Mediaboss Marketing

WeChat, the Chinese messaging app that was set to get effectively switched off for American users Sunday night, for now will still be available and operational in the U.S.

A federal judge in San Francisco issued a ruling early Sunday issuing a preliminary injunction blocking the Trump administrations order to ban the WeChat app, which is owned by China internet giant Tencent.

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, said in her ruling that the plaintiffs in the case successfully argued the merits of their claim that the Commerce Departments Sept. 18 order forcing Apple and Google to remove WeChat as of Sunday night violates their First Amendment rights.

The WeChat users who filed the request for an emergency injunction have shown serious questions going to the merits of the First Amendment claim, Beeler said in the decision, and therefore the balance of hardships tips in the plaintiffs favor.

The Trump administration has cited national-security concerns, postulating that Chinese government agents could demand access to data from WeChat on U.S. users. Beeler wrote that while the general evidence about the threat to national security related to China (regarding technology and mobile technology) is considerable, the specific evidence about WeChat is modest.

Beeler added that the U.S. government had other options at its disposal to achieve its stated national security objectives, such as banning WeChat from use on government devices, which is a step that Australia has taken.

Meanwhile, with respect to TikTok, the Commerce Department late Saturday deferred the Sept. 20 ban on downloads of the social video app until next Sunday, Sept. 27, citing President Trumps provisional approval of ByteDances deal to sell majority control of TikTok to U.S.-based owners including Oracle and Walmart.

The WeChat case was brought by American users of the app who are not affiliated with the Chinese company. At a court conference in the WeChat case Friday, Serena Orloff, an attorney for the U.S. Justice Department, argued that the order does not violate the First Amendment because WeChat users can switch to other messaging apps like Facebooks Messenger or Line. Attorney Michael Bien, representing the plaintiffs, disputed that argument. That is a deprivation of their fundamental rights, he said. Its a prior restraint.

The Commerce Department rule would have prohibited the provision of service to distribute or maintain the WeChat or TikTok mobile applications, constituent code, or application updates through an online mobile application store in the U.S. as of Sept. 20.

Specifically relating to WeChat, as of Sunday, the now-stayed order prohibits any provision of services through the WeChat mobile application for the purpose of transferring funds or processing payments within the U.S.

The ACLU last week blasted the Trump app bans as abridging First Amendment rights of U.S. users. Millions of people in the United States watch or post videos to TikTok and rely on WeChat for connections to family, friends, and work relationships. They are all engaging in First Amendment-protected speech, association, and expression, the civil-rights advocacy organization said in a blog post.

In the U.S., WeChat is far smaller than TikTok. For the week ended Aug. 15, TikTok had 52.1 million weekly active users in the U.S., according to analytics firm App Annie. By comparison, WeChat had 3.3 million monthly active users in August, per App Annie.

Read the original post:
Judge Blocks Trumps WeChat U.S. App Ban, Citing First Amendment - Variety

.......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........

Editor:

I memorized the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence as a grade school student: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Preamble has always been a part of my belief in this country and in our democracy.

Therefore, the recent disruption of the Black New Mexico Movement rally in our community by counter-protesters greatly disturbed me. Not because they showed up, because all of us are protected by First Amendment freedom of speech, peaceful assembly and protest.

What disturb and frightens me is the abusive and confrontational manner in which the counter-protestors treated peaceful folks talking about Black Lives Matter and the importance of registering to vote and filling out the Census forms. They accused them of being Antifa rioters, and some counter-protesters openly showed their guns in holsters.

The counter-protesters shouted, Im fighting for my f city and You guys are not f welcome here.

I am disturbed and frightened by the hate that is being shown all across the nation and right here in Rio Rancho. Hate fuels violence, and violence never has a good ending.

................................................................

What happened to love thy neighbor, the Golden Rule, civility, fairness and discussion? Why is it acceptable in Rio Rancho to scream and shout and make as much noise as possible so that the rally speakers could not be heard? Where is the statement by our mayor and other elected officials about the incivility, inappropriateness and undemocratic behavior from the counter-protestors?

What is happening in a city I have lived in and loved for many years? It breaks my heart.

Pat Stover

Rio Rancho

Read more here:
Letters to the Editor: The First Amendment in Rio Rancho - Albuquerque Journal

Texas A&M University published a new First Amendment website this month as part of an ongoing effort to emphasize the importance of First Amendment rights on campus under the U.S. Constitution.

Highlights include:

We created this resource primarily for Texas A&M students to learn more about their First Amendment rights and resources on campus and to serve and involve our faculty and staff, said Vice President for Student Affairs Daniel J. Pugh Sr. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate. It is our responsibility as a public institution of higher education to safeguard these rights for all students, faculty and staff.

Expressive Activity SpotlightThe new website spotlights expressive activity on campus. The free expression of ideas and the right to associate are American values fiercely protected by the Supreme Court. The First Amendment right to free expression and association at public universities such as Texas A&M has been explored in classic case law as a result of court cases related to the student unrest of the 1960s. These constitutional issues are sometimes difficult for the general public to comprehend because there is often an expectation that university administrators can control student speech and control or prevent student association.

This public perception is often grounded in the false belief that students do not have constitutional rights or that they do not enjoy these rights in their roles as college students. Nothing could be further from the truth at public institutions.

Free expression rights are not absolute on campus: Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions apply to free speech and student protest issues when there is a compelling government interest to support their strategies to balance these student rights against the right of others to attend class, move about campus and to avoid disruptions.

Content on the new website will be managed by Texas A&Ms Expressive Activity Committee, a group of 22 staff members that represents several units across the university including the Office of General Counsel, University Police, the College of Medicine, the Office for Diversity, the Division of Marketing and Communications, and the Division of Student Affairs.

Texas A&Ms FIRE Green Light RatingTexas A&M is the first and only university in the state to earn the highest rating for free speech from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). In cooperation with FIRE, Texas A&M revised a number of speech codes last year to join an elite group of only 45 universities nationwide that have written policies fully in line with the First Amendment. It was then that Texas A&M University President Michael Young said, As one of the nations premier institutions of higher learning, it is critical that Texas A&M affirms our commitment to free speech. A free exchange of ideas is not only a cornerstone of our democracy, it is the surest path to truth, discovery and scholarly advancement.

More here:
Texas A&M University Introduces First Amendment Website - Texas A&M University Today

The following is an NBC five editorial Speaking on behalf of the editorial board is President and General Manager Ryan Rothstein. Friday, September 25th marks the 233rd anniversary of the passage of the First Amendment. The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion and the press. It also protects the right to peaceful protest and to petition the government. Today. It's evident that as a nation we're working through a time of change with important conversations occurring among political, racial and socioeconomic groups. While difficulty and at times uncomfortable centuries of U. S. History have taught us that there is no more effective path to improvement than consistent, contentious debate between those with differing perspectives. No matter your own personal views, I think we can all agree that debate, inclusive of varied points of view, will be critical to our continued progress. Sand comments to feedback at my NBC five dot com

Editorial: First Amendment Anniversary

Updated: 2:42 PM EDT Sep 18, 2020

Next Friday, Sept. 25, marks the 233rd anniversary of the passage of the First Amendment. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion and the press. It also protects rights to peaceful protest and petition the government. Today it is evident that as a nation we are working through a time of change, with important conversations occurring among political, racial and socioeconomic groups. While difficult or uncomfortable at times, centuries of U.S. history have taught us that there is no more effective path to improvement than consistent, contentious debate between those with differing perspectives. No matter your own personal views, I think we can all agree that debate inclusive of varied points of view will be critical to our continued progress.

Next Friday, Sept. 25, marks the 233rd anniversary of the passage of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion and the press. It also protects rights to peaceful protest and petition the government.

Today it is evident that as a nation we are working through a time of change, with important conversations occurring among political, racial and socioeconomic groups.

While difficult or uncomfortable at times, centuries of U.S. history have taught us that there is no more effective path to improvement than consistent, contentious debate between those with differing perspectives.

No matter your own personal views, I think we can all agree that debate inclusive of varied points of view will be critical to our continued progress.

View post:
Editorial: First Amendment Anniversary - WPTZ

The first right stated in the First Amendment reads, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

By Howard Sierer

It takes a lot of chutzpah to drag an organization with a name like Little Sisters of the Poor into court. The Little Sisters have served the elderly poor worldwide without regard to race or religion since 1839.

Mounting yet another attack on religious freedom, the Democratic governors of Pennsylvania and New Jersey insisted that the Little Sisters provide birth control to their employees, prohibited by their Catholic faith. The Supreme Court said no in 2016 but the governors are like puppies that refuse to let go of a sock.

They argue that its the principle of the thing. The Little Sisters would agree.

You may be surprised to learn that Obamacare legislation does not require employers to provide birth control. Instead, it only requires insurance plans to include cost-free access to preventative care of all kinds as provided for in subsequent regulations.

Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration included the birth control mandate in its regulations. The Little Sisters took their case all the way to the Supreme Court in 2016.

They pointed out that the Obama administration had grandfathered health plans that dont include birth control offered by ExxonMobil, Chevron, Visa, and PepsiCo among others along with a plan offered to the countrys military. In total, one-third of Americans had plans that did not offer contraception.

In its 2016 ruling for the Little Sisters, the court voided fines that had been levied and ordered the administration to find a compromise that respected sincere religious beliefs. The Trump administration complied, issuing a new regulation exempting employers with religious objections to contraceptives.

Claiming that the new regulation is too broad, Pennsylvania and New Jersey anti-religious zealots trotted out their previous argument that the regulation would prevent women from receiving an essential service.

That argument failed four years ago and failed again this last summer: birth control contraceptive pills, abortifacients, et al are already available to all women in any economic circumstance from a variety of sources. The federal Title X Family Planning Program is available to low-income families and all Obamacare plans include contraceptives. Nurx and Planned Parenthood will deliver them to your door.

In finding for the Little Sisters a second time, the Supreme Court stated that the administrations exemptions were issued with the proper statutory authority and that their implementation was free from procedural defects.

The Courts ruling was split 7-2 with diehard liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting, once again ignoring the law and instead voting their personal preferences. Liberal justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer supported the majority decision but made it clear that a future administration could reverse the regulation, inevitably sending the Little Sisters back to court a third time.

And thats exactly what Joe Biden has promised to do. I will restore the Obama-Biden policy that existed before the ruling, Biden said. This promise or threat is one of a number of clear-cut choices facing voters in November.

Ive championed religious freedom in a number of previous columns. In doing so, I reminded readers that the first right stated in the First Amendment reads, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Likewise, the federal executive branch cant promulgate regulations prohibiting the free exercise of religion as the Obama administration was reminded by the courts on a number of occasions. Joe Bidens promise threatens to reignite the long-standing battle between liberals and the Constitution.

The left claims to champion diversity. Im still waiting for an explanation as to why that diversity doesnt include people of faith.

Its well past time to let the Little Sisters return to their charitable work for the poor.

Read more from the original source:
Whatever Happened to Religious Freedom? - The Independent | News Events Opinion More - The Independent | SUindependent.com