Mediaboss Marketing

A family in Oxford, Wisconsin, is suing the local sheriff's department after a patrol sergeant threatened to arrest a teenage girl for disorderly conduct for posting on Instagram about being infected with COVID-19.

Amyiah Cohoon, 16, is a student at Westfield Area High School in Westfield, Wisconsin. According to this lawsuit, she and schoolmates went to Disney World and Universal Studios in Florida for a spring break trip in early March, right as the coronavirus was beginning to spread and businesses began to shut down. She and her classmates canceled the trip early and returned home.

Once home, Cohoon began developing symptoms associated with COVID-19. She sought medical assistance, but at the time they were unable to test her to see if she was infected. She was diagnosed with an upper respiratory infection with "symptoms consistent with COVID-19," according to the lawsuit.

Cohoon went home and posted on Instagram letting people know that she had COVID-19 and was in self-quarantine. Her condition worsened and she was brought to the hospital for treatment. She posted again about the experience on Instagram. Finally, they were able to test her, but the test came back negative. According to the lawsuit, doctors told her it was likely the missed the window for testing positive, but she probably did have COVID-19, despite the test results. (False negative results have been an ongoing issue in accurately diagnosing infections.)

After she returned home from this visit, she posted again on Instagram and included a picture of herself at the hospital wearing an oxygen mask.

The very next day, Patrol Sergeant Cameron Klump from Marquette County Sheriff's Department showed up on the family's doorstep. He was there under orders from Sheriff Joseph Konrath to demand that Amyiah and her father, Richard Cohoon, remove Amyiah's Instagram posts. If they refused, Klump said the family faced charges for disorderly conduct and Klump told them he would "start taking people to jail," according to the suit.

Konrath's justification was that there had been no confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the county. He found out about the Instagram post from Amyiah's high school. The Cohoon family had contacted the school to let them know about Amyiah's infection, but nobody ever contacted them back to get more information. It appears that instead the school contacted the police. Under the threat of arrest, Cohoon complied and deleted the allegedly illegal Instagram post.

That evening the family would discover that a school administrator sent out an alert to families accusing Cohoon of making it up and assuring families that any information of infection was just a rumor. "Let me assure you there is NO truth to this," the message read. "This was a foolish means to get attention and the source of the rumor has been addressed. This rumor had caught the attention of our Public Health Department and she was involved in putting a stop to this nonsense."

The family then connected with the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, and the Institute sent a letter to Konrath warning him that he had violated Cohoon's First Amendment rights and demanded both an apology and the promise that there would be no further threats of criminal charges against the family for Amyiah's post.

Konrath refused, and now the Wisconsin Institute of Law and Liberty is suing Konrath and Klump in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for violating Cohoon's First and 14th Amendment rights. Her Instagram posts are protected speech, the Institute argues, and there was nothing about her posts that violated the county's disorderly conduct law, and even if they did, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that disorderly conduct statutes in the state cannot be applied to speech protected by the First Amendment.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty is asking the court to rule that Cohoon's posts were protected speech and order that the sheriff's department may not threaten or cite Cohoon or her family for these posts, plus paying "nominal damages."

The sheriff's department is not backing down or even acknowledging an overreaction. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, their position remains that the one negative test means that she did not have COVID-19, which simply isn't how it works. The Sentinel reports:

Sam Hall, an attorney for the sheriff, said the teenager "caused distress and panic" among other parents by claiming she had contracted the coronavirus despite getting a negative test result.

"This case is nothing more than a 2020 version of screaming fire in a crowded theater," he said, referring to speech that is not protected by the First Amendment.

That the sheriff's lawyer is misusing the much-maligned "fire in a crowded theater" argument from Schenck v. United States is a huge tell that these guys don't have a leg to stand on. It's a bad argument, a bad precedent (it was about censoring anti-war activism), and the Supreme Court has subsequently weakened that decision and broadened our free speech protections.

And even if that ruling remained relevant, Amyiah Cohoon was not engaging in the equivalent of "shouting fire in a crowded theater." Because of the significant number of false negative test results, it's appropriate for health staff to treat her as though she likely has COVID-19 based on her symptoms. It's also appropriate for the Cohoon family to attempt to warn families of the students who went with her to Florida that they might have been exposed, too.

It's the school officials and the police who behaved irresponsibly, not Amyiah or her family.

Read the complaint here.

Read the rest here:
A Teenager Posted About Her COVID-19 Infection on Instagram. A Deputy Threatened To Arrest Her If She Didn't Delete It. - Reason

Perhaps some additional information will lead readers to a more realistic conclusion than that presented by Carolyn Weigle (See: Dont put others in harms way, April 15 Times-News).

The directives by all officials are totally illegal, as they take away our First Amendment right to assemble and our 14th Amendment right to due process we shall not be deprived of our life, liberty or property without due process.

So, the several million Christians who did not defy those illegal directives, were surrendering to the authority even though they should have defiled it.

Our walk away from theLord is resulting in our suffering and this pandemic is quite clearly stated in the Bible, in Luke 21:11. (and other places in the Bible). The Bible is theword of God and also a history book.

Simple looking back in history will prove that. A pandemic is a contagious disease which is worldwide and often fatal. You or I will not avoid it whether we stay at home or work or hide under the bed. It touches the just and the unjust. Not all even know they had it.

Looking back on the history of the U.S. Constitution, never, has any government official attempted to take away our First Amendment right to assemble or our 14th Amendment rightthat says life, liberty and property shall not be taken without due process of law.

Yesteryear, any attempt would have resulted in an immediate revolution. Today, we have had all of our rights provided by the Constitution taken without a bit of question.

We have surrendered our freedom. Now, looking back on history of the world, never has any country been shut down due to a pandemic, although millions died. Thousands of people will die now, with or without the shutdown. Lifting the totally unconstitutional shutdown will not stop you or me from the virus.

Many doctors are showing the cause of death as the virus, when actually many are dying from heart, cancer or other causes. They lie because the hospital gets a higher payment if it shows coronavirus. You gain profit from lying. Does that scare you, that our country isOK with lying and fraud?

When we distance from the Lord, we pay the consequences. The additional problem is our acceptance of an illegal directive.

What happened to our bravery, our fortitude, our American way? Our once great country was not built on fear. What happened? It happened because we are complacent, willing to surrender to total control of government without a touch of due process. We are now slaves and no one even protests.

Christians are willing to give up church attendance so easily. Where is the backbone of America?

We have told ourLord that we do not need him. He is responding by lifting his hand and blessing from us.

Only if we, as a country, will humble ourselves, pray, seek his face, and turn from our wicked ways, will he hear from heaven and heal our land.

The decision is yours America. Change or continue to submit to oppression without even a protest.

If you disagree, email me: tedoyle@iceweb.net.

Thomas E. Doyle

Oakland

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read the rest here:
Where is America's backbone? | Letters To The Editor - Cumberland Times-News

(Willmar MN-) One area lawmaker says he thinks Governor Tim Walz' Stay at Home order violates the First Amendment by closing churches. Minnesota Christians were forced to celebrate Easter Sunday at home, watching services on the internet or listening on the radio instead of attending at their places of worship. On Legislative Review Saturday, Representative Tim Miller of Prinsburg said the governor's Stay at Home order which caused churches to close their doors is a violation of the separation of church and state...

...Representative Dean Urdahl of Grove City said he's been told people attending drive-up church services from their cars have been threatened...

...Urdahl says the governor's decrees are directives, but they need to be made into law by statute in order to be enforceable. Urdahl says the current government reaction to Covid 19 has had unintended consequences, and there needs to be flexibility.

See the article here:
Lawmakers say Walz order is a violation of The First Amendment - KWLM (Willmar Radio)

In February, a New York trial court dealt a blow to pop music star Kesha, ruling that the American music producer she has accused of misconduct is not a public figure.

The producer, Lukasz Gottwald, aka Dr. Luke, claims that Kesha made statements falsely accusing him of sexual assault, serious allegations he says harmed his reputation. The courts ruling increases the likelihood that Dr. Luke will prevail in his defamation lawsuit, but the significance of the pre-trial decision not to categorize Dr. Luke as a public figure stretches far beyond the high-profile legal spat between Kesha and her former producer.

The ruling could have a chilling effect on women who speak out against alleged abuse in the wake of the #MeToo movement, and it has troubling implications for journalists seeking to hold the wealthy and powerful accountable, according to a friend-of-the-court brief filed last week by a 17-member media coalition led by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

The media coalition filed the brief with a New York appeals court, where Kesha is challenging the trial courts decision. The brief argues that Dr. Luke is a public figure, meaning he must satisfy a higher burden of proof than a private figure to succeed in his defamation claim against Kesha.

Dr. Luke is a tremendously successful, important, and powerful music producer, said Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who supervises the First Amendment Clinic at the UCLA School of Law, which represented the media coalition with the help of law firm Holwell Shuster & Goldberg LLP. Its important that everyone both reporters and other professionals, such as Kesha be able to discuss allegations against powerful people like that, with the protections against libel lawsuits provided by public-figure precedents such as New York Times v. Sullivan.

New York Times v. Sullivan, a landmark case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1964, recognized whats known as the actual malice standard, which requires public officials, such as governors or other policymakers, and public figures, such as famous artists or athletes, who sue for defamation to prove that the allegedly defamatory statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. This standard makes it more difficult for public officials and public figures to prevail on defamation claims, compared to private figures.

The media coalitions brief, which urges the appeals court to reverse the ruling, stresses that categorizing Dr. Luke as a private figure could have serious implications for members of the news media. It points out the investigative reporting that has uncovered misconduct by influential men, including in the media industry, made possible by sources speaking on the record about purported mistreatment of women.

Just as much as this courts decision could silence women who seek to speak out against alleged abuses, it undercuts journalists ability to hold people in power to account, said Reporters Committee staff attorney Caitlin Vogus. Its vital to ensure the law protects the press from lawsuits that could otherwise chill reporting on important public figures with significant influence on our culture and society.

Kesha and Dr. Luke have been battling each other in court since 2014, when the singer sued the producer, claiming that he sexually and physically abused her, and that his manipulation was the cause of her eating disorder.

Kesha sought to void the contracts that kept her career entangled in his sphere of influence. On the same day, Dr. Luke countersued for defamation and breach-of-contract. His representatives cast Keshas allegations as a campaign of publishing outrageous and untrue statements against the producer.

The New York trial courts recent decision concerns statements made about Dr. Luke in various legal filings, as well as public statements made by Kesha, her lawyer, her PR firm, her mother and a supportive fan.

One of Keshas text messages also figures heavily in Dr. Lukes defamation claim. In February 2016, Kesha sent a text to pop star Lady Gaga, expressing frustration that fellow singer Katy Perry had not come forward with her own allegations against Dr. Luke. [S]he was raped by the same man, the message reads. (In a deposition, Perry denied that Dr. Luke raped her.)

In its decision addressing one part of the legal dispute, the court concluded that Dr. Luke is not a public figure because the public has not recognized him as a household name, even if he is known in the music industry. Further, the trial court found, Dr. Luke does not fall into even the limited purpose category of public figures, since he never injected himself into the public debate about sexual assault or abuse of artists in the entertainment industry.

The trial courts decision that Dr. Luke is a private figure sharply increases the likelihood that he will prevail on his libel claim against Kesha. Thats because its much easier for private figures to prove that someone defamed them.

Defamation an umbrella term that includes libel for written words, and also slander for spoken language occurs when false statements are made about a person that cause harm to his or her reputation.

As the courts ruling explains, public figures have a more expansive communications platform than private figures, through social media, access to news outlets, and more. Moreover, public figures who step into the public spotlight are inherently subject to a higher level of critique.

To account for this difference, American courts have different standards of fault for private and public figures. If a private figure sues someone for defamation, he or she usually only has to show that the person making the allegedly false statement acted negligently or didnt do their homework, so to speak.

If a public figure brings the same lawsuit, however, he or she must prove that the person knowingly made false statements or that the person acted with a reckless disregard for the truth. Without proof of knowing falsity or reckless disregard, a public figure cannot prevail on a defamation claim.

Under the higher standard of fault for public figures, in other words, Dr. Lukes claim against Kesha would be much more difficult to prove.

Under common law, which is created by judges rulings rather than statutes passed by legislatures, public figures are people who receive extensive press coverage, who have broad name-recognition, and who voluntarily seek the public spotlight.

In 2012, Dr. Luke had more than 200,000 Twitter followers. By 2013, the media coalitions brief notes, Dr. Luke had written 40 hit songs, 16 of which topped the Billboard Hot 100 chart. By October 2014, when he filed his defamation claim, Dr. Lukes success as a music producer had landed his name in headlines 40 times and in news articles 727 times across 63 major publications; he had also received four Grammy nominations.

Through illuminating his close relationships with stars in the industry Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus, Pink, Kelly Clarkson, and Kesha Dr. Luke encouraged the press portrayal of him as a pop stars best friend, painting a portrait of a well-connected man who had successfully influenced young artists careers. Dr. Luke promoted his artists and therefore his brand through social media, and by hiring a PR firm to help expand his influence, according to court documents.

The producer sought the spotlight to further his career in the entertainment industry, and attained it. Moreover, Dr. Luke injected himself into a public debate about how business executives treat their artists by making many social media posts revealing his personal relationships with the artists whose careers he oversees and controls. As a result, he is no longer entitled to protections afforded to private members of society.

To find otherwise, the media coalition argues, paves the way for a new class of well-known, well-connected, and wealthy people to stymie free speech without the protections that the First Amendment requires in cases such as this.

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.

Photo of Kesha by Mary Altaffer / Associated Press

Photo of Dr. Luke by Charles Lee

Read more here:
Why a ruling in Kesha's legal fight with 'Dr. Luke' harms #MeToo, journalists - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press

COVID-19 has touched every aspect of our lives, and our religious freedom is no exception.As the world deals with this pandemic, churches are finding creative solutions to minister to people in crisis. Yet too often they face unsympathetic or even hostile government officials, intent on needlessly shutting down their efforts.

Take Greenville, Mississippi, for example. During Holy Week, Temple Baptist Church found itself in the national spotlight after it invited congregants to safely gather and pray together, drive-in style, with congregants staying inside their cars.

Thats why my colleagues and I at Alliance Defending Freedomfiled a lawsuit in federal court on Good Friday on behalf of Temple Baptist. Eight uniformed Greenville police officers went to a Wednesday night church service and ticketed church members $500 apiece for attending a drive-in service that complied with state safety and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines.

In response to the lawsuit, the city refrained from ticketing congregants on Easter Sunday. But then on Monday, the mayor held a press conference and said that while the citations issued to Temple Baptist congregants would be dropped, Greenvilles unconstitutional ban on drive-in church services would remain in full force against future services.

But the First Amendment is not so easily ignored. ADF hasasked the court for a temporary restraining order, and theU.S. government has filed a statement of interestin the case in support of the church. A different federal courtcalleda similar ban in Louisville, Kentucky, stunning and beyond all reason unconstitutional.

Churches play an important role in providing both spiritual and physical support during challenging times, such as this pandemic. The whole point of conducting a drive-in church service is to provide this support while protecting individuals health and safety. That is why Temple Baptist instructed congregants not to leave their cars or access the church building for any reason.

Yet in Greenville, you can park at a drive-in restaurant with your windows wide open, but you cant park in a church parking lot with your windows closed to attend a church service. Thats nonsensical and unconstitutional.

Government restrictions on First Amendment freedoms must serve both a compelling government interest and do so in the least restrictive means possible. As the U.S. Department of Justice notes in itsstatement of interest, it is unclear why prohibiting these services is the least restrictive means of protecting public health, especially if, as alleged in the complaint, the city allows other conduct that would appear to pose equal if not greater risks.

Such restrictions must also be neutral toward religion and apply equally to everyone. Again, the DOJ said: In addition to appearing non-neutral, the churchs allegations also tend to show that the citys emergency actions are not applied in a generally applicable manner. The church alleges facts tending to show that conduct is being permitted for various secular reasons when equivalent conduct is being forbidden to churches holding drive-in services.

Unfortunately, these situations, as surprising as they are, are not isolated. Every day, ADF receives dozens of inquiries related to COVID-19. In most of these instances, authorities have been quick to respond the right way, fixing their mistakes and finding a better way forward. Every time this happens, everyone wins. During this time, we need spirits of cooperation, not division and political posturing. The Constitution doesnt prevent good policies; it ensures better ones.

Sadly, in North Carolina, government officials in bothCharlotteandGreensboro used COVID-19-related orders as an excuse to unconstitutionally silence disfavored religious and political speech. Representatives of Love Life and Cities4Life, the organization led by David Benham, were arrested for praying outside open abortion clinics, even though both nonprofit groups are considered exempt service organizations under applicable Wuhan virus-related orders orders the groups heeded, including staying at least six feet apart at all times.

These cases underscore the need for balance in times of crisis. We can prioritize the health and safety of ourselves and our neighbors without harming churches and people of faith. Banning church services and arresting pro-life citizens isnt about public health and safety, its about some government officials silencing speakers they dont like. The First Amendment rejects that kind of religious targeting, no matter the excuse.

In this time of uncertainty, churches and people of faith should continue to seek creative ways to worship, as well as to love and serve their communities. At the same time, governments should protect health and public safety while also respecting the faith-based needs of their churchgoing citizens. Thats a constitutional approach that helps everyone.

Link:
COVID-19 Didn't Permit Government To Do Anything It Wants To Churches - The Federalist