Mediaboss Marketing

On May 7, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a billSenate Bill 1890to set $3,000 limits on campaign contributions to committees in support of or opposition to ballot initiatives until the secretary of state certifies the measure for the ballot and assigns it a ballot position and number designation. The bill was designed to lift the contribution limits after a measure is put on the ballot.

On April 14, the Florida Senate passed the bill 23-17. Twenty-three Republicans were in favor, and 16 Democrats and one Republican were opposed. On April 26, the Florida House of Representatives passed the bill 75-40. All 75 voting Republicans were in favor, and all 40 voting Democrats were opposed.

In Florida, initiative proponents must collect signatures equal to 8% of votes cast at the previous presidential election. The requirement to put an initiative on the 2022 ballot is 891,589 valid signatures. Florida also has a signature distribution requirement, which requires that signatures equaling at least 8% of the district-wide vote in the last presidential election be collected from at least half (14) of the states 27 congressional districts. In 2020, four initiatives qualified for the ballot in Florida. The petition drives to put those measures on the ballot cost an average of $6.7 million each, ranging from $4 million to $8.8 million. From 2016 through 2020, the average total cost of an initiative petition drive that successfully qualified an initiative for the ballot in Florida was about $5.1 million.

Nationwide, the average total cost of a successful initiative petition drive was $2.1 million in 2020. It was $1.2 million in 2018.

In Florida, the petition drives that put the four initiatives that were on the ballot in 2020 were each funded by one donor or entities that were all associated.

On May 8, the ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida arguing that SB 1890 violates First Amendment freedom of speech rights and that the state has no significant state or public interest in curtailing debate and discussion of a ballot measure. The lawsuit cited previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings that overturned limitations on campaign contributions for ballot measure committees, including Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981), First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), and Buckley v. Valeo (1976). The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases that political contributions constitute freedom of speech and cannot be limited without a compelling state interest, such as to prevent corruption and bribery. The court has also ruled that referenda are held on issues, not candidates for public office. The risk of corruption perceived in cases involving candidate elections simply is not present in a popular vote on a public issue.

As of May 3, 2021, Ballotpedia had tracked 197 legislative proposals concerning ballot initiatives, veto referendums, referrals, local ballot measures, and recall in 39 states in 2021 legislative sessions. At least 18 had been approved, and 20 had been defeated or had died.

Notable topics among bills introduced in 2021 sessions include supermajority requirement increases, signature requirement and distribution requirement increases, single-subject rules, pay-per-signature bans, residency requirements and other circulator restrictions, fiscal impact statement and funding source requirements, and ballot measure campaign contribution restrictions.

Additional reading:

Go here to read the rest:
Florida governor signs bill limiting contributions to ballot initiative petition drive campaigns to $3000 - Ballotpedia News

Photograph by Danna Singer / ACLU / Reuters

In 2017, Brandi Levy, a junior-varsity cheerleader at Mahanoy Area High School, in Pennsylvania, was denied a spot on the schools varsity squad. That weekend,off campus, Levy posted a furious, profanity-filled photo and message about the decision on Snapchat. A student who saw the message showed a screenshot to her motherthe cheer coach. Levy was barred from cheerleading for the rest of the year. The A.C.L.U. helped Levys parents file suit against the school in federal court, claiming that Brandis First Amendment right to free speech had been curtailed. Last week, four years after that pivotal snap, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. Jeannie Suk Gersenjoins Dorothy Wickenden to discuss this contentious case and what it means for free speech in the digital age.

Read the original here:
A High-School Cheerleader, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment - The New Yorker

The tumultuous events of the past year have highlighted the First Amendments vital role as a pillar of American democracy. They have also underscored the need for vigilance in defending it.

Journalists coverage of these events the pandemic, the nationwide protests denouncing police killings of Black Americans and supporting racial justice, and the bitterly contested presidential election and its aftermath has put renewed focus on the protection of freedom of the press.

Attacks by law enforcement on protesters and journalists have brought to prominence two other First Amendment protections: freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Freedom of speech is also at the center of ongoing debates over controversial speakers on college campuses and the role of social media companies in limiting or blocking hate speech and disinformation on their platforms.

Now, the initial amendment to the U.S. Constitution is being tested on multiple fronts:

Because of these and other factors, understanding the First Amendments role in protecting key freedoms is now especially important.

Expression by speakers across the ideological spectrum is facing actual or threatened suppression by not only government officials, but also other powerful societal forces, from tech giants to social media mobs, Nadine Strossen, an expert on constitutional law and a former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, told me. No matter who we are, no matter what we believe, we all have a stake in ensuring meaningful free speech for everyone.

This starts with knowing the rights and freedoms that the amendment protects. A 2019 survey by the Freedom Forum Institute found that only 1% of Americans could name all five: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. More than a quarter (29%) could not name a single one.

Asked about the First Amendments language at her Supreme Court confirmation hearing last year, even Amy Coney Barrett nominated to fill the seat long held by Ruth Bader Ginsburg was unable to cite the right to petition the government.

It extends to knowing what the amendment covers and what it does not.

The First Amendment is frequently invoked in discussions of online speech. While it states that Congress shall make no law that infringes on the protections it cites, it says nothing about private companies, such as Facebook or Twitter, curating content on their platforms and restricting speech that they deem harmful.

As a result, support for it should never be taken for granted.

The future of the First Amendment seems uncertain. So does the underlying reality of public opinion in this area and its trajectory moving forward. That was the conclusion of High School Student Views of the First Amendment, a 2019 report commissioned by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation that summarized the findings of seven national surveys of U.S. high school students from 2004 to 2018. A Knight survey of college students, published in 2020, found that students today are less inclined than their recent predecessors to view First Amendment freedoms as secure in society.

Why? Heres one reason: Court decisions that are often the most important for example, whether displaying a swastika is a form of free speech or whether speakers should be permitted to share offensive views on college campuses may be challenging for many to understand.

This makes it imperative that the First Amendment be taught in schools as the bedrock of the countrys commitment to individual rights and responsibilities and a core part of civics education.

As Strossen told me, The only secure protection for free speech is a public that understands its importance and therefore defends it.

TheNews Literacy Project, a nonpartisan national education nonprofit, provides programs and resources for educators and the public to teach, learn and share the abilities needed to be smart, active consumers of news and information and equal and engaged participants in a democracy.

Original post:
Opinion: The past year has underscored the need for vigilance in defending the First Amendment - Poynter

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has unblocked on Twitter the nine Texans who sued him after they say they were unconstitutionally blocked for criticizing him or his policies on the social media platform.

In a lawsuit filed in April, a group of Texans said being blocked from viewing Paxtons tweets from his @KenPaxtonTX account was a violation of the First Amendment because it limited the rights of people to participate in a public forum and access statements made by the public official.

READ ALSO: Ken Paxton says he doesn't support Greg Abbott for reelection - then tweets that he does

The ACLU of Texas and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University represented the Texans in their lawsuit. According to their statements from a Thursday press release, Paxton has unblocked the nine Texans in the ongoing lawsuit challenging Paxtons practice of blocking critics from his Twitter account.

Paxton has also blocked many other individuals from the @KenPaxtonTX account based on their viewpoints, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs had asked Paxton to unblock them and everyone else who was blocked from the @KenPaxtonTX account based on their viewpoints, but its unclear if people not named in the lawsuit have been unblocked.

Lyndsey Wajert, a legal fellow with the Knight First Amendment Institute, said while Paxton has unblocked the nine Texans, the case has not been dismissed.

Paxtons office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Katie Fallow, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, said multiple courts have recognized that government officials who use their social media accounts for official purposes violate the First Amendment if they block people from those accounts on the basis of their viewpoints.

READ ALSO: Twitter sues Texas AG Ken Paxton, asks court to halt his investigation

Were pleased that attorney general Paxton has agreed to unblock our plaintiffs in this lawsuit and are hopeful that he will do the same for anyone else he has blocked from his Twitter account simply because he doesnt like what they have to say, Fallow said in a statement.

Kate Huddleston, attorney for the ACLU of Texas, said the ruling is a step in the right direction, but it remains to be seen whether Paxton will unblock other Texans. She said it shouldn't take a lawsuit for Paxton to comply with the Constitution.

Attorney General Paxton cannot prevent Texans from exercising their First Amendment rights, including their right to criticize his policies and qualifications in their responses to his tweets, Huddleston said in a statement.

The Texas Tribuneis a nonpartisan, nonprofit media organization that informs Texans and engages with them about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Continued here:
Paxton unblocks nine Texans on Twitter after lawsuit claiming he violated First Amendment rights - Chron

As a kid, I thought whatever was written in the press had to be the truth, in black and white, she wrote to Forum Communications Co., which operates newspapers, television and radio stations and specialty websites in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Today, there is more opinion presented as truth, making it harder to disseminate the truth. This has led to more separation between people.

Kathy wrote that after our company called out to readers, seeking questions and concerns about the First Amendment, freedom of speech and the news media in general.

Probably unknowingly, she summed up the focus of an FCC project that kicks off today one we hope will help readers better understand how Forum Communications and the media operate as they strive to present factual and unbiased news. Well explain the differences between news and opinion, as well as this companys reporting processes.

And above all else, we hope the series will educate readers and writers alike on the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech, religion and the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government.

The schedule:

May 2: What is the First Amendment? What isnt the First Amendment?

May 3: The impact of the internet and social media on free speech principles.

May 4: Differences between news and opinion.

May 5: How does the reporting process work?

May 6: Craft a great letter to the editor.

May 7: Exercising First Amendment rights in the real world.

The project stems from concerns from news media and news consumers alike. Journalists are worried by what some in our industry feel is a decay of news literacy how to read the news and understand what, exactly, is being presented. As consumers are bombarded with content, the line between opinion and news begins to blur. Authenticity, verification and facts dissipate as questionable content is posted, tweeted and sent to the masses. The result, at least for some, is a growing distrust of news sources, even if news sources arent necessarily to blame for the questionable content.

Its a disturbing trend.

Consider a 2017 study conducted at the University of Illinois, which concluded that the more you know about the news media and how it works, the less likely you are to believe conspiracy theories.

Now would be an opportune time to admit that even Forum Communications image could use some work. A recent survey that polled readers throughout the companys footprint showed that 84% of respondents said neutral/unbiased news is important, but 60% said we perform well in the category.

We did much better in other relevant categories, getting a 78% score in accurate/factually correct and a 78% in credible/trustworthy. Considering attitudes toward the media these days, we consider these scores commendable yet worthy of continued focus.

We at FCC strive to present our news factually and without bias, but we realize some readers simply dont understand how the process works or, importantly, the key points of the First Amendment.

We firmly believe that to actively engage in democracy requires consideration from both sides the news media and its faithful, yet often skeptical, consumers. Trustworthy news and, yes, even opinion pieces editorials, columns and letters to the editor help us stay informed while promoting healthy dialogue and, in the end, more informed conclusions and beliefs.

And when that happens, perhaps we can grow just a smidgen closer, rather than farther apart.

Too utopian or idealistic? Is it beyond hope in an increasingly divided and angry society?

Perhaps.

But listen to Kathy.

We are supposed to be respectful of differences and tolerant of varying opinions, she wrote. The web world is allowed to edit out the truths they dont believe in. We are supposed to be respectful of differences and tolerant of varying opinions but instead we are being polarized into separate boxes.

She concluded: Find joy. Give joy.

Amen to that, Kathy.

Korrie Wenzel is publisher of the Grand Forks Herald.

View post:
Korrie Wenzel: Trustworthy news, opinion help us stay informed - Grand Forks Herald