Mediaboss Marketing

Post Views: 393

Neal Boortz, former attorney and popular radio host famously said, Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection. In the rest of the western world, speech is not protected. In Canada, comedian Mike Ward was fined $42,000 by the Human Rights Tribunal for telling a joke about young disabled singer, Jeremy Gabriel. In Scotland, stand up comedian and YouTuber Mark Meechan was brought to court and fined $800 by the British government for making a video of his pug doing a Nazi salute. Whether or not one sees the humor in this, by an American standard it is clearly ridiculous that any government would infringe upon a comedians free speech rights.

America has a long history of defending even the worst kinds of speech in our society. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which fights for the rights of immigrants, LGBTQ, reparations and reproductive rights, also fights to defend the greatest constitution ever written in the history of mankind, for it provides more civil liberties and freedoms for its people then any constitution ever has.

The ACLU defended the Nationalist Socialist Party of Americas (NSPA) right to march in 1977 in Skokie, Illinois. The Village of Skokie passed three city ordinances which would prevent any future political demonstration like this from ever happening. People could not wear military-style uniforms during demonstrations, the distribution of hate speech literature was prohibited and there was a required $350,000 insurance bond to hold a demonstration. The case was taken to the Supreme Court in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie in which the ACLUs lawyers argued before the court that to prevent the NSPA from marching was a violation of the First Amendment.

The requirement of a $350,000 insurance bond is similar to todays battle on college campuses over exorbitant security costs on student clubs that want to bring incendiary speakers to campus. These student clubs, aided by groups similar to the ACLU like the FIRE Legal Network which focuses specifically on defending the First Amendment on college campuses, have argued that these security costs prevent clubs from bringing speakers to campus a clear violation of the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

Nevertheless, there are limits to the peoples right to free speech. In the 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio decision the Supreme Court wrote, Speech aimed at sparking lawless action such as inciting a riot, true threats or words that incite violence. The problem with this is that those seeking to limit college campus free speech have used this case to justify shutting down speakers.

It should be obvious to anyone that the ruling applies to what the speaker says, not how people are offended by it. For example, if an incendiary speaker like Richard Dawkins, who has been denied a platform before by universities such as UC Berkeley, advocates for atheism and then encourages his audience members to go out and harm Christian students on campus, this would violate Brandenburg v. Ohio. Making a criticism of someones belief system or political ideology is not an advocation of violence. It was clearly not the intention of the Founding Fathers that the peoples right to freely assemble should be infringed upon or prohibited because a separate group threatens violence.

What is considered to be hate speech or a controversial idea is ultimately subjective. A Catholic student club might find sexually explicit images offensive while a person who advocates for sex-positivity might consider this to be an element of her free speech. Essentially, all people have strongly held beliefs and an identity which carries an ideology, and when those strongly held beliefs are criticized or challenged, they might very well be offended.

It is important that people do not just use their right to free speech, but they should also devise solutions to remedy violations. First and foremost, the equal time clause, Requires radio and television stations and cable systems which originate their own programming to treat legally qualified political candidates equally when it comes to selling or giving away air time, should be expanded not only to all forms of news media but also to college campuses.

Moreover, social networks should be considered public forums and subject to the First Amendment protections, meaning that companies like Facebook and Twitter cannot mitigate or shut down certain speakers while propagating others. As these social networks become an increasingly popular way in which Americans consume their news, they should be subject to the same equal time clauses as traditional news media companies.

Last but not least, public universities that consume tax dollars who deny any speakers a platform to speak should lose their public subsidies. The dollars of liberals, conservatives, libertarians and socialists, pay to support our public parks, public hospitals and even public universities. Therefore, its very usage is supposed to be available to everyone, because every American, of all ideological backgrounds, pays into the system to support these amenities that improve society.

The whole point of the First Amendment is to allow controversial speech. Words can be restricted when they incite violence or call one to action, but merely offensive words are not an incitement of violence. It was former U.S. Congressman Henry Hyde who said, Free Speech is meaningless unless we tolerate the speech that we hate. Free speech is not a privilege, its an unalienable right, and every new generation of Americans has to fight to preserve it, otherwise it will slowly be chipped away until it is completely eroded and we are left with nothing but rubble.

Read the original post:
America's First Amendment is what sets it apart from the rest of the western world we have a duty to protect it - Highlander Newspaper

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.

The above was adopted on December 15, 1791 in the United States of America as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

I dont typically dive into politics unless I really feel it necessary, and over the past few weeks it has become obvious to me that I cant be quiet anymore. My livelihood is coming under attack literally.

Unless you have been living under a rock, you are sure to have heard about the unlawful and disgusting murder of George Floyd. Floyd, a black man, was murdered on camera by a police officer in Minneapolis.

After footage hit social media and the news, protests by those who believe the killing to be unjust broke out both in Minneapolis and soon after across the country as a show of both solidarity and to showcase that Black Lives Matter.

And, with those protests came rioting and looting by those who take advantage of those peacefully expressing their concerns, their right.

Media personnel from all over the country have reported from the protests and riots, risking their lives and probably their sanity to bring news to their fellow Americans as the situations unfold and become violent. Journalists are there to show first hand what is going on and pass that information on to the country.

And then, a CNN broadcast journalist was arrested on live television for doing what appears to be by most Americans his job. A BLACK male journalist, who was televised asking how to comply with officers. He was in the designated press section, he was where he was supposed to be but he was arrested. I, as well as others Im sure, thought this was another senseless act perpetrated by police to undermine a person of color.

Then, after news of this questionable arrest circulated, other journalists throughout the country were shot with rubber bullets, tear gas and were subject to other forceful restraints by police. There are now multiple instances in which unlawful force was used on journalists and a good portion of it was televised lived or recorded. They are of all races and genders.

The words at the beginning of this column protect both myself and my fellow journalist. They give us the constitutional right to cover the news and report it so that our fellow Americans can know what is happening throughout the county. They protect other freedoms as well, but for me, that press mention is a big deal. Those words ensure that I am not only allowed to do my job, but to provide a service to my community and on a larger scale my country.

News at its core is a service to the country, the world.

News is that part of communication that keeps us informed of the changing events, issues, and characters in the world outside. Though it may be interesting or even entertaining, the foremost value of news is as a utility to empower the informed, according to the American Press Institute.

The purpose of journalism is thus to provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments. We are here for you. We are here to attend meetings, attend events, attend potentially dangerous situations so we can tell you about them.

But, it has been very apparent that current leadership in America doesnt believe we should be protected. We are labeled as fake. We are disrespected. We are accused of just wanting views. We have become an enemy, when in fact we are a very important part of all aspects of the world.

I know that bias exists, and I know those freedoms allotted in the first amendment can be abused, but please keep in mind that journalists are here for you. We are providing you a service, and most importantly we are supposed to be protected and right now, it doesnt seem as though we are.

View original post here:
Nikki Dotson Merritt: First amendment protects journalists, at least it is supposed to - Huntington Herald Dispatch

The Fourth of July is the most important date in the United States calendar, commemorating the day the 13 former American colonies declared themselves independent states and thumbed their collective nose at Great Britain. This paved the way, 13 years later, for the US Constitution to be enshrined in 1789. The First Amendment followed in 1791, establishing the basic rights of freedom of all US citizens. The second was also added at the same time and is perhaps the most contentious and famous of all the 27 amendments the right to bear arms, which has been in the headlines during the coronavirus pandemic and the aftermath of George Floyds death. Also slipped in on 25 September, 1789, among the 10 amendments that make up the Bill of Rights, was one that has been practically forgotten by history: the Third Amendment.

The decision by Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to write to President Donald Trump demanding the ousting of 1,000 Utah National Guard troops from hotels in the capital has suddenly thrown the little-studied Third Amendment into sharp relief with dusty tomes being pulled from shelves to see what exactly the Democratic mayors issue is.

The first to find the relevant page was US Senator Mike Lee, the Republican representative for Utah, who was incensed that Bowser had invoked the centuries old small print to evict the National Guard from Washington hotels after the state of emergency put in place due to protests over George Floyds death had been declared over by Bowser on 4 June.

The original text of the Third Amendment is brief and specific: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

It was added to the Bill of Rights in response to the Quartering Acts drawn up by the British parliament in 1774 in the run-up to the American Revolutionary War. These acts (a previous one had been introduced in 1765) essentially ordered that British troops be housed wherever necessary if there was not sufficient space in barracks, be this in uninhabited houses, out-houses, barns, or other buildings including private homes.

This was among the list of grievances aired in the Declaration of Independence and the wording of the Third Amendment was crafted in response to Britain slyly building up forces at strategic points by waving the Quartering Act about and to ensure no internal antagonists could concentrate troops using a similar ruse.

However, under the terminology of the amendment, National Guard troops are considered soldiers, even if they are hardly an occupying army. Thusly Bowser was able to invoke the Third Amendment to make her point.

Not a great deal, other than a raft of memes, a little head-scratching and some political point-scoring. Even though the hotels that had billeted the National Guard had consented to their presence, Defense Secretary Mark Esper elected to send all troops in Washington back from whence they came as the path of least resistance, allowing the Third Amendment to return to its two-century hibernation.

Continue reading here:
What is the third amendment and can it be applied now? - AS English

In the wake of current events not only in Seattle but across the nation, we recognize that it is The Spectators responsibility to report on all matters impacting the Seattle University community.

The Spectator Editorial Board supports the #BlackLivesMatter movement and we stand in solidarity with the Black community, both within and outside Seattle U. We are committed to speaking out against the police brutality, state-sanctioned violence and white supremacy in this country that has led to the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Tony McDade, among so many others.

As student journalists, we recognize the privilege we hold and are committed to using our platform to amplify Black voices, Black activists and Black organizers. We want to bring to the forefront the injustices that Black people face in this country, time and time again. We are dedicated to our mission of honest and accurate storytelling in order to report for social change and social justice.

Journalism has always been a key driving force in maintaining democracy, but it is important to understand that white men in state media have upheld institutions and systems of power that silence Black and Indigenous folks in their reporting. We refuse to desensitize ourselves and our readers to the harsh realities that Black people endure in their daily lives. We refuse to be like other media outlets that only show half of the story, leaving out the most important perspectives. We refuse to be complicit during a time when our country is trying to silence our first amendment rights.

We will utilize all of our platforms to accurately report on and update the community on all matters that stem from white supremacy in this country. We want to reinforce the message others have stated eloquently regarding our responsibility to stand up for the oppressed and avidly commit ourselves to being anti-racist. The Spectator is working diligently to educate the people on petitions, protests, ways to donate and how to support the Black members of our community.

As the state of unrest continues in our country, we want to welcome our community members to submit opinion pieces of their own regarding the current state of the country and the reactions of its citizens. While we encourage speaking out on matters individuals feel passionately about, we wish to make it explicitly clear that The Spectator will not accept nor publish pieces that promote hatred, violence or bigotry.

As we continue to educate ourselves and remain at the scenes of protests we encourage others to seek knowledge on the #BlackLivesMatter movement and advocate for the oppressed. Blacklivesmatter.carrd.co offers multiple resources for those who wish to help. Seattle U will hold a vigil for racial justice on June 4 and students have created a petition asking the university for additional support for Black students during finals.

See the article here:
The Spectator's Official Message to Stand with Black Students and Uphold Our First Amendment Rights - The Spectator

WASHINGTON The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University today sent a letter to Attorney General William P. Barr demanding that he direct officers who have been deployed to police or monitor the ongoing protests to wear badges or other markers displaying their agency affiliations, their identification numbers, and their names. Some of the heavily armed officers who have been deployed in Washington, DC, have not been wearing such markers. The Institutes letter states that the No-Badge practices chill the exercise of First Amendment rights and raise a host of other concerns.

The No-Badge practices seem designed to instill fear and to intimidate people from exercising rights protected by the First Amendment, said Jameel Jaffer, Executive Director at the Knight First Amendment Institute. They also conceal information that the public has a right to know. There is no legitimate justification for these practices, and they should have no place in any free society.

According to the Knight Institutes letter, the practices raise an array of serious concerns, including contributing to public mistrust of law enforcement and the government more broadly. The letter states that the practices will chill private citizens from participating in protests, and also undermine the legitimacy of whatever demands the armed personnel make of the citizens with whom they interact. The practices will also frustrate accountability, the letter states, because protesters and members of the public cannot know whom to hold responsible when these personnel engage in conduct that is abusive or unlawful.

These practices are bad policy, and they also raise grave constitutional concerns, said Leena Charlton, a legal fellow at the Knight Institute. The ability to identify members of law enforcement plays an essential role in ensuring government accountability, stemming police brutality, and vindicating civil rights.

The letter asks that, by June 10, the Attorney General respond and explain the steps he has taken to ensure that all personnel under his supervision or control deployed to police or monitor public protests display identifying information.

Read todays letterhere.

In response to police killings of Black men, women, and children and to the excessive use of force against protesters and journalists covering the demonstrations, the Knight First Amendment Institute staff also issued a statement today that calls for reforms to strengthen public access to information about police misconduct; protect those who expose that misconduct; and guarantee the rights of those who are currently protesting.

Read todays statementhere.

View original post here:
Knight Institute Demands Attorney General Direct Armed Officers Deployed in DC to Display Identities and Agency Affiliations - YubaNet