Mediaboss Marketing

Rep. Elise M. Stefanik, R-Schuylerville, appeared on Fox News Saturday morning ahead of the presidents first rally since February to discuss precautions at the event, and to accuse Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of mishandling COVID-19 and nursing homes in New York.

Back

Ms. Stefanik, appearing from Tulsa, Okla., said there was a line wrapping around the event center when she got in Friday night, about a day before the rally was set to begin. Ms. Stefanik will be the opening speaker at the rally, the first for President Donald J. Trump in months.

There is so much energy in support of the president over a million RSVPs, Ms. Stefanik said on Fox. I am excited.

Ms. Stefanik was asked about potential criticism that could arise for holding the rally, and the possible effects it could have on COVID-19 cases.

We are seeing peaceful protests and assemblies of people across the country who are standing up for their First Amendment right, Ms. Stefanik said. You cant choose one group and not another to allow them to come together.

Just like weve seen people marching in the streets for justice for George Floyd, its also important to let President Trump supporters gather and really embrace their First Amendment rights. I think whats really important are the precautions that are being taken with health guidance, she added.

She was then asked about the number of COVID-19 cases being found in nursing homes and how the state handled it. Ms. Stefanik went on to accuse Gov. Cuomo of issuing an executive action that did not follow guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, forcing nursing homes to take positive COVID-19 cases regardless of the nursing homes ability to provide adequate personal protective equipment and testing capacity. Ms. Stefanik said she has called on the state Department of Health and Human Services to conduct an independent investigation. Gov. Cuomo has said the accusations against him are politically motivated and an attempt to take attention off other matters.

I have spoken to constituents in my district who have lost loved ones and in some cases have lost both their elderly parents, Ms. Stefanik said. He needs to be held accountable, and this is about the families. These families deserve answers. They deserve transparency and they deserve accountability.

Original post:
Stefanik appears on Fox News ahead of Saturday's Trump rally - NNY360

First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams on Friday savaged as pathetic the Department of Justices (DOJ) attempt to secure a temporary restraining order against the publication of John Boltons embarrassing book about the Trump White House.

What do you make of the governments argument that the Bolton book should be not published even though it has been written and shipped and all sorts of reporters have it [and] excerpts have appeared? guest host Brian Ross asked during a segment of The Dan Abrams Show on SiriusXM. (Floyd Abrams is the father of Law&Crime founder Dan Abrams.)

To which the elder Abrams replied:

I really think its just a nonstarter as a legal argument. Its one thing for the government to make claims that Mr. Bolton has violated his obligationsI dont think thats a strong claim but thats a claimbut to say that, in a situation where the books already out, where its around the world, where Simon & Schuster sent it to lots of people, where the press has it and is reporting on itthe notion of asking a judge to enter into order which cannot be enforced, effectively, cant be enforced because he cant give the relief the government wants in a meaningful sense.

The DOJ argued in a telephonic hearing on Friday that their request for an injunction should apply to Bolton and other third parties, which could include his publisher, book distributors, and possibly even retail stores. That position strained the bounds of legal credulity for various reasons, of course, but one of Attorney General Bill Barrs subordinates made it anyway.

The book is out, so the idea of [telling the judge to] enter an order in effect saying: Well, no more books, is a meaningless effort, Abrams noted. And particularly because what theyre seeking is a prior restraint, an injunction, a bar on publication. Thats the hardest thing to get of all. Its what the First Amendment most clearly protects against.

Abrams is well-positioned to elucidate on the prior restraint standard; he argued the successful landmark case before the Supreme Court which ultimately established it.

In New York Times v. United States, Abrams represented the newspaper against the Nixon administration in a watershed victory for freedom of speech. The case itself had to do with the publication of the Pentagon Papers leaked by Daniel Ellsberg which showed various U.S. presidents had lied to the public about the basis and progress of Americas police action in Vietnam.

Thats what the Pentagon Papers Case was aboutand lots of other casesmaking it clear, Abrams continued, noting the almost impossible barrier the government must meet when it attempts to censor a publication. It might be possible, but the government has to show terrible harm, and it has to be sure that the harm would occur, and theres no other way to deal with it.

Boltons attorney, Charles J. Cooper, naturally cited to the case Abrams won in a 175-page legal document dropped late Thursday night in his case.Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to th[e] Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity, Cooper wrote, quoting and citing the courts opinion in New York Times.

Abrams went on to say that the U.S. vs. Bolton situation as a legal matter seems to be a futile and self-defeating effort by the government and one which cannot and I believe will not be granted.

So, why would they make such an obviously pointless request you think? Ross quizzed the nations most famous First Amendment attorney. Whats the strategy?

Again, Abrams had nothing but contempt for that legal effort:

I can only conclude its not strategy, but its the president. That he told them to do everything: Fire whatever atomic bombs youve got of a legal nature. And someone was unwilling to say no, so theyre going in on that to show how strong they are and how much they care [about what the president says], etcetera, etcetera, because, as a legal claim, its really pathetic.

[image via Alex Wong/Getty Images]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Here is the original post:
Really Pathetic: First Amendment Expert Torches DOJ Efforts to Stop John Bolton Book - Law & Crime

Editors note: Karen Harris Tully is a writer who lives in Raymond and has agreed to keep a journal to share with Daily World readers during the odd and uncertain time were all navigating.

Dear Journal:

Happy Loving Day! June 12, the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Loving vs. Virginia that struck down laws banning interracial marriage. Its only been 53 years since that day.

Also, Happy Pride Month! Its only been five years this month that gay marriage was ruled legal nationwide.

This country has made important strides toward equality, but we still have a long way to go. And I want progress to happen now, now, NOW! But, mostly its slow and incremental, slow and painful. And yet we keep marching. Forward.

So this morning, Im making a sign. Today, I get to exercise my First Amendment right to peacefully protest for something I believe in. The First Amendment is my favorite amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is the cornerstone, the foundation of our country. It is our right to peacefully assemble and petition the government to make things better for All Americans. It is our duty to speak up for what is right. I wish we could all agree on what that is. But until then, I will use my voice to say, All lives cant matter until Black Lives Matter.

Song of the day: America the Beautiful, Ray Charles version

Karen Harris Tully is a novelist living in Raymond with her husband and two small children. She writes sci-fi/fantasy for teens and adults and can be found at http://www.karenharristully.com.

Read the rest here:
Dear Journal: That's some amendment, that First Amendment; let's use it - The Daily World

Like the rest of the world, we are horrified by the videos of George Floyds murder. Once again, police brutality was documented by brave bystanders exercising their First Amendment rights. Their videos forcefully tell a painful truth that has further fueled a movement to demand an end to racism and abuse of power by police officers.

Recordings of police officers, whether by witnesses to an incident with officers, individuals who are themselves interacting with officers, or by members of the press, are an invaluable tool in the fight for police accountability. Often, its the video alone that leads to disciplinary action, firing, or prosecution of an officer.

This blog post provides some practical tips to record the police legally and safely, and explains some of the legal nuances of recording the police.

You have a First Amendment right to record the police. Federal courts and the Justice Department have recognized the right of individuals to record the police. Although the Supreme Court has not squarely ruled on the issue, there is a long line of First Amendment case law from the high court that supports the right to record the police. And federal appellate courts in the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have directly upheld this right. EFF has advocated for this right in many amicus briefs.

Federal appellate courts typically frame the right to record the police as the right to record officers exercising their official duties in public. Thus, if the police officer is off-duty or is in a private space that you dont also have a right to be in, your right to record the officer may be limited.

The right to record the police unequivocally includes the right to take pictures and record video. There is an added legal wrinkle when recording audiowhether with or without video. Some police officers have argued that recording audio without their consent violates wiretap laws. Courts have generally rejected this argument. The Seventh Circuit, for example, held that the Illinois wiretap statute violated the First Amendment as applied to audio recording on-duty police officers.

There are two kinds of wiretaps laws: those that require all parties to a conversation to consent to audio recording (12 states), and those that only require one party to consent (38 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal statute). Thus, if youre in a one-party consent state, and youre involved in an incident with the police (that is, youre a party to the conversation) and you want to record audio of that interaction, you are the one party consenting to the recording and you dont also need the officers consent. If youre in an all-party consent state, and your cell phone or recording device is in plain view, your open audio recording puts the officer on notice and thus their consent might be implied.

Additionally, wiretap laws in both all-party consent states and one-party consent states typically only prohibit audio recording of private conversationsthat is, when the parties to the conversation have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Police officers exercising their official duties in public do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy. Neither do civilians in public places who speak to police officers in a manner audible to passersby. Thus, if youre a bystander and want to audio record an officers interaction with another person in a public space, regardless of whether youre in a state with an all-party or one-party consent wiretap statute, you may audio record the encounter.

Finally, the Massachusetts wiretap statute is unique in that it prohibits the secret audio recording of conversations without regard to whether those conversations are private absent all-party consent. There is a case pending in the First Circuit that is challenging under the First Amendment the Massachusetts wiretap statute to the extent it prohibits secretly audio recording police officers when they are engaged in non-private activitiesthat is, performing their official duties in public. The plain view rule also applies in this state because, as the First Circuit has held, open recording is not surreptitious.

The ability to secretly record the police (whether with photos, video or audio) is critically important given that officers often retaliate against individuals who openly record them. A good example of this is a case thats currently pending in the Tenth Circuit, in which a bystander used his tablet to record Denver police officers punching a suspect in the face as his head repeatedly bounced off the pavement, and tripping his pregnant girlfriend. The officers retaliated against the recorder by seizing his tablet without a warrant and deleting the video (which he was later able to retrieve).

While the weight of legal authority provides that individuals have a First Amendment right to record the police, courts have also stated one important caveat: you may not interfere with officers doing their jobs.

The Seventh Circuit, for example, said, Nothing we have said here immunizes behavior that obstructs or interferes with effective law enforcement or the protection of public safety. The court further stated, While an officer surely cannot issue a move on order to a person because he is recording, the police may order bystanders to disperse for reasons related to public safety and order and other legitimate law enforcement needs.

* * *

Independent recordings of police officers are critical for ensuring police accountability. We urge individuals to keep recording. We hope this blog post helps you to do so legally and safely.

More here:
You Have a First Amendment Right to Record the Police - EFF

By WIN GRUENING

Americans were horrified by the senseless killing of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, by a white Minneapolis police officer.

Subsequently, Americans were horrified by the indiscriminate looting and vandalism that accompanied the demonstrations in scores of cities across our nation.

Sadly, the destruction, as well as the violence directed at police forces attempting to maintain order and protect lives and property, were dismissed by many in the media as an unfortunate by-product of frustration and anger of protesters.

To be fair, many peaceful demonstrators, black and white, decried the violence and attempted to prevent more destruction.

There were reports that organized extremists instigated looting and participated in burning down stores, churches, and even a police station.

Unable to distinguish between legitimate protesters and criminal vandals and looters, police were put in an impossible situation, and, in some cases, ordered to stand down while lawlessness prevailed, and cities burned.

In our country, peaceful protest is protected. All citizens have a right to be heard.But the message of the protesters was undermined by the violence and mayhem that occurred.

The medias treatment of Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests, often describing them as mostly peaceful, while labeling nearby rioting mobs as uprisings, was clearly at odds with what America witnessed on their television screens.

Even more stark was the medias selective reversal on Covid-19 mandates.Aided by politicians and talking-heads, organized BLM protests were enthusiastically endorsed throughout the media.In contrast, earlier public positions and protests by business-owners, churches, and organizations advocating for opening up the nations devastated economy were roundly condemned.

Both groups were exercising their 1stAmendment right to protest unwarranted or unlawful government authority. Yet, the reaction to them by the public, local authorities and the media was often diametrically opposed.

Black Lives Matter protests were treated quite differently.

As protests continued, along with public memorial services for George Floyd, it became abundantly clear that Covid-19 mandates werent meant to be applied to everyone just those not demonstrating for an acceptable cause.Governors and mayors across the country encouraged and joined the BLM protests all the while insisting that other large gatherings remain strictly forbidden for health reasons.

Just weeks before, Alaska shop owners objecting to health mandates were widely criticized for putting the lives of their fellow citizens at risk in the pursuit of profits.

Anchorage Mayor Ethan Berkowitz, who joined peaceful protests, also thought lives were at risk, but not in the way you might think.During a recent community radio address, he elevated Black Lives Matter protesters to hero status by saying I see people who are risking their lives to protestin spite of a pandemic.

That comment diminishes the sacrifice of thousands of real heroes in our countrys history who risked and lost their lives defending the constitutional right of all Americans to protest.

The coronavirus doesnt distinguish between conservative and liberal protests. According to some, apparently our 1st Amendment rights do.

The complex and deep-seated issues facing our country wont be solved by quelling debate and limiting personal freedoms of those expressing opinions with which we disagree.

Win Gruening retired as the senior vice president in charge of business banking for Key Bank in 2012. He was born and raised in Juneau and graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1970. He is active in community affairs as a 30-plus year member of Juneau Downtown Rotary Club and has been involved in various local and statewide organizations.

Like Loading...

Continue reading here:
First Amendment rights? Only for the Left - Must Read Alaska