Mediaboss Marketing

A professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington has recently sparked outrage with his words on Twitter, the latest educator to draw a rebuke from his own school.

Mike Adams, a professor of criminology at UNCW, said people who wear masks in public look like "fools," has called North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper a "fascist"(among other criticisms) for Cooper's response to the coronavirus pandemic, labeled women's studies a "nonessential major" and pushed for the separation of states from the county.

That was just in May.

Of the shutdowns caused by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, Adams tweeted, This evening I ate pizza and drank beer with six guys at a six seat table top. I almost felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina."

He ended the tweet with "Massa Cooper, let my people go!

This evening I ate pizza and drank beer with six guys at a six seat table top. I almost felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina.

Massa Cooper, let my people go!

His tweets sparked several Change.org petitions with thousands of signatures calling for Adams' removal from the university,andUNCW issued a statement calling Adams tweets vile.

Still, Adams has his job, UNCW confirmed to USA TODAY. Adams did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The university invoked the First Amendment in its statement, but added, These comments may be protected, but that is not an excuse for how vile they are. We stand firmly against these and all other expressions of hatred. We cannot and will not ignore them. The university is reviewing all options in terms of addressing the matter.

Personal opinions, not in the classroom

As it turns out, there arent many options for the university, according to First Amendment experts.

Adams isn't the first professor to generate backlash with tweets, either.

Last year, Indiana University didn't fire a professor whose tweets were called "vile and stupid" by the university's provost.Eric Rasmusen is still an IU professor, and he's still tweeting.

There are a few ways a professor can express his or her own opinions with protection from the First Amendment, Clay Calvert of theMarion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida told USA TODAY.

Even though his specific comments are racist and offensive, the larger subject matter is a matter of public concern, Calvert said, referring to Adams. Therefore, he is going to have some First Amendment protection, but its not unlimited.

Because Adams used his personal Twitter account, he has more First Amendment rights, Calvert said.

The first thing youd have to ask is, is the public employee speaking in his official job capacity or role? If so, then the First Amendment speech rights are very limited," Calvert said, adding, "If he had made a comment like that in the classroom, then the only way it would be protected would be if it was germane to the subject matter.

When you write the university asking them to fire me dont forget to leave a mailing address so I can send you a box of panty liners.

Calvert said the university could fire Adams a stronger statement than just condemning the tweets, he said.

"But the repercussions would be a lawsuit that (the university) would have to defend," Calvert said.

The Wilmington Star-Newsreported Adams has already sued UNCW once. In 2007, Adams filed a lawsuit saying he was denied a promotion when he spoke about his views, violating his First Amendment rights, the newspaper reported. After a court ruled in favor of Adams, UNCW appealed, then eventually settled the case.

Comments that reflect 'actual bias'

David Hudson Jr., a fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum Institute, said a professors right to free speech is strong. Citizens, however, have the right to retain their own beliefs, he said.

Now, if those comments do reflect actual bias perpetrated against students, or the professor is violating generally applicable principles and discriminating against students specifically, thats another issue," Hudson said.

He added, "But, the First Amendment imposes pretty strict limitations on universities attempting to punish professors for controversial speech. After all, thats the point of the First Amendment its designed to protect offensive, obnoxious or even repugnant speech. The Supreme Court has termed that a bedrock principle of the First Amendment."

Read more:
A North Carolina professor who sparked outrage with his tweets still has his job. Why? It's called the First Amendment. - Milford Daily News

Americans were horrified by the senseless killing of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, by a white Minneapolis police officer. At the same time, Americans were horrified by the indiscriminate looting and vandalism that accompanied the ensuing demonstrations in scores of cities across our nation.

Sadly, the destruction, as well as the violence directed at police forces attempting to maintain order and protect lives and property, were dismissed by many in the media as an unfortunate by-product of frustration and anger of protesters.

To be fair, many peaceful demonstrators, black and white, decried the violence and attempted to prevent more destruction.

There were reports that organized extremists instigated looting and participated in burning down stores, churches, and even a police station.

[In-person and virtual rallies held to condemn racism]

Unable to distinguish between legitimate protesters and criminal vandals and looters, police were put in an impossible situation, and, in some cases, ordered to stand down while lawlessness prevailed, and cities burned.

In our country, peaceful protest is protected. All citizens have a right to be heard. But the message of the protesters was undermined by the violence and mayhem that occurred.

The medias treatment of Black Lives Matter protests, often describing them as mostly peaceful, while labeling nearby rioting mobs as uprisings, was clearly at odds with what America witnessed on their television screens.

Even more stark was the medias selective reversal on COVID-19 mandates. Aided by politicians and talking-heads, organized BLM protests were enthusiastically endorsed throughout the media. In contrast, earlier public positions and protests by business-owners, churches and organizations advocating for opening up the nations devastated economy were roundly condemned.

[Peaceful Juneau vigil held for George Floyd]

Both groups were exercising their First Amendment right to protest unwarranted or unlawful government authority. Yet, the reaction to them by the public, local authorities and the media was often diametrically opposed.

Amid nation-wide coronavirus fears, citizens were publicly shamed for not wearing masks or observing social-distancing guidelines.

After months of complying with hunker-down orders, financially strapped shop owners were arrested or cited for re-opening non-essential businesses. Their crime: allowing employees to go back to work in order to support their families.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio directed the NYPD to arrest violators in large groups.

This is about stopping this disease and saving lives, he said.

Black Lives Matter protests were treated quite differently.

In a nation where funerals, church services and large gatherings were prohibited, the massive demonstrations of people across America were given a pass. Many demonstrators openly ignored health warnings to wear masks or exercise social-distancing.

Hollywood, predictably, joined the chorus of protesters and contributed money for funds to bail lawbreakers out of jail. There were few consequences for criminals the few arrested were released within hours of their arrest.

Two newspaper editors were forced to resign for daring to publish op-eds deploring the destruction or suggesting that federal troops be used to curb violence.

As protests continued, along with public memorial services for George Floyd, it became abundantly clear that

Covid-19 mandates werent meant to be applied to everyone just those not demonstrating for an acceptable cause. Governors and mayors across the country encouraged and joined the BLM protests all the while insisting that other large gatherings remain strictly forbidden for health reasons.

Just weeks before, Alaska shop owners objecting to health mandates were widely criticized for putting the lives of their fellow citizens at risk in the pursuit of profits.

Anchorage Mayor Ethan Berkowitz, who joined peaceful protests, also thought lives were at risk, but not in the way you might think. During a recent community radio address, he elevated Black Lives Matter protesters to hero status by saying I see people who are risking their lives to protestin spite of a pandemic.

That comment diminishes the sacrifice of thousands of real heroes in our countrys history who risked and lost their lives defending the constitutional right of all Americans to protest.

The coronavirus doesnt distinguish between conservative and liberal protests. According to some, apparently our First Amendment rights do.

The complex and deep-seated issues facing our country wont be solved by quelling debate and limiting personal freedoms of those expressing opinions with which we disagree.

Win Gruening retired as the senior vice president in charge of business banking for Key Bank in 2012. He was born and raised in Juneau and is active in community affairs as a 30-plus year member of Juneau Downtown Rotary Club and has been involved in various local and statewide organizations. Columns, My Turns and Letters to the Editor represent the view of the author, not the view of the Juneau Empire. Have something to say? Heres how to submit a My Turn or letter.

Continued here:
Opinion: 1st Amendment rights apparently only apply to the left - Juneau Empire

Delaware News Journal Published 5:00 a.m. ET June 13, 2020

I simply cannot imagine a more severe abuse of journalism than the headline I found in my email this morning: "We will not be deterred by police violating reporters' rights".

Whatever happened to "what, when, where, how and why"? You are abusing the police by taking advantage of your microphone where they have none.

A news story would have included the perspective of the police. If please note I said if a journalist engages in unlawful behavior, should they be detained or are they given a free pass because only they are the anointed with first amendment rights? Why not treat this particular event as a news event and collect information from both sides?

Perhaps because propaganda feels better when you're mad? You self-righteously abuse your microphone? I cancel my subscription.

Judith Jaeger, Wilmington

Dover Post photographer Andre Lamar was arrested on Facebook Live while covering protests in Delaware.(Photo: Dover Post)

The presidential election this November looks to be different from previous ones. The current pandemic, which is not going away any time soon, has created a situation where mail-in voting is a necessity, and will likely be the major form of voting.

President Donald Trump has maintained that this form of voting is fraught with fraud. There are no facts to back up his claim. States that have used mail-in voting as their primary means of voting have experienced a minuscule amount of fraudulent voting.

Its quite obvious that Trump is searching for any means to win the election. Stealing the election is not out of the question. He also has a number of Republican legislators who seem to be willing to do anything for him. One need only look at the recent Election Day chaos in Georgia, and the states recent Gubernatorial Election where the governorship was stolen from Stacey Abrams.

We can only hope that honesty pervades in this upcoming presidential election, and that the actual results do not have to be questioned. We, as citizens, have the right to demand honesty in politics and that justice be served.

Gerald Moeller, Newark

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

In February you published a very informative supplement on Black History Month.

Now would be a good time to publish it again because it would help put some things in perspective.

Loretta Kilby, Hockessin

Read or Share this story: https://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/readers/2020/06/13/letters-journalists-and-first-amendment-november-election-and-black-history-month/3177290001/

Follow this link:
Letters: Journalists and the First Amendment, the November election and Black History Month - The News Journal

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and a coalition of 14 media organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief last week urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to rule that members of the public and press may record bail hearings in Pennsylvania courts, a timely issue given the recent arrests of many demonstrators protesting against police violence and racial injustice.

The Reporters Committee filed the brief in support of the Philadelphia Bail Fund, a nonprofit organization advocating for reform of the citys bail system. In 2019, the Philadelphia Bail Fund filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of certain Pennsylvania court rules that prevent the public, including the news media, from making audio recordings of bail hearings.

During bail hearings in Philadelphia, magistrate judges decide whether defendants should be eligible for release from custody before their court date, as well as how much, if anything, they should pay for their release.

A district court granted summary judgment for the nonprofit in February, ruling that arraignment court magistrate judges must either provide the public official audio recordings or transcripts of the proceedings, or allow members of the public and the news media to make their own audio recordings. The magistrate judges appealed the decision to the Third Circuit, arguing, among other things, that the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to record audio during court hearings.

The Reporters Committees brief urges the Third Circuit to affirm the district courts ruling that the Philadelphia Bail Fund has a First Amendment right to record bail hearings.

In the absence of an official transcript or recording, the challenged rules prohibiting journalists from recording bail hearings impermissibly burden their ability to report about such judicial proceedings for the benefit of the public at large, the Reporters Committee argues in the brief.

Access to bail hearings is especially important in the wake of widespread protests sparked by the May 25 killing of George Floyd, a Black man, by a white Minneapolis police officer. The demonstrations have resulted in a wave of arrests across the country, with Philadelphia police arresting more than 100 people on May 31 alone.

Its crucial that journalists are able to extensively cover bail hearings as the protests continue to unfold and as protesters continue to face arrest. As the Reporters Committee argues in its brief, members of the media serve as surrogates for the public when they report on bail hearings, and the ability to make audio recordings allows journalists to report more comprehensively on the fast-moving proceedings, which take place 24 hours a day.

The brief notes that news reporting over the past few years has shown the public the disparate effects that the bail system can have on communities of color and the poor. Philadelphia is among the cities in which journalists have reported on the bail system.

For example, the 2019 Amazon docuseries Free Meek, which chronicled the 12-year legal battle of Philadelphia rapper Meek Mill, highlighted systemic flaws in the Pennsylvania state court bail and probation systems. Mill was convicted in 2008 on drug and firearm charges, but prosecutors claim there are credibility issues with the police officer who was a critical witness in the case. After the original conviction, Mill was caught in a probation trap, which is a problem for many in Pennsylvania, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Read the full Reporters Committee brief.

The Reporters Committee regularly files friend-of-the-court briefs and its attorneys represent journalists and news organizations pro bono in court cases that involve First Amendment freedoms, the newsgathering rights of journalists and access to public information. Stay up-to-date on our work by signing up for our monthly newsletter and following us on Twitter or Instagram.

Read the original post:
RCFP: Public, press have First Amendment right to record bail hearings - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

Conner Drigotas Published 11:00 p.m. ET June 11, 2020

As Michigan reaches almost two weeks of largely nonviolent protests, trouble is brewing at the federal level that could impact the civil liberties of citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

As demonstrations unfolded across America following the killing of George Floyd, President Donald Trump said hed label Antifa a terrorist organization. Despite uncertainty as to what authority this declaration-by-tweet carries, the Department of Justicemoved to take action. According to a press release put out the same day by Attorney General William Barr, Federal law enforcement actions will be directed at apprehending and charging Antifa leadership.

While anti-protest factions may celebrate this move now, Barrs broad policy is a danger to the First Amendment promises of free speech and free assembly for everyone. Indeed, laws like the Patriot Act remove key civil rights protections for anyone defined as a terrorist, justly or otherwise. Even now, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has been given new powers to begin surveillance of protestors.

President Donald Trump speaks during a roundtable discussion in the Cabinet Room at the White House, Wednesday, June 10, 2020, in Washington.(Photo: Patrick Semansky, AP)

The Barr Memorandum also leaves open how the Justice Department may choose to define membership in what is clearly a grassroots effort. The civil rights implications are significant, and according to some, Trumps declaration may not be legally binding. It may take years to get a court ruling, but in the meantime, Trumps declaration seems likely to fan the flames.

The impact of this executive power could also be unpleasant for Conservatives. Outspoken groups like the Tea Party, regional militia groups, or local organizations that wouldnt support a liberal presidents agenda may find themselves under fire, corralled, and imprisoned under this broad order. When a left-leaning future president is running the White House, these precedents could be used in the same irresponsible fashion. Domestic terrorism is poorly defined, leaving discretion to unelected bureaucrats.

Arresting and prosecuting those who see chaos as an opportunity to loot and destroy private property is one thing. In this case, however, the federal government is also being opportunistic, expanding powers at a moment where checking overreach is essential. The protests are, in many ways, protesting overreaching government power, albeit channeled through police departments. The American people need less big brother and more local control to effectively quell violence and address issues of police misconduct. We wont heal the cultural divide by empowering a more hierarchical power structure. If a president can define American citizens as terrorists via tweet, making them felons, we are all at risk of losing our rights.

Some may think this analysis is overdramatic. The best-case scenario is that those critics are correct. History, however, has shown that silencing opposition is a typical step toward authoritarianism. In an attempt to bring order, extensive government powers have become law under the guise of restoring order during times of unrest.

The voices on the right and left seem to be speaking different languages. Something is lost in translation between the conservative drive for law-and-order and the lefts push for justice and equality. Small-government conservatives are a rarity right now, but that voice is needed. We need principles, not politics, to reign in the power of the growing state. Both sides of the ideological spectrum should work together to address the growing concerns about police militarization.

Some conservatives are rightly questioning the police practices that are foundational to the modern conception of law and order. But not enough, and not in the highest levels of government, where policy is set. This is a quintessential example of how government grows when partisan politics run the system. As one party seeks to make a power play against its opposition, shortsighted policy making enshrines governmental powers long past the current moment. Trump shouldnt have this power, nor should anyone else.

If the goal is to improve our culture, pursue a better future for all people, and seek justice when systemic violence occurs, the answer is, as it has always been, more liberty and less government.

Conner Drigotas is the director of communications and development at a national law firm and is a contributor to Young Voices, a nonprofit providing pro bono media placement services to young conservative writers. He lives inBethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Read or Share this story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2020/06/12/opinion-trumps-antifa-crackdown-could-cause-trouble/5337478002/

See the original post:
Opinion: Trump's Antifa crackdown treads on First Amendment - The Detroit News