Mediaboss Marketing

A fired Massachusetts teacher is suing the district officials who sent her packing for her TikTok videos that slammed critical race theory and other contentious issues.

Kari MacRae, who earlier this school year was hired to teach math and business at Hanover High School, was canned after her social media videos surfaced.

She posted those videos as a candidate for Bourne School Committee, months before getting hired in Hanover, her lawyers argue in the lawsuit filed in Massachusetts U.S. District Court. Theyre citing the First Amendment, and are seeking damages against Hanover Superintendent Matthew Ferron and Hanover High School Principal Matthew Mattos.

Kari MacRae was viciously targeted and unlawfully fired as a teacher because she exercised her First Amendment rights to criticize critical race theory, said Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, which filed the lawsuit.

This civil rights lawsuit aims to hold accountable school district officials who are so desperate to push critical race theory that they will trample the civil rights of our client, Ms. MacRae, Fitton added in a statement.

MacRae was elected to the Bourne School Committee in May, and she made TikTok posts during her campaign.

In one video, she said, So pretty much the reason I ran for school board and the reason Im taking on this responsibility is to ensure that students, at least in our town, are not being taught critical race theory. That theyre not being taught that the country was built on racism.

So theyre not being taught that they can choose whether or not they want to be a girl or a boy, she added in the video. Its one thing to include and its one thing to be inclusive. And its one thing to educate everybody about everything. Its completely another thing to push your agenda. And, with me on the school board, that wont happen in our town.

MacRae was fired after school officials investigated her social media videos.

Hanovers superintendent, Ferron, on Wednesday said the district is aware of the lawsuit.

Massachusetts school districts can let go teachers within their first 90 days of employment, with or without cause.

The Hanover Public School District understands and respects the First Amendment rights of all employees, Ferron said in a statement.

That being said, he added, if a teacher publicly interfaces with the community in a way that may negatively impact our ability to provide a positive and distraction free learning environment for our students and staff, it is important that school districts have the ability to exercise their 90-day dismissal option under Massachusetts law.

More here:
Fired Massachusetts teacher sues district after she was axed over TikTok videos - Boston Herald

The First Amendment protects the right to speak freely, but there are limits. Sometimes, citizens go too far, but sometimes so does the government.

Deborah Fisher| Guest Columnist

Tennessee Voices: A conversation with Deborah Fisher

Deborah Fisher, executive director of the Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, spoke with Tennessean opinion editor David Plazas.

Nashville Tennessean

I was recently on a panel that discussed where free speech ends and dangerous speech begins.

The topic is a recurring one in U.S. history and plays out in debates about hate speech, about burning crosses in peoples yards, about burning American flags, and about what is uttered by teachers in public schools.

Most Americans know that the First Amendment protects the right of speech in the United States that the government cant make laws controlling or punishing what you say.

Of course, there are limits to this liberty.

Hear more Tennessee Voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought provoking columns.

If you publish something untrue that damages a persons reputation, you could be sued for libel.

We also have laws that punish threats, harassment, fraud, conspiracy to commit crimes and incitement of lawless action.

In all of these laws, the right of free speech and free expression is balanced against the need for public health and safety and other state interests, such as national security and respect for fundamental rights.

One place this has played out is in public meetings where the governing body is permitted to make rules to maintain the safety and orderly proceeding of the meeting.

Sign up for Latino Tennessee Voices newsletter:Read compelling stories for and with the Latino community in Tennessee.

In Ohio, a school board, in its efforts to control its meetings, adopted a policy limiting what citizens could say during the public comment period.

The policy allowed the school board presiding officer to terminate a persons right to participate in public comments if the persons comments were too lengthy, personally directed, abusive, off-topic, antagonistic, obscene, or irrelevant.

The school boards president used the policy to remove a resident who he said was being basically unruly, not following the rules, being hostile in his demeanor.

Billy Ison, whose children and grandchildren had graduated from local schools, had been upset about the school boards actions after a school shooting that injured four students. During the the public comment period, he criticized the school board for suppressing opposition to pro-gun views.

Sign up for Black Tennessee Voices newsletter:Read compelling columns by Black writers from across Tennessee.

After Ison was kicked out for his comments, he sued the school board, saying his removal violated his constitutional First Amendment rights to free speech.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and said a citizen cannot be thrown out of a public meeting simply because he or she offends, antagonizes or harshly criticizes a governing body or members of a governing body during a public comment period.

The court, whose jurisdiction includes Tennessee, said that the school boards policy prohibiting personally directed, abusive and antagonistic comments violated free speech rights.

The government cannot prohibit speech purely because it disparages or offends, the court said. Doing so would be discriminating based upon a particular persons viewpoint.

The ruling was a victory for citizens who have felt muzzled by government for speaking out at public meetings. The court noted that Ison spoke calmly, used measured tones, and refrained from personal attacks or vitriol, focusing instead on his stringent opposition to the Boards policy and his belief the Board was not being honest about its motives.

Is it any surprise that our most contentious public debates somehow end up at school board meetings?

Here in Tennessee, weve recently seen impassioned and fiery comments in school board meetings over COVID-19 masks and about how to teach children about American history, particularly history involving racism and slavery.

Sometimes parents show up in large groups and carry signs.

As these debates continue, parents would do well to balance their shouting with listening, and school boards to separate the disagreeable comments and criticism from the type of behavior that truly threatens others or disrupts a meeting in such a way that it cannot be continued.

As Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote in 1927, fear breeds repression; ...repression breeds hate; ...hate menaces stable government; ...the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.

Deborah Fisher is executive director of Tennessee Coalition for Open Government. This column is part of a series that explores transparency in government in Tennessee. More information at http://www.tcog.info.

Link:
How government regulations controlling what people say can be dangerous | Opinion - The Tennessean

Steve Quick is running for Justice of the Peace Precinct 2 in the March 2022 Republican Primary.

Quicks family has lived in Anderson County for over 140 years. He was born and raised here and graduated from Elkhart High School with honors.

Quick, 59, is the father of three, Dustin Quick, Stephanie Quick Phillips and Joshua Quick.

They have all gave me many grandchildren, and are my greatest legacy in this life, of which I am so very proud, he said. I am proud of the family I come from, we are a long line of good hearted honest hard-working people, who actually care about our county and our country. I was raised as a God loving Christian and proud American loving citizen of this great country.

Quick said the position of Justice of the Peace is not one to be taken lightly.

It will need someone with the knowledge and experience, to help pave a path forward for future generations, he said. There is so much going on in our great country and I feel it is my patriotic duty to stand up, make a difference and be a part of bringing back a life for our children and grandchildren where they will still have the rights and liberties that our founding fathers fought so hard for us to have. I want to share all the knowledge and experience I have in the law enforcement field, in a way to pave a path for future generations. That is why I am running as a Republican candidate, and I feel the America First movement is the path we should all follow if we want to stop all the craziness going on in our country.

Quick said he will be patient, open-minded, courteous, tactful, firm but fair, understanding, compassionate, and will show humility.

I also have the ability to deal with people calmly and courteously, and I am willing to hear and consider the views of all sides of any type of incident that may come before me, he said.

If elected, Quick said he would bring over 20 plus years experience in the law enforcement field to the position.

Quick worked for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for 18 years, the last 10 years of that as a Lieutenant of Correctional Officers.

During his time as a Lieutenant, Quick said he was involved in the creation of TDCJ hospice program and worked with Justice of the Peace to create a program that would make things easier for the Justice of the Peace to process things when we had a death on the unit. That process we created is still used today.

Quick worked as an Anderson County Jail Administrator for two years and was involved in the passing of the jail bond and design of the new jail.

He said he was also involved in the Jail Diversion plan for people who had mental illness. This program is meant to direct those who need treatment into a program and those who actually committed a crime into jail.

Quick completed the East Texas Police Academy and was a Police Officer for the Cuney Police Department for three and a half years. He said this added to his knowledge and experience of how our judicial system works, and taught him to have patience when dealing with people on a different level.

He was a Captain at the Texas Youth Commission, now Texas Juvenile Justice Department, for a year. Quick said this was his most crucial of positions, where he learned that the judicial system starts failing with the children.

I have experienced firsthand how the justice system begins and ends, Quick said.

He has over 1,070 continued Law Enforcement education hours and 29 hours college credits.

He attend college for one year, but chose to change course by getting a job and joining the work force. His first job was working for the railroad. Since both of his parent worked for the railroad, he said they guided him in that direction.

Feeling a need for a change, Quick decided to go to work for Walmart Warehouse, which had just opened. He felt that might be a better career, however, after getting pressure from friends to come to work with them at TDCJ, he began his career into law enforcement.

I had finally found my place in this world, and this turned out to be something that had meaning, and I enjoyed doing it, Quick said. Which my desire for more knowledge motivated me to branch into and learn many different aspects of Law Enforcement. This is also my motivation to pursue my endeavor to be your next Anderson County Justice of the Peace Precinct 2.

Quick said during his career, he has held leadership positions in almost every field, which has been instrumental in teaching him how to make good common-sense decisions and managing any type of situation calmly and patiently.

This also gives me an advantage of being a diverse Justice of the Peace, Quick said. I have firsthand experience in every part of our Justice System, starting at the Juvenile level, County Jail, Street Police Officer, and State Prison. A Justice of the Peace should have had actual living experience, with knowledge of criminal and civil procedures, knowledge of jurisdictional rules and the operating of the court system, which is all important knowledge that cannot be learned just sitting at a desk or reading books, but also from actual real life firsthand experience.

Quick said he supports the First Amendment.

I support freedom of speech, he said. I do not support our cancel culture movement or Critical Race Theory.

Quick said he supports the Second Amendment.

I am a licensed peace officer and I also have a license to carry, he said. Therefore, I will be exercising my Second Amendment right and will be a carrying Justice of the Peace.

Quick said he supports all law enforcement and first responders.

They are what holds this country together and my respect for their jobs comes not only from my experience as one of them, but also from being a member of the community and seeing the amazing job they do, especially with so much against them right now, he said.

Quick said he supports our active military and veterans.

They are why we are the greatest country in the world, they fought and died for our freedom; but the Democratic party is trying to tear it apart each and every day, Quick said. It is time to take back control of all the craziness and take back our country.

Quick said he supports voter ID requirements and election integrity.

There is no excuse to not have a valid ID to vote, we must have and ID for every other thing we do so why not voting? Quick said.

See more here:
Quick seeks Justice of the Peace Pct. 2 position - Palestine Herald Press

An FBI raid on Project Veritas leader James OKeefes home in early November 2021has sparked an unusual demonstration of support from the very establishment media that OKeefe has spent his career targeting and trashing.

The raid was conductedon the suspicionthat OKeefe and former Project Veritas staffers were implicated in the theft of President Joe Bidens daughter Ashleys diary before the 2020 election. The Department of Justice said the cellphones sought in the raid would reveal evidence of aiding and abetting the transport of stolen property worth $5,000 or more across state lines, and of failure to report the theft to law enforcementin violation of federal law.

Project Veritas saysthat the phones contain attorney-client privileged information and newsgathering materials protected by the First Amendment.

OKeefe is the self-describedprogressive radicaland founder and CEO ofProject Veritas. His organization hasa long history of conducting undercover sting operations, frequently targeting progressive nonprofits, politicians and the news media with the stated aim of disclosing bias, hypocrisy and illegal activity.

Manyjournalists repudiate Project Veritas and its methods, contending that the organization is ideologically driven and routinely violates established norms of media ethics.

As aprofessor of media ethics and law, Ive been grappling with how to think about Project Veritas and its escapadesfor years. Like many media lawyers, I wish it would just go away.

Nevertheless, media organizations and their supporters, such as theAmerican Civil Liberties Union, theCommittee to Protect Journalists, and theReporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, of which I served as executive director from 1985 to 1999, rallied to protest the searches and seizures as a possible violation of the First Amendment right of a news organization to gather information. They demanded answers about why Project Veritas was targeted in the investigation. And they made clear that they were concerned about more than just Project Veritas, whose methods they have often decried.

Project Veritas bills itself a nonprofit journalism enterprise, and itswebsite touts its many effortsto achieve a more ethical and transparent society.

But its work doesnt look much like traditional journalism. One of its morenotorious undertakingsinvolved making secret recordings at various offices of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now in 2009, purporting to show ACORN staffers advising OKeefe and his associate how to evade taxes and engage in human trafficking.

Although a subsequent investigation by theCalifornia Attorney General concluded that the videos had been severely edited,their release promptedCongress to freeze federal funding to ACORN. ACORN was eventually exonerated by the Government Accountability Office, but Project Veritas continues to brag about its takedown of the organization as one of itssuccesses.

Project Veritas also revels in exposs of what it callspolitical bias in the mainstream media, including CNN, ABC, National Public Radio, and The Washington Post. Recently, it sued The New York Times in state court in Westchester County, New York, claiming that the newspaperdefamedit by calling its videos alleging voter fraud in Minneapolis misinformation. It has now used that case as the means to obtain acourt orderto compel the Times to curtail its reporting about the investigation, which Project Veritas claims came from government leaks an extraordinary request for prior restraint unprecedented since theSupreme Courts Pentagon Paperscase in 1971, and hardly consistent with support of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has said that the First Amendmentprovides some protection for newsgathering, although it does not permit the news media toviolate laws that apply to everyone. Because the government does not issue licenses to journalists, anyone who gathers and disseminates information to the public can claim to be the press. Thats why the FBI raid concerns members of the news media. They fear theycould be next.

For their part,the attorneys representing Project Veritas saythat two anonymous individuals, who claimed they had legally acquired the diary after Ashley Biden abandoned it at a house in Florida, offered to sell it to Project Veritas for possible publication. After the lawyers for both parties negotiated an arms length agreement, Project Veritas took delivery of the diary.

Project Veritas claims that it couldnt authenticate the diary to its satisfaction and after trying unsuccessfully to return it to Bidens lawyer,sent it back to local law enforcement officials.

If this version of events is true, U.S. Supreme Court precedent established in a 2001 press-related case,Bartnicki v. Vopper, should apply. There, the high court ruled that a media organization can disclose important information illegally obtained by a third party, as long as the organization itself was not involved.

A strangers illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote.

If Project Veritas was not involved in the theft of the diary, it could also be covered by thePrivacy Protection Act of 1980, which bars both federal and state law enforcement from seizing journalists work product and documentary materials except in very limited circumstances.

In fact, the Justice Department has been prohibited from even subpoenaing journalists byAttorney General guidelinesthat date back to 1974 although investigations into leaks of classified information led to notable exceptions to this rule during theObama and Trump administrations.

Earlier this year, Biden said it wassimply, simply wrongto compel journalists to reveal their sources, andAttorney General Merrick Garlandpromised in July to beef up the guidelines and make them law to ensure that future administrations would also be bound by them, though he has yet to do so.

Project Veritassays it is covered by the Privacy Protection Act, which protects those engaged in public communication, as well as the guidelines.

But in defending the FBI raid on OKeefes home, the government contends that it has followed all applicable regulations and policies regarding what it calls potential members of the news media suggesting that they think Project Veritas isnt one.

Until the underlying affidavits supporting the warrants are unsealed, we wont know whether the U.S. Attorney thinks that Project Veritas committed a crime, or that it isnt a news organization. Either possibility has serious ramifications for all media.

If Project Veritas is found guilty of a crime, any journalist who transports leaked or stolen information across state lines could be charged with violation of the law. Its unclear what that means today when so many documents are transmitted electronically.

Or, if the government narrowly defines the press based on its political outlook or ethics, then no news organization is safe from attacks by future administrations.

Either way, the mainstream media are holding their collective noses and supporting Project Veritas in its fight. Its a matter of principle, but also of self-preservation.

Jane Kirtley is the Silha Professor of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Read more from the original source:
Project Veritas and the mainstream media are strange allies in the fight to protect press freedom - Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard

And unlike Haugens media-grabbing Capitol appearance in early October, when she testified solo in front of a Senate Commerce subcommittee, she had to share the spotlight Wednesday. Republicans called their own former Facebook employee to testify alongside her: A conservative who echoed their own arguments about censorship.

Lawmakers also appeared far apart on the hearings main topic: how to rewrite Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a decades-old law that provides broad liability protections over user-posted content online.

Haugen even faced some harsh public questioning from GOP lawmakers Wednesday for the first time ever.

Here are POLITICOs top takeaways from the hearing:

The warm reception and praise Haugen received during her earlier appearances before the Senate and policymakers in Europe were less evident Wednesday, as some Republicans took a hostile tone with the former Facebook product manager.

Several lawmakers, especially Democrats, still heaped praise on her for divulging thousands of internal documents detailing Facebooks research into the harm its products inflict on vulnerable populations or political discourse. But the tough questioning from some GOP members, along with low in-person attendance at the hearing, show that her star power may be dwindling and that her credibility with Republican lawmakers may be starting to wear thin.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) and Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) were among the lawmakers who grilled, snubbed or interrupted Haugen in a manner unseen at the Senate hearing in October, when members of their party joined Democrats in applauding Haugens strength and bravery for coming forward.

McMorris Rodgers zeroed in on GOP complaints that social media companies censor conservative voices and in doing so, appeared to pin Haugen as a liberal even though she has not been explicit about her political views.

"Do you support Big Tech's censorship of constitutionally protected speech on their platforms?" McMorris Rodgers said, demanding a yes-or-no answer.

When Haugen failed to respond in one word, McMorris Rodgers interrupted her, saying: I take it as a no.

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen appears before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee at the Russell Senate Office Building on Oct. 5, 2021 in Washington, D.C. | Matt McClain-Pool/Getty Images

In another apparent snub, Johnson posed a question to Haugen but then asked witness Kara Frederick, a tech policy research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, to respond. Johnson raised concerns about Haugens recent testimony before the U.K. Parliament in which she had called for regulators to intervene in tech platforms content moderation operations. Johnson argued that government involvement in private businesses content moderation is a threat to the First Amendment.

This is un-American, Johnson said in his line of questioning to Haugen but he tossed the floor to Frederick before Haugen could respond.

It added up to often-chillier treatment than Haugen has received since going public as the Facebook whistleblower in October, including in her high-rated 60 Minutes appearance and recent profile in Vogue.

Frederick, the Republicans key witness on Wednesday, offered a stark contrast at times with Haugen, especially on the accusations that Facebook censors conservative viewpoints on topics such as the origins of the Covid pandemic.

Frederick, who worked at Facebook from 2016 to 2017 and helped develop its Global Security Counterterrorism Analysis Program, said she joined the company because of what she saw as its mission the democratization of information.

But I was wrong, its 2021, and the verdict is in: Big Tech is an enemy of the people, she said. It is time all independently minded citizens recognize this. Her arguments were echoed by numerous Republican lawmakers, even as they opposed the idea of creating an agency to regulate the tech giants.

She added that social media companies like Twitter and Facebook censor Republican lawmakers more than Democrats. Both companies have previously rejected these accusations, and some analysis has found that right-leaning social media influencers, conservative media outlets and other GOP supporters dominate online discussions on hot political topics.

Holding Big Tech accountable should result in less censorship, not more, Frederick said.

Meanwhile, Haugen called for tougher government oversight of social media companies, including their algorithms.

But the two witnesses agreed on one thing: that Facebooks algorithms amplify extremist content on the platform.

I am extremely concerned about Facebooks role in things like counterterrorism or counter-state actors that are weaponizing the platform, Haugen said. Facebook is chronically under-invested in those capacities and if you knew the size of the counterterrorism team for the threat investigators youd be shocked.

Facebook, which recently renamed itself Meta, contested this assertion. The company has more than 350 employees working against organizations that proclaim or are engaged in violence and will spend over $5 billion on safety and security this year, according to a spokesperson. (Thats a small percentage of the companys revenues, Haugen noted.) The company removed 9.8 million pieces of terrorism content from July to September, according to its transparency center.

Read Our Coverage on The Facebook Papers

Frederick, who was deployed three times to Afghanistan for the Defense Department, said she went to work at Facebook because she believed in the danger of foreign Islamic terrorism. I went to make sure that the platform was hostile to those bad actors, illegal actors. Instead, she said, human traffickers, Islamist terrorists and drug cartels all use the platform, despite being against Facebooks policies.

Democrats and Republicans agreed that Congress needs to focus on the algorithms that the companies use to determine what content their users see including in the debate about the sweeping liability protections the platforms enjoy under Section 230.

They sharply diverged from there, however.

Democrats often argue that social media platforms lean on the 1996 law to evade responsibility for misinformation, hate speech and other harmful material on their sites, while many Republicans contend that the statute enables tech companies to censor conservative voices with impunity.

None of the Democrat-led bills that had been slated for consideration at Wednesdays hearing had Republican support a reflection of the two parties existing on vastly different wavelengths on Section 230 changes.

Crenshaw emphasized that even bipartisan outrage at Facebook and other large tech players cannot bring the parties closer together on the matter.

"I want to be clear. ... Republicans and Democrats do not agree on this issue, he said during the hearing. I've observed a clever strategy by the media and some of my colleagues implying that we all agree, that we're all moving in the right direction towards the same thing: We're all mad at Big Tech. This is not really true; we have very different views of the problem.

Despite some commonalities in the parties respective proposals, the parties are a long way from sorting through thornier details like the contours of what material Section 230 should cover.

Some Republicans have called for repealing the statute entirely. One of four Democratic bills discussed at the hearing the SAFE TECH Act (H.R. 3421 (117)) would take a narrower approach, removing the liability protections when it comes to extremist and terrorist content.

A separate group of Energy and Commerce lawmakers the consumer protection subcommittee led by Chair Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is convening a related hearing Dec. 9 on legislation aimed at bringing transparency and accountability to social media platforms and their algorithms. Instagram head Adam Mosseri faces a grilling before the Senate Commerce consumer protection panel a day earlier, albeit on a more bipartisan issue: Childrens privacy online.

But some see the dissonance across party lines on Section 230 as a threat to any broader efforts to rein in tech companies.

There are ideas coming from both sides of the dais that are worth debating, said Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.). The devils in the details, but if were not even trying to engage in a bipartisan process, were never going to get a strong or lasting set of policies.

Continue reading here:
Tech feuding flares on the Hill as Haugens star power fades - Politico