Mediaboss Marketing

Cecily Strong of "Saturday Night Live" roasted President TrumpDonald John TrumpWH officials discuss HHS secretary replacement following criticism of pandemic response: WSJ Pentagon leaders at impasse about next steps for Capt. Brett Crozier: report Trump forgoes WH press briefing for the first time since Easter weekend MORE while performing as Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) on Saturday.

Strong as Whitmer said governors are having a moment right now but that, unlike her, other governors are getting cool nicknames.

Trump refers to me as that woman from Michigan, she said. But Im not offended because I am proud to be from Michigan. And that woman is also what Trump calls his wife.

Shecontinued by giving advice for protesters to safelyexercise their First Amendment rights, including to stay home, maintain social distancing and wear a mask outside.

I promise you can call me a bitch from the safety of your couch. Its called Twitter, she said.

The skit also commented on how Whitmer is under consideration to become presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenThe Memo: Bully pulpit may be backfiring for Trump Sanders outlines steps on health care for Biden Sunday shows preview: Leaders weigh in as some states reopen economies; Biden deliberates a running mate MOREs vice presidential candidate.

If its going to be a woman, it might as well be that woman, she said.

The president has referred to Whitmer as that woman from Michigan, prompting the governor to wear a T-shirt with the phrase on it when she was interviewed for The Daily Show" earlier this month.

Trump has accused Whitmer of taking her stay-at-home order too far as protesters have demonstrated against the order and called for the states economy to reopen.

Michigan has documented at least 37,778 confirmed coronavirus cases and at least 3,315 fatalities. The state ranks seventhin total cases and thirdin deaths, The New York Times reported.

Read this article:
SNL's Cecily Strong roasts Trump as Gretchen Whitmer: 'That woman' is 'what Trump calls his wife' | TheHill - The Hill

A new guidance issued by the Texas Attorney Generals Office says that local and county orders cannot prohibit religious organizations from holding in-person worship services.

While churches were prohibited from holding services on Good Friday and Easter Sunday, Muslims will not be prohibited from gathering for one of their most important holidays, Ramadan, which begins on Friday.

Judges in Dallas and Harris counties prohibited houses of worship from congregating after Gov. Greg Abbotts initial executive order mandated that they hold online services. Most churches have complied, but as Texas continues to post record low coronavirus numbers and record high unemployment, some Christian leaders have said enough is enough.

Houston-based CEO of a Texas medical company, Dr. Steven Hotze, along with four pastors and U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, sued Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo for an order she issued mandating all non-essential businesses to close, including churches.

After several announcements that Abbott might be reopening the economy, Pastor Steve Riggle, who leads Grace Community Church in the Woodlands, posted a video message on Facebook, urging the governor and state officials to reopen Texas.

We have been patient, even though every projection of the impact of the coronavirus has been grossly wrong, he said. We were told to flatten the curve because there was no cure, even though a very small number actually die from the virus in comparison with the population and other diseases and causes of death we live with on a daily basis.

According to State Department of Health Services (DSHS), as of April 17, .0055 or half of one percent of Texas residents have tested for COVID-19, roughly 169,536 people out of 29 million, and among them .0006 or 6/100 of one percent have tested positive.

Yet in the month of March, more people filed for unemployment in Texas than those who filed during the entire year in 2019.

Riggle argues the governor made an announcement about an announcement and appointed a task force to further delay getting everyone back to work when he could have restored everything with a stroke of his pen.

The number of those hospitalized for COVID-19 in Texas is 1,522, or 5/1000 of one percent; the number of people who have died due to COVID-19 is 428, or 1/1000 of one percent.

Jared R. Woodfill, CEO and attorney at Woodfill Law Firm, which represents the Houston plaintiffs, told The Center Square, It is amazing to me that the Governor will not come out and state clearly and unequivocally that places of worship are open without restrictions.

With respect to these incremental Executive Orders, the Governor continues to chip away at our religious liberties, Woodfill added. This is horrible precedent that can now be used by future governors to justify encroachments on our ability to worship freely.

The Attorney Generals guidance states that essential services include religious services conducted in churches, congregations, and houses of worship, and that if there is conflict between the governors order and a local county orders, the governors order take precedent.

Houses of worship should conduct as many of their activities as possible remotely, in accordance with guidance from the White House and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Houses of worship should instruct sick employees, volunteers, and guests to stay home, the order states, along with practicing social distancing and good hygiene, implement environmental cleanliness and sanitization practices, and clean and disinfect work areas frequently.

Houses of worship are encouraged to have all attendees 65-years-old and older to stay home and watch services online, or provide a senior service exclusively for attendees 65 and older to attend in person. All attendees with underlying at-risk health conditions should stay home and watch the services online, the order states. Houses of Worship are encouraged to equip ushers and greeters with gloves and masks and consider keeping childcare closed, unless they are able to comply with CDC guidelines for childcare facilities.

The guidance came about largely through the work of the Houston-based Texas Pastor Council, which enlisted a team of over 50 of key pastors from around the state to give recommendations and input to Attorney Generals Office.

We prepared a list of suggested guideline points to recommend to churches, received outstanding counsel and revisions from our pastors and presented a final list to AG Paxton that was largely incorporated in the finished guidelines, Rev. Dave Welch, president of the Texas Pastor Council, told The Center Square.

Welch praised state leaders in an email to The Center Square, arguing that they understand the invaluable role churches serve in every community to minister to the spirit, soul and body of people.

Woodfill emphasized in an email to The Center Square that the Texas Constitution guarantees the God-given unalienable right to worship, to peaceably assemble, and to move about freely without unconstitutional restrictions on ones ingress and egress. None of these rights is contingent upon our health status or subject to the limitations Governor Abbott is attempting to impose on these rights. If Governor Abbotts Orders are not declared unconstitutional and void, once this virus passes, the rights we are afforded under the Texas Constitution will be forever damaged.

Woodfill has also sued the governors office over the unconstitutionality of executive orders, the first lawsuit of its kind in the State of Texas.

Read the original:
Texas Attorney General: Houses of Worship protected by First Amendment can worship in person - Patheos

The American Booksellers for Free Expression (ABFE) joined with 30 free speech groups, led by the National Coalition Against Censorship, in condemning an April 14 tweet posted by the Raleigh, North Carolina, police department that declared: Protesting is a non-essential activity.

As organizations dedicated to protecting civil liberties and the First Amendment, the undersigned groups are deeply disturbed by this statement and other remarks and actions by public officials suggesting that peaceful protest can be outlawed during a national crisis, the groups wrote in a public statement. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic cannot be used to justify the suspension of First Amendment rights. People must be free to express disagreement with government decisions, even when it involves criticism of essential public health measures.

Dissent and protest are protected by the First Amendment, the groups stressed, noting that these rights are fundamental to the nations democracy. They cannot be sacrificed even, and perhaps particularly, in times of public emergency, they wrote.

David Grogan, director of the American Booksellers for Free Expression, said that its imperative to be vigilant about free expression during times when people are fearful for their health and safety. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, our worries over a future possible attack helped to pave the way for the Patriot Act, Grogan said. Despite ABFEs and many other groups concerns that the law violated our civil liberties, we were assured that the Patriot Act was just a temporary measure. But the Patriot Act was anything but temporary. Today, we are in a similar crisis. And while our health and safety are critical during and after the current pandemic, we must not allow our concerns to justify federal or state government actions that strip us of our constitutional rights.

Read the groups letter in full below.

THE RIGHT TO PROTEST DURING THE PANDEMIC

Dissent and protest are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees freedoms of speech, assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These rights are fundamental to our democracy. They cannot be sacrificed even, and perhaps particularly, in times of public emergency.

On April 14, 2020, the police department in Raleigh, North Carolina, tweeted, Protesting is a non-essential activity, as an explanation for breaking up a protest. As organizations dedicated to protecting civil liberties and the First Amendment, the undersigned groups are deeply disturbed by this statement and other remarks and actions by public officials suggesting that peaceful protest can be outlawed during a national crisis. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic cannot be used to justify the suspension of First Amendment rights. People must be free to express disagreement with government decisions, even when it involves criticism of essential public health measures.

Upholding First Amendment rights need not be at odds with the governments authority and obligation to protect public health and safety. The emergency decrees that call for social distancing, wearing of face covers or masks, and limits on the size of public assemblies can regulate the manner in which protests occur. However, regulations should be narrowly tailored to what is necessary to protect public health and cannot be so broad that they ban protest completely or so poorly drafted that they restrict peaceful demonstrations.

Most protesters have been exercising their constitutional rights without threatening the health of their fellow citizens: wearing masks and standing six-feet apart outside hospitals and other places of business to protest inadequate safety precautions; participating in car demonstrations in Arizona, California and Michigan, and launching digital campaigns.

Public officials in Ohio and Michigan have included explicit protections for First Amendment rights in their emergency decrees. Some states have also acknowledged information-gathering and reporting as essential services.

We urge all public officials to recognize their obligation to defend First Amendment rights while they protect public safety. These rights are critically important during uncertain times like these.

Co-signed:

National Coalition Against CensorshipAmerican Booksellers for Free ExpressionAmericans for Prosperity FoundationAssociation of American PublishersThe Authors GuildThe Buckeye InstituteCaesar Rodney InstituteThe Center for Media and DemocracyCivil Liberties Defense CenterCoalition for Policy ReformThe DKT Liberty ProjectDefending Rights & DissentFirst Amendment Lawyers AssociationFirstAmendment.comFree PressFree Speech CoalitionFreedom ForumFreedom Foundation of MinnesotaFreedom to Read FoundationIdaho Freedom FoundationInstitute for Free SpeechKurt Vonnegut Museum and LibraryMackinac Center for Public PolicyMississippi Center for Public PolicyPEN AmericaPEN America Childrens and Young Adult Books CommitteeRestore the Fourth, Inc.United for MissouriWoodhull Freedom FoundationDavid A. Schulz, Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School (institution listed for identification purposes only)

Follow this link:
ABFE Responds to Raleigh Police Tweet That Protest Is Non-Essential Activity - BTW

President Donald Trump is a menace to the First Amendment.

His hostility to the White House press corps and the non-right-wing news media is well documented.

But while being rude to reporters and reflexively shouting "fake news" are effective tactics to make his base even less inclined to believe anything negative about Trump, they're trivial concerns compared to the speech-chilling lawsuits filed by his reelection campaign against media outlets both big and small.

These petty lawsuits accusing various outlets of libel have little chance of success, but they will drain resources from media organizations who have published or aired opinions and ads that are critical of the president.

And they will serve as warnings to every organization that a deep-pocketed presidential campaign is willing and able to bring the pain.

Trump's reelection campaign has filed suit against CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times for publishing opinion pieces that they claim are libelous.

It "flies in the face of basic First Amendment doctrine," Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a California lawyer who has worked on a number of high-profile free-speech cases, told The New York Times.

He added: "The complaint is attacking opinions where the authors are expressing their views based on widely reported facts."

Put simply, opinions are protected by the First Amendment. Even opinions that aren't 100% based in fact are protected by the First Amendment.

Libel, which requires "actual malice" that a deliberately false statement was published to hurt a person's reputation, is not protected by the First Amendment. And that's a good thing for Trump, because he's been well known to say patently false things about people with the intent of disparaging their reputations.

Trump's latest salvo in his war on free expression is a suit filed by his campaign against the small television station WFJW, a northern Wisconsin NBC affiliate. The station had been airing an ad produced by Priorities USA, one of the largest and well-funded pro-Democratic Party super PACs.

In the ad, titled "Exponential Threat," a series of Trump clips are played over ominous music. Early in the ad, two clips from two different Trump recordings are played back to back: "The coronavirus this is their new hoax."

In reality, Trump never directly called the coronavirus a "hoax." He did regularly downplay the danger it posed, likening it to the flu, and even opined that it would just miraculously disappear. Trump's "hoax" comment was a reference to the Democrats' failed attempt to remove him from office through impeachment.

To Trump, that was a "hoax," just as Democrats' criticism of his administration's response to the then burgeoning crisis was a "hoax." Is that dirty pool, or is that just politics?

"If this is the bar for what is a defamatory campaign ad then the vast majority of campaign ads are defamatory," Ken White, a California civil-liberties lawyer who blogs and tweets under the "Popehat" moniker, told Insider. White added: "Even arguably taking [words] out of context is absolutely routine. It is not a false statement of provable fact."

White says the Trump campaign's allegation of libel is a "nonsense argument" that is "performative" and "doesn't have much of a chance of succeeding in the long term."

But, he adds: "Even when a lawsuit is completely frivolous, it's ruinously expensive to defend. For most individuals and small businesses, it's completely impossible to afford. And even for a relatively moderate-sized business like a TV station, it can destroy it."

White thinks it's not a coincidence that the campaign chose to sue an individual TV station rather than the well-funded super PAC that produced it. He also thinks the fact that they chose Wisconsin, which Trump narrowly won in 2016, was strategic: Wisconsin has no anti-SLAPP law.

SLAPP Is an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. They are the lawsuit equivalent of censorship by intimidation. Anti-SLAPP laws which vary from state to state allow defendants to request a motion to dismiss a frivolous suit before it bleeds them financially dry.

To recap: The Trump campaign is ignoring the big-money super PAC and is instead going after a small TV station in a state where there are no protections against bogus lawsuits like this.

These cash-draining suits come at a time when an already struggling industry is bleeding even more jobs as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. And while major corporate media outlets like CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times have the resources to fight such suits, a small Midwestern TV affiliate surely does not.

Should this suit move forward in Wisconsin's legal system, it will send a chill up the spines of any modestly funded media outlet that wants to publish anything even a campaign ad that makes Trump look bad.

This goes beyond "fake news" insults; it is an intimidation tactic by the president designed to bring the media to heel by causing financial ruin in response to coverage he doesn't like.

There was an attempt at anti-SLAPP legislation at the federal level, the SPEAK FREE Act of 2015. While it had bipartisan support of 30 members of Congress, it wasn't enough for the bill to make it out of committee. But this is a worthy law for Congress to take up, because it defends the First Amendment from deep-pocketed bad-faith litigants.

No one, not even Trump, should be able to sue free speech into submission.

See more here:
The Trump campaign's frivolous lawsuits are next-level threats to the First Amendment - Business Insider - Business Insider

So that was a story with three camps: (1) The 99% of religious leaders who cooperated and took worship online (that wasnt big news), (2) the small number of preachers who rebelled (big story in national media) and (3) government leaders who just wanted to do the right thing and keep people alive.

However, things got more complex during the Easter weekend (for Western churches) and thats what Crossroads host Todd Wilken and I discussed during this weeks podcast (click here to tune that in).

As it turned out, there were FIVE CAMPS in this First Amendment drama and the two that made news seemed to be off the radar of most journalists.

But not all. As Julia Duin noted in a post early last week (Enforcement overkill? Louisville newspaper tries to document the war on Easter), the Courier-Journal team managed, with a few small holes, to cover the mess created by different legal guidelines established by Kentuckys governor and the mayor of Louisville.

Thats where drive-in worship stories emerged as the important legal wrinkle that made an already complex subject even harder to get straight.

Those five camps? They are (1) the 99% of religious leaders who cooperated and took worship online, (2) some religious leaders who (think drive-in worship or drive-thru confessions) who tried to create activities that followed social-distancing standards, (3) a few preachers who rebelled, period, (4) lots of government leaders who established logical laws and tried to be consistent with sacred and secular activities and (5) some politicians who seemed to think drive-in religious events were more dangerous than their secular counterparts.

Say what? Look at the Louisville laws, for example. Why were drive-in worship services with, oh, 100 cars containing people in a big space more dangerous than businesses and food pantry efforts that produced, well, several hundred cars in a parking lot?

Why was if OK for people in cars to bunch up at a drive-thru liquor establishment, but they couldnt part near each other at a church service?

Meanwhile, you had people doing essential things at grocery stores and big-box discount stores that jammed parking lots and then had people (masks and gloves optional) getting out of their cars and going inside. Why was a drive-thru confessional with the priest 10-plus feet away from someone in a car more dangerous than that?

The same clash was happening in a few other places. The Associated Press did a solid piece about what was happening in Mississippi: Justice Department takes churchs side in 1st Amendment suit. Heres the start of that:

WASHINGTON (AP) The Justice Department took the rare step of weighing in on the side of a Mississippi Christian church where local officials had tried to stop Holy Week services broadcast to congregants sitting in their cars in the parking lot.

As the coronavirus pandemic spread, leaders at Temple Baptist Church in Greenville began holdingdrive-in servicesfor their congregation on a short-wave radio frequency from inside an empty church save for the preacher.

Arthur Scott, the 82-year-old pastor, said Tuesday that it was a good compromise for his group, a wonderful way to preach the gospel and still its like they are there, but you cant go out and see them, but you know theyre there.

The federal involvement adds to the rising tension over reconciling religious freedom with public health restrictions designed to fightthe pandemic, disputes that are playing out along the same partisan lines that mark the nations overall divide.

Greenville city leaders argue the services violate stay-at-home orders and could have put peoples lives in jeopardy. Church officials believe they have been singled out for their religion, especially after eight police officers were sent last week to ticket the faithful, $500 apiece, for attending services, including the pastors wife.

This detail was really interesting:

Attorney Ryan Tucker of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the church, says theres a Sonic Drive-In restaurant about 200 yards (180 meters) from the church where patrons are still allowed to roll down their windows and talk.

Ah, but some of those drive-in worshipers might roll down their car windows and raise their hands, singing praises to God. Thats way more dangerous than a drive-thru liquor window or fast-food takeout services. Right?

Heres one more look at the legal nature of this conflict:

The Justice Department argued in the filing that the city appeared to be targeting religious conduct by singling churches out as the only essential service (as designated by the state of Mississippi) that may not operate despite following all Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state recommendations regarding social distancing.

The facts alleged in the complaint strongly suggest that the citys actions target religious conduct, the filing says. If proven, these facts establish a free exercise violation unless the city demonstrates that its actions are neutral and apply generally to nonreligious and religious institutions or satisfies the demanding strict scrutiny standard.

In other words, this is kind of like an equal access laws case. You cant regulate religious activities MORE than you do secular activities with similar methods and circumstances. Government officials cant rule that religion is uniquely dangerous.

Who would have thought wed see First Amendment battles about drive-ins!

Theres much more in the podcast. Please give it a listen and pass it on.

This story isnt over yet, I am sure.

Read the original:
New podcast: Who-da thunk it? Drive-in churches are First Amendment battlegrounds - GetReligion