Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON The lawsuit, a federal judge found, bordered on the delusional. A Louisiana police officer injured in a protest tried to sue the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter, which amounted, wrote Judge Brian A. Jackson of the Federal District Court in Baton Rouge, to picking a fight with an idea. A hashtag, Judge Jackson wrote, is patently incapable of being sued.

The officer also sued Black Lives Matter, which the judge said was also a nonstarter. It is, he wrote, a social movement rather than an organization or entity of any sort that could be a defendant in a lawsuit.

A third part of the lawsuit seeking to hold a leader of the movement liable for the officers injuries reached the Supreme Court on Friday. Judge Jackson had dismissed that part of the case on First Amendment grounds, but an appeals court revived it, alarming civil rights lawyers and experts on free speech.

The officer, according to a lawsuit in which he was identified as John Doe, was injured in Baton Rouge by a demonstrator who threw a rock that broke the officers teeth and left him with injuries to his jaw and brain. The demonstrator has not been found.

The protest, which occurred in the summer of 2016, concerned the fatal shooting of a black man, Alton B. Sterling, by two police officers. The demonstration started peacefully but turned violent.

The officer sued DeRay Mckesson, a Black Lives Matter activist, claiming, without providing details, that Mr. Mckesson had incited the violence that led to his injuries. Mr. Mckesson was present at the protest, which blocked the highway in front of the Police Departments headquarters, but he did not throw the rock that hit the officer in the head.

Judge Jackson ruled for Mr. Mckesson, saying he was protected by the First Amendment. Liability may not be imposed merely because an individual belonged to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence, he wrote, quoting a landmark 1982 Supreme Court decision, N.A.A.C.P. v. Claiborne Hardware Co.

Allowing such lawsuits, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court, would chill free speech rights and hand government officials a powerful tool to suppress the rights of black citizens to challenge a political and economic system that had denied them the basic rights of dignity and equality that this country had fought a Civil War to secure.

The federal appeals court in New Orleans reversed the part of Judge Jacksons ruling concerning Mr. Mckesson, letting the officers lawsuit move forward.

Officer Doe alleges that Mckesson was negligent for organizing and leading the Baton Rouge demonstration because he knew or should have known that the demonstration would turn violent, Judge E. Grady Jolly wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel of the court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That was enough to let the case proceed, Judge Jolly wrote.

Mckesson should have known that leading the demonstrators onto a busy highway was most nearly certain to provoke a confrontation between police and the mass of demonstrators, yet he ignored the foreseeable danger to officers, bystanders and demonstrators, and notwithstanding, did so anyway, the judge wrote.

Garrett Epps, a law professor at the University of Baltimore, called the ruling an affront.

The decision was not simply lawless, but insolently so, he wrote in The Atlantic.

On Friday, the American Civil Liberties Union asked the Supreme Court to hear Mr. Mckessons appeal. David Cole, the groups legal director, said the appeals court had made a grave and dangerous mistake.

If the law had allowed anyone to sue leaders of social justice movements over the violent actions of others, he said, there would have been no civil rights movement.

The officers lawsuit contended that Mr. Mckesson was liable for his injuries by failing to calm the crowd.

The one comment from Mr. Mckesson quoted in the officers lawsuit did not support the idea that he had incited the violence, Judge Jackson found.

The comment was part of an interview with The New York Times the day after the demonstration. The police want protesters to be too afraid to protest, Mr. Mckesson said.

Judge Jackson said the statement was protected by the First Amendment.

Mckessons statement does not advocate or make any reference to violence of any kind, and even if the statement did, mere advocacy of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the First Amendment, Judge Jackson wrote, quoting from the Claiborne Hardware decision. This statement falls far short of being likely to incite lawless action, which plaintiff would have to prove to hold Mckesson liable based on his public speech.

In its petition seeking Supreme Court review, the A.C.L.U. said the principle announced in the Claiborne Hardware case was no relic.

Indeed, the petition said, the rule is of particular value to the rights of protesters be they same-sex marriage opponents in Berkeley, Calif., or gun control proponents in Boise, Idaho who take to the streets to persuade their fellow citizens to reconsider locally orthodox opinions.

View post:
Violent Protests and Free Speech: Whos to Blame for an Officers Injuries? - The New York Times

Independent filmmaker Gordon Price was prosecuted for shooting parts of his feature 'Crawford Road' on public lands without a permit, and now he's taking the matter to civil court.

A Virginia-based independent filmmaker says it's unconstitutional for the government to charge fees for commercial shoots in national parks, according to a lawsuit filed Monday in D.C. federal court.

Gordon Price is suing U.S. Attorney General William Barr, Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt and Deputy Director of the National Park Service David Vela. In late 2018, two NPS officers issued Price a violation notice for filming without a permit in public areas of the Yorktown Battlefield in Colonial National Historical Park in Virginia for Crawford Road, a feature about an area in York County that is home to unsolved murders and is rumored to be haunted. The government dropped its criminal case (more on that below), but now Price is moving his fight to civil court.

The statute says the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior shall require a permit and "establish a reasonable fee for commercial filming activities or similar projects on Federal lands" and, according to the complaint, violations are criminal offenses. Still, photos don't require fees if they're taken in areas the public is generally allowed, but can in other locations or if models or props are used. News-gathering generally doesn't require a permit. Price argues the statute is facially unconstitutional because it targets First Amendment activity and these distinctions amount to "content-based prior restraints."

"Its focus on the commercial nature of filming is not designed to serve any government interest in conservation or resource management, but to provide the government what it calls a 'fair return' for use of lands for commercial filming and certain still photography," writes attorney Robert Corn-Revere in the complaint, which is posted in full below.

Price argues the law is faulty for several reasons, including that Imposing a prior restraint on free speech is "the essence of censorship," the permit system is akin to press licensing and the First Amendment doesn't allow the government to make money by taxing "expressive activities."

In his case, Price claims the feds backed down to avoid an unfavorable finding. "When Mr. Price challenged the statute and rules (and the citation issued him) under the First Amendment, the government moved to dismiss to avoid a court ruling on the laws constitutionality," writes Corn-Revere. "Given the laws criminal enforceability, it has a speech-chilling effect on those to whom it may apply, and is operating to impede Mr. Prices future productions. As such, the government cannot be allowed to avoid review under the First Amendment."

Price argues the permitting and fee process is overbroad and restricts expressive activity that's deemed commercial even if it doesn't impact the federal lands any more than a news report or still photo shoot would. He is asserting a host of First Amendment-related claims and is asking the court for a declaration that the requirements are unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments and an injunction barring the practices.

Link:
Filmmaker Sues Feds Over "Unconstitutional" Fees to Shoot in National Parks - Hollywood Reporter

A few weeks ago, I was confronted with an extreme point of view that left me shaking in disbelief. In casual conversation with a fellow civic club member, whom I considered to be one of the kindest, most considerate and thoughtful men I knew, he disclosed his belief that America would be fully justified in barring all Muslims from our country as the United States was a Christian country.

He then repeated the often-debunked assertion that certain Muslim groups had already established Sharia law in two small communities in Michigan. He pointed to a recently reported decision by Denmark to stop accepting Muslim immigrants and send them home.

As a devout Christian myself, I countered that the United States was actually established as a secular country by law that separates church and state and protects freedom of religion, citing the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I said that this is exactly the kind of line being put out by Trumps immigration policy advisor, Stephen Miller, and white supremacist groups.

He angrily replied, Dont preach to me. I was stunned.

My background in law and political science, as well as my years of government service, taught me that no U.S. state constitution, and no state attorney general, would ever sanction the imposition of Sharia law in one of its municipalities. It just wouldnt happen.

My friends successful background as a conservative businessman and investor apparently didnt tell him that, nor did it teach him to be skeptical of such reporting. Im not sure if he has ever read the First Amendment:

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 (emphasis added).

A little internet research on Snopes.com, a well-known fact-checking source, quickly told me that according to an Aug. 8, 2018 report from The Last Line of Defense website, it was now illegal to serve pork and for women to appear in public without wearing burqas (Islamic head coverings) in the 109th congressional district of Michigan:

Following the recent decision by Michigans 109th Congressional district to adopt adherence to Sharia Law as well as traditional Wypipo Law, County Commissioner Art Tubolls took to the podium to announce further plans: A full-scale ban on bacon within the district, and compulsory wearing of a burka by all females in public.

Indeed, as expected, this news proved controversial. Dearborns 200 billion-dollar Allah Justavanosh Mosque was surrounded by protesters, and the phone lines were jammed with angry potato pancakes. County Pastor Johnathan Regarp tried to calm the crowd down.

Of course, according to Snopes, Michigan doesnt have a 109th congressional district (it has 14 congressional districts, total). Nor does it have a so-called Allah Justavanosh Mosque in Dearborn, or a county commissioner named Art Tubolls (both are obviously made-up names, the latter an anagram of the equally faux Busta Troll).

The Snopes fact-checkers say these false details reveal not only that the story is a fabrication, but also that it was generated by the same online trolling operation responsible for cranking out scores of so-called satirical articles.

This example plays on the fears of those who are convinced that Islam is a threat to Western Civilization and intent on destroying America. Dearborn, Michigan, has often (and falsely) been cited as an example of a U.S. city taken over by Muslims.

What this tells me is that my otherwise goodhearted friend had become enraged by false online reporting that played to his fears that Muslims were planning to take over the country. Normally kind, thoughtful and mild-mannered, he became uncharacteristically angry and defensive when challenged, thereby cutting off further discussion. That is unfortunate. We needed to be able to talk.

Im not sure if my friend supports Trump. However, I do know that when folks ask why Trumps supporters are so devoted to him, as Gregory McGann so thoughtfully addressed in a column published Dec. 1, this kind of misinformation provides a clue. He appeals to their prejudices and fears. President Franklin D. Roosevelt famously said the only thing we have to fear is, fear itself.

If we truly believe in the First Amendment, the equality of all people and the rule of law, we should not fear living in a multicultural society, we should embrace it.

Robert Mounts lives in Gainesville.

Read this article:
Robert Mounts: The scourge of misinformation playing to our fears - The Ledger

Infowars, the website founded by Alex Jones that traffics in conspiracy theories, has been largely banned by Apple, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

But one of the sites personalities still managed to disrupt the House impeachment hearing on Monday, using his verified Twitter account to carry out a publicity stunt.

[Read live updates on Mondays impeachment hearing.]

Moments after Representative Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, banged a gavel to open the hearing, the Infowars host, Owen Shroyer, used Twitter to broadcast video of himself rising from his seat in the packed hearing room and shouting, Jerry Nadler and the Democrat Party are committing treason against this country!

Mr. Shroyer continued to stream video of himself railing against Democrats and defending President Trump as the Capitol Police quickly escorted him from the room.

Trump is innocent! Mr. Shroyer shouted.

Mr. Shroyers stunt during the widely televised hearing came despite efforts by major technology companies to wipe Infowars and most of its content from their platforms, as they struggle to contain the spread of misinformation online.

[From The New York Times Magazine: I worked for Alex Jones. I regret it.]

Last year, Apple, Facebook and YouTube, which is owned by Google, severely restricted the reach of Infowars and Mr. Jones after years in which they spread dark conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11 attacks, the Sandy Hook school shooting and the Boston Marathon bombing, among other tragedies.

Twitter also banned the accounts of Mr. Jones and Infowars last year, saying both had violated its policies, which prohibit direct threats of violence and some forms of hate speech but allow deception or misinformation.

Yet Mr. Shroyer remains active on Twitter, where he has more than 120,000 followers, and effectively used the site and its streaming video service, Periscope, to promote his interruption as Mr. Nadler began his opening statement.

When it banned Mr. Jones and Infowars in September 2018, Twitter said it would continue to evaluate reports about other accounts associated with him and his website and would take action if they violated its rules. On Monday, the company declined to comment specifically on Mr. Shroyers account.

In one video posted to his account on Monday, Mr. Shroyer says, So Im being arrested right now for disrupting Congress, as Capitol Police officers appear to handcuff him after he was removed from the room. Im a criminal for my First Amendment rights.

A spokeswoman for the Capitol Police, Eva M. Malecki, said one individual had been charged Monday with disruption of Congress, but she did not immediately confirm that it was Mr. Shroyer.

On his show, Mr. Jones has played video of Mr. Shroyer claiming that Neil Heslin, the father of one of the Sandy Hook victims, did not hold the body of his 6-year-old son, Jesse Lewis, in his arms after the shooting.

Hes claiming that he held his son and saw the bullet hole in his head, Mr. Shroyer said on the show. That is not possible.

Last year, Mr. Heslin was one of three parents who sued Mr. Jones for defamation, part of a series of legal actions against Mr. Jones, who has called the Sandy Hook shooting a hoax perpetrated by the government.

As a candidate in 2015, Mr. Trump, who has shown an affinity for conspiracy theories, appeared on Infowars for a nearly half-hour interview with Mr. Jones.

Your reputation is amazing, Mr. Trump told Mr. Jones. I will not let you down.

Read the original post:
Infowars Host Disrupts House Impeachment Hearing - The New York Times

U.S. Supreme Court

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 9, 2019, 10:14 am CST

Image from Shutterstock.com.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to a Delaware constitutional provision requiring balance between Republicans and Democrats on the states top courts.

The court granted cert Friday and asked the parties to consider whether the plaintiff, retired lawyer James Adams, has standing to sue, SCOTUSblog reports. Adams says applying for a judgeship in the state would be futile because he is an independent who is neither Republican nor Democrat.

Adams won in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Philadelphia, which ruled that the restriction violated his First Amendment right to associate with the party of his choice.

The Delaware constitutional provision provides that, when there are an even number of judges on a court, no more than half the seats may be held by one political party. When there is an odd number of judges, no more than a bare majority of seats may be held by members one political party.

A related provision allows only judges from the two major political parties to serve on the state supreme court, superior courts and chancery courtsthe states three top courts.

Delawares governor selects judges from a list provided by a judicial nominating commission.

In his brief opposing certiorari, Adams says the Delaware system is unique. No other state excludes minority parties from appointment as judges, the brief says. No other state requires political balance on their courts.

The case is Carney v. Adams. The cert petition is here, and the SCOTUSblog case page is here.

Read the original here:
Supreme Court agrees to hear challenge to Delaware requirement for political balance on top courts - ABA Journal