Mediaboss Marketing

Makana Chock

Makana Chock, David J. Levidow Professor of Communications in the Newhouse School, has been awarded a $75,000 research grant from Facebook Reality Labs to explore the impacts of augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) on bystander privacy.

Chock will work withSe Jung Kim, a doctoral student in Newhousesmass communicationsprogram. They will focus on two countries with disparate cultural normsthe U.S. and South Koreato examine the impact of cultural differences on privacy concerns and ultimately inform the design of AR/VR technology.

This is another example of how many of the leading communications companies in the world are turning to the Newhouse School to better understand some of the challenges we are facing as a society, says Newhouse Dean Mark J. Lodato.

Chock developed her proposal, AR/VR recording: Cultural differences in perceptions of bystander privacy, in response to Facebooks request for proposals on responsible innovation in AR/VR: Consider Everyone.

Chock says the ubiquitous and covert nature of AR/VR recording poses the threat of serious privacy violations as bystanders are captured without permission. At the same time, different societies often have different concepts of bystander privacy, and those differences are reflected in the way image recording is regulated.

In the individualist culture of the U.S., recording bystanders in a public space is largely accepted and often protected under the First Amendment. In the collectivist culture of South Korea, where a higher premium is placed on privacy, express permission is required to record individuals. Yet even there, younger adults regularly post images and recordings on social media that may contain bystanders.

Additionally, Chock says bystander privacy issues are especially important when it comes to vulnerable populations like immigrants.

Over the last few years, immigrants in both the U.S. and South Korea have faced restrictions and increased scrutiny from the government agencies, as well as discrimination and bullying from some members of their communities, she says. These factors may heighten concerns about privacy and the potential misuse of immigrants personal information or images. It is therefore important to increase awareness among AR/VR users of bystanders concerns and the potential for inadvertent harm.

The three-part study will begin with an online survey conducted in both countries to assess potential differences in bystanders privacy perceptions and concerns and identify additional concerns of targeted immigrant groups. The team will then conduct a series of in-depth interviews with a subset of survey participants to provide additional qualitative data about cultural differences in bystander privacy concerns. Finally, they will facilitate a series of focus groups comprised of U.S. and South Korean users in a multi-user social VR environment in order to determine if the cultural differences seen in real world public spaces also apply in social VR spaces.

Chock is set to be the founding research director of the Newhouse Schools new XR lab and is co-leader of the Virtual and Immersive Interactionsresearch clusterat Syracuse University.

More here:
Newhouse Professor Wins Facebook Reality Labs Research Grant to Study Impacts of Augmented and Virtual Reality - Syracuse University News

The start of the school year in many districts came with some fierce, at times hostile, debate over masks.In New Berlin, a sign from a week ago with the letters KKK sparked outrage."Initially, it represents hate for individuals, for groups of people," said Jeanette Nowak of New Berlin Speaks Out.The sign reads "Krislyn Kauses Khaos." Krslyn is a school board member who favors mandatory masks in elementary school.The other words, causes and chaos, the first letter was deliberately changed from the letter "C" to "K.""What was the intention of that sign?" WISN 12 News reporter Hillary Mintz asked a woman who was in the photo but not holding the sign."It was an alliteration. Her name starts with a K. I guess we should have spelled it with a C and this would have never happened," the woman, who did not wish to be identified, said.She agreed to talk to WISN 12 News but did not want her face to be shown because she said she's received threats."We're literally afraid for our safety. This never had anything to do with race. It was all about masks," the woman said.She said the picture was posted in a private parent group, but somehow got shared publicly."Did anyone think the letters KKK might mean something to somebody else?" Mintz asked"We didn't hold the sign up in the meeting. The sign was put away," the woman said.The photo was reportedly taken inside the school cafeteria but was never seen at the actual school board meeting.School Superintendent Joe Garza declined an interview with WISN 12 News but issued a statement:"We were first made aware of the sign in question the day after the School Board meeting, which was held Aug. 23, after the photo appeared on social media. We presume the photo was taken prior to the meeting in our school cafeteria, but I did not personally see the sign at the meeting, nor did any other district administrator, nor did anyone bring it to our attention. Im also not aware of any School Board member having seen the sign at the meeting."We fully understand that the letters KKK elicit emotions of racism, and we want to be clear that the School District of New Berlin does not in any way condone racism. Signs brought to our public meetings are protected by the First Amendment. The District understands its obligations with respect to First Amendment rights and all forms of speech that take place on school grounds, and all instances are handled on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the law. Specific to your hypothetical question, if a student wore a questionable shirt that was brought to administrations attention and it was deemed vulgar, offensive, profane, promoted illegal conduct, and/or caused a disruption to the school day, that student would be asked to change their shirt. Similarly, if someone brings a sign that disrupts a public meeting, and it is brought to our attention, that person may be asked to remove the sign."To reiterate, we take our responsibilities seriously with respect to balancing staff, student, and community member rights with maintaining a safe and effective learning environment for our students. But again, to be clear, no administrators were aware of the sign in question until the day after the meeting. "He was allowing it to be OK on school property that this is acceptable behavior, and I felt really sick inside," Nowak said.New Berlin ended up voting to have masks optional.The school board member named on the sign told WiSN 12 News it was "inappropriate and poor judgment."

The start of the school year in many districts came with some fierce, at times hostile, debate over masks.

In New Berlin, a sign from a week ago with the letters KKK sparked outrage.

"Initially, it represents hate for individuals, for groups of people," said Jeanette Nowak of New Berlin Speaks Out.

The sign reads "Krislyn Kauses Khaos." Krslyn is a school board member who favors mandatory masks in elementary school.

The other words, causes and chaos, the first letter was deliberately changed from the letter "C" to "K."

"What was the intention of that sign?" WISN 12 News reporter Hillary Mintz asked a woman who was in the photo but not holding the sign.

"It was an alliteration. Her name starts with a K. I guess we should have spelled it with a C and this would have never happened," the woman, who did not wish to be identified, said.

She agreed to talk to WISN 12 News but did not want her face to be shown because she said she's received threats.

"We're literally afraid for our safety. This never had anything to do with race. It was all about masks," the woman said.

She said the picture was posted in a private parent group, but somehow got shared publicly.

"Did anyone think the letters KKK might mean something to somebody else?" Mintz asked

"We didn't hold the sign up in the meeting. The sign was put away," the woman said.

The photo was reportedly taken inside the school cafeteria but was never seen at the actual school board meeting.

School Superintendent Joe Garza declined an interview with WISN 12 News but issued a statement:

"We were first made aware of the sign in question the day after the School Board meeting, which was held Aug. 23, after the photo appeared on social media. We presume the photo was taken prior to the meeting in our school cafeteria, but I did not personally see the sign at the meeting, nor did any other district administrator, nor did anyone bring it to our attention. Im also not aware of any School Board member having seen the sign at the meeting.

"We fully understand that the letters KKK elicit emotions of racism, and we want to be clear that the School District of New Berlin does not in any way condone racism. Signs brought to our public meetings are protected by the First Amendment. The District understands its obligations with respect to First Amendment rights and all forms of speech that take place on school grounds, and all instances are handled on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the law.

Specific to your hypothetical question, if a student wore a questionable shirt that was brought to administrations attention and it was deemed vulgar, offensive, profane, promoted illegal conduct, and/or caused a disruption to the school day, that student would be asked to change their shirt. Similarly, if someone brings a sign that disrupts a public meeting, and it is brought to our attention, that person may be asked to remove the sign.

"To reiterate, we take our responsibilities seriously with respect to balancing staff, student, and community member rights with maintaining a safe and effective learning environment for our students. But again, to be clear, no administrators were aware of the sign in question until the day after the meeting.

"He was allowing it to be OK on school property that this is acceptable behavior, and I felt really sick inside," Nowak said.

New Berlin ended up voting to have masks optional.

The school board member named on the sign told WiSN 12 News it was "inappropriate and poor judgment."

View post:
Sign with 'KKK' on it brought to New Berlin school board meeting - WISN Milwaukee

Video: Buncombe County school board meeting sees anti-mask protesters

Buncombe County resident Stephanie Parsons protests during a meeting with the Buncombe County Board of Education on Thursday, August 5, 2021.

Maya Carter, Asheville Citizen Times

Todays batch of burning questions, my smart-aleck answers and the real deal:

Question:In Buncombe County's recent mask mandate order and the city's, too it gives an exemption for First Amendment rights. What does that mean? It seems kind of nebulous...

My answer: Who doesn't like a nice splash of nebulousness in their mask mandate? I just wish they would've added some language along the lines of, "The mandate also does not apply to those wishing to remain in touch with their inner child, hoping not to inhibit the free flow of chi or just wanting to ride free and not be hassled by the man."

Real answer: The county and city recently did pass mask mandates for public places. The city order essentially mirrored the county's, which did offer mask exemptions for several activities. It reads:

Worship, religious, and spiritual gatherings, funeral ceremonies, wedding ceremonies, and other activities constituting the exercise of First Amendment rights are exempt from all the requirements of this order.

More: Protesters object to Buncombe County Schools' mask mandate, attempt to 'overthrow' board

This being the land of the free, I can see where some folks, whether they're customers, employees, or just folks trying to ditch the mask because it "inhibits their free speech," may try to take advantage here. The mandate is meant to be pretty narrow, though.

"This language is straight out of language used in the Governor's Executive Orders," Buncombe County spokeswoman Lillian Govus said via email. "The language in the Executive Orders speaks primarily to mass gatherings, and specifically exempts fundamental First Amendment rights. The U.S. District Court essentially held that the state cannot restrict religious gatherings of 10 or more people."

More: Asheville City Schools clarifies COVID-19 protocols ahead of first day of school

The county's new order "simply requires face covering in public spaces and does not prohibit or define gatherings," Govus said. It implements public health officials' recommendation to require people to wear face coverings indoors in public in communities with substantial or high transmission.

Buncombe County, like many other counties nationwide, has seen COVID-19 cases surge in recent weeks as the delta variant spreads.Health officials told county leaders last week the rate of COVID-19 infections have increased six-fold, or 500% in a month's time.

In mid-July, the county was seeing 34 cases per 100,000. Last week the number had skyrocketed to 261 per 100,000, a rise attributed tothe coronavirus' highly contagious delta variant, which some data showcauses more severe illness than earlier strains.

TheCDC also strongly encourages social distancing again.

"When preparing the order, we felt it was important to clearly indicate that there is no intention to abridge the First Amendment rights of persons by implementing this new local order requiring face coverings in public spaces," Govus said.

By way of review, here's what the First Amendment says: "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."

For Asheville, City AttorneyBrad Branham responded, first noting the city wanted to maintain consistency with the county by mirroring the county directives. The First Amendment exception "is intended to be very limited in nature," Branham said.

The city believes strongly in the need for the most recent mask mandate, but while also safeguarding the constitutional rights of our residents and visitors," Branham said via email. "We do not consider the mere act of mandatorily wearing a mask to infringe upon a persons freedom of speech.Therefore, this exception would be limited to circumstances in which a person was prevented from fully exercising their free speech rights because of the mask.

I can imagine anti-maskers trying to fall back on all sorts of "free speech" arguments to shed their masks, but Branham said the exemptionis meant to be very narrow in scope.

"We can envision very few, if any, circumstances in which this would arise, but wanted to ensure that recognition of personal freedoms be included in the document," Branham said. "To reiterate, this language should absolutely not be read to mean that disagreement with the mask mandate gives someone the right to refuse to wear a mask under the guise of the First Amendment.

Judging by the lack of masks I saw at the Arden Walmart Saturday evening, I'd say folks are doing just fine in finding plenty of ways around the mask mandate. I suspect most folks would just claim a "medical exemption," if asked.

But honestly, I don't think stores, restaurants, bars or other establishments really want to fight the mask fight anymore. I'm still wearing a mask indoors, because it's the right thing to do to beat down the delta variant, but I'm probably in the minority these days.

It's a sad statement about society, folks. For nearly all of us, wearing a mask is a minor inconvenience.

Please, just do it.

This is the opinion of John Boyle. To submit a question, contact him at 232-5847 or jboyle@citizen-times.com

See original here:
Answer Man: In mask mandate, what's the meaning of 'First Amendment rights?' - Citizen Times

Petitions of the week ByAndrew Hamm on Aug 27, 2021 at 9:12 pm

This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, how the First Amendment constrains taxes on billboard owners, whether the mailbox rule applies to prisoners represented by counsel, and the scope of district courts jurisdiction over expungement motions.

In November, the court will hear argument in City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Texas, a First Amendment challenge to an Austin regulation that bars some digitized billboards but allows others depending on the billboards location. A new petition asks the court to take up another challenge to a city policy that involves differential treatment of signs.

The city of Baltimore taxes the owners of displays that advertise services that occur in a different location, meaning many billboards but not other types of signs. One of the countrys largest billboard-advertising companies challenged the tax under the First Amendment. Applying a relaxed standard, Marylands highest court upheld the tax as rationally related to the citys legitimate interest in raising public revenue. In its petition, the billboard owner, one of four such companies in Baltimore, argues that a heightened standard should apply. The company also argues that Baltimores distinction between on-premises signs and off-premises signs is even more problematic than the one presented in Austin. The case is Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC v. Raymond.

Under the mailbox rule, a prisoners filing is timely if mailed by the due date, even if it arrives late to the court. In Cretacci v. Call, Blake Cretacci argues that a circuit split has arisen as to whether the rule applies to prisoners represented by counsel. Cretacci, a pre-trial detainee, submitted to the inmate mail system a civil complaint before the statutory deadline on his claims, but the pleading arrived at the district court too late. Although a lawyer had helped Cretacci to prepare the complaint, Cretacci had filed pro se (representing himself) because the lawyer was not a member of the relevant bar. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit denied Cretacci the benefit of the mailbox rule on the ground that he was sufficiently represented by counsel. Cretacci asks the justices to review and reverse this holding.

Valueland Auto Sales, Inc. v. United States concerns the scope of jurisdiction in federal criminal cases. In 2013, the federal government indicted Ron Benit and Valueland Auto Sales on charges that they structured cash deposits at banks to avoid filing required reports, and it seized over $70,000 of their funds. The government later dismissed all charges and returned all the funds. Benit and Valueland then moved to expunge the records of their indictment. However, the district court determined that it did not have any jurisdiction over the expungement motions because the charges had been dropped, a ruling that the 6th Circuit affirmed. Arguing that a circuit split exists over this issue that is important and recurring, Benit and Valueland ask the Supreme Court to reverse the 6th Circuits decision.

These and otherpetitions of the weekare below:

Mohamud v. Weyker21-187Issue: Whether a constitutional remedy is available against federal officers for individual instances of law enforcement overreach in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Valueland Auto Sales, Inc. v. United States21-211Issue: Whether, when the district court dismisses all criminal charges against a defendant, that court has jurisdiction over a motion to expunge the records relating to those charges, as held by the U.S Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 10th and D.C. Circuits, or whether the district court lacks jurisdiction over such motions, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 11th Circuits.

Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC v. Raymond21-219Issue: Whether a tax singling out off-premises billboards is subject to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment.

Cretacci v. Call21-221Issue: Whether a prisoner who submits a filing through the prison mail system loses the benefit of the mailbox rule if he has counsel.

Excerpt from:
Billboard taxes, the mailbox rule and expungement jurisdiction - SCOTUSblog

Union officials took full union dues from nonmember officer without consent, then ignored requests to return illegally-seized money

Cleveland, OH (August 25, 2021) Cuyahoga County probation officer Kimberlee Warren is suing the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) union in her workplace, charging union officials with breaching her First Amendment right as a public employee to refuse to support union activities. She is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys, in partnership with attorneys with the Ohio-based Buckeye Institute.

Foundation staff attorneys contend that FOP union officials ignored her constitutional rights recognized in the landmark 2018 Janus v. AFSCME U.S. Supreme Court decision, which was argued and won by Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys.

In Janus, the Justices declared it a First Amendment violation to force any public sector employee to pay union dues or fees as a condition of keeping his or her job. The Court also ruled that public employers and unions cannot take union dues or fees from a public sector employee unless they obtain that employees affirmative consent.

The federal lawsuit says that Warren was not a member of the FOP union before the Janus decision in June 2018, but FOP union bosses collected union dues from her wages without her consent. According to the complaint, this continued until around December 2020, when Warren notified union officials that they were violating her First Amendment rights by taking the money and demanded that the union stop the coerced deductions and return all money that they had taken from her paycheck since the Janus decision.

When the deductions ended, FOP chiefs refused to give back the money that they had already seized from Warren in violation of her First Amendment rights. They claimed the deductions had appeared on her check stub and thus any responsibility to cease the deductions fell on her even though to her knowledge they had never obtained permission to opt her into membership or to take cash from her paycheck in the first place.

According to the lawsuit, Warren also asked FOP bosses to provide any dues deduction authorization document she might have signed. FOP officials rebuffed this request as well.

The High Court ruled in Janus that, because all activities public sector unions undertake involve lobbying the government and thus are political speech, forcing a public employee to pay any union dues or fees as a condition of keeping his or her job is forced political speech the First Amendment forbids.

Union bosses were permitted by state law before the Janus ruling to seize from nonmember workers paychecks only the part of dues they claimed went toward representational activities. FOP union officials took this amount from Warren prior to Janus. However, they furtively designated her as a member following the decision, and began taking full dues, deducting even more money from her wages than they did before Janus despite the complete lack of any consent.

Warren is now suing the FOP union in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Her lawsuit seeks the return of all dues that FOP union officials garnished from her paycheck since the Janus decision was handed down. It also seeks punitive damages because FOP showed reckless, callous indifference toward her First Amendment rights by snubbing her refund requests.

Warrens lawsuit comes as other Foundation-backed lawsuits for employees defending their First Amendment Janus rights seek writs of certiorari from the Supreme Court. This includes cases brought for Chicago and New Jersey public educators which challenge window periods that severely limit when they and their fellow educators can exercise their First Amendment right to stop union dues deductions, sometimes to periods as short as ten days per year. In a California federal court, Foundation staff attorneys are also aiding a University of California Irvine lab assistant in fighting an anti-Janus state law that gives union bosses full control over whether employers can stop sending an employees money to the union after that employee exercises his or her Janus rights.

All over the country, union officials are stopping at nothing to ensure they can continue ignoring workers First Amendment Janus rights and continue siphoning money from the paychecks of dissenting employees, commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. After Janus was handed down, FOP union officials in Warrens workplace could have come to her to attempt to get her to support the union voluntarily, but tellingly instead they began surreptitiously siphoning full dues out of her paycheck without her consent in direct contravention of the Supreme Court.

Despite her repeated requests, FOP bosses have continued to trample Warrens Janus rights, and Foundation staff attorneys are fighting to stop this gross injustice against her and punish FOP bosses for their brazen behavior, Mix added.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in around 250 cases nationwide per year.

See the original post here:
Cuyahoga County Probation Officer Hits Union with Federal Lawsuit for Years of Unconstitutional Dues Seizures - National Right to Work Foundation