Mediaboss Marketing

The First Amendment is the foundation of all of our freedoms. That is why it stands atop our Bill of Rights, which spells out strict limits on the governments power to crush individuals and deny them their liberty.

Under the First Amendment, Congress and, by extension, state legislatures shall make no law abridging freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press has been of incalculable value to the people of the United States. It has brought to light corruption and other problems that powerful officials would rather have suppressed. It has informed the American people about the issues so that they may govern themselves. It has righted injustice and championed justice.

Given the hunger for power reflected in the gnawing desire of some politicians to micromanage peoples lives the First Amendment provides an essential check against tyranny. Many politicians would like nothing better than to shut up the public and have their way. Certainly, this is how authoritarian regimes function.

Members of the Rhode Island legislature should understand all that. If they do not, it seems clear that our civics education is even worse than advertised.

Last week, we learned that four senators, all Democrats Sandra Cano, of Pawtucket; Elizabeth Crowley, of Central Falls; Ana Quezada, of Providence; and Harold Metts, of Providence sponsored legislation that on its face was an assault on the First Amendment.

It sought to dictate to the press what must be reported.

As the bill ludicrously put it: The state has a compelling interest to compel the press to promote the objective truth for the sake of the viability of democracy and for the safety, health, and welfare of our communities and in keeping with the spirit of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and to stop the press from serving as a slander machine.

Needless to say, such an approach would be blatantly unconstitutional. As Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of the ACLU, noted, These types of efforts to control the press have absolutely no place in a democratic society.

Sponsoring an assault on the peoples most basic freedoms for whatever reason is a black eye to those members and should be of concern to the voters in their districts.

Fortunately, even the sponsors backed off late last week.

According to Senate spokesman Greg Pare, Senator Cano sponsored the Senate legislation as a favor to Rep. Grace Diaz, D-Providence. Ms. Diaz said she withdrew her House bill after a colleague told her, you are setting yourself up for a headache.

Senator Cano then withdrew her bill and vowed in a tweet, My family came to this country for the freedoms of the 1st Amendment & I will do better in defending it!

It is, of course, the responsibility of the news media to strive to be fair and balanced.

But, for obvious reasons, you dont want politicians and bureaucrats dictating whats fair and what isnt in news coverage. And, under our glorious First Amendment, they may not.

Read the original:
Editorial: Preserving the First Amendment - Opinion - The Providence Journal

Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government workers may not be mandated to pay union dues as a condition of employment. The ruling was a victory for free speech and free association.

Now, in a lawsuit out of Maine, the justices have another opportunity to rein in the power of labor organizations to force workers to accept their representation. The case could have major ramifications for many states, including Nevada.

The legal action brought by Jonathan Reisman, an associate professor of economics in the University of Maine system involves the common practice of governments granting public-sector unions exclusive workplace bargaining rights. Mr. Reisman argues that this runs afoul of the Constitution because it prevents him and other like-minded individuals from speaking for themselves in contract negotiations and forces him to associate with an organization that acts contrary to his beliefs.

If the state cannot compel public employees to financially support union advocacy how can states require these same public employees to accept representation from unions that many of them have chosen not to join? an attorney for Mr. Reisman asked.

Mr. Reisman, according to news accounts, was formerly a union officer, but came to object to many of the policy positions for which his labor group advocated. A federal appeals court rejected his arguments, but the Supreme Court is now considering whether to accept the case.

The matter is ripe for review. As Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burris and Michael Collins wrote last month for the Cato Institute, arrangements involving exclusive representation restrict a number of individual freedoms.

Exclusive representation simply cant be justified by any state interest, let alone a compelling one, that would validate the serious impingements it imposes on dissenting nonmembers associational rights, they argue. Put plainly there is no labor law exception to the First Amendment, and labor laws that violate constitutional principles must be held to heightened judicial scrutiny.

Indeed, union complaints about free riders nonmembers who dont pay dues yet nevertheless enjoy the wages and protections negotiated during union contract talks are legitimate only because of exclusive representation powers that many states have granted public-sector labor groups. There are no free riders if independent workers are able to represent themselves as they see fit.

Gov. Steve Sisolak last year signed legislation allowing state of Nevada workers to bargain collectively. It will eventually bust the budget, but it also grants exclusive representation rights to labor. Lets hope the Supreme Court recognizes the constitutional difficulties inherent in such a provision.

View original post here:
EDITORIAL: No labor law exception to the First Amendment - Las Vegas Review-Journal

This episode features a lively (andfair warninglong) interview with Daphne Keller, Director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford Universitys Cyber Policy Center. We explore themes from her recent paper on regulation of online speech. It turns out that more or less everyone has an ability to restrict users speech online, and pretty much no one has both authority and an interest in fostering free-speech values. Conservatives may be discriminated against, but so are Black Lives Matter activists. I serve up one solution to biased moderation after another, and Daphne methodically shoots them down. Transparency? None of the companies is willing, and the government may have a constitutional problem forcing them to disclose how they make their moderation decisions. Competition law? A long haul, and besides, most users like a moderated Internet experience. Regulation? Only if we take the First Amendment back to the heyday of broadcast regulation. As a particularly egregious example of foreign governments and platforms ganging up to censor Americans, we touch on the Europe Court of Justices insufferable decision encouraging the export of European defamation law to the U.S.with an extra margin of censorship to keep the platform from any risk of liability. I offer to risk my Facebook account to see if thats already happening.

In the news, the FISA follies take center stage, as the March 15 deadline for reauthorizing important counterterrorism authorities draws near. No one has a good solution. Matthew Heiman explains that another kick-the-can scenario remains a live option. And Nick Weaver summarizes the problems that the PCLOB found with the FISA call detail record program. My take: The program failed because it was imposed on NSA by libertarian ideologues who had no idea how it would work in practice and who now want to blame NSA for their own shortsightedness.

Another week, another couple of artificial intelligence ethics codes: The two most recent ones come from DOD and the Pope? Mark MacCarthy sees a lot to like. I offer my quick and dirty CTRL-F bias test for whether the codes are serious or flaky, and both fail.

In China news, Matthew covers Chinas ever-spreading censorship regimenow reaching Twitter users whose accounts are blocked by the Great Firewall. We also ask whether and how much the U.S. name and shame campaign has actually reduced Chinese cyberespionage. And whether China is stealing tech from universities for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banksthats where the IP is.

Nick recounts with undisguised glee the latest tribulations suffered by Clearview and its facial recognition system: Its app has been banned from Android and Apple, and both its customers and its data collection methods have been doxed.

Mark notes the success of threats to boycott Pakistan on the part of Facebook, Google and Twitter. I wonder if that will simply incentivize Pakistan to drive its social media ecosystem toward the Chinese giants. Nick gives drug dealers a lesson in how not to store the codes for 53.6 million in Bitcoin; or is he offering a lesson in what to say to the police if you want that 53.6 million waiting for you when you get out of prison?

Finally, in a few quick hits, we cover new developments in past stories: It turns out, to the surprise of no one, that removing a GPS tracking device from your car isnt theft. West Virginia has apparently recovered from a fit of insanity and now does not plan to allow voting by insecure app. And the FCC is taking it slow in its investigation of mobile carriers for selling customer location data; now we know wholl be charged (pretty much everyone) and how much it will cost them ($200 million), but we still dont know the theory or whether the whole inquiry is going to kill off legitimate uses of location data.

Download the 302nd Episode (mp3).

Take our listener poll at steptoe.com/podcastpoll!

You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed!

As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to [emailprotected]. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!

The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.

Follow this link:
The Cyberlaw Podcast: Will the First Amendment Kill Free Speech in America? - Lawfare

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