Mediaboss Marketing

The mans a tool but I admire his immodesty in taking on all comers in a debate on a subject about which hes obviously ignorant. Hes the guy at the bar whos too drunk to stand up but proclaims himself ready to kick the ass of every man within earshot. You may think him sad and annoyingly belligerent. But hes got moxie.

We should not change the First Amendment to ban Nazis, by the way.

Pretty much everything the Nazis did in Charlottesville was free speech, up until James Fields got behind the wheel and fights started breaking out with counter-protesters. You can in fact chant blood and soil in a crowded theater in America, to borrow a phrase. (Although youll annoy the theatergoers around you.) Piers has it all figured out, though:

Lawyers who read that had a laugh, as did lots of people who didnt go to law school but are sufficiently interested in the history of free speech in America to have cracked a book on it once. Schenck is a notorious case from World War I in which an anti-war protester handing out leaflets urging people to dodge the draft got locked up for violating the Espionage Act(!). He sued on First Amendment grounds and lost, with the Supreme Court ruling that dangerous speech could of course be banned by the government. Thats where the infamous formulation about not (falsely) shouting fire in a crowded theater came from, courtesy of Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Soon after Schenck, though, Holmes and the Court started to have a rethink about the implications of banning dangerous speech and where that might lead. Fifty years later, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court announced a new standard for criminal incitement drawn very narrowly, to protect as much speech as possible. (Under Brandenburg, which I mentioned here, virtually anything short of goading an angry mob to attack is protected.) In citing Schenck, Morgans relying on a case that the Supreme Court started inching away from nearly 100 years ago and which it abandoned nearly 50 years ago. Hes opening the door to reintroducing sedition prosecutions, citing a precedent that was used to jail a peaceful socialist war critic. Thats some fancy thinkin for a liberal.

When people started calling him out for this on Twitter, he fired back that he knows his incitement law quite well, thank you. Spoiler: He does not know his incitement law well.

Truth or falsity has nothing to do with incitement, a point that should be obvious if you reflect on it for two seconds. If an anti-semitic mob has a Jewish man cornered and someone yells Kill the Jew!, its, errrrr, not a defense to point out that the victim was in fact Jewish. Falsity is an element in defamation, another exception to the First Amendment but not one that has anything to do with incitement. There are three elements to unlawful incitement under Brandenburg intent to cause lawbreaking with your words, likelihood that people listening to you will in fact break the law, and imminence between the two. The last factor is important as it explains why so much Nazi speech is protected by the First Amendment. A Nazi might say Kill the Jews!; he might mean every word; and his audience of fellow Nazis might be ramped up to make it happen. But unless hes saying it in a situation where it seems like that audience might act imminently, its protected speech. Thats why Nazi or Islamist propaganda online isnt against the law. Even if the reader is inspired by it to behave violently, his lawless action isnt imminent at the time. Those are the variables you should be focused on if youre analyzing incitement, not false claims.

When Ben Shapiro, who went to Harvard Law, interjected to inform Morgan that he doesnt know what hes talking about, Piers (a) goofed on his height and (b) declared that American law schools suck. So maybe hes just trolling with all of this? Or maybe the thing about false claims was the germ of a tortured argument in which defamation committed by Nazis should be considered the lawless action that makes them indictable for incitement under Brandenburg? I dont know. I think maybe he was just bored and farting around on Twitter. As one does.

The rest is here:
Piers Morgan: C'mon, let's change the First Amendment and ban Nazis - Hot Air

Tucker: 'Today's Political Opponents Could Be Tomorrow's Designated Nazis'

Al Sharpton: Defund the Jefferson Memorial

Author Mark Steyn said that the First Amendment protections of freedom of speech and expression are paramount for a functional society.

"Freedom of speech enables you to argue for other freedoms, and that is the point of it," Steyn said.

Steyn was reacting to Tucker Carlson's monologue regarding corporations and progressives censoring speech of offensive factions.

He agreed that, while white supremacy is abhorrent, stifling the rights of more moderate factions lead to those factions finding other ways to express themselves.

"The less freedom of speech we have, the more we have what we saw over the weekend," he said. "All you can do is blow things up and shoot people."

"It always starts off with [white nationalist websites], but it goes further than that," he said.

Steyn said that PayPal recently banned a website from using its payment transfer services because the website is "immigrant restrictionist."

"If the U.S. government thinks in 1909 that [monopoly] Standard Oil had gotten too big... what is Google now?" he asked.

Watch more above.

Huckabee: 'Most Voices Unhappy With Trump' Are 'People Who Just Don't Like Him'

Ted Nugent Blasts Trump Critics: 'All Lives Matter, We Condemn All Violence'

See the article here:
Steyn: Without First Amendment Protections, You Have Charlottesville-Type Violence - Fox News Insider

Typically, all forms of expression are including free speech is protected at city parks, sidewalks, and streets (August 16, 2017)

Giacomo Luca, KXTV 7:44 AM. PDT August 17, 2017

After a gut wrenching weekend violence in Charlottesville, Virginia that lead to one person killed and at least 19 others injured, protests by right-winged groups are being planned in San Francisco and Berkley, California, next weekend, KGO-TV reports.

San Franciscos Supervisor Mark Farrell is working with the National Parks service to come up with a safety plan for the rally planned in Crissy Field near the Golden Gate Bridge, KGO-TV reports.

While the events in Charlottesville escalated beyond those protected by the U.S. Constitutions free speech clause -- The initial rally where white supremacists met in Charlottesville to defend a confederate statue of Robert E. Lee was protected speech, said constitutional law expert and professor Leslie Jacobs at the University of Pacifics McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento.

In this article we ask Ms. Jacobs what rights Americans have to protest, demonstrate, and speak freely at places like universities, government buildings, parks, sidewalks, and other public places.

Here in the United States, our Supreme Court has interpreted our free speech clause to protect very, very hateful speech, said Jacobs. It is not permissible for the government to put people in jail for expressing their points of view.

The government may not restrict a person from protesting at any location solely on the basis of what they want to say, Jacobs said. However, limitations may be set on the time, location, and manner in which a free speech activity may be held.

Typically, prior permission must be given to protest inside government buildings like a city hall, so it doesnt interfere with government operations.

Permits, deposits, and special fees can be asked before a large event or for events that may block traffic, use loud noise devices, or are held in special areas.

You may also need to get permission if protesting in front of a school during class hours, so it doesnt disrupt education -- Anyone may protest on a public college campus as long as its outside, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. For more on individual colleges and university policies in Northern California click here.

The American Civil Liberties Union has also published a Know Your Rights pamphlet on demonstrations and protests, which can be viewed by clicking here.

2017 KXTV-TV

Read more:
The First Amendment: Who can protest where? - ABC10

The First Amendment protects the speech we hate to hear.

Hard as it is to accept, the right to express vile and repugnant thought is guarded by the Constitution. Of course, theres no right to smash a car into others who have gathered to express alternative opinions. But its the job of elected officials and law enforcement to protect both the purveyors of ugly language and those who gather to protest it.

Advertisement

Thats reality for Governor Charlie Baker and Mayor Marty Walsh. Bracing for a free speech rally that might take place Saturday on Boston Common, on Monday they held a joint press conference to send the message that while Boston, the cradle of liberty, recognizes free speech, they really hope the haters choose another time and place to exercise their rights.

They are right to be disgusted by the weekend rally in Charlottesville, Va., which was organized by white supremacists and neo-Nazis. They are right to denounce their gospel of bigotry and hatred and the domestic terrorism it spawned. James Alex Fields Jr. of Ohio, 20 years old, allegedly smashed his car into people who were protesting the nationalist rally, killing Heather Heyer, 32, and injuring at least 19 others. Thats criminal, and theres no First Amendment protection for that.

Get This Week in Opinion in your inbox:

Globe Opinion's must-reads, delivered to you every Sunday.

But trying to ban a Boston gathering undermines an underlying precept of our democracy. A corporation like Google can set the parameters of permitted speech in its workspace. Organizers of the St. Patricks Day parade can legally exclude a gay veterans group. But government cant restrict speech just because it sickens or offends others.

I dont want them here, we dont need them here, theres no reason to be here, said Walsh, about a rally planned by a mystery group whose organizers say they have nothing to do with the organizers behind the Charlottesville rally. Freedom of speech isnt about racist remarks and division, the mayor added.

Unfortunately, the mayor has it backwards. Constitutional protection is not needed so much for someone saying, I like you, said lawyer Harvey Silverglate, a staunch defender of First Amendment rights. But it assuredly is needed to protect someone who says, I hate you.

Advertisement

Just last June, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed what it called a bedrock principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend. In a case which upheld the right of a band called The Slants to trademark its racially offensive name, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.

When it comes to neo-Nazis, the right to promote their twisted thinking goes back to the 1977 case Nationalist Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. Organizers who described their group as a Nazi organization wanted to march through the streets of Skokie, Ill., which was at the time a village where over half the residents were Jewish, some survivors of Nazi concentration camps. The residents of Skokie argued the march would incite or promote hatred against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry. In the end, the Supreme Court upheld the Nazis right to march with swastikas, on the grounds that promoting religious hatred is not a reason for suppressing speech.

We can and should speak up against hate. As the Supreme Court makes clear, theres no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. With that freedom comes a heavy burden for government officials like Baker and Walsh, who must try to keep protected speech from turning into acts of violence.

Visit link:
Theres no hate speech exception to the First Amendment - The ...

In November 2015, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority (WMATA), operator of the Washington public transit (bus and Metro) system, amendedguidelines regarding commercial advertisements that it would accept for Metro cars and Metro stations. The guidelines contain 14 numbered restrictions, including these four:

Ostensibly applying these guidelines, WMATA made some rather peculiar decisions, refusing, for example, to accept advertisements from:

And, rather astonishingly, WMATA rejected an ACLU ad consisting of nothing but the text of the First Amendment (in English, Spanish and Arabic) alongside the ACLU logo (Guideline 9: intended to influence the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions (!!))

[The rejected ads can all be seen here.]

The ACLU recently filed suit on behalf of itself, Yiannopoulos, Carafem and PETA in D.C. federal district court arguing that the WMATA policy is a violation of the First Amendment both on its face and as applied to the plaintiffs. [The complaint is posted here.]*

Note * Apparently, the ACLU has taken some heat from its supporters for including Yiannopoulos as a co-plaintiff. That is unfortunate; the ACLUs habit of taking the position that speech even speech we might regard as offensive, from people we might regard as offensive is worthy of protection may be maddening at times, but it is a highly principled one, and is itself worthy of support and protection.

The plaintiffs, surely, have a strong case. On what possible grounds can WMATA defend rejecting an advertisement consisting of the text of the First Amendment? Who decides whether any particular issue is one on which there are varying opinions, and on what basis is that decision made? Why should PETAs non-commercial message (Dont eat meat) be prohibited while Burger Kings commercial message (Eat more meat)is allowed?

WMATA will undoubtedly rely heavily on Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights (1974), a case in which the Supreme Court upheld (5 to 4) a ban on all political advertising in the Shaker Heights transit system. The court there rejected the notion that the rail and bus cars constitute a public forum protected by the First Amendment with a guarantee of nondiscriminatory access to such publicly owned and controlled areas of communication.

The streetcar audience is a captive audience. It is there as a matter of necessity, not of choice. Here, we have no open spaces, no meeting hall, park, street corner, or other public thoroughfare. Instead, the city is engaged in commerce. It must provide rapid, convenient, pleasant, and inexpensive service to the commuters of Shaker Heights. The car [advertising] space, although incidental to the provision of public transportation, is a part of the commercial venture. In much the same way that a newspaper or periodical, or even a radio or television station, need not accept every proffer of advertising from the general public, a city transit system has discretion to develop and make reasonable choices concerning the type of advertising that may be displayed in its vehicles.

The level of scrutiny such governmental action would receive would be low: the choices must simply be reasonable, and the policies and practices governing access to the transit systems advertising space must not be arbitrary, capricious, or invidious.

The ACLUs complaint argues that the guidelines constitute viewpoint discrimination of a kind that was not present in Lehmanallowing messages that reflect the AMAs (or the governments) views on health-related matters, or those that reflectcommercialpositions on industry goals, while rejecting advertisements reflecting other viewpoints requires the court to engage in a more exacting First Amendment analysis.

They may well succeed in that argument. Even if they dont, though, its hard to see a a court upholding WMATAs decision here even under the relaxed reasonableness standard. To my eye, these certainly do look like the kind of arbitrary, capricious, or invidious decisions that, even under a generous reading of Lehman,WMATA, as a state actor, has to steer clear of.

Read the rest here:
First Amendment banned from DC Metro literally! - Washington Post