Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON D.C. (WTNH) Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal received the First Amendment Defender Award from the Radio Television Digital News Foundation on Thursday evening.

Blumenthal was honored at the 30th annual recognition of First Amendment champions.

The award is presented to an individual or an organization that takes a public stand in support of press freedom.

At a time when press freedoms and access have been under attack, Sen. Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut has stood tall for the rights of journalists to do their jobs and inform the public. He has an impressive record of fighting for the truth and defending the publics need to know.

Sen. Blumenthal is currently serving his second term in the U.S. Senate representing Connecticut. Previously, he served five terms as Connecticuts Attorney General, fighting for individuals against large and powerful special interests.

In a statement about the award, RTDNF explained Blumenthal was chosen for the honor for his relentless work eradicating corruption in state government and making state contracting accountable, fair, honest and transparent.

RTDNF goes on to say, in 2018, Sen. Blumenthal co-sponsored a resolution condemning the Trump Administrations attempts to restrict media access and affirming the importance of a free press. The RTDNF says Blumenthal also helped introduce and reintroduce the Journalist Protection Act, making it a federal crime to intentionally cause bodily injury to a journalist in the course of reporting. In 2019, he cosponsored the Fallen Journalists Memorial Act, a bill that would create a new memorial in Washington D.C. to honor journalists, photographers, and broadcasters that have died in the line of duty.

News 8s General Manager, Rich Graziano, joined Nexstar President, Tim Busch, and RTDNF Chairman and Vice President of Local Content Development of Nexstar Broadcasting, Jerry Walsh, at the First Amendment Awards show and dinner on Thursday night.

According to Graziano, This years honorees are a mix of local and network journalists that provide illuminating reporting, a respected national news program which holds the powerful accountable and a visionary who defends the publics right to know.

Blumenthal joined such honorees as the news show 60 Minutes, David Muir of ABC News, Steve Andrews of WFLA-TV, Lori Montenegro of Telemundo, Barbara Maushard of Hearst Television and Robert (Bob) Horner of NBC News.

Originally posted here:
Sen. Blumenthal to receive the First Amendment Defender Award - WTNH.com

from the opening-up-our-libel-laws dept

It appears whatever modest amount of restraint that our President had regarding his early promise to "open up our libel laws" have gone away. As you may recall, during the campaign he made such a promise, perhaps not realizing that defamation laws are not under the purview of the federal government -- and any changes at the state level are limited by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution (not something he can write away with an executive order). Right before he was inaugurated, he seemed to back down a little on that promise -- telling the NY Times that someone had pointed out to him that with more open libel laws, he was more likely to get sued as well.

Over the first three years of his Presidency, while constantly lashing out ridiculously at the press, and the Washington Post and the NY Times in particular -- including his constant authoritarian attack of calling them "the enemy of the people" -- he had not sued. Until last week when he tapped lawyer Charles Harder (who, we'll remind you, was the lawyer in the lawsuit against us), to represent the Trump Campaign (rather than Donald directly) to sue the NY Times over an opinion piece. Trump and Harder have now done so again, this time suing the Washington Post over two opinion pieces.

The complaint -- like the one against the NY Times -- is laughable and will be thrown out of court. Again, opinions are not defamatory, and the articles were opinion pieces. The statements they make, that the Trump campaign declares defamatory are basically all ones based on disclosed facts. The complaint is short and not very detailed. It highlights just a single line in each post that it claims is defamatory:

On or about June 13, 2019, The Post published the article entitled Trump just invited another Russian attack. Mitch McConnell is making one more likely (the June 13 Article), by Greg Sargent, which contained the defamatory claim that Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that the Campaign tried to conspire with a sweeping and systematic attack by Russia against the 2016 United States presidential election.

The statement in the June 13 Article is false and defamatory. In fact, Special Counsel Muellers Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election released on or about April 18, 2019 (the Mueller Report), nearly two months before the June 13 Article, came to the opposite conclusion of the June 13 Article, namely, the Mueller Report concluded there was no conspiracy between the Campaign and the Russian government, and no United States person intentionally coordinated with Russias efforts to interfere with the 2016 election.

On or about June 20, 2019, The Post published the article entitled Trump: I can win reelection with just my base (the June 20 Article), by Paul Waldman, which contains the defamatory statement who knows what sort of aid Russia and North Korea will give to the Trump campaign, now that he has invited them to offer their assistance?

The statement in the June 20 Article is false and defamatory. There has never been any statement by anyone associated with the Campaign or the administration inviting Russia or North Korea to assist the Campaign in 2019 or beyond. There also has never been any reporting that the Campaign has ever had any contact with North Korea relating to any United States election.

These are both issues that are subject to interpretation, and neither piece comes anywhere even remotely close to the necessary standard for defamation of a public figure (which, uh, the President absolutely is). On the first one, Harder is leaning heavily on the "conspiracy" word. While the Report did not show direct coordination between the campaign and the Russians, it did show multiple connection points. Indeed, the report itself says:

The investigation alsoidentified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Althoughthe investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trumppresidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefitelectorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did notestablish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russiangovernment in its election interference activities.

So this comes down to interpretation. The Mueller report showed links between the Russians and the Campaign, but did not find enough evidence to prove a conspiracy -- which is not definitive evidence of no conspiracy. Indeed, the report shows multiple situations in which members of the Trump Campaign appeared interested in working with the Russian government -- but not enough evidence of an actual conspiracy was found. But to say that's evidence of no effort to conspire is just silly. The opinion piece's summary of that as "tried to conspire" is... not anywhere near defamatory, in which case the Post would have to have believed this was false or published it with reckless disregard for the truth. That's... not the case.

On the second one, I'll note, with amusement, that the final sentence only mentions North Korea as a government that the Trump Campaign has not discussed the election with and leaves out Russia. Interesting. But, more to the point, the article in question was discussing a Trump interview with George Stephanopoulos in which Trump is asked if he'd accept damaging information on election opponents from foreign nations, and Trump replied:

"I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening," Trump continued. "If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] we have information on your opponent' -- oh, I think I'd want to hear it."

That is easily, and fairly, turned into the statement in the Post opinion piece that the Campaign was "inviting" foreign help. There is no way that such a statement could or would be seen as defamatory.

In the meantime, I feel the need to remind both Harder and Trump that not too long ago, in defending Trump against a defamation lawsuit in which Trump was the defendant, Harder wrote a stirring statement in support of the 1st Amendment and warned that:

A defamation standard that turns typical political rhetoric into actionable defamation would chill expression that is central to the First Amendment and political speech.

I wish the two of them would remember that sometimes.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, anti-slapp, charles harder, defamation, donald trump, free speech, slappCompanies: washington post

See original here:
Donald Trump And Charles Harder Continue Their Assault On The 1st Amendment, Suing The Washington Post - Techdirt

Nashville Tennessean Published 10:39 a.m. CT March 11, 2020

First Amendment and Independence Hall(Photo: Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The USA TODAY Network in Tennesseejoins news publications across the U.S. in supporting a National Student Essay Competition designed to deepen a recognition of the First Amendment that strengthens freedom of the press and rebuilds trust.

The Tennessean, The Commercial Appeal in Memphis, The Knoxville News Sentinel, The Jackson Sun, The Clarksville Leaf-Chronicle and the Daily News Journal in Murfreesboro are inviting young readers to compete in the contest.

There is no more important time than now to focus conversation and critical reflection on understanding the crucial relationships among the First Amendment, a free press, and the foundations of democracy.

Students in grades six through eight, grades nine through twelve, and those at universities and colleges are invited to submit essays up to 500 words examining the state of freedom of the press in the United States today in light of the First Amendment to our Constitution. The specific topic is:Why a free press matters in a democracy." Send essays to USA TODAY Network Tennessee Opinion and Engagement Director David Plazas at dplazas@gannett.com.

Hear more Tennessee Voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought provoking columns.

National Student Essay Competition Director Mary Kay Lazarus said, The competition is designed to engage the important voices of our students, voices that are vital to the future of a robust democracy, and to expand national dialogue about press freedom by encouraging discussion at home and in school.

Students may submit essays from now through Friday April 17. Winners in each category selected by one of the network publicationswill then be submitted to a national jury who will select the semi-finalists and then the finalists by early September 2020. The publications will announcewinners the first week in June.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

The national winner in each category (grades six-eight; grades nine-twelve; and grades university/college) will each receive a $5,000 check from the Boston Globe Foundation. The winning essayist with the highest ranking among the three categories will also receive a full four-year scholarship, currently valued at $38,000 a year, to Westminster College in Salt Lake City.

Prizes will be awarded late fall at the 15th Annual McCarthey Family Foundation Lecture Series: In Praise of Independent Journalism.

For more information and entry guidelines, visit https://mklpr.com/national-student-essay-competition.

Read or Share this story: https://www.tennessean.com/story/opinion/2020/03/11/tennessee-students-submit-essay-press-freedom-compete-money/5015271002/

View original post here:
Tennessee students: Submit essay on freedom of the press and compete for prize money - Tennessean

Years ago, at the now defunct Warehouse Grille (since rebranded Flamingo A Go Go) on Magazine & St. Joseph and hours before the Saints were scheduled to play the Carolina Panthers, a woman from Baton Rouge decided that was the perfect time to confront me over an alleged tweet that insulted her.

While I believed that this was the wrong place and time to do it, as well as an ambush of sorts, I also felt that the woman, who was rather profane in the confrontation and wouldnt give me a chance to profusely apologize, was well within her right to voice her displeasure. She was allowed that space to express how she felt, regardless of the tone and the word choice she used in her interaction with me.

Recently, two well-known jerks, former baseball player Aubrey Huff and insufferable gun advocate Kaitlin Bennett, have gone off the deep end about their First Amendment rights being trampled on by people who disagree with their political views. To them, they feel that being made fun of at Ohio University or being disinvited to a championship celebration is some liberal agenda.

When in actuality, its not.

The reason why Aubrey Huff, who played a major role in the Giants winning their first World Series since 1954, had nothing to do with his freedom to be a jerk or even his unwavering support of Donald Trump.

Huffs disinvite to the 10-year celebration of the 2010 championship celebration was largely in part due to the fact that he posted tweets about teaching his kids how to use a gun in the event that Bernie Sanders defeated Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election as well as insulting tweets about MLBs first full-time female coach, Alyssa Nakken, who was hired by the Giants earlier this year.

Of course, like any clueless jerk, Huff was too stupid to realize that the Giants were well within their right to disinvite him to any event revolving around the team. So much so that he decided to tweet at Major League Baseball and Trump about what he felt was a grave injustice.

Over 2,000-plus miles away in Athens, Ohio, insufferable gun advocate Kaitlin Bennett (Im not sure we can even call her that) decided to pay a surprise visit to Ohio University on Presidents Day to ask students questions about the holiday. And while Bennett was well within her right to appear on the Ohio University campus unannounced, the students, who probably wanted to spend their Mondays doing something else, was well within their right to voice their displeasure about her visit.

Hours after being chased off the Ohio University campus, Bennett took a page out of the Aubrey Huff playbook, lamenting that the Ohio University campus police didnt do enough to protect her from protestors and said that Trump should strip funding from schools that dont do enough to protect his supporters.

This is what happens when a Trump supporter goes to a college campus, she wrote on Twitter about the protest.

Im pretty certain that Ohio University, like any other university in the country, has their lions share of Trump supporters on campus.

But the reason why the students at Ohio University, just like everyone else she comes into contact with, confronts her and makes her whine on social media like my four year-old surrogate niece in Broadmoor when things dont go her way, is because she goes out of her way to look for a fight when she goes into journalist mode.

Instead of asking questions without personal bias and a snarky tone, she does the complete opposite when she talks to college students, people that are for the most part 2-4 years younger than her. More importantly, she becomes petulant when the students that she interview dont agree with her controversial opinions.

According to the framers of the United States Constitution, the First Amendment means that we have the freedom to voice our opinions without the government stepping in. Meaning that both Bennett and Huff have the freedom to support whoever they want and be a jerk along the way.

However, while we as Americans have the freedom to be jerks, it doesnt mean that our jerk-like ways come without consequence.

For Huff, who actually had a solid baseball career and won two rings with the Giants, his jerk-like ways on social media, not his political support, cost him a chance to partake in the championship ceremony with his 2010 teammates.

The Giants were well within their rights to deny him that privilege.

That same line of thinking applies to Bennett as well. While she has the freedom to be a jerk and support whoever she wants, the downside of that is paying a hefty price, something that I learned years ago in a crowded Warehouse Grille and what Huff sorely doesnt want to learn.

You can huff and puff, tweet to Trump, and take your ball.

But sooner or later, youre going to be a sideshow attraction that everyone ignores.

View post:
First Amendment Gives You A Right To Be A Jerk, But With A Price - Big Easy Magazine

Floridians looking to amend the state Constitution to expand Medicaid or allow recreational cannabis will face a more costly and complicated process under a bill headed to Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The Florida House on Wednesday voted, 73-45, for a bill (SB 1794) that would impose new barriers for citizen groups seeking to collect enough voter signatures to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot.

The Senate voted, 23-17, for the bill earlier in the week. Both votes were along party lines, with the Republicans in support and Democrats in opposition.

The bill will make it harder for citizen groups to trigger a Florida Supreme Court review of the ballot measures by increasing the required number of voter signatures from 10 percent of the total voters in the last presidential election to 25 percent. Court approval is a critical step in placing an amendment on the ballot.

This year, citizen petition groups, like those trying to legalize recreational marijuana or expand Medicaid coverage, had to collect 76,620 validated signatures to qualify for a court review. Under the bill, they would have needed to collect nearly 192,000 signatures.

Other changes include requiring citizen initiatives to collect signatures in more congressional districts in order to trigger the court review. It would increase from at least a quarter of the 27 congressional districts to at least half, which would mean 14 districts.

The bill also prohibits citizen groups from using voter signatures gathered in one election for a later election. Currently, the signatures are valid for two years after they are collected.The bill would allow local supervisors of elections to charge the actual cost of verifying the voter signatures that are submitted for review.

And the bill would give the state Supreme Court the authority to decide whether the ballot measures are facially invalid under the U.S. Constitution.

Opponents said the measure is another attempt to limit the use of citizen petition drives that have led to constitutional amendments that limited class sizes in schools, linked a state minimum wage to an inflation index, authorized the use of medical marijuana, established voting rights for ex-felons, and directed lawmakers to spend more money on conservation lands.

Voters will get a chance this fall to vote on another citizen initiative that would raise Floridas minimum wage to $15 an hour over a period of several years.

Sen. Jose Javier Rodriguez, a Miami-Dade County Democrat who opposed the measure, said the bill adds more barriers to the petition process that will effectively eliminate the ability of grassroots groups to put issues before the voters.

Were just making the citizen initiative process more costly and more complicated, forcing operations from grassroots to professional, Rodriguez said. Its taking a system that was meant for citizens to act when this Legislature would not and flipping it on its head and making it something that only the billionaires can access.

In the House, Democrats said the increased regulations were an infringement on the First Amendment rights of voters to petition their government.

I just cant sit quietly by while we are taking power away from the people, said Rep. Margaret Good, a Sarasota Democrat. We dont have to have constitutional amendments, if we do what the people wanted us to do.

But Rep. James Grant, a Tampa Republican who supported the bill, said the legislation would not prevent citizen groups from advancing constitutional amendments, although he acknowledged the measure was increasing the signature threshold and adding more regulations.

I stand ready to have lawsuits again filed against this Legislature. I welcome the argument that this would violate the First Amendment, Grant said. Im confident in that argument, our product is sound because nobody here is telling voters that they cant engage or cant speak. What were actually saying is speak louder.

Here is an earlier Florida Phoenix story on the issue.

Read more:
Lawmakers send a bill to governor making it harder for citizen groups to advance constitutional amendments - Florida Phoenix