Mediaboss Marketing

Photo: Ted Eytan, Wikicommons

The first amendment protects citizens against criminal and civil sanctions, but it doesnt protect government officials against impeachment and conviction.

Most of us can agree that the Senates vote on Feb. 13 to acquit Trump of inciting the Jan. 6 Capital attack was more than disappointing. Not just because we want to put Trump talk to rest, but because the crimes he committed demonstrate that he is a danger to the American people.

Much to my frustration, the arguments made by congressional Republicans for Trumps acquittal have nothing to do with whether he is guilty and everything to do with procedural and ancillary issues. It demonstrates their prioritization of re-election and maintaining conservative loyalty, even if that means turning a blind eye to Trumps violent influences.

House impeachment managers, following the Senate vote to acquit Trump, held a press conference on Capitol Hill, where Democratic impeachment manager Jamie Raskin said, This is about protecting a Republic and articulating and defining the standards of presidential conduct. And if you want this to be a standard for totally appropriate presidential conduct going forward, be my guest.

Raskin has the right idea. Trump committed crimes as president that cannot be dealt with in a criminal court. Yet, Trumps lawyers argued that it was unconstitutional to convict him because it violated the first amendment, also pointing to the fact that he no longer holds public office.

For the case of violating the first amendment, it should be noted that public officials who are impeached for their speech are not immediately thrown in jail because it would violate said amendment. Instead, they are removed from office or disqualified from ever holding office to reinforce the idea that a presidents voice matters.

The argument that this impeachment violated the first amendment is a fallacy overall. Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison spoke more broadly of impeachable offenses as violations of public trust, noting that Congress could rightly oust a president for inciting violence. Although it is very difficult to establish if someone has crossed the line of speech subject to criminal prosecution, this point stands: Government officials can be impeached and removed for speech that is not criminal.

The first amendment protects citizens against criminal and civil sanctions, but it doesnt protect government officials against impeachment and conviction. Enforcement officers like the DOC and Attorney General Karl Racine were unable to convict Trump because he never explicitly called for an insurrection. How is telling an audience of loyal supporters on the day Congress was slated to certify the election, if you dont fight like hell, youre not going to have a country anymore, not a coded message for violence?

We know that even Republicans who ultimately voted for acquittal spent weeks lobbying Congress members to vote in support of Trumps impeachment, one member of Congress alleging that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wants Trump gone. But for too many Republicans in Congress, Trumps impeachment was just a political question weighing on the future of their party. The Washington Post predicted on Jan. 22 that even if Sen. McConnell were to vote to convict him, hed immediately be hit with a tsunami of rage from the right.

Its misleading and false, in any case, to view Trumps Jan. 6 speech to Capital rioters as an isolated incident. It was part of the course of conduct that led to an attempted insurrection.

Trumps lawyers, David Schoen and Bruce Castor Jr. also argued that the proceedings are unconstitutional because Trump no longer holds office. There are many reasons why this reasoning is flawed, and why ultimately the Senate did vote to try Trump despite his term having ended in January.

Stephen Vladeck, a constitutional law expert and professor at the University of Texas School of Law told CBS that another section of the ConstitutionArticle I, Section Three, Clause Sevencontemplates that the Senate can do two different things when an official is impeached. They can be removed from office, and they can be disqualified from holding future office.

He said, The expiration of President Trumps term renders one of those moot, but not both of them. Vladeck wrote in a New York Times op-ed that a public official cant simply avoid the move to disqualify them from holding future office by resigning. The Senate has also traditionally separated a vote to convict an official on impeachment charges from a vote to bar him or her from holding future office.

However, only three U.S. presidents (including Trump) have ever been impeached, and none of them were convicted by the Senate. The two-thirds majority needed for Senate conviction has proven to be a difficult barrier in Americas partisan political landscape. From a historical perspective, it is unlikely for an official to be barred from office without prior conviction. No U.S. president has ever been barred from office, but three federal judges have following their Senate convictions.

Section three of the 14th amendment lays out a different path to bar Trump from office, but without the two-thirds majority required for conviction. The provision states that no person can hold public office after engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. Only a simple majority of both congressional chambers is needed to invoke this penaltyit was even used in 1919 to block an elected House Representative from assuming his seat after opposing U.S. intervention in WWI.

This matters not for the sake of revenge, but because the mere possibility of Trump being barred from office is critical to the future of America. Trump incited a coup on the Capitol as the sitting president. He is a danger to the American people and they must be the priority, not protecting Trump from the consequences of his actionsespecially if he deserves it.

This acquittal doesnt mean Trump will never face criminal charges for other skeletons in his closet. But the insurrection on Jan. 6 was more than just a criminal offense: it was a threat to elected officials, public safety, and democracy. That is why this should have been resolved on the Senate floor. Now, there seems to be an open-door policy for future presidents who wish to stoke fear and chaos. A door that leads them to believe they can attempt to overturn elections with violence, and walk away unscathed.

Visit link:
Trump should have been convicted. Here's why. - Berkeley Beacon

Our commenting has been temporarily disabled.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to ourTerms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sentvia e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Go here to read the rest:
Letter to the editor: Impeachment and the First Amendment - TribLIVE

One of the cool things about Poynters beautiful offices in St. Petersburg, Florida, is something you see just before you step into the building. On the sidewalk, embedded in marble, is the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment also had a prominent place on another building. It was embedded on a giant wall at the Newseum the interactive museum in Washington, D.C., that celebrated the media, the freedom of the press and expression and the First Amendment. But the Newseum closed to the public at the end of 2019.

And now, in a heartbreaking symbol, the First Amendment on the Newseum building is being dismantled. A troubling reminder of how many Americans now view the media and the freedom of the press, wouldnt you say?

No announcement has been made, but there is hope it will be reassembled at another location.

Heres a little more information on the First Amendment wall by the company that built it.

This piece originally appeared in The Poynter Report, our daily newsletter for everyone who cares about the media. Subscribe to The Poynter Reporthere.

Here is the original post:
The removal of the First Amendment from the Newseum building is a disheartening sight - Poynter

In the aftermath of the January 6 riots on the Capitol, we have witnessed a change in how tech companies view, regulate speechand control speech. In the days and weeks since January 6, multiheaded pseudo private actors have fundamentally altered the bedrock of American democracy free speech. No longer can private companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google, Instagram, Snapchat and others hide behind the veil of their private shield, because they created themselves for the sole purpose of being thrust into the mitochondria of all that is public.

According to a CRS Report prepared for members and committees of Congress, the Supreme Court will only apply the First Amendment against private parties (companies) if they have a sufficiently close relationship to the government. This will occur where a private company finds itself under extensive state regulation.

While some plaintiffs have argued that various internet companies should be treated as state actors for the purposes of the First Amendment, when those companies decide to dispose of or restrict access to their speech, courts have rejected their claims. In other words, just because social media companies hold themselves open for use by the public, that is not enough to make them subject to the First Amendment.

But the Constitution of the United States together with its deafeningly powerful First Amendment did not foresee the age of social media and what it would do to the public, how it would intertwine public and private interests of communities and how the lines between state actors and private actors would not only become blurry but also almost invisible. The existing doctrine doesnt fit the times; it teases, it mercilessly flirts with the laurels of the First Amendment.

We all marvel at the Constitutions elasticity, designed for us by those who knew nothing of Facebook, but everything about the abyss of the futures unpredictability. After all, what was the intent behind the First Amendment? So that American citizens would never feel the imposition of powerful actors infringing on one of their inalienable rights, their freedom of expression.

In the 1700s and 1800s, the most powerful actors in the country were the state actors. America had just freed itself from the clutches of the British monarch. The government itself was the most powerful actor that was connected to the public. Therefore, within the amendment, people were protected not from actions of private parties but from actions of the State.

It is not so today. The world, and especially America, is controlled by private monopolies of social media giants, which regulate our entire existence (as well as the governments existence). The internet, along with social media, did not just shake up the old world: it remolded it. All of this was done for the public. These social media titans not only provide services for the public, such as search engines, they also serve as vessels through which the public carries its thoughts and influences the thinking of others.

David L. Hudson Jr. writes in his article In the Age of Social Media, Expand the Reach of the First Amendment that two key justifications for robust protection of the First Amendment right to freedom of expression are the marketplace of ideas and individual self-fulfillment. These justifications dont require government presence. Powerful private actors can infringe on free expression rights as much as public actors. This is exactly what Facebook, Twitter and others were guilty of when they decided to silence President Trump after the January 6 riots.

David L. Hudson, Jr. continues, when an entity like Facebook engages in censorship, individuals dont get to participate in the marketplace of ideas and are not allowed the liberty to engage in individual self-fulfillment just like when the government entity engages in censorship.

In his article, Hudson also states that even though the state action doctrine traditionally limits the application of the First Amendment to private actors, that classification is outdated. He cites a 2017 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the new reality of identifying the new kind of public space. A new reality has been molded, where, when a private actor has control over communications and online forums, these private actors are analogous to a governmental actor.

The ogres of social media have erected platforms for exchange of public information. In his article, The Great Tech Panic, Nicholas Thomson writes about the role of social media on freedom of expression: In 2009, Facebook declared its mission to make the world more open and connected. In her essay, The Free Speech Black Hole: Can The Internet Escape the Gravitational Pull of the First Amendment? Ann Marie Franks writes, This free speech rhetoric has for years been employed to justify [tech] companies laissez-faire approach to controversial content, from terrorist training videos to revenge porn.

So why is it that suddenly, in the wake of the events of January 6, the entire tech industry decided to ban Trump from their sites? They do so by the cowardly act of taking refuge under the protective shield of their private status, knowing full well that under modern circumstances, their private actor status is a fiction, no more than a smoking mirror.

Tech companies private actor status is a fiction, no more than a smoking mirror.

These companies behave dishonestly when on the one hand they take advantage of the fruits of the First Amendment and give Holocaust deniers, criminals, terrorists, porn stars, law professors, comedians, addicts, movie stars, pop musicians, politicians, reality TV stars and many others the opportunity to present their uncensored sentiments and ideas, but then at the same time decide to silence a particular individual. The tactic is liable to have the most severe consequences.

The First Amendment is not a device that we can use as a cherry-picking mechanism. The First Amendment is not a neat amendment; it is not a kind amendment; its a messy amendment. It is not about people, its about substance; it isnt even about speech itself, it is about self-expression, it is about the individuality not of one person, but of a country, and therefore of each person individually.

Social media companies have become public actors, and, as such, they have no right to censor those who post or otherwise express unpopular opinions. Afterall, there are always ways to contradict those unpopular, dubious, immoral views; this is one of the great strengths of social media.

I knew the words of the Declaration of Independence and the First Amendment in Russian and English even before I began school. I understand that media companies are trying to appease, to do what sells best; when Trump sold best, they sold him too. But social media insulted American democracy when it silenced one individual capriciously and arbitrarily. Social media must stop playing games. It is either for all people which is why it is free and available to all who have access to it or for the privileged few, like a private club, in which case a club owner is within his rights to impose specific rules for his club members.

America ceases to be America when it not only denies peoples ability to self-express but also when it does so by taking advantage of the publics trust in its democratic values. American freedom of speech protects, it frees, it tantalizes, but it also bites. There can be no compromise about it.

The First Amendment was created to oppose tyranny because within it is hidden, just like in all law perhaps, the power of balance. Everyone wants to be heard, everyone wants to tell a story their own story and so as long as no-one is muted (even if some decide to remain deaf) there will be balance, and where there is balance there is a chance that tyranny may be avoided.

Anya Gillinson is a published author of poetry in Russian and English. She practices law in New York, where she lives with her husband and two daughters.

Read more:
Comments on: Flirting with the First Amendment - Jewish Journal

The complicit, liberal media is full of themselves with their hyperventilating over the record-setting second impeachment attempt brought on by the Trump-hating Democratic congressional leadership. And even though it might make for some good political theater, like a Greek tragedy playing out on a modern stage, it has little basis in reality and even less direct effect on Summit County.

It would be easy to digress into an expose of the Dems double standard on display with their rules for thee but not for me hypocrisy. For example, its OK for Maxine Waters tirade exhorting her mob to harass Trump officials or Obamas Attorney General Eric Holders reference to street violence in the fight against conservatives. Yet when President Donald Trump encourages supporters to exert their Bill of Rights freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and freedom to petition the government, hes blamed for an insurrection.

But Id rather focus on the main issue at hand that affects all of us in Summit County:

The No. 1 priority should be lifting the lockdown under which we have been suffering. What started out as a two-week drill that we all accepted to flatten the curve has evolved into a full years worth of unauthorized, totalitarian emergency powers curtailing our First Amendment civil liberties.

Its time for our local town councils and county commissioners to say enough is enough and reject the governors continued power play, which is being used to move the goal posts and keep us under Big Brothers control.

At the risk of being impeached for inciting violence or calling for an overthrow of the government, I ask all patriots to peacefully and patriotically march on the Summit County courthouse and let your county commissioners know how deeply you object to the current lockdown of local businesses, Main streets, schools and resort life in general. Be numerous, be vocal and be peaceful, but above all, be adamant about demanding that you are mad as hell, and youre not going to take it anymore.

Our great American republic operates best when decisions are made closest to we the people. A one-size-fits-all policy from a dictatorial White House or governors mansion misses the true heartbeat of the local citizens whose needs should be represented at the town and county levels of government.

Admittedly, this is no easy task for local town council members and county commissioners to defy autocratic, and likely unconstitutional, mandates issued from authorities on high. Yet we the people have suffered enough at the footstool of these draconian emergency powers, and we need courageous representatives to stand up and protect our rights to operate our businesses at 100% capacity, fully open our schools for in-person learning and run our towns without the dehumanizing mask mandates. We need our town councils and county commissioners to shed their protective bureaucratic insulation and boldly do what we elected them to do: protect our civil liberties and give us back our freedom!

Anecdotally, we are on the verge of losing more bar and restaurant businesses as these owners can barely make ends meet under a 25% or 50% occupancy restriction. Remove the shackles and get the big government knee off our throats so we can once again breathe the fresh air of American capitalism and get back to providing for our struggling families. No more government-imposed censor, cancel or control.

The current occupants residing in the White House would like to keep us under their thumb with 40-plus executive orders that place government control over our daily decisions, tank the robust Trump economy and replace it with dependency on their elite largesse, e.g., airline passengers are now being threatened with civil or criminal charges for failure to obey Bidens national mask mandate. This is our destiny unless we have the moral and political courage to resist their totalitarian ideology.

The resistance begins locally with our elected town and county representatives. They need to exert their power, endorsed by a grassroots popular movement, to tell the state and national elitists that we vehemently object and will no longer silently comply. We need to put boots on the ground and protesters in the streets to demand the guarantee of our First Amendment freedoms.

Otherwise, we are a sad bunch of deplorable subjects content to willingly sacrifice our liberties for a sense of perceived security. As Ben Franklin observed, a nation willing to sacrifice individual freedom for temporary government security is sure to have neither.

Kim McGaheys column Conservative Common Sense publishes Tuesdays in the Summit Daily News. McGahey is a real estate broker, tea party activist and Republican candidate. He has lived in Breckenridge since 1978. Contact him at kimmcgahey@gmail.com.

View post:
Opinion | Kim McGahey: It's time to demand our First Amendment freedoms - Summit Daily News