Mediaboss Marketing

The leader of the Sons of Confederate Veterans needs to reread the Bill of Rights.

The group is claiming responsibility for hiring a plane to fly a Confederate flag and a banner that said Defund NASCAR over Talladega on Sunday. It was the first race at the Alabama track since NASCAR banned fans from flying the Confederate flag at track properties.

NASCAR is a private company. It has the absolute right to prohibit certain items at its tracks. Yet Paul Gramling tried to tell the Columbia Daily Herald that NASCAR was infringing on the First Amendment rights of fans by banning the flag.

Who wants to tell Gramling that the First Amendment doesnt apply to private company prohibitions? From the Daily Herald:

NASCARs banning the display of the Confederate battle flag by its fans is nothing less than trampling upon Southerners First Amendment Right of free expression, Sons of Confederate Veterans Commander in Chief Paul C. Gramling Jr. said. This un-American act shall not go unchallenged. [On Sunday], members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans Confederate Air Force displayed its disapproval of NASCARs trampling upon the First Amendment Rights of Southerners. During and before the start of the NASCAR race in Talladega, Alabama, our plane flew a banner announcing a drive to defund NASCAR.

It is the hope of the Sons of Confederate Veterans that NASCAR fans will be allowed the fundamental American right of displaying pride in their family and heritage. The Sons of Confederate Veterans is proud of the diversity of the Confederate military and our modern Southland. We believe NASCARs slandering of our Southern heritage only further divides our nation. The Sons of Confederate Veterans will continue to defend not only our right but the Right of all Americans to celebrate their heritage. We trust NASCAR will do the same.

Theres something hilariously bizarre about the leader of a group honoring the heritage of those who fought against the United States saying that something clearly allowed by law and the U.S. Constitution is un-American. Even the mayor of Columbia, Tennessee, Chaz Molder, made sure to point out how NASCAR was not violating the groups constitutional rights and that the group does not represent Columbia. Period.

Its also unclear how, exactly, NASCAR could be defunded. Since its, you know, a private company and not a public entity. The only way that defunding NASCAR could happen is if its television contracts were canceled by Fox and NBC, and sponsors started pulling out of the series. Thats not going to happen. Hell, NASCAR wouldnt have taken the steps to ban the Confederate flag if it didnt think that the move would be a net positive to attract new viewers and corporate sponsors.

The group has tried to sponsor a NASCAR car in the past, but NASCAR said no. NASCAR has not allowed the use of the Confederate flag in official capacities for decades and this months ban comes five years after the sanctioning body simply requested fans not to fly the flag at tracks. That request happened after a white supremacist killed nine parishioners at a Black church in Charleston, South Carolina.

Nick Brombergis a writer for Yahoo Sports.

More from Yahoo Sports:

View original post here:
Leader of group that flew Confederate flag over Talladega wrongly says NASCAR infringed on the First Amendment - Yahoo Sports

On June 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark Janus v. AFSCME decision determining that all public employees are entitled to work without having to pay union dues or agency fees. As the two-year anniversary of the Janus decision approaches, it is worth examining the practical effects that decision has had on workers throughout the country.

The Janus case examined an Illinois law under which public sector employees were required to financially support a union, regardless of whether they agreed with the unions policy positions. Mark Janus, the plaintiff, argued that such an arrangement violated the First Amendment by forcing him to subsidize speech that was contrary to his personal beliefs. The court agreed, determining that even the bargaining activities conducted by public sector unions constitutes political speech. As a result, the court ruled that public sector workers could not be compelled to financially support a union, and that a waiver of the right to not support a union was required to meet strict constitutional standards.

Given the importance of protecting employees First Amendment rights, the court established an exacting standard to ensure that any waiver of those rights is constitutionally adequate. The court determined that, to be effective, an employees waiver must be freely given and shown by clear and compelling evidence. To satisfy that standard, an employee must clearly and affirmatively consent before any money is taken from them.

Although the Janus decision reaffirmed the First Amendment rights of public sector employees, it was far from self-executing. Anticipating a significant reduction in membership and revenue, unions throughout the country reacted by attempting to restrict the rulings effects. Lawmakers introduced bills to weaken Janus; California passed multiple laws to protect union special interests before Janus even was decided. Washington, Illinois, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Oregon all followed suit with laws of their own. Connecticut considered legislation, which was not adopted, but which has been reintroduced this year.

The particular effects of these bills differ from each other. But the overall goal is clear: Make it easier for unions to acquire members, empower unions to restrict dues cancellations, and protect unions from lawsuits for unconstitutional fees that were charged in the past. In short, unions nationwide pushed for legislation that would preserve their control, and finances, regardless of whether that legislation promoted worker freedom and employee rights. And if a court found them in the wrong, it was the taxpayers who were on the hook.

Some states have gone in the other direction, standing up for union workers by implementing the full decision. Kevin Clarkson, Alaskas attorney general, recently issued an opinion requiring workers to annually opt-in to the deduction of union dues. This also requires that employees be advised of their labor rights before opting in. Gov. Michael Dunleavy later made that opinion effective through an executive order.

Alaska is not alone in this regard. The attorneys general of Texas and Indiana have issued opinions containing these requirements. Michigan, too, has taken steps toward protecting workers First Amendment rights. The states Civil Service Commission proposed rules that, if adopted, would implement these requirements for many of Michigans state employees.

Janus has had a profound effect on public sector union management. Since the decision, workers throughout the country have embraced their newly affirmed freedom to avoid financially supporting union positions they personally oppose.

In 2018 alone, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) lost 98 percent of its agency fee payers and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) lost 94 percent. The National Education Association, which represents teachers, lost 2.8 percent of its members and agency fee payers, and AFSCME lost 8 percent of its membership.

The overall impact of Janus is hard to measure, because public sector unions are not legally required to disclose membership numbers. But the available evidence shows that, despite unions ongoing efforts to limit the impact of Janus, the case was a boon to those public sector workers unhappy with their unions. The past two years have brought sweeping reform, the liberation of hundreds of thousands of agency fee payers, and the restoration of workers First Amendment rights. If the next two years are equally successful, Americas workers can look forward to even greater freedom and prosperity.

Steve Delie is the director of labor policy and Workers for Opportunity at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Mich.

Here is the original post:
How the Janus decision changed America | TheHill - The Hill

The full 4th District Court of Appeal, in an 8-3 ruling, said a Broward County circuit judge improperly granted an injunction that, in part, was designed to prevent Derek Warren Logue from having contact with Book and from publishing any statement threatening her.

TALLAHASSEE Citing First Amendment rights, an appeals court Wednesday overturned an injunction that state Sen. Lauren Book obtained because of alleged cyberstalking and harassment by an activist who opposes laws dealing with sex-offender registries.

The full 4th District Court of Appeal, in an 8-3 ruling, said a Broward County circuit judge improperly granted an injunction that, in part, was designed to prevent Derek Warren Logue from having contact with Book and from publishing any statement threatening her.

Book, who was sexually abused as a child by a nanny and is a prominent advocate for victims rights, pointed to actions by Logue at events in Tallahassee and New York and online posts in seeking the injunction. But the appeals-court majority, while describing Logues posts as "vulgar and insulting," said Logue did not violate a state stalking law and that his actions were protected by the First Amendment.

"As tempting as it might be to force some civility into the matter by stanching respondents (Logues) speech against petitioner (Book) with a court order, to do so would ignore the protections of the First Amendment and the wording of the stalking statute," said the 19-page majority opinion, written by Judge Mark Klingensmith. "There was no evidence presented to the trial court that respondent incited action by urging people to threaten harm to petitioner or her family. Claims of threatening speech or harassing action are actionable if the speaker threatens, harasses or intimidates, and intended targets would reasonably perceive that intent. Merely posting public information, or potentially embarrassing and annoying content, without more, is not conduct within the stalking statute and does not entitle petitioner to an injunction."

The opinion also cited Books status as a public figure.

"Respondents offensive vulgar and insulting posts are part of that friction and grist of public discourse intended by our Founders when forming this nation," wrote Klingensmith, who was joined in the opinion by Chief Judge Spencer Levine and judges Robert Gross, Dorian Damoorgian, Jonathan Gerber, Burton Conner, Alan Forst and Jeffrey Kuntz. "Petitioner may feel discomfort by respondents anger as expressed in his postings, but discomfort is not tantamount to being threatened or harassed. His speech advocates for citizen-led political change and seeks to influence the legislative process. Though his words may be base and insulting at times, it is also pure, political, and protected protest deserving of the broadest possible First Amendment protections."

But in a dissent, Judge Melanie May wrote that she agreed with the circuit judge that Logue "willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly harassed the petitioner through a course of conduct which caused her substantial emotional distress and served no legitimate purpose."

"Must we wait until someone commits some violent act before our system can protect its citizens? Havent we witnessed enough tragedies to know that our failure to address precursors of violence often leads to a more egregious tragedy?" wrote May, who was joined in the dissent by judges Martha Warner and Cory Ciklin. "Today we live in a culture where social media postings, like those involved here, have led people to lash out and wreak havoc on our children, families, friends, and communities. Social media posts, which direct attention and can motivate others to act, are threatening and dangerous. In fact, perhaps more so as the subject of the postings has no way of knowing who reads or may act upon them."

A three-judge panel of the South Florida appeals court also ruled against the injunction in August, but the full court agreed to take up the case.

Book, D-Plantation, heads the nonprofit group Laurens Kids, which works on issues related to preventing sexual abuse of children. Wednesdays majority opinion said Logue is a co-founder of what is described as the "anti-registry movement," which opposes sex-offender laws. A footnote in the opinion said Logue was convicted in 2001 in Alabama of improper relations with a minor.

Part of the lawsuit involved Logues actions protesting a childrens march in Tallahassee and at a film festival in New York. The film festival included the screening of a documentary about sex offenders. Book answered audience questions after the documentary, and Logue took the microphone and asked a question that a law-enforcement officer testified was in a loud, aggressive manner, according to court documents.

All of the judges on the appeals court agreed that Logues conduct at the Tallahassee and New York events was protected by the First Amendment. But the judges focused on online posts by Logue that included Books address and a picture of her home, a video of a song with vulgar lyrics and a cartoon depicting a headstone, May wrote.

"The majority suggests the respondents rants were simply vulgar expressions that he is entitled to make under the First Amendment," May wrote in the dissent. "We disagree. When such rants are posted on social media, they take on a more global reach. In short, the petitioner proved the respondent willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly harassed her."

But member of the majority focused on free-speech rights.

"While the drafters of the First Amendment did not conceive of the internet, they know the paramount importance of freedom of speech," Gross wrote in a concurring opinion with the majority. "Since the dawn of the Republic, it has been the responsibility of voters to exercise political judgment, to examine political speech and to separate truth from fiction in casting a vote. If the First Amendment stands for anything, it is that courts should rarely, if ever, interfere with the political process by punishing or penalizing political speech."

Read the rest here:
Injunction overturned in Florida lawmaker stalking case - The Northwest Florida Daily News

Former US national security adviser John Bolton is the latest ex-government official to rebuke the misconduct, ignorance and self-serving behaviour of the president, Donald Trump, in the form of a tell-all book. The Room Where It Happened details Trumps idiosyncrasies, offers of favours to authoritarian leaders, lack of basic knowledge, and obstruction of justice as a way of life.

Promoting the book in a series of interviews, Bolton told one reporter that hehopes it will be a one-term presidency: Two terms, Im more troubled about, he said.

Yet the battle around the publication is more than another Trumpian political scandal. It centres on the disclosure of US national security information, particularly the concept of prior restraint that allows the government to censor speech or expression before it has occurred.

The issues originate in whistleblowing in the 1970s when former officials spoke out against government wrongdoing. Bolton is certainly no whistleblower although the legacy of that era informs an ongoing struggle today around first amendment freedom of speech rights and state secrecy.

Beyond politics

In many respects, the case is emblematic of Trumps White House. Bolton was in post from April 2018 to September 2019, the longest-serving national security adviser under Trump, but now asserts the president lacks the competence to carry out the job and is not fit for office. When the first excerpts from the book emerged, Trump characteristically lashed out with a tweet full of insults and accusations.

The politics are certainly messy. Bolton, a hawkish Republican, is an opportunistic political operative. With the publication of the book, he has angered Trumps supporters. At the same time, his revelations have not won him friends among the presidents numerous opponents.

Boltonsrefusal to testifyduring the impeachment hearings at the beginning of the year, preferring to save his material for his book, has led to accusations that he was puttingpersonal interest before national interestas well as profiteering, andtrying to save his legacy.

Prior restraint

The crux of the matter is not individual politics but whether Bolton was authorised to publish the memoir. On June 20, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia denied a last-ditch Justice Department motion to block its release. Noting that excerpts were already printed and the book widely in circulation, he stated that: the the damage is done. There is no restoring the status quo.

The author nonetheless remains in trouble. Thejudge concluded that: Bolton has gambled with the national security of the United States by potentially exposing secrets. The government could still sue Bolton for not following the prepublication review process that applies to everyone who signs a secrecy agreement.

The prepublication review system was created following awave of whistleblowingthat exposed government abuse in the 1970s. The most famous example was Daniel Ellsbergs revelation of thePentagon Papers, a top secret military report on US involvement in the Vietnam War. Other whistleblowers includingFrank Snepp, Philip Agee, and Victor Marchettiwrote books detailing their experiences working for the Central Intelligence Agency. Not all of them revealed secrets but the fact they were speaking publicly raised concerns.

In response, the US government created a process requiring all current and former national security officials to submit material intended for a public audience before it could be published. This vetting process was intended to protect classified information.

John Bolton. Photo: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

The system has beenriddled with problems from the beginning, including lengthy review processes and arbitrary decision-making around what can and cannot be published. The issues have afflicted both works that criticise and support US foreign relations. In 2019 the Knight First Amendment Institute and the American Civil Liberties Unionfiled a lawsuitchallenging the system as dysfunctional and placing too much power in the hands of reviewers.

Authors who refuse to submit work for prepublication review are liable to be prosecuted. After publishing a 1977 book without approval, Snepp wasordered by the Supreme Courtto forfeit all royalties to his former employer, the CIA. The court ruled that the book had caused irreparable harm to national security.

Boltonslegal team claimshe did not violate the secrecy agreement because he had satisfied all issues raised by the National Security Councils senior director for prepublication review.

But the nature of the secrecy system and the review process is nebulous and allows the executive branch significant room for manoeuvre. WhileTrumps assertionthat every conversation with me [is] highly classified is a stretch, the suggestion that Bolton broke the law and must pay a very big price for this, as others have before him is consistent with the broad authority afforded to presidents on national security matters.

The White House recently opened asecond prepublication review processof Boltons book. The outcome of this latest review, which will be overseen by Judge Lambert, will determine his fate. If the courts follow historical precedent and rule in favour of the government, like Snepp before him, Bolton stands to forfeit his reported $2 million advance, and could face criminal liability that includes the possibility of a jail sentence.

Speech rights

While the author remains in legal peril, Boltons revelations continue to receive widespread attention. That the press can report national security secrets is rooted in another seminal whistleblowing case, Ellsbergs release of the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times and other outlets. TheSupreme Court ruledthat prior restraint of the press was unconstitutional.

Daniel Ellsberg. Photo: Reuters

The First Amendment of the US constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press from government interference. But when it comes to discussing national security information, thepress enjoys greater protection than government employees.

In hyper-partisan times, it can be hard to look beyond the immediate political stakes. Yet the issues raised by this episode predate Bolton and Trump and are likely to persist long after them.

This article first appeared onThe Conversation.Read the original here.

Here is the original post:
Bolton's Book the Latest in White House Disclosures to Test US First Amendment - The Wire

December 15, 1791, the First Amendment was adopted as one of the 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. It states, 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.

Our founding fathers created the First Amendment in response to two centuries of state-sponsored religious conflict and oppression in America, and with the keen understanding of the religious persecution in European nations resulting in official state religions and religious wars that were the norm.

Their understanding of the past is really all our founding fathers had to create a basic set of freedoms for each of us to have in our back pocket. Freedoms, we all use each and every day.

Although evolution and progress of a nation and its people is understood and expected, they could never have foreseen the internet. Or Social Media for that matter.

Since its inception in, social media has been at the core of Free Speech controversy. It has become common place for some users to berate, threaten, pick on, bully and/or share false information.

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law and true threats.

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an interactive computer service that publishes information provided by third party users. Basically, social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have absolutely zero responsibility for what citizens share across them and how they may hurt another human being.

Fast forward to May 28, 2020. President Trump signed an executive order aimed at social media companies after Twitter called two of his tweets potentially misleading. The executive order puts to test the level of authority the White House has when it comes to Free Speech.

This also brings up the question, How much free speech should social media be allowed? And, should social media platforms be held responsible for content submitted by users? Its not as black and white as some may think.

The First Amendment, vague in its explanation, is so in order to allow growth. But when that growth alters the flow of accurate information, or the interpretation is changed, we owe it to our nation to get it right.

For all the good social media brings to us, it is here that it lets us all down daily. We dont know who to trust with factual information. We become confused with who is sharing factual information. So we end up sharing and spreading information we believe to be true whether is or is not, ultimately exercising our own right to Freedom of Speech.

Is it right to censor social media platforms to help decrease the flow of false information? Is it our right under the First Amendment to share information whether accurate or not? Is it OK that social media platforms have the right to censor its users?

The quote below was written by the 28th President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, in 1917. No matter what your opinion of President Wilson is, when reading it, it almost feels as though it is describing our nation today.

I can imagine no greater disservice to the country than to establish a system of censorship that would deny to the people of a free republic like our own their indisputable right to criticize their own public officials. While exercising the great powers of the office I hold, I would regret in a crisis like the one through which we are now passing to lose the benefit of patriotic and intelligent criticism.

Read more here:
RICH MACKE: Social media and the First Amendment - Scottsbluff Star Herald