Mediaboss Marketing

Reprinted fromMarch 4, 2000

Tim Crews, a rough and ready publisher of a small weekly in Northern California, got out of jail this week.

Tim has a natural suspicion of most governmental agencies and bureaucrats, and he keeps the pot stirred in the small communities he serves.

Hes also an ardent supporter of freedom of the press, free flow of information and openness in government, and thats what got him into jail.

Feisty, probing and suspicious he delights in exposing wrong doing in sacred places. In doing so he steps on many toes, some of them belonging to powerful people.

Tim Crews went to jail last Saturday because he challenged the judicial system on the First Amendment rights of the press. His case hinges on the right of reporters to protect their sources so that they might have continued access to information important to their readers.

In this particular case, Tim was protecting informants who told him about the theft of a gun from evidence, by a Highway Patrol officer. It wasnt the prosecution who put the squeeze on Tim, it was the defense. The officers attorney needed Tims informants to prove that the statute of limitations had expired. The judge sided with the defendant, saying that an individuals right outlined in the Sixth Amendment to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor superseded the right of a reporter to protect his sources, as might be implied in the First Amendment.

The California Shield Law for journalists doesnt apply, the court said. Tims defense, which has proven valid in other cases, was that the defendant had access to many other witnesses who could have testified to the matter.

The local court decided to pick on him anyway. The appellate courts wouldnt overturn his contempt citation. The state supreme court wouldnt stay his jail sentence.

Tim, a white haired, white bearded bear of a man, wasnt afraid to go to jail. "You guys are next," he cautioned a group of reporters who covered his trip to the pokey.

Tim will probably have plenty to write about the experience. But in taking him away from his newspaper, the Sacramento Valley Mirror, for five days, the courts could have jeopardized its publication.

The Mirror is a 12-page twice-a-week paper published in the obscure town of Artois, home of 250 residents just east of the I-5 between Willows and Orland.

In recent months he has accused the Willows school district of bullying the Valley Mirrors advertisers, reported that the mentally ill faced primitive treatment by being placed in jail, and written that an Orland school trustee was trying to oust the controversial superintendent. Last weeks paper reported that two local judges, including the one that cited him, carried concealed weapons without an appropriate permit.

Tim is not only the publisher and editor, but the lead reporter, the ad salesman and general all-around flunky. He had to leave the work to his companion, Donna Settle, and a handful of columnists, correspondents and volunteers.

Attorney fees and costs of fighting his incarceration have left him strapped. If the powers-that-be had wanted to put him out of business for the unkind things he said about them, they couldnt have found a better way.

His jailing upset the journalism community statewide. First Amendment banner bearers have rushed to Tims aid with money and support. Newspaper people feel the courts have thrown down the gauntlet on a right generally upheld by the judiciary--to be free from coercion and intimidation in reporting and commenting on the news.

One could easily agree with the courts that in criminal cases, the right of an individual to a fair trial, proclaimed by the Sixth Amendment, should have a higher priority. But there is a corollary established by the federal courts: that defendants (or prosecutors) must show serious need for the information and that other sources or witnesses cant be found. Tim argued that there were numerous witnesses who could have shed light on when the theft took place.

Local law enforcement officers claimed they knew nothing about the theft until the gun turned up last spring in the possession of a high school student, who told officers he got it from his girlfriends father, the defendant, the former highway patrolman.

Any remaining recourse apparently lies with the federal court of appeals, which has agreed to hear it in the spring but refused to stay the sentence.

Read the original:
A clash between the 1st and 6th | Rolltop Roundup | championnewspapers.com - Chino Champion

It is remarkable we still have to discuss this question, but we do. Can a person believe the faith of their choice or can they only believe the faith of the "in" group?

One of my favorite paintings is in the Capitol Rotunda, the Embarkation of the Pilgrims by Robert Weir. It depicts a group of Pilgrims on the deck of the Speedwell July 22, 1620, before its departure from Delfs Haven, Holland as it prepares to sail to England to join the Mayflower.

The painting shows how America began: a small group of people, gathered around an open Bible, praying. Five months later, the Pilgrims settled Plymouth Colony in present-day Massachusetts with the hope that they could live their faith free from government imposition.

As many people know, Massachusetts Colony allowed people to live the accepted faith, but not any faith.

WEST VIRGINIA CITY'S EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS TORN OVER RELIGION'S ROLE IN POLITICS

Not until 1636, when Roger Williams was kicked out of the colony and set up life in Providence, Rhode Island, did America have a place where people could live any faithso began the American experiment of religious liberty.

Oddly enough, what we call our "First Freedoms," were not included in the original Constitution and they were not even first in the Bill of Rights.

Originally, the Bill of Rights was actually 12 Amendments, with the first amendment concerning apportionment in the U.S. House and the second about congressional pay.Thankfully, after final ratification, we made our first priority, first.

The First Amendment reads: "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."

In the words of founder James Madison, religious opinions are a "property of particular value." Our nation respects the right of everyone to have a faith, live that faith, change their faith, or have no faith at all.

JUDGE ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO: THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT FOR SALE

As a Christian, my faith isnt just a hobby I practice on weekends. My faith impacts my daily life whether Im in Washington, D.C., or my back yard.

Elected officials have the same right as every other American: to have a faith and live their faith. I cannot and should not impose my faith on others, but neither can others impose their faith or lack of faith on me.

Houses of worship, parochial schools, faith-based nonprofits, and others serve our communities and the hungry, hurting, and homeless. However, they are continually scrutinized under the misguided notion that faith-based entities in our nation should not be able to compete for public funding or federal or state programs under the guise that doing so would violate the Establishment Clause. But, the Supreme Court has rightfully held that Americans should be allowed to participate in their government and not be required to surrender their faith.

In 2012, a preschool operated by Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri applied for a state grant to resurface its playground with recycled scrap tire to replace its pea-gravel playground. Though Trinity Lutheran ranked in the top-5 applications, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources denied Trinity Lutherans grant solely because the preschool was operated by a church. In other words, they could get the tire scraps for their playground, if they surrendered their faith.

The Church brought its case all the way to the US Supreme Court, and the Court ruled 7-2 that the government cannot exclude churches and other faith-based organizations from a generally available benefit simply because of their religious identity.

HUME: LIBERALS CALLING FOR FREE SPEECH CRACKDOWN 'DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT'

In 2020, a mom in Montana tried to utilize a state scholarship program to send her daughters to a Christian school, but the state specifically stipulated that the program could not be used at religious schools.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that Montana violated the free exercise clause of the Constitution when it disallowed the use of the scholarship at faith-based schools. The state of Montana did not have to create a scholarship program, but if it did. It could not discriminate against people of faith.

Oklahoma, like Montana, is one of more than 30 states that have language in statute, or in their state Constitution, that specifically targets people of faith for discrimination. These "Blaine Amendments" were highly prejudicial 19th-century attempts to prevent Catholic entities from receiving any government benefits.

The original Blaine Amendment, which thankfully failed in the U.S. Senate, read: "No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

Blaine Amendments were not about protecting the First Amendment. They were, and still are, antiquated, anti-faith provisions that masquerade as preventing the establishment of a religion. They actually tell people that their school, charity, or nonprofit is less valuable because of their faith and that they are not welcome to interact with their government, unless they first give up their faith.

That is not who we are as a nation. We should encourage any and all faith groups to participate in and compete for publicly available programs just like any other business or group. That is the opposite of establishing a religion.

I was successful in securing an amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution to ensure churches and houses of worship are treated the same as secular organizations regarding COVID health restrictions.

The same gathering and health rules should apply regardless of the organizations message or faith.I also ensured faith-based organizations were eligible for the Paycheck Protection Program and for FEMA disaster aid the same as any other small business.

We should be neutral to faith.

In America, we have the free exercise of religion. You can choose any faith or no faith and still be a great American.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

You dont have to choose between your faith and serving in public office or partnering with your government to serve your community.

You can literally have your faith and live it too.

See more here:
Sen. James Lankford: Our American experiment of religious liberty you can have your faith and live it, too - Fox News

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