Mediaboss Marketing

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

All over the country, houses of worship have done the right thing by suspending services to save lives in the fight against COVID-19.

Meanwhile, state authorities are breaking the law by forbidding gatherings among a minority of faith groups that continue to assemble. In the war on COVID-19, they believe the free exercise of religion is unimportant and no longer the law. They feel authorized to punish worship and prayer. Examples:

Authorities arrested eight prayerful abortion protesters Saturday outside an abortion clinic in Charlotte, N.C., for defying the states order to stay at home for anything other than essential outings. Authorities arrested Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne for holding two church services in Tampa, Fla., on charges of unlawful assembly in violation of the governors safer-at-home order. Despite that arrest, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis questions the states authority to interfere with a church.

Authorities arrested Pastor Tony Spell for holding services near Baton Rouge, La.

San Francisco authorities last week issued their first citation for a violation of the stay-at-home order to Ron Konopaski. The 86-year-old grandfather was alone outside a Planned Parenthood praying and suggesting alternatives to abortion.

Police in Lodi, Calif., threaten to arrest Pastor Jon Duncan for holding worship services.

In Colorado Springs, Pastor Rose Banks flouted the states stay-at-home order by holding regular Sunday services. When Gov. Jared Polis found out, he did the right thing. He updated his stay-at-home order, which contained an all-secular list of exceptions, to exempt houses of worship if they exercise extreme social distancing. The law gave him no real choice.The vast majority of religious leaders have suspended services voluntarily. All three Catholic dioceses in Colorado did so before the stay-at-home order. It was the right thing to do. Nearly all religions tell us to respect civil authority and make decisions in the best interests of our neighbors and society.

Everyone on American soil should exercise their civil liberties with self-restraint, for the sake of preserving them and maintaining social order. We have the right to sport swastika tattoos, but it does not mean we should.

While it is a good idea for churches to forgo gatherings until the virus runs its course, it cannot be a mandate. State officials cannot use the virus as a reason to punish a pastor for preaching or a grandfather for advocating abortion alternatives.

The law on this is clear. From the Law Library of Congress:

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the United States Congress from enacting legislation that would abridge the right of the people to assemble peaceably. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes this prohibition applicable to state governments.

The First Amendment expressly prevents the government from interfering in the free exercise of religion. Although the freedom to assemble and communicate applies to all individuals and groups, the First Amendment does not single out abortion clinics or other businesses for protection. If the Constitution considers anything a critical gathering, it is one involving religion.

Nothing in the Constitution implies a virus exemption from the First and Fourteenth Amendments.Although Polis clearly understands and respects religious liberty, his colleagues in other states do not. They allow people to gather in the lobbies of abortion providers because elective abortions are critical, even though we must forgo other elective procedures to preserve masks, gowns and medical equipment for coronavirus patients.

If it is peaceable to assemble in the lobby of a clinic, it is peaceable to assemble for prayer outside.Stay-at-home orders exempt gatherings at pet stores as critical or essential. Commercial airline trips, in which people transfer the virus from one region to another: critical. Liquor stores: critical. Pot sales: critical.

Religious leaders should suspend services to help fight the virus, even for the highest Christian holiday of Easter. The state should recommend this action. It cannot force it, even in times of crisis. Doing so assaults the First Amendment.

REPRINTED FROM THE COLORADO SPRINGS GAZETTE

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

More here:
No virus gets to kill the First Amendment - The Star Democrat

Photo by Ashley Dewey

In the first amendment, freedom of religion is in the top spot. But during this pandemic things have changed. The National Government has come and declared everyone should be social distancing and people should stay six feet away from people to stop the spread of the coronavirus, but for churchgoers, staying six feet apart is easier said than done.

In Tennessee, a pastor was calling for the governor to consider church essential.

It is disturbing to me how grocery stores, gas stations, drug stores, day care centers, etc. can be designated as essential businesses, yet churches and religious institutions are not part of the list of essential businesses, Bishop Alvin E. Miller wrote to Fox 17 in Nashville. How can churches and religious institutions not be classified as essential when our nation is fighting one of its greatest enemies since its existence?

On the other hand, there were protests in California and in Cincinnati, where people were driving by the services honking their horns and begging the churchgoers to stay because they are spreading the virus.

Here in Laramie, churches are doing their best to accommodate the regulations but also giving people their church services.

Harvest Church continues to minister in an online presence, phone calls, text and emails. We just had our first ever drive in church service for Easter and I believe people were blessed, said senior Pastor Bobby Calderon. I have encouraged and continue to encourage leaders to reach out to those they have relationship with in the church and make sure people are good and their needs are met. Mens ministry are continuing to meet via Webex Meet.

Pastor Calderon does express, though, that people can be safe and also be part of the church.

The church should continue to be disciples.Disciples are disciplined followers of Jesus. We need to continue/start to do the things God has called us to do.Pray, fast, believe and trust in God. Pray for our country and the world and hurting people.We need to pray Psalm 91, a psalm of protection over our lives. We need to pray Psalm 139:23-24 over ourselves too which is Search me O God and know my heart; Try me, and know my anxieties; And see if there is any wicked way in me, And lead me in the way everlasting. On Sundays, I would encourage people to get dressed and ready for church, gather their family and tune in online with expectancy in their hearts that God will move on their behalf.

Visit link:
First Amendment Issue or Safety Issue - The Branding Iron

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

Here is the original post:
The Right to Protest During the Pandemic - Blogging Censorship