Mediaboss Marketing

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill will celebrate its ninth-annual First Amendment Day on Tuesday, Sept. 26. This campus-wide, daylong event is designed to both celebrate the First Amendment and explore its role in the lives of Carolina students. Students and other members of the university community will read from banned books, sing controversial music, and discuss the public universitys special role as a marketplace of ideas and the need to be tolerant when others exercise their rights. As always, First Amendment Day is observed during National Banned Books Week.

First Amendment Day is organized by the UNC Center for Media Law and Policyand is truly one of the highlights of the year for the UNC community. Follow the festivities on Twitter via#UNCFree.

Help us kick off Carolinas ninth-annual First Amendment Day!

Several members of the Carolina community will speak about our First Amendment freedoms and the value of those freedoms to UNCs mission, to our democracy, and to ourselves.

These are the people who will speak:

This event was organized by UNC School of Media and Journalism Associate Professor Michael Hoefges.

Ethics and the First Amendment in Conflict: A Student Debate Reese News Lab in the basement of Carroll Hall 11:00 am - 12:15 pm

The UNC Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl Team will debate two timely ethical issues related to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

The first issue concerns the moral limits of comedy. On the one hand, the First Amendment suggests comedians should be allowed to say anything they want in order to get a laugh. However, a great deal of comedy is offensive to certain people or groups, so there is a concern that by allowing comedians to say offensive things, we are condoning harm to certain groups. What should be done?

The second issue is the limits of religious freedom in the U.S. military. The debaters will consider the case of a Sikh man whose religious commitments involve wearing a turban and not cutting his hair. The question is whether he should be granted exemptions from military policies that require him to violate his religious commitments.

These are the debaters:

The teams coach is Ian Cruise, a graduate student in UNCs philosophy department.

The Future of Free Expression? A Panel Discussion on the "Campus Free Speech Act" Classroom 5046, UNC School of Law 12:00 pm - 12:50 pm

Join us on First Amendment Day at the UNC School of Law for a discussion on Session Law 2017-196, titled An Act To Restore and Preserve Free Speech On the Campuses of the Constituent Institutions of the University of North Carolina.

This recently enacted law affects free expression on campus in multiple ways. Interested in how? Join us to hear a panel of extremely knowledgeable people discuss and debate the ramifications of this new law. Pizza will be served, courtesy of the wonderful UNC Center for Media Law and Policy!

Panelists will include:

Check back soon for more information about the event and the panelists!

Banned Book Reading Front steps of Manning Hall 12:30 pm - 2:30 pm

Come out to hear members of the Coalition of Youth Librarians (COYL) and others from the UNC School of Information and Library Science (SILS) support your right to read! The members of COYL all graduate students in SILS have organized a reading of childrens and adult books that have been banned from school and public libraries.

SILS Dean Gary Marchionini will be the opening reader.

Investigative Reporting: Breaking the Marines United Story Reese News Lab in the basement of Carroll Hall 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm

Thomas Brennan, a Marine Corps sergeant who retired in 2012 and became an investigative journalist, will discuss how he broke the nude photo sharing scandal in the military earlier this year, forcing Pentagon and Congressional investigations and changimg the law governing sexual exploitation in the Department of Defense. Brennan, who now lives in Jacksonville, N.C., will explain how he reported and sourced the Marines United story, and how he responded to criticism.

Brennan holds a masters degree in investigative journalism from Columbia University and is the founder of The War Horse, a nonprofit newsroom that covers the U.S. Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs. His work has been published in The New York Times, Vanity Fair, and the Center for Investigative Reporting, among others publications. He and combat journalist Finbarr OReilly co-authored the memoir Shooting Ghosts, which the Kirkus book review website called a courageous breaking of the code of silence to seek mental health for veterans and the war-scarred. For more information about Brennan and his work, visit Shooting Ghosts.

This event was organized by The Daily Tar Heel and is sponsored by Reese News Lab.

Who Can Speak at Carolina? The State of Free Expression at UNC Room 33, Carroll Hall 2:00 pm - 3:15 pm

UNC students returning to campus this fall have witnessed a remarkable series of debates about student expression at Carolina. After a march by white nationalists in Charlottesville, Va., resulted in the death of a counter-protestor, fears that UNCs Silent Sam could encourage similar violence prompted campus officials to enact new rules about assembly near the statue, among pleas and protests by some that Silent Sam be removed altogether. Not long after, UNC officials denied a request by white nationalist Richard Spencer to speak on campus. Students were also excluded from a recent meeting by the UNC Board of Governors, which decided to prohibit the UNC Center for Civil Rights and the students working for it from engaging in litigation. The environment has created challenging conversations both inside and outside UNC classrooms. In this panel, students will explore the state of student expression on the UNC campus as well as efforts by state officials to monitor and influence campus expression.

These are some of the panelists:

A Bumpy Ride: How UNCs Student Journalists Are Navigating Todays Media Landscape Freedom Forum Conference Center on the Third Floor of Carroll Hall 3:30 pm - 4:45 pm

UNC student journalists from The Daily Tar Heel, Carolina Week and other student publications will discuss how they and their work are affected by negative public opinion about the national media; the ability of government officials to bypass traditional media and communicate directly with the public through social media; advertisers increasing use of social media; and more.

These are the student journalists who will participate in this panel discussion:

The moderator will be Torin Edwards, a junior double majoring in information science and multimedia journalism. He is from Apex.

Carolina Ukulele Ensemble Room 111, Carroll Hall 6:30 pm - 7:00 pm

The Carolina Ukulele Ensemble, which claims to be the happiest group on campus, will perform for 30 minutes prior to the First Amendment Day keynote address. Beginning as a small gathering of students meeting weekly to jam on the quad in 2010, over the years the group developed into the audition-based ensemble it is today. Playing anything from 70s funk to 90s R&B, the ensemble is all about challenging what can and should be played on a ukulele.

Come and help celebrate your right to make music!

You can see a performance here.

Bill Adair: The Enemy of the American People and the Future of a Free Press Room 111, Carroll Hall 7:00 pm - 8:15 pm

Before the keynote address, Chancellor Carol Folt will make brief remarks about free expression at Carolina.

The 2017 First Amendment Day keynote speaker will be Bill Adair, the Knight Professor of the Practice of Journalism & Public Policy and director of the DeWitt Wallace Center for Media and Democracy at Duke University.

One of 25 Knight Chairs at universities around the country, Adairs research and teaching focuses on fact-checking and new forms of journalism.

The creator of the Pulitzer Prize-winning website PolitiFact, Adair has been recognized as a leader in new media and accountability journalism. He worked for 24 years as a reporter and editor for the Tampa Bay Times (formerly the St. Petersburg Times) and served as the papers Washington Bureau Chief from 2004 to 2013. He launched PolitiFact in 2007 and built it into the largest fact-checking effort in history, with affiliates in 11 states. In 2013, he managed the sites first international expansion with the launch of PolitiFact Australia.

Adair has lectured about fact-checking and new media at conferences and universities around the world. He has made hundreds of appearances on television and radio on programs such as the Today Show, Nightline, Morning Edition, All Things Considered, Reliable Sources, C-SPANs Washington Journal and the Colbert Report.

His awards include the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting (with the PolitiFact staff), the Manship Prize for New Media in Democratic Discourse and the Everett Dirksen Award for Distinguished Coverage of Congress.

First Amendment Trivia Contest Lindas Bar and Grill 8:00 pm - 10:30 pm

What rights are explicitly protected by the First Amendment? Which U.S. Supreme Court justice said obscenity was difficult to define but I know it when I see it? Enter the trivia contest and test your knowledge of this most important Constitutional amendment.

If you dont want to compete, come to watch and enjoy the fun. You do not need to be 21. There will be prizes! The contest MC will beRockin Rhonda Gibson, whose day job is teachinginthe UNC School of Media and Journalism. This event is being organized byKyla Garrett Wagner, a Ph.D. student in the UNC School of Media and Journalism.

Read more here:
First Amendment Day 2017 - UNC Center for Media Law and Policy

August 24 at 6:24 PM

Regarding the Aug. 23 Metro article Crisis vaults McAuliffe into spotlight:

It is outrageous for Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) to assert that the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia bears some responsibility for the violence in Charlottesville. The citys decision to revoke the permit for Jason Kessler to hold a rally in Emancipation Park was a prior restraint on free speech. The Supreme Court said prior restraint is the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.

Prior restraint can be justified only if government places reasonable limitations on the time, place and manner of the speech. It was the citys burden to show that revoking the permit for Emancipation Park and granting a permit for McIntire Park met these standards. The federal court said the city failed to do so.

The ACLU finds Mr. Kesslers views loathsome. To suggest that Mr. Kesslers speech was not entitled to First Amendment protection would eviscerate the First Amendment. As Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. reaffirmed: The idea that the government may restrict speech expressing ideas that offend ... strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. 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.

David A. Drachsler, Alexandria

The writer is a member of the Litigation Screening Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia.

Read the original post:
The ACLU was practicing a core First Amendment duty - Washington Post

In this day in age, if an employee has something to say, they should be able to say it, right? Not exactly. One Google employee recently learned the hard way when he was fired after writing and circulating a memo where he criticized the companys diversity efforts.

When the memo went public on August 5th, women and under-represented groups in tech criticized it andGoogle denounced it. But, after Google fired the engineer claiming hed violated the companys code of conduct, things changed. Some people appalled that someone could lose his job for expressing dissent, while some took to Twitter discussing the topic of free speech.

However, the First Amendment only protects the publics right to free speech from government censorship, and not corporate censorship. One of the reasons that a private employer can censor speech is because the First Amendment does not cover private entities as it is limited only to government federal, state and local.

Veronica Nannis, a partner with Joseph Greenwald & Laake focusing on qui tam litigation and whistleblower rights, sat down with IPWatchdog to discuss the question controversial topic of free speech in the workplace.

Private employers are typically allowed to censor speech that occurs on the job. The First Amendment does not cover them, she explained. They are also allowed to censor speech or activity that discriminates against, creates a hostile work environment or harasses another employee. In that regard, and as with all our rights, our right to free speech generally ends where another persons rights begin.

An employees off-the-clock, private, political or religious activities are protected by both federal and state discrimination laws, but once political speech enters the work place, a private employer may legally discipline or fire an employee for such proselytizing in many cases, per Nannis. The gray areas in between are times when you need to seek consultation with an employment attorney in your state.

As it related to the Google incident, it was first reported that a memo authored by a Google employee, titledGoogles Ideological Echo Chamber, was being circulated among Google employees. Later that day, the memo was obtained by the media and made public. The memos author was identified in the press as a senior employee named James Damore. In the memo, Damore criticized the efforts of tech companies, Google included, to employ programs and hiring practices concentrating on diversity. Specifically, Damore was critical of tech company initiatives which had the goal of recruiting and employing female engineers.

The crux of Damores critique was that the reason for the low number of women in the tech industry was not something that could be countered by policies promoting diversity through recruitment, education, or anti-discrimination measures, explained Nannis. Rather the reason there are so few women in the tech field is due to biological differences, including higher agreeableness and more neuroticism, that leave women less well-equipped to perform the work that tech jobs demand.

The media coverage sparked debate, some outrage, and a focus on Googles culture, among other things. After days of the media firestorm, Google had terminated Damores employment. Googles CEO, Sundar Pichai, stated, in an email published by the Washington Post, that although Google strongly supported the rights of its employees to express themselves and debate issues like those discussed in Damores memo, To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct. Pichai reiterated that point by stating that portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. For his part, Damore stated, as reported in the Financial Times, that he is currently exploring all possible legal remedies. Damore also stated that prior to his employment being terminated, he had filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board and that its illegal to retaliate against a NLRB charge.

According to Nannis, while whistleblowers are protected under various state and federal laws and retaliation laws can protect employees who file complaints or grievances, Google explained that the company could not have retaliated against Damore, because it was unaware of his NLRB complaint until news of the same was reported in the media after his dismissal.

Anti-retaliation laws generally require the employer to have known about the complaint and to have fired the employee, at least in part, due to it, she said.

So, how can employees protect themselves from incidents like Googles in the future?

Know your rights, be sensitive to others rights and know your employers rights too. Many states, including Maryland where I practice and California where Google is located, are at-will employment states, she explained. An at-will state means that, absent a contract, certain union protection, legal prohibition or public policy, an employer can demote or fire an employee for any reason,or no reason at all. If you live in an at-will state, your private employer does not need a reason to fire you. So, while an employee can speak at will, a private employer can fire at will as well.

In addition, Nannis advises to look to see if there are any state laws protecting private employer censorship of speech for non-work related activities. California is one of a handful of states, including Colorado, New York and North Dakota, where there are laws protecting limited out-of-work speech.

She added, If the Google employee had given an off-the-clock speech about his political views as may relate to IT and he had not mentioned Google by name, he would have had a stronger defense under California law, and Google might have had a harder time firing him for out-of-work activities. However, without the protection of one of these exceptions, an employee in an at-will state risks firing when he or she speaks out in a way that displeases their private employer.

Amanda G. Ciccatelli is a Freelance Journalist for IPWatchdog, where she covers intellectual property. She earned a B.A. in Communications and Journalism from Central Connecticut State University in 2010. Amanda is also currently the Lead Strategist of Content Marketing, Social Media & Digital Products at Informa, a leading global business intelligence, academic publishing, knowledge and events business. She also works as a Freelance Journalist for Inside Counsel. Amanda was formerly a Web Editor at Technology Marketing Corporation. Follow her at @AmandaCicc.

Go here to read the rest:
Are Corporate Employees Protected by the First Amendment? - IPWatchdog.com

Recently in Charlottesville, Va., the 'Southern strategy' veil was lifted again. White supremacy born out of hatred, bigotry and profound ignorance resulted in chaos, violence and death again!

Fundamentalists like the Huckabee crowd, Robertson's, Falwell's, Bannon's and maybe some of you will offer the usual rationalizations, moral equivalencies and justifications. The fundamentalist right have hijacked the First Amendment to preach their filth of hate and bigotry.

The most dominant flag at this sickening display in Charlottesville was the Confederate flag. The Star Spangled Banner, our beautiful symbol, is flown around the world as a beacon of freedom, hope and decency; something not one of these terrorists would understand, including President Trump. No matter what Trump says he cannot explain away being intellectually and morally destitute.

Please proceed, Special Counsel Bob Mueller. You sir, are a Vietnam combat decorated Marine. You have had your skin in the game, fighting for flag and country. Leave no stone unturned and no one left behind. Justice and decency must prevail!

Jenson lives in Detroit Lakes, Minn.

Read the rest here:
Letter: The right has hijacked the First Amendment to preach hate ... - INFORUM

Are statues that are offensive, reminding us of our racist history, protected under the First Amendment? As repugnant and politically incorrect as these statues may be, any attempt to force their removal would seem to constitute a violation of their First Amendment protections. Why, because these statues seem to be protected under what the courts have ruled to be protected symbolic speech.

Most forms of spoken or written speech are protected by the Constitutions First Amendment, particularly political expression. However, certain speech is not protected. For example, fighting words or speech aimed clearly at inciting violence; libel; obscenity; threats; false advertising in business (but allowed in political campaigns) are not protected speech.

Although the constitutional framers were silent on protecting symbolic speech, the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled to protect symbolic speech in Stromberg v. California in 1931 when the court ruled against a California law that forbade protesters from displaying a red flag as a symbol of opposition to organized government.

Since 1931, the concept of symbolic speech has been expanded by federal court rulings to cover a broader array of messaging considered a form of speech or expression. Protected symbolic speech may convey messages through sit-ins, protest signs, armbands, badges, flag burning, and all sorts of artistic expression such as dance, theater, paintings, photographs and statuary.

Today, our society is clashing over the removal of certain statuary that proponents of removal argue remind us of our racist past, even celebrating it. It is completely understandable why certain groups, especially African-Americans, would deem such statuary offensive and push for its removal. The problem is that the statue of, say, Robert E. Lee might be offensive, but being offensive, according to federal court decisions, is not reason enough to allow for the removal of such statues under the First Amendment.

The display of a Robert E. Lee statue by itself is unlikely to cause a riot any more than a gun by itself is likely to kill someone. Consequently, it seems that federal court decisions for the past 86 years would suggest that controversial Confederate statuary constitutes protected symbolic speech, regardless of the offensive messaging.

As a liberal, I am frustrated by my liberal friends who want it both ways. They want to use the First Amendment to protect their speech, writings and artistic expressions, but they oppose allowing the other side their right of freedom of expression.

For instance, last January, U.S. Rep. William Lacy Clay defended a painting on a Capitol wall as constitutionally protected artistic expression. The artist was a local high school student who created rather negative, piglike images of police as they confronted Ferguson protesters. Some felt the painting was offensive because it denigrated police, including Republican U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, who decided to remove it from the wall. There was outrage over its removal with Clay and mostly other liberals, including myself, arguing that this young artist had a right to express his feelings through his painting under the First Amendment.

But where are these defenders of this artwork now? Lets face it, we are a bunch of hypocrites arguing that speech should be protected when we want our messages advanced, but quick to condemn freedom of expression when we do not like the message. This is a natural human inclination, but it does not pass the legal scrutiny of our federal courts.

In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Courts Justice William Brennan ruled that flag burning, as offensive as it may be, constitutes symbolic speech that is constitutionally protected, reasoning that the government may not prohibit expression simply because it disagrees with its message.

It should not be forgotten that the ACLU lost many of its members, especially Jewish members, after the ACLU successfully defended the right of a neo-Nazi group to march in Skokie, Ill., displaying very offensive Nazi images such as swastikas. However, the ACLU placed constitutional principle before their membership interests, and did the right thing. The ACLU acknowledged how repugnant to its organization this neo-Nazi march would be, but they argued that they had no choice, as advocates of civil liberties, but to support the constitutional right of these neo-Nazis to march.

President Jimmy Carter also said at the time: I must respect the decision of the Supreme Court allowing this group to express their views, even when those views are despicable and ugly.

Kenneth F. Warren is a professor of political science at St. Louis University.

View post:
Offensive statues should be protected under First Amendment - STLtoday.com