Mediaboss Marketing

Two hundred and thirty-one years ago this week, Congress passed a collection of amendments to the U.S. Constitution, ten of which would become the Bill of Rights. Foremost in the Bill of Rights is the First Amendment, which allows Americans to worship how they please, speak their minds openly and have their voices heard by their government.

Our Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, also included in the First Amendment the right to a free press. They understood that our democracy could not survive without the freedom to report the news without fear or favor. The times may have changed; that principle has not.

The work of our most-trusted sources of news our local radio and TV stations, broadcast network partners and community and national newspapers during the most important events of the past six months have shown how essential a free press is to keeping people informed. Yet, these historic times have also laid bare the existential threats facing journalism brought on by economic, cultural and political factors.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, media outlets have been providing a comprehensive picture of how the virus has affected us all. They have expanded newscasts and aired special reports, hosted virtual townhalls with public health experts and brought audiences into hospital rooms to show the devastating toll of coronavirus. Journalists have dug deep into medical research to shine a light on the short- and long-term effects of COVID-19. Some have documented their own struggles after contracting the virus, while others have volunteered in vaccine trials. And, as the pandemic continues impacting all aspects of everyday life, local media outlets have explored the financial, psychological and societal toll coronavirus has taken on our communities.

Yet, even as media outlets cover the pandemic, they have faced historic advertising losses as businesses large and small cut ad budgets to save expenses during these difficult times. As a result, broadcast stations and newspapers have seen the financial underpinnings of their investment in journalism drop out. Unfortunately, some have had to shutter for good. Others are struggling to survive and recover, even as they revamp operations to create safe, socially distant workplaces. We should be reminded that good journalism takes investment, and that amidst a pandemic this investment is more challenging and more important than ever.

Journalists are also playing a unique role during the ongoing protests and civil unrest stemming from issues of racial injustice. They provide a platform for protesters to voice their grievances and shine a light on the challenges facing our nation. They bear witness to interactions between police and demonstrators to hold local officials and citizens accountable. They provide images, words and context for those at home, helping them connect to, learn and understand what is happening in the world.

Alarmingly, journalists covering these demonstrations have been targets of violence and harassment. Journalists have been pepper sprayed, tear gassed, arrested and shot with projectiles, even after identifying themselves as members of the media. They have been assaulted, had equipment destroyed or stolen, and their headquarters vandalized. This is unacceptable. It is incumbent on law enforcement and protesters to respect journalists who are doing the difficult jobs we need them to do.

Millions of voters are also turning to newspapers and broadcast outlets to help make informed choices at the polls during federal, state and local elections in 2020. Since the founding of our nation, Americas free press has been entrusted with the awesome responsibility of educating voters, examining the issues, promoting civil debate and holding our public officials accountable. That is a tradition that is alive and well today.

From my time in elected office, including 12 years as a U.S. senator from Oregon, I understand the desire of politicians to push back when frustrated by unfavorable news coverage. Indeed, criticism of the press is warranted and something we should expect of all our democratic institutions. But we should all be mindful of the difference between an adversarial relationship between elected officials and the media that is a sign of a healthy democracy and overheated rhetoric that jeopardizes journalists ability to legally and safely report the news.

When our Founding Fathers passed the First Amendment, they likely could not envision a year as challenging as 2020. Still, by enshrining the right to a free press in the bedrock of our nation, they showed their faith that journalism was necessary to our democracys survival even in the toughest of times. That is worth celebrating.

Gordon Smith has been president and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters since 2009. He is a former two-term Republican U.S. senator from Oregon.

Read more here:
First Amendment shines through during toughest of times | TheHill - The Hill

A lawyer representing Lighthouse Baptist Church in Horseheads, the source of a rapidly growing cluster of COVID-19 cases across New York, said Thursday the church is asking Chemung County to remove an order of closure, claiming its First Amendment rights have been violated.

In a statement, Buffalo attorneyJames Ostrowskisaid the church "is committed to cooperating with the County to reopen the Church in a manner consistent with the health of the community," but threatened a federal lawsuit if the county does not allow "free exercise of their religion."

About 300 people across New York have been diagnosed or identified as contacts potentially exposed to COVID-19 as a result of the cluster, according to the state health department. As of Monday, 75 confirmed cases in Chemung County and 15 cases in other counties are tied to the cluster.

Chemung County health officials originally traced a cluster of five positive cases to Lighthouse Baptist Church in early September.The number of confirmed cases quickly ballooned to at least 45 across multiple counties as officials learned several members of the Horseheads congregation attended a wedding in late August in Oneida County.

Lighthouse Baptist Church lawyer's statement

Ostrowski said the church voluntarily suspended services Sept. 6 after learning two members of its congregation tested positive and encouraged its members to be tested and quarantine.

He also claimed the church supplied a list of recent church attendees to county officials. Chemung County Executive Chris Moss has previously stated a list of members was received after the county filed a subpoena.

Ostrowski pointed to a "false media report" saying the church opposed proper medical treatment. The lawyer could not be reached for comment to clarify the claim Thursday.

Previously, county officials said the church was not cooperating with the contact tracing, and Mosssaid of church leaders, "They said, 'God will look out for them.' But they are coming in contact with elderly folks and children and the outbreak grows and grows."

Lighthouse Baptist Church has refused to comment publicly on the cluster in its church despite being contacted multiple times.

Ostrowski further denied the cluster's connection to thedeath of a 76-year-old Chemung County man, who county health officials have said was not a member of the churchbut came into contact with someone who is.

"The Church had received no definitive proof that this tragic death was related to any church activity," he said.

COVID-19 church closures across New York

The Lighthouse Baptist Church is not the first religious institution that has faced a temporary closure order amid the COVID-19 pandemic in New York.

In March, New York halted services atthe Young Israel synagogue in New Rochelle, Westchester County, after discovering the state's first COVID-19 cluster. The virus spread to hundreds of congregants after a man who unknowingly had COVID-19 attended a crowded funeral service and bat mitzvah.

In June, a federal judge struck down an order from Gov. Andrew Cuomo that capped capacity at religious services to 25% and 33% in Phase 2 and 3, respectively, of the state's reopening process.

Instead, U.S. District Judge Gary Sharp allowed religious institutions to have 50% capacity for indoor services, the same cap afforded to restaurants, noting the state's previous limits should have applied equally.

Ostroswki said "the County itself must comply with the law in this regard or risk federal court litigation."

USA Today Network reporter Jon Campbell contributed to this report. Follow Katie Sullivan Borrelli on Twitter @ByKatieBorrelli. Support our journalism and become a digital subscriber today. Click here for our special offers.

This article originally appeared on Elmira Star-Gazette: Lawyer: Horseheads church should be reopened, First Amendment rights have been violated

Read more:
Lawyer: Horseheads church should be reopened, First Amendment rights have been violated - Hornell Evening Tribune

The passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will change the U.S. Supreme Court in too many ways to count. The first signs of that shift may be felt at the Courts opening conference for the term the long conference which, as of this writing, is still on the justices calendar for Tuesday. At that meeting, the Court will sort through a pile of thousands of pending petitions for certiorari. Almost all will be rejected; still, at least a handful will likely be granted to bulk up the docket for the term. Here are just a few of the petitions the Reporters Committee will be watching closely.

Border Searches Each year, agents with U.S. Customs and Border Protection search a staggering number of travelers phones and laptops without obtaining a warrant. InWilliams v. United States, petitioner Derrick Williams is asking the justices to resolve whether the Fourth Amendment at least requires the government to demonstrate reasonable suspicion that the device contains contraband. Butas the Reporters Committee has argued, border searches also intrude on important First Amendment interests, including the ability of journalists to maintain their sources confidentiality, that only scrupulous adherence to a warrant requirement can protect.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act The Supreme Court is already slated to hear one case on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,Van Buren v. United States, toward the end of November. In that argument, which deals with a police sergeant who used his access to a license plate database for improper purposes, the justices will weigh what it means to exceed authorized access for purposes of the federal anti-hacking law. But LinkedIn is still asking the Court to hearits petitionon the meaning of another major CFAA provision the bar on accessing a computer without authorization as part of a long-running dispute over the scraping of personal data from the sites profiles.

As the Reporters Committee explained in itsfriend-of-the-courtbriefinVan Buren, web scraping is an important data-journalism tool and the CFAA should be construed to permit it, to avoid serious First Amendment and vagueness concerns.

Compelled Decryption The government wants to unlock your phone but doesnt know the password. Can you be compelled to tell them? InPennsylvania v. Davis, Pennsylvania is urging the justices to say yes, arguing that the Fifth Amendment doesnt protect against this kind of forced disclosure. The answer could have knock-on effects for reporter-source confidentiality.

Content Moderation Few laws inspire as much controversy asSection 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides internet intermediaries with broad-based immunity from liability for the user content they host. InMalwarebytes v. Enigma Software Group, a cybersecurity firm is seeking to overturn a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that carved out an exception for decisions motivated by anticompetitive animus. Malwarebytes warns that the opinion could open the door to liability wherever a party alleges that a platform made moderation choices in some sort of bad faith.

Like what youve read?Sign up to get the full This Week in Technology + Press Freedom newsletter delivered straight to your inbox!

The Technology and Press Freedom Project at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press uses integrated advocacy combining the law, policy analysis, and public education to defend and promote press rights on issues at the intersection of technology and press freedom, such as reporter-source confidentiality protections, electronic surveillance law and policy, and content regulation online and in other media. TPFP is directed by Reporters Committee attorney Gabe Rottman. He works with Stanton Foundation National Security/Free Press Legal Fellow Grayson Clary and Technology and Press Freedom Project Legal Fellow Mailyn Fidler.

View post:
Four petitions we're watching as the US Supreme Court fills out its docket - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

The New York Times published details on two decades worth of Donald Trumps tax returns, sparking outcry from many of the presidents supporters that the Timesand its reporters should be investigated for breaking the law. Its important to understand that while the financial records may have been unlawfully disclosed to the Times, legal precedent shows that it was legal for the Timesto publish reporting on confidential documents.

The reaction from Turning Point USAs Charlie Kirk was representative of the outrage:

Who leaked Trumps tax returns to The New York Times? 26 U.S. Code 7213 makes it illegal to disclose unauthorized information, including tax returns, Kirk said. If truethere should be felony charges leveled. RT if DOJ should immediately investigate the Times and their sources!

26 USC 7213 has been floating around online quite a bit ever since;so has the assumption that an officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) illegally leaked the documents. This is a reasonable assumption but an assumption nonetheless. The Times own words about how it obtained the tax returns provide few clues about what went on here:

All of the information The Times obtained was provided by sources with legal access to it. While most of the tax data has not previously been made public, The Times was able to verify portions of it by comparing it with publicly available information and confidential records previously obtained by The Times.

Andy Grewal, a tax law scholar who has written extensively on topics related to Trumps tax returns andteaches at the University of Iowa College of Law, noted that the tax returns could have come from a few sources that arent the IRS.

From the article, I cannot tell the source(s) of the documents. The documents could be from an IRS employee, a state revenue agent, a Trump Org employee, a bank employee, or someone else, Grewal told Law&Crime.

Based on the law professors answer, it seems the list of individuals or entities who would have legal access to the presidents tax returns is not a long onebut it isnt only the IRSeither. And Kirk is correct that its possible that the source(s) violated disclosure law, but theres still too much we dont know to say for sure.

Depending on the circumstances, the leak could violate the law, an ethical rule, a disclosure agreement, or some other obligation. But one is left to speculate, Grewal said.

Kirks tweet was retweeted more than 25,000 times, so we can assume that a lot of people really do want the Times and its sources investigated. Such an investigation would implicate clear First Amendment issues. For the purposes of this discussion, lets assume this really was an IRS employee who leaked the documents.

What would happen to that person if they were found out and what would happen to the person(s) and/or entity who actually publicized the information?

Remember when then-Stormy Daniels attorney-turned-convicted felonMichael Avenatti obtained documents (Suspicious Activity Reports) pertaining to Michael Cohen from an IRS analyst? That analyst, John C. Fry, was investigated and ultimately pleaded guilty to committing a federal crime. You know who wasnt punished for this? Avenattithe third party who posted the documents.

Remember when Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards,a senior advisor at FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network), unlawfully disclosed Suspicious Activity Reports to a BuzzFeed reporter? SARs that related to Russia, Paul Manafort,Rick Gatesand Maria Butina?The feds said that Edwards saved a whopping 24,000 SARs on a department-issued thumb drive. The majority of these files were saved to a folder named Debacle Operation-CF, which contained subfolders named asshat, debacle, and emails. Edwards pleaded guilty to committing a federal crime. You know who wasnt punished? The reporter.

Supreme Court precedent and New Yorks shield law for journalists also mean that Charlie Kirk et al. are S.O.L. on the prospect of exacting revenge against the Times.

Bartnicki v. Vopper is a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2001. A 6-3 SCOTUS held that the First Amendment protected the disclosure of illegally intercepted communications by third parties who didnt participate in said interception (contrast this with what the U.S. government has accused WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange of doing):

In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the disclosure of illegally intercepted communications by parties who did not participate in the illegal interception. In this case, privacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of public importance, wrote Justice Stevens. [A] strangers illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern. Noting that the negotiations were a matter of public interest, Justice Stevens wrote that the debate may be more mundane than the Communist rhetoric that inspired Justice Brandeis classic opinion in Whitney v. California, but it is no less worthy of constitutional protection.

Then theres New Yorks Civil Rights Law 79-h, which the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press noted provides an absolute privilege from forced disclosure of materials obtained or received in confidence by a professional journalist or newscaster, including the identity of a source. Beach, 62 N.Y.2d 241 (applying absolute privilege against disclosure of a confidential source even though the disclosure of the materials to the reporter may itself have been a crime).

The privilege applies in both criminal and civil contexts and to information passively received by a reporter, RCFP added.

New Yorks Civil Rights Law 79-h outlines special provisions relating to persons employed by, or connected with, news media.

Those provisions as applied to journalists and their confidential sourcesare defined in absolute terms [emphases ours]:

(b) Exemption of professional journalists and newscasters fromcontempt: Absolute protection for confidential news. Notwithstandingthe provisions of any general or specific law to the contrary, noprofessional journalist or newscaster presently or having previouslybeen employed or otherwise associated with any newspaper, magazine, newsagency, press association, wire service, radio or televisiontransmission station or network or other professional medium ofcommunicating news or information to the public shall be adjudged incontempt by any court in connection with any civil or criminalproceeding, or by the legislature or other body having contempt powers,nor shall a grand jury seek to have a journalist or newscaster held incontempt by any court, legislature or other body having contempt powersfor refusing or failing to disclose any news obtained or received inconfidence or the identity of the source of any such news coming intosuch persons possession in the course of gathering or obtaining newsfor publication or to be published in a newspaper, magazine, or forbroadcast by a radio or television transmission station or network orfor public dissemination by any other professional medium or agencywhich has as one of its main functions the dissemination of news to thepublic, by which such person is professionally employed or otherwiseassociated in a news gathering capacity notwithstanding that thematerial or identity of a source of such material or related materialgathered by a person described above performing a function describedabove is or is not highly relevant to a particular inquiry of governmentand notwithstanding that the information was not solicited by thejournalist or newscaster prior to disclosure to such person.

(c) Exemption of professional journalists and newscasters fromcontempt: Qualified protection for nonconfidential news.Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or specific law to thecontrary, no professional journalist or newscaster presently or havingpreviously been employed or otherwise associated with any newspaper,magazine, news agency, press association, wire service, radio ortelevision transmission station or network or other professional mediumof communicating news to the public shall be adjudged in contempt by anycourt in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding, or by thelegislature or other body having contempt powers, nor shall a grand juryseek to have a journalist or newscaster held in contempt by any court,legislature, or other body having contempt powers for refusing orfailing to disclose any unpublished news obtained or prepared by ajournalist or newscaster in the course of gathering or obtaining news asprovided in subdivision (b) of this section, or the source of any suchnews, where such news was not obtained or received in confidence, unlessthe party seeking such news has made a clear and specific showing thatthe news: (i) is highly material and relevant; (ii) is critical ornecessary to the maintenance of a partys claim, defense or proof of anissue material thereto; and (iii) is not obtainable from any alternativesource. A court shall order disclosure only of such portion, orportions, of the news sought as to which the above-described showing hasbeen made and shall support such order with clear and specific findingsmade after a hearing. The provisions of this subdivision shall notaffect the availability, under appropriate circumstances, of sanctionsunder section thirty-one hundred twenty-six of the civil practice lawand rules.

(d) Any information obtained in violation of the provisions of thissection shall be inadmissible in any action or proceeding or hearingbefore any agency.

(e) No fine or imprisonment may be imposed against a person for anyrefusal to disclose information privileged by the provisions of thissection.

First Amendment expert and attorney Floyd Abrams told Law&Crime that its clear The New York Times was free to publish this news.

First Amendment law could hardly be clearer than that the press is protected in publishing newsworthy information, let alone information about a President in the midst of his campaign for re-election, regardless of whether its source was authorized or permitted to provide it, Abrams said. In any event, no law barred the Times from publishing its article and if there had been one it would in all likelihood be unconstitutional. (Abrams is the father of Law&Crime founder Dan Abrams.)

[Image via Spencer Platt/Getty Images]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Read more:
No, The New York Times Did Not Break the Law by Exposing President Trump's Tax Returns - Law & Crime

To the Editor:

Every citizen has a right to support local candidates for public office. Owning a business or having business dealings with candidates does not prohibit one from exercising their First Amendment rights. Campaign finance laws require full disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures to allow the public to see where the money flows around campaigns a very good thing. And the public has the First Amendment right to challenge what is disclosed. Most of us share the desire for clean, honest governance and this letter is written with that goal.

While watching the Narragansett Town Council meeting on August 17, one agenda item came out of the blue. Councilor Lema sponsored a change to an Ordinance which would extend the minimum distance between liquor stores from 200 feet to one mile. The second reading for this change to the laws of Narragansett was this past Monday evening, September 21. The change was passed unanimously on a 5-0 vote.

The campaign finance reports filed by the items sponsor, Councilor Richard Lema, disclose that on August 17, the very same day that the Town Council held a first reading of the change, a $500 check from the owner of ONeils Liquor, Martin ONeil, was deposited into his campaign account. On August 25, just eight days after the first reading, another check for $500 from Mr. ONeil was deposited; this time into the campaign finance account of Councilor Jill Lawler. A tad earlier, on August 07, a $200 check made its way again into Ms. Lawlers campaign account, this time from the owner of Bonnet Liquors, Mr. Sahagian.

Whereas accepting campaign contributions from people who own businesses in Narragansett is clearly not out of the ordinary, receiving a relatively large contribution from owners of the businesses --in this case, liquor stores -- who would directly benefit from a tailored Ordinance change is questionable, at best.

At Mondays meeting, we had hoped we would have the opportunity to ask the sponsor, Mr. Lema, to withdraw his Ordinance change or that both councilors who accepted these donations recuse themselves from voting on it. We did not have that opportunity as no public comment was allowed by Council President Matthew Mannix.

After passage of the Ordinance change and during the Open Forum portion of the meeting, both of us expressed our dismay and disappointment in these elected officials. Their defense is that accepting these donations is perfectly legal. Whereas they or we are not in a position to judge the legality of these donations, we can say that these transactions raise serious questions as to the judgment of these councilors placing themselves in a situation where there may be a perception of impropriety. As we often told our children just because you can, doesnt mean you should.

The Narragansett Town Charter specifically requires that public servants should treat their office as a public trust. Sec. 16-1-2: In treating their office as a public trust, public servants should act so as to ensure the reality and perception that government is conducted according to the highest principles of democracy with honesty, integrity and a concern for justice and is, therefore, worthy of respect, trust and support.

The inability of these elected officials to acknowledge their obligation to avoid even the perception of impropriety, demonstrates that they may not have the judgement or maturity required of their positions. Respectfully, we ask our fellow resident voters to keep all this in mind and choose wisely when you select the people who will serve us in the Town Council.

Meg Rogers

Phil Cote, M.D.

Follow this link:
Choose wisely when selecting the people who will serve us - Ricentral.com