Mediaboss Marketing

Actually, anti-royalism is a fundamental element of the American way of life you are adapting to. Our Constitution expressly forbids both federal and state governments to grant titles of nobility. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 84, extolled that ban as the cornerstone of Americas republican system. Perhaps the one thing we Americans never argue about and as you know, we are regularly at daggers drawn over just about everything is whether wed be better off with a monarch. When we turned our backs on royalty in 1776, it was for good.

You know what else is a cornerstone indeed, a bearing wall of Americas democratic republic? The First Amendment, about which you were rather disparaging in a recent interview.

Earlier this month, on the Armchair Expert podcast, you were bewailing the intrusiveness of the paparazzi and the brazenness with which they stalk celebrities. The interviewer noted that while the relentless photographers may be obnoxious, what they do is legal under the First Amendment, which protects the right of the press to gather and publish information.

I dont want to start sort of going down the First Amendment route, because thats a huge subject and one which I dont understand because Ive only been here for a short period of time, you replied. But you can find a loophole in anything. You complained that even though laws were created to protect people, the media are allowed to disregard peoples privacy so that they can make more money and they can capitalize on our pain, grief, and this general self-destructive mode.

Then you added: Ive got so much I want to say about the First Amendment, as I still dont understand it. But its bonkers.

No, Harry, the First Amendment isnt bonkers. It is indispensable to Americas astounding history of achievement and to the way of life that has made this country an unprecedented haven for men and women who yearn to speak or write, or learn, or teach, or report with a freedom unknown in their native lands.

There is no First Amendment in Britain, where people can get arrested for online crimes of speech if their social media posts are too offensive. In the United States, by contrast, the government is commanded by the First Amendment to let people have their say, no matter how reprehensible. To be sure, there have always been efforts to get around that command, from the Alien and Sedition Acts in Americas early years to the atrocious speech codes on many modern college campuses. Freedom of speech and of the press always require vigilant defense. Fortunately, those who defend them have the First Amendment on their side.

There is no question that unbridled speech and irresponsible journalism can have terrible downsides. I cant fault you for detesting the paparazzi who have no respect for the feelings of the celebrities they pursue. You were just a young boy when your mother lost her life in a car wreck while being chased through Paris by paparazzi. Its understandable that you might think it bonkers for the First Amendment to enshrine a right to ferret out and publish information about people against their wishes.

Its true: Freedom of speech and of the press have often led to embarrassment, annoyance, and unfair publicity. But far more often, they have been the spotlight that exposes truth, illuminates corruption, reveals misjudgment, publicizes problems, and uncovers remedies. What society gains from the First Amendment vastly outweighs the price it pays.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson complained bitterly about the way the public papers were afflicting John Jay, among the greatest statesmen of that generation. It was outrageous, he wrote, that a devoted public servant like Jay should have his peace of mind so much disturbed by any individual who shall think proper to arraign him in a newspaper. Nevertheless, Jefferson avowed, to stifle the press would be much worse: Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost. To the sacrifice of time, labor, fortune, a public servant must count upon adding that of peace of mind and even reputation.

You told your podcast interviewer that laws were created to protect people, but the First Amendment was created to protect a certain kind of culture: one in which liberty is valued as both a means and an end. In which even powerful officials, famous celebrities, and wealthy titans can be questioned, rebutted, or denounced. In which sacred cows can be slaughtered and prevailing dogmas mocked.

In recent months, you have had plenty to say on topics ranging from your mental health to race and the royal family to your fathers shortcomings as a parent. Your views have provoked sympathy and admiration in some quarters, fury and contempt in others. Thanks to the First Amendment, your freedom to express those views is unassailable. So is everyone elses freedom to say what they think about you. It isnt a perfect system, but it is the best one ever devised for holding the mighty accountable and unshackling human minds. That isnt bonkers its a blessing. And as an American resident, you share in it too.

Jeff Jacoby can be reached at jeff.jacoby@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @jeff_jacoby. To subscribe to Arguable, his weekly newsletter, visit bitly.com/Arguable.

The rest is here:
No, Prince Harry, the First Amendment isnt bonkers - The Boston Globe

Poor Prince Harry! After surrendering his royal position in the House of Windsor last year to start life anew in the United States with his actress wife Meghan Markle, hes had a tough time adjusting to our countrys ways.

It seems certain aspects of our American society leave the prince befuddled. In a recent podcast interview, Harry suggested he doesnt have much regard for the First Amendment:

I dont want to start sort of going down the First Amendment route because thats a huge subject and one in which I dont understand because Ive only been here a short period of time.

But you can find a loophole in anything. And you can capitalize or exploit whats not said rather than uphold what is said. Ive got so much I want to say about the First Amendment as I sort of understand it, but it is bonkers.

Of course, for us Yanks of non-royal, non-British pedigree, individual rights like those protected under the First Amendmentfreedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom of petition and assembly; and freedom of associationare anything but bonkers. Theyre the very foundation of a free and civilized society in which citizens can thrive and flourish.

Harry did admit hes only been on American soil for a short period of time. So, lets give the erstwhile monarch a pass for his dismissal of a core American liberty, and trust he will take time to educate himself on the Constitution while hes here.

But heres who doesnt deserve a pass: the U.S. media entities whose coverage of Harrys gaffe suggests that caring about the First Amendment is a conservative obsessiona prepossession blared from the headlines alone:

Newsweek: Prince Harry Calls First Amendment Bonkers, Sparks Conservative Backlash

The Mercury News: Prince Harrys bonkers First Amendment quip fuels outrage among top U.S. conservatives

Entertainment News: Prince Harry Calls The First Amendment Bonkers and He Makes a Good Point

Vanity Fair: Prince Harry Called the First Amendment Bonkers and Gave Some Talking Heads an Excuse to Relitigate the Revolutionary War

The lead sentence in the Vanity Fair piece is particularly revealing: A contingent of conservative-leaning politicians and talking heads are up in arms afterPrince Harryoffhandedly dubbed their beloved First Amendment bonkers, VFs Emily Kirkpatrick explains.

There was a time when journalists were champions of key liberties like freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Such liberties, as protected under the First Amendment, werent conservative valuesthey were shared and cherished by all Americans who valued freedom of expression and opinion.

That was certainly my experience as a working journalist: The First Amendment wasnt something beloved just by conservatives, but by all Americans. It makes one wonder what budding reporters are taught in journalism schools these days.

Todays journalists would do well to reacquaint themselves with the core liberties protected under the First Amendment, particularly freedom of speech. A good place to start would be with this blog post from my PLF colleague, Wen Fa, who explains Why Free Speech is Important. Wen notes that in many countries (his native China included), government entities are not shy about squashing and punishing dissent by clamping down on those who try to exercise free speech. But thats not the case in the United Statesthanks to our robust constitutional protections.

America offers a richer tradition, Wen writes. People are free toexpress their ideas, even if those ideas are unpopular, unconventional, or wrong (though, in many cases, they may eventually be proven right). Americans are thus free to participate in peaceful protests, wear black armbands to school, and evenburn the nations flag. A speaker may say things that are unpopular, uncomfortable, or downright grotesque. But in a free society, we engage dissent through discussion and debate, rather than through censorship and punishment.

Thanks to the First Amendment, Americans enjoy stronger protections for free speech than people in most other countriesand thats a great thing, even if it means we sometimes have to contend with unpleasant or unpopular opinions. Prince Harry may or may not come to appreciate the value of American free speech protectionswe certainly dont begrudge the Duke of Sussex his right to talk to a podcaster, Oprah Winfrey, or anyone else he wishes, about whatever he wishes. We have, after all, the right not to listen.

However, media figures should make more of an effort to stand up for the values enshrined in the Constitution. Failing to do so, when their own livelihoods depend so deeply on the First Amendment, is justbonkers.

Read the original here:
Royal Pain: Prince Harryand his media fansneed educating on why the First Amendment matters - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)

Recently, we've witnessed the introduction of the Equality Act with its stated purpose of affording LGBTQ citizens equal protection under the law. Ostensibly, this is a laudable goal.

The threat that it poses to religious freedom, however, is disconcerting.

To understand this, its necessary to recall the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act during the Clinton administration. It passed in Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

The essence of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is to protect the citizenry from encroachment by government on First Amendment freedoms including conscience. If the Equality Act were to pass, the restoration act would essentially be gutted, and LGBTQ rights would trump the First Amendments free exercise clause. The subsequent trampling of religious liberty would be unconscionable.

Given this scenario, Thomas Jeffersons trenchant declaration remains so ennobling: I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. Whenever ones conscience is overridden by an ideological imperative its time to seek accommodation for ones God given right and wrong.

Ron Domel

Texas City

Here is the original post:
Equality Act is a threat to First Amendment - Galveston County Daily News

The good news, according to the Florida First Amendment Foundation, is that the Legislature this year repealed a state law that allows state agencies to sue people making public-records demands.

New legislation (SB 400), which still requires Gov. Ron DeSantis signature, would end the practice by agencies of seeking declaratory judgements concerning public-records requests that is, asking a court to decide whether the information sought is confidential or exempt from release.

This practice drags out requests and makes access to government information more expensive, the foundation wrote in in a report summarizing the recently concluded regular session.

The press and individuals seeking records may be left with costly legal fees even if a court finds that the records are subject to disclosure. Declaratory actions restrict access to public records to only those with the time and money to defend their public records request, the report says.

The foundation is an organ of the Florida Press Association, the Florida Society of News Editors, and the Florida Association of Broadcasters intended to ensure that public commitment and progress in the areas of free speech, free press, and open government do not become checked and diluted during Floridas changing times.

By the foundations count, the Legislature approved 14 new exemptions and renewed eight.

Among exemptions the foundation decried areHouse Bill 1311, which closes Public Service Commission meetings in which confidential business information is discussed in the interest of allowing companies to fairly compete within the marketplace. However, the foundation notes: Utilities in Florida are regulated monopolies there is no competitive marketplace. This argument is meritless.

Another,House Bill 1055, removes a requirement that companies contracting with state agencies formally request trade-secrets protection regarding the money they are paid and their pricing, thereby imposing automatic shields. The bill undermines confidence in government spending and transparency, the foundation said.

Still: One of the biggest threats to transparency this legislative session was not an overbroad public records or Sunshine Law exemption but the limited participation at committee meetings and restricted access to legislators, the report says.

That was because of protocols intended to restrict COVID transmission.

Spirited protests and debates were absent. Lawmakers did not have to face constituents at the Capitol. All while the rest of the state was open for business. The Capitol eventually reopened to the public the week immediately following the end of session.

The foundation highlighted other restrictions on First-Amendment rights, includingHouse Bill 1, the DeSantis-led initiative to criminalize participation in protests that turn violent, even if a participant had no hand in that violence. The governorhas already signedit into law.

The overbroad definition of riot and increased penalties may deter protestors and journalists from exercising their First Amendment rights, fearing criminal sanctions for mere presence at a peaceful protest that involves violence or a public disturbance, as determined by law enforcement officers at the scene of the protest, the report says.

It also citedSenate Bill 7072, the social media crackdown legislation that thegovernor signedon Monday.

The bill prohibits companies from removing (deplatforming) candidates for office and censoring journalistic enterprises, the foundation noted.

The bill is likely preempted by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996. In addition, by forcing social media websites to carry speech that violates companies terms of use policies, the bill runs afoul of the First Amendment freedom of speech.

A related exemption classifies information gathered during attorney general investigations into tech companies confidential, even after these investigations are concluded, the foundation said.

Michael Moline, Florida Phoenix

Link:
A Mostly Bleak Legislative Session for Open Government and the First Amendment in Florida - FlaglerLive.com

Florida governor Ron DeSantis has signed into law a restriction on social media companies ability to ban candidates for state offices and news outlets, and in doing so offered a direct challenge to those companies perceived free speech rights. The law is almost certain to be challenged in court as both unconstitutional and in direct conflict with federal rules.

The law, Florida Senate Bill 7072, provides several new checks on tech and social media companies. Among other things:

The law establishes rules affecting these companies moderation practices; that much is clear. But whether doing so amounts to censorship actual government censorship, not the general concept of limitation frequently associated with the word is an open question, if a somewhat obvious one, that will likely be forced by legal action against SB 7072.

While there is a great deal of circumstantial precedent and analysis, the problem of are moderation practices of social media companies protected by the First Amendment is as yet unsettled. Legal scholars and existing cases fall strongly on the side of yes, but there is no single definitive precedent that Facebook or Twitter can point to.

The First Amendment argument starts with the idea that although social media are very unlike newspapers or book publishers, they are protected in much the same way by the Constitution from government interference. Free speech is a term that is interpreted extremely liberally, but if a company spending money is considered a protected expression of ideas, its not a stretch to suggest that same company applying a policy of hosting or not hosting content should be as well. If it is, then the government is prohibited from interfering with it beyond very narrow definitions of unprotected speech (think shouting fire in a crowded theater). That would sink Floridas law on constitutional grounds.

The other conflict is with federal law, specifically the much-discussed Section 230, which protects companies from being liable for content they publish (i.e. the creator is responsible instead), and also for the choice to take down content via rules of their own choice. As the laws co-author Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has put it, this gives those companies both a shield and a sword with which to do battle against risky speech on their platforms.

But SB 7072 removes both sword and shield: It would limit who can be moderated, and also creates a novel cause for legal action against the companies for their remaining moderation practices.

Federal and state law are often in disagreement, and there is no handbook for how to reconcile them. On one hand, witness raids of state-legalized marijuana shops and farms by federal authorities. On the other, observe how strong consumer protection laws at the state level arent preempted by weaker federal ones because to do so would put people at risk.

On the matter of Section 230 its not straightforward who is protecting whom. Floridas current state government claims that it is protecting real Floridians against the Silicon Valley elites. But no doubt those elites (and let us be candid that is exactly what they are) will point out that in fact this is a clear-cut case of government overreach, censorship in the literal sense.

These strong legal objections will inform the inevitable lawsuits by the companies affected, which will probably be filed ahead of the law taking effect and aim to have it overturned.

Interestingly, two companies that will not be affected by the law are two of the biggest, most uncompromising corporations in the world: Disney and Comcast. Why, you ask? Because the law has a special exemption for any company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex of a certain size.

Thats right, theres a Mouse-shaped hole in this law and Comcast, which owns Universal Studios, just happens to fit through as well. Notably this was added in an amendment, suggesting two of the largest employers in the state were unhappy at the idea of new liabilities for any of their digital properties.

This naked pandering to local corporate donors puts proponents of this law at something of an ethical disadvantage in their righteous battle against the elites, but favor may be moot in a few months time when the legal challenges, probably being drafted at this moment, call for an injunction against SB 7072.

More:
Floridas ban on bans will test First Amendment rights of social media companies - TechCrunch