Mediaboss Marketing

Caroline Hunter, a member of the Federal Election Commission who regularly clashed with her fellow commissioners, resigned on Friday, according to a letter obtained by ABC News.

Hunter, a Republican, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2008, regularly butted heads with FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a Democrat also nominated by former President Bush.

She will stay on with the FEC until July 3. The White House has already nominated Allen Dickerson, the legal director of the Institute for Free Speech, to take her place.

In her resignation letter, Hunter has some strong criticism for Weintraub, though she is not mentioned by name.

"The FEC would benefit greatly from new faces and fresh perspectives. It needs Commissioners who will respect the First Amendment, understand the limits of the FEC's jurisdiction, and remember that Congress established the FEC to prevent single-party control, with every significant decision requiring bipartisan approval," Hunter wrote.

"One Commissioner -- who has served for more than a decade past the expiration of her term -- routinely mischaracterizes disagreements among Commissioners about the law as 'dysfunction,' rather than a natural consequence of the FEC's unique structure, misrepresents the jurisdiction of the agency and deliberately enables outside groups to usurp the Commission's role in litigation and chill protected speech," she added. "The American people deserve better."

Federal Election Commission (FEC) Commissioner Ellen Weintraub testifies during a hearing before the Elections Subcommittee of House Committee on House Administration, Nov. 3, 2011 on Capitol Hill.

With Hunter's resignation, the FEC is again left with just three out of six commissioners, meaning that it is one vote short of the minimum four votes needed to act on any substantive matters.

The FEC was left in the same place with no enforcement power for nearly a year, after former Vice Chairman Matthew Petersen resigned from his position last August, until recently.

In May, the Senate finally confirmed President Donald Trump's appointee, Trey Trainor, a Texas election attorney, to fill one of the vacancies on the commission, restoring the quorum.

"It's keenly disappointing for the FEC to lose its quorum just a blink of an eye after we regained it," said Weintraub. "But of course I wish Caroline well in this and all her future endeavors."

The remaining members of the commission are Republican Chair Trainor, Democratic Commissioner Weintraub, and Independent Vice Chair Steven Walther.

Without the four-person quorum, it will not be able to initiate audits, engage in rulemaking, vote on enforcement matters or even issue an advisory opinion or hold meetings.

The commission will continue to perform its important day-to-day duties of making details of 2020 campaign contributions and expenditures available, and its enforcement arm will still review complaints and make recommendations to the commission on those matters.

Scenes from the Federal Election Commission headquarters.

Trevor Potter, president of Washington-based nonpartisan ethics group Campaign Legal Center and a former Republican chair of the FEC, called for a prompt replacement of Hunter to restore the quorum, saying her resignation has left "democratic elections with significantly less government oversight."

"A huge majority of voters are concerned about the enforcement of our campaign finance laws, and Hunter's resignation leaves their democratic elections with significantly less government oversight," Potter said in a statement. "Elections in 2016 and 2018 saw campaign finance violations including: illegal foreign spending, a lack of transparency around the sources of millions in election spending, and candidates working illegally with super PACs."

"Americans understand that the campaign finance system correlates directly to their families' quality of life," he continued. "The corruption of our democracy by unprecedented amounts of money in our elections from wealthy special interests diminishes the voices of average citizens. A strong and functional FEC is vital to protecting our democracy, fighting corruption, and holding politicians accountable for the campaign money they receive."

A source familiar with Hunter's thinking told ABC News that Weintraub's decision to let outside groups file lawsuits directly in federal court against other groups and individuals is something on which Hunter strongly disagreed with Weintraub.

"Fire alarms are sometimes housed in boxes labeled 'Break glass in case of emergency.' The Federal Election Campaign Act has such a box; it's the provision that allows complainants to sue respondents directly when the Federal Election Commission fails to enforce the law itself. In the 44-year history of the FEC, this provision has never been fully utilized. Today, I'm breaking the glass," Weintraub said in 2018.

This incident "took the dysfunction to a new level," the source explained.

Hunter served on the FEC for 12 years and as the commission chair three times and plans to join "the legal team of Stand Together, a philanthropic organization dedicated to tackling some of the biggest challenges of our times, including reforming the nation's criminal justice system, strengthening K-12 education, helping neighbors beat poverty and addiction, empowering everyone to find fulfilling work, and more," according to a press release.

Read more from the original source:
FEC Commissioner Caroline Hunter resigns from post, says commission 'needs to respect the First Amendment' - ABC News

Free speech is under attack today, but more in spirit than in lawand thats the problem. The First Amendment, which precludes the government from abridging a citizens right to speak their mind, doesnt apply to the reactions citizens have when others offer unsavory opinions. That means the core sensibility the Founders wanted to protectthe culture of free expressionis vulnerable not only to unconstitutional attacks from the state, but from what are perfectly permissible attacks from citizens and employers.

That problem cant be solved in the courtsit needs to be addressed in the public square. And at the moment, the spirit of free speech has too few champions.

Lets be clear: There are plenty of noxious, racist and objectionable ideas floating around in America today. Few believe that the Justice Department should prosecute those who articulate those points of viewlegal restrictions would be clear violations of the First Amendment. But legal prohibitions arent the only barriers to free expression.

Set the Constitution aside for a moment: At what point does the social or economic cost of expressing an idea others find unsavory become so high that democratic discourse is fundamentally undermined? At what point does fear of being a social outcast suffocate the democratic discourse that is the lifeblood of democracy?

President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump administration calls for Supreme Court to strike down ObamaCare Trump says there will be 'retribution' for those who deface monuments White House task force tracking coronavirus spikes even as Trump says virus is 'going away': report MORE skirted a line ahead of his rally in Tulsa, Okla. By suggesting that protesters would be treated differently than they had been treated in other cities, he didnt specify how things would be differentor who would do the treating. Would it be government officials? Would it be counter-protesters acting of their own volition?

As president, many will assume hes threatening to use law enforcement to stifle free speecha clear First Amendment violation. But we shouldnt fall down the rabbit hole of legal wrangling. The issue is whether people who oppose the presidents agenda should, absent government interference, be able to voice their opinion in the public squareand Trump seems to be saying no. Thats a problem regardless of the legal implication. We should want our president to see and hear and consider the objections of those who oppose the administrations agenda. Thats how democracy is supposed to work.

But its not just Trump and his supporters who seem inclined to silence their opposition. Something remarkable has happened on the left as well. The haste with which individuals are canceledfired from jobs, castigated on social media, treated almost like lepers in their own social circlesfor expressing unpopular opinions is chilling. Theres too often no recourse for those who have expressed ideas at odds with the prevailing culture, and no tolerance for mistakes.

As The Washington Post reported recently, two people who attended a Halloween party hosted by the newspapers award-winning columnist took exception to another attendees costume: In an attempt to poke fun at NBC News host Megyn Kellys comments on the legacy of blackface, a woman had dressed up as Megyn Kelly in blackface. The attendees were angry that the host had not passed along the womans name. A New York Times story recently revealed the degree to which young people now apply the tactics of online bullying to peers who hold various political opinions.

People should be confronted when they reveal prejudice. But in the age of social media, transgressions may never be lived down, no matter how you atone. We can all believe in accountability without embracing the notion that anyone uttering the words All Lives Matter should forever be emblazoned with a scarlet R.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That famous turn of phrase has long been used to explain the value and importance of the First Amendment. And few Americans would dispute that the government should be prevented from stifling free expression. Thats why, decades ago, the ACLU fought to allow Nazis to march through Skokie, Ill., despite the chilling effect their march was likely to have on the Holocaust survivors who lived nearby.

Today, the nations democratic discourse is threatened less by a shift in the government policythough, frankly thats at issue too. Whats happening in the wider culture should be of real concern. None of us are obligated to befriend a racist or invite a bigot over for a picnic in the backyard. But free expression doesnt exist de facto if expressing an opinion at odds with the prevailing view of either the left or the right leads to dire, immutable consequences.

The spirit of democracy depends on providing citizens the opportunity to talk through their differences. It cannot survive if citizens are too fearful to divulge what they really think.

Margaret White is executive director of No Labels, a group that seeks to move Washington beyond partisan gridlock and toward solutions to challenges faced by the country.

The rest is here:
The First Amendment may be safe, but free expression is not | TheHill - The Hill

Words matter. Reporting matters. But sometimes, its a video that matters most.

When a Minneapolis police officer knelt on George Floyds neck for more than eight minutes while he died, gasping for breath, a cellphone video shot by a teenage girl on her way to get a snack made the horror undeniable.

The world needed to see what I was seeing, Darnella Frazier told the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Days later, when Buffalo police knocked down 75-year-old protester Martin Gugino and a pool of blood spread under on the sidewalk under his head, a cellphone video enraged people all over the world.

It just so happens I was in the right place at the right time with exactly the right angle, Mike Desmond of the local public radio station WBFO explained to the Buffalo News.

Video can change the world or at least a few million opinions. But what about the potentially explosive video that cant be shot or never gets seen because law enforcement has confiscated cameras or arrested the people using them?

This week, New York Universitys First Amendment Watch released A Citizens Guide to Recording the Police a primer for amateur videographers on the rights they are entitled to in these encounters. The guide explains why, under most circumstances, the police can neither seize nor demand to view such recordings though some may try and it provides case-law examples to back up its assertions.

It comes along at a crucial time.

In this new era, we have armies of citizens out on the streets capable of producing evidence that checks the conduct of public officials, said Stephen Solomon, the organizations founding editor. The First Amendment right to record public officials, such as the police performing their official duties in public, is central to our democracy, he said.

Who can forget the bizarre and disturbing arrest of Omar Jimenez and a CNN crew while on live television in Minneapolis on May 29? That incident was roundly denounced by press freedom groups and resulted in an apology from Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz: There is absolutely no reason something like this should have happened.

But less heralded and far less visible offenses have happened throughout the United States, as the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker makes clear.

Sue Brisk, a freelance photographer, told the Tracker that she was photographing demonstrations at 42nd Street in Times Square that same day with her NYPD-issued press pass clearly displayed. I watched the police beat people with billy clubs and then they threw a woman up against a pole right in front of me, Brisk said. After that its a blur.

Brisk said that, before she knew what was happening, her head was slammed to the ground and she found herself pinned under at least three New York City police officers. Weeks later, she was still trying to retrieve her camera.

By the Trackers count, well over 400 aggressions against the press including dozens of examples of equipment being damaged have marred recent Black Lives Matter protests.

The NYU guide cites a 2012 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit decision that drew a direct connection between the creation of a recording and something thats better understood to be constitutionally protected: the publication or dissemination of a recording.

The right to publish or broadcast an audio or audiovisual recording would be insecure, or largely ineffective, the decision in ACLU v. Alvarez stated, if making the recording were unprotected. Restricting the use of [a recording] device suppresses speech just as effectively as restricting the dissemination of the resulting recording.

However, the right to record police isnt, well, bulletproof, at this moment.

About three-fifths of the U.S. population lives in states where federal appeals courts have recognized a First Amendment right to record the police in public, the guide says. The U.S. Supreme Court hasnt ruled directly on the issue.

That means legal protections arent nailed down everywhere. Yet the outlook is good: Given the resounding support so far for this First Amendment protection, it seems highly likely that the remaining federal appeals courts would reach the same conclusion if the issue appears on their docket.

Of course, the legal right to record is no guarantee of respectful treatment when events are unfolding. And they are small comfort to journalists or members of the public who have been injured or had their equipment seized as they tried to document protests.

Still, Solomon told me, its helpful to know your rights to confidently assert them when it matters most. After all like 17-year-old Darnella Frazier who started a movement by pointing her cellphone almost anyone can capture evidence of what the world needed to see.

Should that happen, its good to know the First Amendment has your back.

Read more from the original source:
Taking a cellphone video of police? Theres a First Amendment for that - Seattle Times

Everyone should have the First Amendment right

Recently The Marietta Times in the Our Opinion column ran the following Fight for free speech is always appropriate. Therefore, shouldnt everyone have the right to fight for their opportunity to express their opinion regardless of ones viewpoint, regardless of the subject matter, with the exceptions of salacious views and/or defamatory comments? The First Amendment gives every individual that given right! Sadly, many in the vast media army are choosing the topics they consider appropriate for freedom of speech. Apparently, Christianity is not one of those subjects. Shouldnt all people, including Christians, be given the opportunity to exercise the right of Freedom of Speech?

Deciding what should be said or not said is restricting the First Amendments freedom. Attempting to appease those who disagree with other beliefs or viewpoints is not a function for the First Amendment. Deciding to restrict thought and free speech on a specific subject is considered the task of media and it is blatantly wrong. Regrettably, many people think otherwise. Shouldnt everyone have the use of the First Amendment Right including Christians? Yet many of those who share the Gospel of Jesus Christ through various media modes are stifled yes, even censored.

William O. Douglas, the longest-serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court, said, Restrictions of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.

Indeed, the freedom of speech on different subjects religion, politics, God, etc. can upset, infuriate, and make people uncomfortable. Nevertheless, we, being citizens of America, having been granted the right to exercise our Freedom of Speech, should be given the opportunity and liberty to freely exercise the First Amendment regardless of the subject matter, Christianity included! After all, doesnt the article in Our Opinion column say that to fight for free speech is always appropriate? Indeed, it is!

Nancy Hamilton

Marietta

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the original post:
Everyone should have the First Amendment right | News, Sports, Jobs - Marietta Times

Protests of racial injustice and police brutality continued this weekend in Charlotte. As usual, Charlotte Mecklenburg police were on the scene, but they were operating under a temporary restraining order. A superior court judge on Friday signed the order halting the department's use of riot control agents like tear gas and flash bang grenades against peaceful protesters. That was a response to a lawsuit filed by groups including the local chapter of the NAACP, the ACLU of North Carolina and Charlotte Uprising. Alex Heroy helped to argue their case in court. He joins Morning Edition host Lisa Worf.

Worf: Good morning, Mr. Heroy.

Heroy: Good morning.

Worf: So how much does this restraining order change CMPD tactics? After all, CMPD says it has only used riot control agents like tear gas once people began throwing rocks and frozen water bottles at officers.

Heroy: I think it requires stricter adherence to their policy and puts limits on the policies. There's CMPD directives are, they're not always to set specific on the use of force continuum and sort of what's allowed and what's not allowed. So this is put in place. We filed a lawsuit to really protect the peaceful protesters that have been victims of, what we thought of as sort of a gross assault on their First Amendment rights, at least in particular on June 2.

Worf: So when you say it puts limits on some of their tactics, are you saying because it adds a certain level of scrutiny that wasn't there before, even though CMPD says this doesn't change that much?

Heroy: Yes. Yes. I mean, so on June 2, when you had three to four hundred protesters who are all largely acting very peaceful, marching with their hands up. No real issues that we've seen in the videos. And then the police boxed them in and gassed them and shot at them. That's not OK. That's across the line. That's way over the line. Even if CMPD says that there were some outliers throwing a water bottle or even a rock would justify that kind of use of force. And it doesn't justify that use of force indiscriminately against a large crowd of peaceful protesters exercising their First Amendment rights. That's just not allowed. It's not OK. And we had to put a stop to it and not let it, risk it happening again. That's what we had to move for this emergency restraining order to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Worf: No CMPD Deputy Chief Jeff Estes said Friday that the one difference it makes for the department is that it prohibits officers from using riot control agents like tear gas again against people who are destroying property. So officers would have to intervene physically to remove those people. Do you have concerns this could further escalate a situation?

Heroy: Well, I don't think this CMPD's communication was an accurate summary of the order. The restraining order restricts actions against peaceful protesters. If there is an individual who is causing a destruction during a peaceful protest, CMPD is supposed to go in and remove that that individual, if they're destroying property there's a use of force continuum that CMPD is allowed to use. It is not a, this is not a, an order that allows or forces CMPD to just simply let people go commit criminal activity. That is not it at all. It is a restriction on what use of force can be used against peaceful protesters gathering.

Worf: Now, this is a temporary restraining order until the lawsuit can be heard. What does the lawsuit itself seek?

Heroy: So the lawsuit itself seeks a permanent restraining order that the same thing. We're also asking for what's called a declaratory judgment against which would find that the dispersal order allegedly announced on June 2 was ineffective and did not comply with CMPD policy.

Worf: And beyond the use of tear gas and other riot control agents, how did the groups you represent want to change police tactics when it comes to handling protests?

Heroy: I say that, you know, there's a lot of groups that are plaintiffs in the lawsuitm it's a lot of different opinions. So I don't want to speak for the entire group because it's a range with a lot of things that need to be changed with police. But I think the overarching issue is the respect and lack of respect and improving that, greatly improving that and community relations with the police.

Worf: That's Alex Heroy, who helped argue the case in court on behalf of groups, including the local chapter of the NAACP, the ACLU of North Carolina and Charlotte Uprising.

Originally posted here:
Lawyer On How Restraining Order On CMPD Will Protect Protesters' First Amendment Rights - WFAE