virus is much less dangerous than it is being portrayed."

When the health department banned him from the page, the lawsuit claims that it hid his previous comments from public view. It also continues to ban him from making new comments.

The lawsuit claims the actions from the Vigo County Health Department violate Springer's rights under the First Amendment. It goes on to say the department's actions represent improper viewpoint-based discrimination.

He's asking to be unbanned from the health department's Facebook page and for all of his comments to be restored.

In court documents, the Vigo County Health Department says the following:

"The Health Department admits the decision to prevent the plaintiff, Mr. Springer, from commenting on the Facebook Page of the Health Department is based on the belief that Mr. Springer was using the Health Departments Facebook platform to engage in disinformation and unprotected speech regarding the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nothing prevents Mr. Springer from posting on his own Facebook page his feelings and issues surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic...The plaintiffs statement indicating that this disease was much less dangerous than it was being portrayed is a message the Health Department is not willing to tolerate on its Facebook Page for anyone"

See the full document below.

Read this article:
Pre-trial conference set for a federal First Amendment lawsuit against the Vigo County Health Department - WTHITV.com