Mediaboss Marketing

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (WRIC) The Charlottesville Unite the Right Trial is set to start on Monday, four years after that infamous protest that killed Heather Heyer.

Jury selection is set to begin on Oct. 25, in the federal trial against the organizers of the 2017 rally. The trial is being heard in Charlottesville and is expected to take four weeks.

It is hard to forget the images of white supremacists marching with tiki torches, rallying through town and a car plowing through a crowd, killing counter-protester Heather Heyer and injuring others.

This case was brought by nine Charlottesville community members who were injured in the violence 4 years ago, saidAmy Spitalnick, Executive Director of Integrity First for America.

The non-partisan, non-profit organization is supporting the plaintiffs in what is the first major civil suit to be tried under the so-called Ku Klux Klan Act. The organizers of the Unite the Right rally are accused of a conspiracy to commit violence.

These defendants planned violence on social media and on other communication forums and even in-person conversations, Spitalnick said. They went to Charlottesville, committed that violence and then celebrated that violence.

Some of the two dozen defendants in the case have alleged this is about their first amendment right to free speech, and others have claimed they were just joking. Spitalnick says the event in Charlottesville 4 years ago was no joke nor an accident.

But rather meticulously planned, online, in social media chats and other communications that will be coming out over the course of trial, she said. We have 5.3 terabytes of digital evidence that our team will be presenting.

All that evidence is some of why the trial is expected the take four weeks. The other part is just the number of parties involved in the case. All nine plaintiffs are expected to take the stand and there are 24 defendants in the federal case.

Get breaking news, weather, and sports delivered to your smartphone with the WFXR News app available on Apple and Android.

Go here to read the rest:
Charlottesville Unite the Right trial starts Monday - WFXRtv.com

Rob Miraldi| Special to the USA TODAY Network

William O. Douglas was the curmudgeon of the U.S. Supreme Court. Fiercely independent, crusty, irreverent, a product of the New Deal and an active man who did not seem to fit behind a desk wearing a robe. But there he was, a Supreme Court judge for 36 years, the longest serving justice ever who wrote more opinions than any other judge.

Douglas had his critics Gerald Ford tried to impeach him in 1970 because he believed that when the Framers wrote the First Amendment to the Constitution, beginning with the words Congress shall make no law regarding freedom of the press or speech, they meant it. No law means no law.

Douglas, who died in 1980, was fearful most of all about the pervasive reach of snooping government that would chill reporters doing their work and inhibit people from speaking whats on their mind. Governmental intrigue or aggression is an eternal danger, Douglas warned in1974 in the only case the Supreme Court ever decided on the question of whether reporters are shielded from government prying into their sources.

So I wonder what he would say today about, for example, the recent revelation that longtime national security reporter Barbara Starr of CNN, whose phone records were secretly snared by the Trump Administration because she wrote stories with unidentified sources that Trump wanted. The stories she wrote in 2017 were mildly embarrassing but certainly no real threat to national security. It was a frivolous and dangerous pursuit, a fishing expedition.

What happened to Starr happened to at least seven other reporters that we know about. In fact, the Trump Administration sought the sources of nine journalists in its four-year reign. In contrast, Obama went after the same number in eight years, although it is worth pointing out that his administration was aggressive in its pursuits of leakers. And while presidents have sought reporters sources since the Civil War, the pursuit by Trump has taken it to a new level.

CNNs lawyers were gagged; they could not inform Starr nor go to court to argue that governmental prying was not only wrong but arguably illegal.

Self-government cannot succeed, Douglas wrote, unless the people are immersed in a steady, robust, unimpeded, and uncensored flow of opinion and reporting subjected to critique, rebuttal, and re-examination.

And that is threatened when journalists are at the whim of Presidents like Trump who believed the press is an enemy of the people.Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist James Risen, who has felt the sting of such probing, writes, For national security reporters today, being good at your job can make it hard to sleep at night.

So here we are again, 47 years after the court decided that reporters should be treated like all other citizens and that they have to turn over sources or go to jail.Unless Congress finally sees fit to pass a federal law which gives the press a privilege or as Douglas called it, a preferred position.

I spoke with Gabe Rottman, director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Presss Technology and Press Freedom Project.His group is the premier advocate for the press in the nation. And he is hopeful that the time might have arrived for a federal press shield law to get through Congress.

In the past, resistance to treating reporters as privileged characters much as we do for clergy, physicians and spouses has brought resistance.In 2013, the law bogged down around how to define who would qualify for the privilege.Who exactly is a reporter in the age of the Internet? Julian Assanges huge dump of raw classified documents and emails in 2010 and 2016 made many not want to let him be called a reporter.

But 49 states in the U.S. have some sort of shield law that find a way to define who qualifies. Rottman says it revolves around finding the best definition of the function being served. It needs to be broad and functional. In other words, if you are pursuing facts to share with any public, you are a journalist.

We need more voices: Big tech, information and American political discourse

Free speech and a free press: Inside the 'golden age of defamation': How the First Amendment is under siege

Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon is clear that the time is now for a shield law.

The Trump Administration spied on reporters it suspected of no crimes in its hunt to identify their sources and prevent the American people from learning the truth about Trumps lawlessness and corruption, he declared in announcing his shield law.

Rottman is more cautious as to why from major news organizations had to face broad, secret demands for their phone and email records in an effort to identify their confidential sources.

Rottman says Congress needs to ask why.

Without a concrete, public accounting, observers can only speculate about the governments reasons, he told me. There is no public reporting on the reasons that the records were obtained.

Risen is a former reporter for The New York Times whose confidential sources revealed wide surveillance by the government on private citizens after the World Trade Center attacks. And the government sought with a vengeance to get Risens sources.

The real goal of leak investigations, he says, is to have a chilling effect on the press, to stop reporters from investigating the government. Embarrass enough investigative reporters and maybe they will stop embarrassing the government.

But that is not just bad for reporters, it is bad for democracy.

Go back to Douglas.

A reporter is no better than his source of information, Douglas insisted, rightly. The press has a preferred position in our constitutional scheme, not to enable it to make money, not to set newsmen apart as a favored class, but because the right to know is crucial to the governing powers of the people.

It comes down to the free flow of information to the public, saysRottman. Sources will not come forward, they wont even talk if they are worried about incidentally being swept up. You dont want the press to become an investigative arm of the government.

Douglas, again, hit the nail on the head years ago: Fear of exposure will cause dissidents to communicate less openly to trusted reporters. And, fear of accountability will cause editors and critics to write with more restrained pens.

The Biden Administration has recognized this, recently issuing clear and careful guidelines as to when a reporters source should be pursued by the federal government.Its a far cry from Trump.But the point, still, is the press cannot be at the whim of different administrations approaches.The First Amendment is not whimsical; it is the heart of democracy.

The rules need to be made durable, Rottman says.

Give the people a federal law that protects the reporters who gather their news from, as Sen. Widen says, the thuggish and Orwellian abuses of administrations like Trumps.

Rob Miraldis writings on the First Amendment have won numerous state and national awards. He teaches journalism at the State University of New York. T

Twitter: @miral98

Email: miral98@aol.com.

View original post here:
We must make the First Amendment 'durable.' Here's why | Miraldi - Poughkeepsie Journal

RIDGEFIELD This fall, the public can learn about the past, present and future of the First Amendment from a slate of scholarly speakers in a new series titled, What Does the First Amendment Mean Today?

The programs were created by the Ridgefield Library, the Ridgefield Historical Society, the League of Women Voters of Ridgefield and other community partners to explore the First Amendments foundational principles from historical and contemporary perspectives.

The First Amendment protects the freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly and the right to petition the government.

For a lot of us the First Amendment ... is kind of a subtext, but (its issues have) really been front and center for the last couple of years, Assistant Library Director Andy Forsyth said.

These issues include the resulting tensions that have come from exercising freedom of assembly at protests nationwide; speech censorship in traditional and social media platforms; and censoring access to information, which affects the work of public libraries.

We want people to gain insight into what (the First Amendment) really is ... (from) presenters who could speak to these issues with expertise, Forsyth said.

The series kicks off Sept. 9 at 7 p.m. with a lecture by legal scholar Akhil Amar, a Sterling professor of law and political science at Yale University, in the librarys main program room.

A book discussion follows Sept. 20 at 7 p.m. with best-selling author Jess Walter, who will discuss his novel, The Cold Millions, via Zoom. The work examines free speech and the First Amendment through the lens of historical fiction.

Gloria Browne-Marshall will lead an online lecture Oct. 3 at 5 p.m. to discuss the evolution of freedoms of speech and assembly from the civil rights era to the present. Browne-Marshall is a civil rights attorney and constitutional law professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

The series concludes with a panel discussion at the library Oct. 10 at 5 p.m. Ridgefield journalist Todd Brewster will moderate the panel, which features Amar, past ACLU President Nadine Strossen, New York Times journalist Mike McIntire and Ridgefield Library Director Brenda McKinley.

Patrons will be required to wear masks when visiting the library. No social distancing or capacity limits are in place.

Ridgefield Historical Societys Development and Marketing Director Kathryn Tufano said knowing what is and isnt protected by the First Amendment is more relevant and timely than ever.

My personal thought is in the world that we live in post-Trump but also midstream in a pandemic its really important for people to understand what their rights and responsibilities are, she said. What is the difference between real education and the news spin, or the person talking (the) loudest?

Marilyn Carroll, president of the League of Women Voters of Ridgefield, said the series will provide an opportunity for attendants to learn about their rights.

Our mission is to defend democracy and empower voters. That can only be done when the First Amendment (is) vigorously protected and widely understood and respected, she said. Educating the public about those five freedoms and their importance to a civil society that welcomes a diversity of opinions is critical.

For information or to register, visit the events calendar at ridgefieldlibrary.org.

alyssa.seidman@hearstmediact.com

See more here:
Ridgefield Library series to spotlight the First Amendment - The Ridgefield Press

Judge Davis acknowledged that the board had also imposed some punishments more concrete than a reprimand, like making Mr. Wilson ineligible for reimbursement for college-related travel. Those additional penalties, the judge wrote, did not violate his First Amendment rights.

Mr. Wilsons lawyers told the justices that the power to censure must have limits. Elected bodies can censure their members for what they say during the lawmaking process, they wrote, and for conduct that is not protected by the First Amendment. But outside the official realm, they wrote, the First Amendment forbids a government bodys official punishment of a speaker for merely expressing disagreement with a political majority.

Those may appear to be fine distinctions. Mr. Wilsons brief in the case, Houston Community College System v. Wilson, No. 20-804, gave examples to illustrate how they would work outside the legislative process.

A censure would be permissible for illegal marijuana use, for example, but not for statements supporting the legalization of marijuana use, the brief said. Likewise, a censure would be permissible for slander, but not for statements that merely criticize.

The full Fifth Circuit deadlocked on whether to rehear the case, by an 8-to-8 vote. Dissenting from the decision to deny further review, Judge Edith H. Jones said the panels First Amendment analysis was backward. The boards censure was itself speech worthy of protection, she wrote, particularly in a polarized era.

Given the increasing discord in society and governmental bodies, the attempts of each side in these disputes to get a leg up on the other, and the ready availability of weapons of mass communication with which each side can tar the other, the panels decision is the harbinger of future lawsuits, Judge Jones wrote. It weaponizes any gadfly in a legislative body.

Political infighting of this sort, she wrote, should not be dignified with a false veneer of constitutional protection and has no place in the federal courts.

See the article here:
Are Censures of Politicians a Form of Free Speech or a Threat to It? - The New York Times

The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the reinstatement of a Virginia teacher who was suspended for refusal to use transgender pronouns. It never should have reached this point.

Tanner Cross, a gym teacher, had cited religious reasons for his refusal to refer to transgender students by their preferred pronouns. At a Loudoun County School Board meeting, Cross had spoken out against the board policy requiring staff to do exactly that. Soon after, he was placed on leave.

Shortly after Cross was placed on leave, he sued, alleging that the school district violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. He was granted a temporary injunction by a circuit court judge and reinstated . Loudoun County Public Schools then appealed that ruling, only to be smacked down by the Virginia Supreme Court.

It is important to note that this victory was fairly limited. The court noted in its ruling that in another case, a federal district court determined a teacher did not have a constitutionally protected right to disobey a policy requiring that he refer to students by their preferred pronouns. But that was not the question in Crosss case. He was punished for publicly speaking out against the policy, and his suspension was a retaliation against him for exercising his First Amendment rights.

Moreover, the ruling only covered the temporary injunction that allowed Cross to continue working while his lawsuit progresses through the courts. According to the Associated Press, A trial is scheduled for next week in Loudoun County to settle the issue permanently.

That means the Loudoun County School Boards policy could still make it out of this ordeal intact. That would also mean Cross, or any other teacher in Loudoun County, could still be fired for refusing to obey the policy.

Under the guise of compassion for children, Loudoun County may still be able to compel teachers to adhere to the worldview of transgender activists, redefining sex and gender not just in violation of the religious rights of teachers, but basic biology. Crosss recent victory is well-deserved, but the fact that it was necessary at all is a problem that goes far deeper.

Read the original post:
Loudoun County School Board's transgender policy is still a threat to First Amendment rights - Washington Examiner