Mediaboss Marketing

Students in Jennifer Ducks journalism classes at Belmont University learn how to assess the credibility of information and sources.

Duck also teaches her classes how to debunk myths, which are bountiful on places like social media platforms, where people tend to share links, often without clicking on, reading or vetting them.

The COVID-19 pandemic makes the stakes higher than ever.

This is a matter of life or death, said Duck, an instructor at Belmont in Nashville and a Clemson University Ph.D. student. We need truth and we need facts. Journalists help us separate fact from fiction.

Her research focuses on the importance of a free press, which is more important than ever as mixed messages have emerged from government leaders, generally at the national level, about how to handle the novel coronavirus crisis.

Media organizations including The Tennessean and others have striven to separate fact from fiction in daily fact check articles and deep reporting, which seeks to use data, credible sources and science to help inform the public and keep people safe.

So, it is encouraging that Duck urged students to compete in the National Student Essay Competition on the topic of freedom of the press, sponsored by The McCarthy Family Foundation in partnership with The Tennessean, the Committee to Protect Journalists and other U.S. newsrooms.

Several students, from middle school to college, submitted essays by the April 24 deadline.

They all show a great deal of maturity in wanting to be informed and discerning citizens who defend constitutional freedoms.

Remember: Freedom of the press is one of five freedoms delineated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits government from enacting laws to abridge it.

Our founding fathers valued a free press, wrote Frank Runyon, a seventh grader at Richview Middle School in Clarksville. Thomas Jefferson once said, Freedom will be a short-lived possession unless the people are informed. Our founding fathers who believed in democracy thought that freedom of the press was an essential key to our freedom.

Jefferson and other presidents also became angry at the press when journalists were critical, but holding government accountable is why the Founding Fathers wanted to protect a free press.

Often, people will lump all journalists as the media, but citizens need to push back against this slight and ask: Which media organization? What did they get wrong (or right)? Is this just a propaganda attempt to discredit the free-flow of information to citizens who deserve to know the truth?

Katie Kuhnash, a senior studying music business at Belmont, reflected in her essay on the importance of being well-informed at a time when Americans are so limited in their ability to spend time with friends, see their families and do commerce because of stay-at-home orders.

In a time where so much is limited, I think it is more important than ever to keep our press free, she wrote. This is also one of the most mysterious, uninformed times we have ever lived through, where being informed is more important than ever. Where being a democracy is more important than ever.

Citizens should search for the truth and be discerning.

But know this: Journalists work hard to be accurate and trustworthy, and to seek truth and report it truthfully.

We take the First Amendment seriously and are keenly aware that credible information, especially today, is a matter of life and death.

David Plazas is the director of opinion and engagement for the USA TODAY Network newsrooms in Tennessee and an editorial board member of The Tennessean.

Read more:
Freedom of the press a matter of life and death in COVID-19 era - Columbia Daily Herald

The Hollywood sign is a beloved Southern California landmark. Built in 1923 and donated to the City of Los Angeles in 1944, it sits on public land atop Mt. Lee in Griffith Park.

The sign truly belongs to the public. And yet, in a sleight of hand, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce insists that it owns trademark rights to the signs likeness and therefore can charge for the use of that image.

For years, lawyers for the chamber have been threatening to sue over the use of the Hollywood sign in a variety of projects, from a student film and UCLA law school recruitment brochure to an advertising campaign and tourist photo. British YouTuber Tom Scott mocked the chambers trademark bullying by bleeping out the word Hollywood Sign and pixelating the sign as if it were some X-rated porn star in his video about the sign.

The chamber, which has had control of licensing trademarks for the sign since at least 1992, claims it has certain trademark rights for usage of the Sign or its likeness for commercial purposes. But what most people dont realize is that the chamber tried and failed to register trademarks on the Hollywood sign with two applications to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2004.

The trademark office rejected the applications because you cant get trademark protection for the the name of a place. The Hollywood sign may be a landmark, but it is also the name of a place. Trademarks are only granted for geographic names in association with specific products and services. The only way that the chamber could have won a trademark for the Hollywood sign is if it had showed that the public widely associated the sign with a specific product. Thats what the owners of Arrowhead Water or California Pizza Kitchen did.

Before the chamber could appeal the trademark offices rejection, the big Hollywood studios Paramount Pictures, CBS Broadcasting, 20th Century Fox, Columbia Pictures and Universal City Studios went ballistic because the chambers applications sought a trademark for the sign as a stage prop. The studios feared that the chamber would demand licensing fees to show the sign in movies and TV shows, according to studio sources. After the studios filed papers with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seeking more time to file comments, the chamber abandoned its applications.

The chamber, however, was not dissuaded from pushing its right to trademark the word Hollywood. It sought and obtained federal trademarks for the word, using the signs blocky all-caps, staggered lettering.

This time, the chamber followed the requirements for applying for a trademark for a geographical location. It argued that the word HOLLYWOOD had become known to the public as the brand name for candy, food, jewelry, clothing, athletic apparel, paper, licensing of intellectual property, and advertising services after five years of continuous use in the marketplace. The trademark office granted these dubious trademarks.

Those registrations do not apply to an image of the sign itself. But that hasnt stopped the chamber from demanding that filmmakers, television producers and other artists pay licensing fees to show the sign in their works. There is no need to pay. As one scholar explained, these creative works dont violate trademark laws when they simply show the Hollywood sign to signify that the scene took place in Hollywood. Thats called descriptive fair use.

Theres also the First Amendment. The constitutional right to free expression gives the creators of films, television shows, video games, and YouTube videos the right to show the Hollywood sign for artistic reasons or realism without paying a dime. But even when people are within their legal rights to use the image, they pony up when they get a cease-and-desist letter from the chamber demanding money because its cheaper than a lawsuit.

Many courts have reaffirmed a First Amendment protection for expressive works. The most recent decision came down on March 31 from a federal judge in New York. The judge dismissed a trademark lawsuit brought by the maker of Humvees against Activision, the publisher of the Call of Duty video games. He ruled that Activision has a First Amendment right to show the trademarked Humvees, which provide a dose of realism in depicting contemporary warfare.

The Hollywood sign is a historical, geographical and cultural touchstone for Los Angeles. Its not just a billboard for Hollywood. Its an icon that has come to represent dreams made here in California. You shouldnt have to pay a licensing fee for that.

Susan E. Seager is a staff attorney at the UC Irvine Law School Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic and Sachli Balazadeh-Nayeri is a law student working in the clinic.

Read more:
Op-Ed: Should anyone own the rights to HOLLYWOOD? - Los Angeles Times

Churches and synagogues were tragically empty two weekends ago, among the holiest days of the year for Americas Christians and Jews. With few exceptions, the nations faithful found solace via computer screens and in solitary prayer, acquiescing to restrictions on their constitutional liberty that would have seemed unthinkable a few months ago.

But many are asking: How long must this go on? America was founded in no small part so that people of every creed and conviction could worship without hindrance, in accordance with conscience and tradition.

Individual churches have been closed for health reasons in the past. History buffs may recall that the first Free Exercise Clause case in Supreme Court history, in 1845, involved the prohibition of open-coffin funeral services in a New Orleans church during a yellow fever outbreak. But this is the first mass closure of churches, synagogues, temples and mosques all over the country. And it has lasted for almost a month.

Other important activities from shopping in hardware stores to voting manage to take place with appropriate safeguards against the spread of the disease. Yet worshipers have been prevented from gathering together (six to 10 feet apart) in cars in the church parking lot; Catholic churches have been told to close their doors even for solitary prayer; traditional sunrise services were canceled even when they would take place in the fresh air, observing the rules of social distancing.

In the early weeks of the crisis, it made sense to enforce sweeping closure rules against all public gatherings no exceptions. And even now, until the crisis subsides, religious communities will have to refrain from activities long central to the expression of love of God and one another. We would know: One of us had to forgo being with family who were sitting shiva, mourning his cousin. The son of the other could not be received into the church on Easter morning. Sacraments cannot be taken by Zoom.

But in the days ahead, religious leaders and public health officials will need to find new ways to deal with the novel conundrums forced on us by this novel coronavirus. Fortunately, these new arrangements can be fashioned with some very old materials: the centuries-old principles of the First Amendment.

Three time-tested principles of the First Amendment stand out as guideposts for navigating the competing demands of religious exercise and public health in a time of contagion.

First, separation of church and state does not give religious communities immunity from regulation that is necessary for the common good. As long ago as 1905, the Supreme Court rejected the religious objections of a Massachusetts pastor to compulsory vaccination against smallpox. Other legal rights, too, are affected. Less than two weeks ago, an appellate court approved restrictions on some abortion procedures during the crisis, saying, When faced with a society-threatening epidemic, a state may implement emergency measures that curtail constitutional rights so long as the measures have at least some real or substantial relation to the public health crisis and are not beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law.

The second principle is that government can regulate religious activity only through what the Supreme Court calls neutral and generally applicable laws. This means that a government requirement cannot single out religious activity on the ground that it is somehow dispensable or nonessential. The government may regulate religious activities no more strictly than it regulates secular activities that present comparable risks. This principle was invoked by Judge Justin Walker of the Western District of Kentucky when he allowed a drive-in Easter service to take place in a church parking lot with cars six feet apart from one another. Noting that Kentucky permitted drive-through liquor stores to continue operating, the court quipped, if beer is essential, so is Easter. It is not for government officials to decide whether religious worship is essential; the First Amendment already decided that. The question is whether, and how, it may be conducted without undue risk to public health.

Third, both sides must seek what the courts call reasonable accommodations. These are tailored arrangements that allow people to practice their faith to the maximum practicable extent while still minimizing the dangers those activities pose to the public. Sacramental wine was permitted during Prohibition; Quakers are not drafted into the Army; kosher and halal facilities are excused from some of the details of meatpacking regulations.

Reasonable accommodation is the most important principle as we emerge from the first phase of this crisis. Government officials must continue to be vigilant about realistic public health dangers from religious practice, but they must identify less restrictive means for achieving their purposes. For instance, Jewish ritual baths, called mikvahs, are permitted to operate in the tristate area, but are doing so with stricter rules and regulations, including enhanced disinfection and cleaning, and they are visited by appointment only. Similarly, priests in New York City hospitals designated by the Catholic Archdiocese are permitted to enter patients rooms to give communion, so long as they wear all necessary protective equipment. These accommodations require a bit of trust on the part of the government and will need to be verified, potentially with clergy attesting to compliance with certain rules. But such trust is also required when California and Colorado deem marijuana dispensaries essential businesses.

Religious leaders and congregations will have to remember that the First Amendment is not an exemption from law applicable to all. And government officials must not forget that religious exercise is at the apex of our national values. Mass is not a football game, a minyan not a cruise. Worship cannot shelter in place indefinitely.

Michael W. McConnell, a former federal judge, is a law professor and director of the Constitutional Law Center at the Stanford Law School. Max Raskin (@maxraskin) is an adjunct professor of law at New York University.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

See more here:
If Liquor Stores Are Essential During the Coronavirus Pandemic, Why Isnt Church? - The New York Times

Editors Note: The author of this piece is a member of the Wilf Standing Committee on Amendments.

The Wilf General Assembly (GA) recently approved six amendments to the Wilf Student Constitution that will be voted on by the male student body in the Wilf general election. The approval comes after students were able to propose their own amendments at the constitutional amendments convention that was held on April 7. The Commentator was provided with the text of the proposed amendments from the Standing Committee on Amendments. To ensure that students have a clear understanding of each amendment before they go to the polls, The Commentator has provided a summary of each amendment.

The first amendment contains the most changes of any amendment. Some of these include formally reinstating the position of Yeshiva Student Union (YSU) Vice President of Class Affairs and allowing Juniors to hold the position. The language in the current constitution is unclear about the standing of the Vice President of Class Affairs, as it is not listed as an official position but is still given a description due to an inconsistency in the passage of an amendment last year. The YSU Vice President of Clubs would also no longer be available to juniors as students running for the position would be required to be a senior. The Amendments Committee felt that if the Vice President of Clubs is next in line to succeed the YSU President, it is appropriate to require him to be a senior, since the president must be a senior. The amendment will also require the YSU President to be eligible to serve in the GA. This seeks to clarify the issue that arose from the contested presidency earlier this semester. Further clarifying the issue, the amendment will include a clause that requires the Vice President of Clubs to resign his current position if that position conflicts with the eligibility requirements to sit on the GA.

Another restriction would be added for eligibility to serve in the GA. The amendment would bar club heads, presidents, co-presidents and members of a clubs executive board from sitting on the GA. The addition of an article outlining the roles and responsibilities of the Student Life Committee would also be included in the Constitution, as per the amendment. The Senior Co-Chair of the committee is a member of the GA, thus the amendments committee felt it was best to add an article that outlines the role of the committee, which is currently not the case.

This amendment would also eliminate the requirement for candidates to garner signatures in order to appear on the ballot. Instead, the Canvassing Committee would be allowed to create its own by-laws regarding ballot qualifications. This change comes after an amendment to lower the signature threshold was denied by the Wilf Student Court over the Passover break.

Some of the more minor changes include changing the name of all Secretary/Treasurer positions to just Treasurer and removing the position of Sergeant-at-Arms. Another minor change includes the restructuring of the articles of the Constitution. For example, all student councils would have their own article instead of containing every council's rules in one large article as is the current structure of the Constitution.

If passed, the Katz Undergraduate School would have its own representative as outlined in the second amendment. The representative would be part of YSU, similar to the class representatives, and must be a full-time student for at least two semesters. Only students in the Katz School would be able to vote for the representative who will be elected during the spring election.

The third amendment would give students in the Makor College Experience a representative to be voted on only by students in Makor. It should be noted that Makor is officially a separate program from Yeshiva University, but Makor students do pay student activities fees. The candidate would be nominated by the director of the program, currently Dr. Stephen Glicksman, who would then submit the candidate to the Canvassing Committee. Unlike candidates from other councils, the representative from Makor may not run as a write-in candidate.

The next amendment, if passed, would require the student councils to release their respective budgets. During the last week of each semester, each council would be required to release a budget from the previous semester that includes the amount the council had at the beginning and end of the semester. The amendment would also require the GA to release a more detailed record of club events that were requested and approved within the last week of each semester, the amount of funding requested by each club and the amount that was approved.

As per the fifth amendment, the General Assembly would be required to vote to approve or reject clubs petitions within one week after the petitioning period ends.

The final amendment would include a non-discrimination policy similar to that in the Beren Constitution. The policy would prohibit the Wilf student councils from discriminating against students based on many factors, including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, nationality and sexual orientation.

One possible effect of this amendments ratification could be the status of the YU Pride Alliance. Earlier this semester, the Pride Alliance filed a motion in the Beren Constitutional Council arguing that Stern College for Women Student Council (SCWSC) President Aliza Katz (SCW 20) discriminated against the club by abstaining on a vote to approve the Alliances club status; this, they argued, violated the Beren Constitutions non-discrimination policy. Ultimately, the court refused to hear the case on the grounds that the Pride Alliance had filed a complaint against YU with the New York City Commission on Human Rights . It is currently unclear if a similar motion will be filed in the Wilf Student Court if the amendment is passed.

Originally, the committee decided to have one big amendment that included many structural changes and a separate amendment for each position being added. The non-discrimination policy, budget policy and the deadline to approve clubs were first proposed at the Constitutional Convention, and only approved afterword. Thus, they each received their own amendment instead of being included in a single, larger amendment.

The proposed amendments aim to clarify some confusing points in the current constitution. For example, the new requirement for a member of the GA to resign from another position that conflicts with the eligibility to serve on the GA will hopefully avoid another contested presidency in the future. Removal of all mentions of the Executive Council and Student Senate, archaic and defunct bodies of student government, are changes that are a long time coming. The formal reinstatement of the Vice President of Class Affairs clarifies its role in the student council. The quest to clarify the uncertainties in the Constitution continues every year, and the latest amendments are a great next step to ensure that the constitution serves as a document that properly governs the student body.

Photo Caption: The Wilf ConstitutionPhoto Credit: The Commentator

See the rest here:
Proposed Amendments to Revamp Wif Constitution - The Commentator

This week, several statements were issued, press conferences were held and interviews were given all trying to suss out inconsistencies in law enforcements approach to protesters during this pandemic, and yet for all that talking and writing, were no closer to understanding what the guiding principles are and when people might expect to face police intervention for violating stay-at-home orders.

Demonstrators who remained in their cars to protest the treatment of detainees inside the Otay Mesa Detention Center were ticketed by the Sheriffs Department, yet protesters downtown and in Encinitas last weekend to protest stay-at-home orders were not.

When confronted about the discrepancy, the Sheriffs Department and SDPD issued a joint statement that did nothing whatsoever to clarify their policies, and instead said only that theyre hoping to strike a delicate balance between respecting peoples rights and enforcing the law.

A group of civil rights activists then issued a bizarre and counterintuitive call for police to go after the leaders of the weekend protests. The same group that has consistently spoken out against inappropriate police intervention was now calling for inappropriate police intervention for the sake of retribution.

And, just as bizarrely, police seemed receptive to that call. They announced theyre pursuing a case against one of the leaders of the weekend protests. But if the protest itself was protected First Amendment activity and police determined those participating shouldnt be cited, why would organizing that protected activity be a crime?

(Just to be clear, I think the protesters message that society should be reopened because freedom is idiotic; I just believe that the same First Amendment principles that have deemed journalists essential workers during the pandemic also extend to people with really stupid protest demands.)

Regardless of what you think of the protesters message, there is very clearly no overarching policy or principle guiding police behavior right now.

On the VOSD podcast this week, Mayor Kevin Faulconer, in what has become his trademark when pressed on law enforcements inconsistent enforcement policies, praised the department and escaped saying anything specific about what they might be able to do better.

I think its important that youre able to do your First Amendment activity and I think its incredibly important that our police department strike that balance. And I think they do a very good job of that.

If the mayor believes its important to safeguard citizens First Amendment rights, then surely it must rub him the wrong way that police are pursuing charges against the organizer of last weekends downtown protest of the governors stay-at-home order?

I think theyre going to have to make the decisions on a case by case basis based upon the facts on the ground as they see them, he said.

Is that an answer? Well, what an answer is must be determined by each person in their own heart. (Just kidding. No. Its not an answer. Its many words strung together that add up to less than the sum of their parts.)

So, there you have it. According to activists and the mayor, police should limit intervention, except when for no identifiable reasons whatsoever they should pursue it against only certain people.

The county has only just this week begun to ramp up its coronavirus testing, but is still not testing to its full capacity. The other piece of the puzzle experts say well need to emerge from lockdown is the ability to digitally trace peoples steps to alert them they may have been exposed to the virus and San Diego County is only taking baby steps toward that effort.

***

There are some dark explanations behind a drop in domestic violence calls to police during the pandemic. And one Carlsbad city councilwoman revealed some explosive details about her own experience while arguing for more resources for victims of domestic violence.

***

School officials are scrambling to track down homeless students who havent yet logged on to San Diego Unifieds online learning portal. Meanwhile, as the city moves more than 1,000 homeless residents into its Convention Center, the demand is still outpacing capacity and officials are rushing to figure out what will happen to them once theyre forced to move out of the facility. Part of that plan involves buying distressed hotels at a steep discount, but the citys progressives have some questions about how that would work.

***

San Diego County is getting more than $330 million from the federal government to help battle the coronavirus. But that money cant backfill county coffers, which have taken a major hit amid the economic shutdown. Meanwhile, we put together a handy explanation of which county officials are making big decisions during the crisis.

***

Lawyers, inmates and staffers at Donovan state prison told VOSDs Maya Srikrishnan that the conditions inside the facility could make it a powder keg if coronavirus took hold. The next day, the state confirmed a staffer there had tested positive.

***

A temporary stop-gap effort to slow suicides on the Coronado Bridge doesnt appear to be working.

Has this bread corpse casually slithered off of your countertop, pre-heated the oven to 375 degrees, opened the oven door with its doughy hand, and baked itself until its crust has achieved the perfect, golden-brown hue? How to tell if your quarantine sourdough starter is ready.

Go here to read the rest:
What We Learned This Week - Voice of San Diego