Mediaboss Marketing

Amid the turmoil over taking down Confederate monuments and others ranging from Christopher Columbus to Theodore Roosevelt, heres an idea that that almost everyone can get behind: How about erecting monuments that celebrate the Bill of Rights?

Yes, the Bill of Rights: 10 amendments to the Constitution, ratified in 1791, that spelled out the individual freedoms Americans have enjoyed ever since including the freedom to protest against things like monuments (thanks to the First Amendment.)

A campaign to place Bill of Rights monuments in state capitols in all 50 states is already underway, albeit moving slowly. Arizonas Bill of Rights monument was built in Phoenix in 2012, and plans for an OkIahoma monument in Oklahoma City are progressing. A smaller scale monument can be found in Montezuma, Iowa.

Its the brainchild of Chris Bliss, a comic by trade who has made the Bill of Rights his side project. Comics, after all, benefit greatly from the First Amendment. His campaign began nearly two decades ago, when there was controversy over monuments that celebrated the Ten Commandments, also often placed in state capitols.

Bliss envisioned erecting Bill of Rights monuments as a way to "comparison shop" with the Ten Commandments, he says whimsically. He also wants the monuments built near state capitols because "every kid goes to state capitols" on school field trips. He estimates that 40,000 students a year have visited the Arizona monument.

As he delved into the project, Bliss found that the Bill of Rights was something of a forgotten document, rarely taught in schools. People knew about a patients bill of rights or a bill of rights for airline passengers. But it was hard for people to grasp the abstract principles of the constitutional Bill of Rights, Bliss says, and therefore hard to turn those principles into marble or limestone.

Donations and support for Bliss Bill of Rights project have been sporadic over the years, with comedians like Lewis Black and the late Dick Gregory helping out. The Bill of Rights has "no preexisting constituency," Bliss says, unlike other organized groups that can lobby successfully for building monuments.

But in the aftermath of the recent protests nationwide that involve monuments and civil liberties, he hopes to jump-start his project and hasten the building of Bill of Rights monuments nationwide. "This is a very positive moment," Bliss says.

Amendments a safeguard for citizens

The relevance of the Bill of Rights to todays divisions is clear and deserves recognition. The Bill of Rights fosters freedom of expression, religion, due process, fair trials, protection against unreasonable government intrusion or excessive fines, among other important rights.

The 10 amendments are not without controversy. Interpreting the religion clauses of the First Amendment, the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, and the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Eighth Amendment has been a contentious task for centuries.

And there are parts of the Bill of Rights that are quirky, to say the least. The Third Amendment, for example, prohibits soldiers from being quartered in homes without the consent of owners. It was a big issue at the time of the founding, but not now.

Opportunity to celebrate liberty

Bliss says there is no better remedy for monument controversies than to commemorate the Bill of Rights, which he calls "the most powerful and successful assertion of individual rights and liberties ever written."

He adds, "The ideas were radical at the time, but now, people say, Of course. There is not an exclusionary phrase in the entire document. It is time for us to rediscover our own Bill of Rights and to elevate it to the position of public prominence it richly deserves."

Tony Mauro, a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors, covered the Supreme Court for USA TODAY from 1982 to 2000.

Read the rest here:
Opinion: Heres a monument all Americans can rally around: Lets celebrate the Bill of Rights - Pocono Record

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said Friday that it has ordered agents to stop compiling and circulating intelligence reports on journalists.

The move came a day after The Washington Post reported that a DHS office had created three reports on two journalists covering demonstrations in Portland, Oregon, that were distributed to federal law enforcement agencies.

The reports, compiled by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, noted that the journalists had published leaked, unclassified documents about the deployment of federal agents to protests in Portland. The office is tasked with integrating DHS intelligence and distributing information to state and local authorities, as well as private partners.

In a statement, the Intelligence Office said that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf had suspended the collection of information on journalists and ordered an investigation.

In no way does the acting secretary condone this practice, said DHS spokesperson Alexei Woltornist. The acting secretary is committed to ensuring that all DHS personnel uphold the principles of professionalism, impartiality and respect for civil rights and civil liberties, particularly as it relates to the exercise of First Amendment rights.

Details of the intelligence reports came amid unrest in Portlandand New York City, where plainclothes law enforcement officers have been spotted pulling protesters into unmarked vans. Portland police have livestreamed protests, which the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon alleges violates state law blocking police from collecting information on law-abiding citizens.

The Post reported that the intelligence reports contained images and descriptions of tweets by Mike Baker, a journalist at The New York Times and Benjamin Wittes, editor-in-chief of Lawfare, a blog that focuses on national security and policy. The reports included the number of likes and retweets the social media posts received.

Baker had co-reported on two internal DHS memos related to protests and unrest in Portland: a July 18 article detailing a memo that warned federal agents in the city do not specifically have training in riot control or mass demonstrations. and a Tuesday article on a memo in which the department acknowledged it lacked insight into the motives for the most recent attacks in Portland. The Times published both memos in full.

Wittes, also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, tweeted images of internal Intelligence Office memos about leaks to Lawfare and Washington Post reporter Shane Harris, who later broke the news of the DHS reports. Wittes had reported that the DHS in mid-July authorized its personnel to monitor social media posts and collect information on people suspected of damaging public monuments.

In a Twitter thread about the intelligence reports, Wittes said that he was considering his legal options.

What is troubling about this story is that [the Office of Intelligence and Analysis] shared my tweets as intelligence reporting, wrote Wittes. I am not sure how my reporting of unclassified material constitutes any kind of homeland security threat that justifies the dissemination of intelligence reporting on a U.S. person, particularly not one exercising core First Amendment rights.

Analysts warned that the move appeared to threaten the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech in the U.S.

Even if individual reporters are not quivering in their boots, potentially, I think it does set a very troubling and potentially unconstitutional tone, said Nora Benavides, director of U.S. Free Expression Programs at Pen America, a nonprofit advocating for free expression and press freedom. Other reporters may think twice before engaging in these types of investigative and journalistic practices."

Benavides described the intelligence reports as a very serious threat to the First Amendment.

We should not be in a position, and journalists should not be in the position to question whether they should do their job at the risk of being added, potentially, to an intelligence report and being investigated as if they are committing some criminal act, Benavides told VOA. Journalism and a free press, those are not inherently criminal. Those are the types of tactics we see in undemocratic governments.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press condemned the intelligence gathering and called on the DHS to make public the findings of its investigation.

Federal law prohibits the creation of dossiers on journalists precisely because doing so can morph into investigations of journalists for news coverage that embarrasses the government, but that the public has a right to know, Gabe Rottman, director of the technology and press freedom project at the Reporters Committee, said in a statement.

The DHS reports on journalists are not an isolated incident, said Benavides. Multiple U.S. federal agencies collaborated last year to create a secret database of journalists, activists and attorneys covering a large migrant caravan.

NBC7 in San Diego, California, reported that the database listed 10 journalists and 48 others whom officials recommended be targeted for screening at the U.S.-Mexico border. Each entry contained a photo, data of birth, country of commencement, alleged tie to the caravan, and any alerts placed on a subjects passport.

Benavides said the reports on journalists appear to harken back to the types of chilling practices in which a federal agency is using its ability to investigate individuals, especially reporters, to try to chill them or prevent them from investigating.

Go here to see the original:
US Homeland Security Created Files on Journalists - Voice of America

Ghislaine Maxwell, who faces federal criminal charges of enticement of a minor to engage in illegal sex acts, transportation of a minor to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy, and perjury, is accusing the Miami Herald of trashing her reputation and, in essence, of attempting to destroy her right to receive a fair trial. The Herald and its investigative reporter, Julie K. Brown, have been widely praised and awarded (example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4) for their aggressive coverage of the now-dead and infamous pedophile sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and, concomitantly, of Maxwell, his longtime associate.

Maxwell levied the complaints against the Herald in a lawsuit to determine whether a second cache of documents in a defamation case between Maxwell and her accuser Virginia Giuffre Roberts will be unsealed by Monday. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday issued a stay on the documents release pending an appeal; in essence, the court pumped the brakes on the release of the highly anticipated materials.

The following words appear in a document filed by Maxwells lawyers on Friday before the Second Circuit. Maxwells lawyers are arguing in favor of keeping the documents secret:

As Ms. Maxwell said in her Motion to Stay, [t]he media has all but convicted her. In hindsight, this appears to have been an understatement.

If the Miami Herald is to be believed, The documents at issue have been improperly sealed for yearsin a way that allowed . . . Ms. Maxwell[s] . . . abuse of young girls to go on unchallenged and unpunished, and allowed a legal system that protected perpetrators over victims to go unquestioned. This unqualified statement of Ms. Maxwells alleged guilt is precisely the type of unfair and unconstitutional pretrial publicity that will result should the district courts unsealing order go into effect.

[ . . . ]

[I]f the Herald is willing to announce its conclusion that Ms. Maxwell abused young girls even before having access to the sealed deposition materials, that is only a harbinger of what media coverage will result should the material be unsealed, coverage that will prejudice Ms. Maxwells constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.

The Maxwell argument further trashes the Heralds assertion that the documents have been improperly sealed for years by blaming you guessed it the Herald.

[T]he Herald entirely ignores its own conduct, Maxwells attorneys argue. [T]he Herald did not move to unseal anything in this case until 2018, one year after the case was closed.

Said another way, Maxwells attorneys are blaming the Herald for not acting fast enough to unseal documents which Maxwells attorneys say should not be unsealed.

Self-styled journalist Michael Cernovich he is also sometimes referred to in other ways rubbished Maxwells argument that the Herald was late to enter the proceeding by telling the Second Circuit that he had long been after the same documents himself:

While the Court should not give any credence to Ms. Maxwells argument in her motion that the First Amendment interests at issue are not harmed because the Herald did not seek to intervene until after the May 2017 settlement, Mr. Cernovich had been seeking to learn what atrocities by Maxwell and Epstein were wrongly concealed on the docket prior to that settlement. Three and a half years is too long to suppress the First Amendment right of access. No stay is warranted.

If the documents are not kept under wraps, Maxwell says her Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and in favor of a fair trial with an impartial jury will be irreparably harmed.

Such fears by Maxwell could arguably and easily be seized upon by her critics to imply that Maxwell said something in the still-sealed documents which could come back to haunt her.

That inference, obviously, was not fully developed by Maxwells attorneys. Instead, attention was turned again to the Herald, which is among the independent parties seeking to pry the documents into the light of day. Maxwells attorneys said the Heralds proffered notion that the public interest would be best served by the release of the documents was actually quite backwards:

The Herald trivializes the publics right to see that its justice system provide fair trials, the Maxwell argument concludes. With Ms. Maxwell facing an imminent and very public trial, the justice system should endeavor to do all it can to vindicate the theory of our [trial] system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print.'

Read several of the relevant court papers below, including an earlier argument by the Herald in favor of releasing the cache of Maxwell/Epstein documents.

Ghislaine Maxwell Docket #19 2nd Circuit by Law&Crime on Scribd

Ghislaine Maxwell Docket #25 2nd Circuit by Law&Crime on Scribd

Ghislaine Maxwell Second Circuit Stay by Law&Crime on Scribd

[image via Laura Cavanaugh/Getty Images]

[Editors note: internal punctuation and citations within legal quotes have been omitted.]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Continued here:
Ghislaine Maxwell Bashes the Miami Herald in Document Dispute - Law & Crime

The June 11 offer by Dan Braswell for a reasonable review of his writings is typical of the party-affiliated vortex of distraction from the issue Thats what I said but I didnt say that which is echoed from Washington too often.

The issue is citizens right to free speech. Braswell and Del. John McGuire need to review two things: The First Amendment right to free speech and the Supreme Courts decision about public officials blocking citizens from posting to their social media accounts.

The First Amendment provides the public with a venue to petition the government for redress of grievances. Since McGuire is the peoples government representative, his blocking access to and deleting comments on his Facebook account is unconstitutional and prevents us from voicing our concerns.

So where should we go if McGuire is emotionally incapable of dealing with opposition? He ignores the concerns of constituents, which is the point. We have the right to express our views to him regardless of his immature attitude. All citizens of the 56th district should be concerned about delegates who are unwilling to communicate with the public they serve.

This should be disturbing to everyone, even Braswell who actively and passively advocates McGuires abuse of First Amendment rights instead of performing an intervention to overcome those feelings of inadequacy.

More important is McGuires intimidation and bullying to prevent the publics right of access to his office. Supposedly, he took another oath to uphold the Constitution when he became delegate, but probably had his fingers crossed. If he cant perform his service to the public, why is he in office?

Why shouldnt he answer questions? Why shouldnt he be held accountable? Whenever the people of the 56th district want answers, his approach seems to be to bunker down. He cant even set up a venue where everyone is comfortable the cause for that discomfort shows itself with his Facebook rants. All his ranting seems to be the overall political strategy of his party. If we could get a coherent post from McGuire, it would help.

Right now, with all his campaigning and overall lack of communication skills, he only displays limited ability to grasp complex and comprehensive issues that are necessary for public safety. His narrow scope belies the broader perspective he cant cope with.

The United States Supreme Court decided that Trumps attempts to block citizens from his Twitter account because they didnt praise him enough, or at all, are unconstitutional. It decided that a public officials social media account cannot be used as a propaganda tool and only allow access to the party faithful for comments. This decision also applies to McGuires Facebook page.

It must be that McGuire has that same sensitivity to criticism as too many of his colleagues.

For all the glorification of military service as justification for public service, Braswell made me think of a military phrase that can be applied to McGuire. As paraphrased: Cowardice in the face of constituents!

Read more:
Read the First Amendment | Letters To The Editor - The Central Virginian

At the coronavirus task force briefing Friday, Vice President Mike Pence was asked a question about why the Trump campaign held a rally in Tulsa, Okla., against the advice of local health officials. He responded by citing the First Amendment.

- On the campaign, it really does sound though like you're saying do as we say, not as we do. You're telling people to listen to local officials, but in Tulsa you defied local health officials to have an event that even though you say it didn't result in a spike, dozens of Secret Service agents, dozens of campaign staffers are now quarantined after positive tests. And then in Arizona, one of the hardest-hit states, you packed a church with young people who weren't wearing masks. So how can you say that the campaign is not part of the problem that Dr. Fauci laid out?

MIKE PENCE: Well, I want to remind you again that the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble is enshrined in the Constitution of the United States. And even in a health crisis, the American people don't forfeit our constitutional rights. And working with state officials, as we did in Oklahoma and as we did in Arizona, we're creating settings where people can choose to participate in the political process, and we'll continue to do that.

I think it's I think it's really important that we recognize how important-- how important freedom and personal responsibility are to this entire equation but allowing younger Americans--

- [INAUDIBLE] freedom [INAUDIBLE].

MIKE PENCE: --allowing younger Americans to understand, particularly in the counties that are most impacted. The unique challenges that we're facing in their age group we think is important.

Here is the original post:
Pence says First Amendment is why Trump campaign held Tulsa rally despite local health officials' warnings - Yahoo News