Mediaboss Marketing

ABC News Pete Madden and Erin Galloway smeared Christians who believe the Bill of Rights secures religious liberty as a hate group, in an article this week headlined, Jeff Sessions addresses anti-LGBT hate group, but DOJ wont release his remarks. The lede of the story made it clear this was not just the work of a rogue headline writer but the failure of the reporters themselves:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered a speech to an alleged hate group at an event closed to reporters on Tuesday night, but the Department of Justice is refusing to reveal what he said.

First, a note that you can and should read the prepared remarks of the Attorney General here at The Federalist.

Who is this hate group? Alliance Defending Freedom is not a hate group at all, but a civil liberties organization that battles for religious liberty. And theyre not a fringe group either. They just weeks ago won their most recent Supreme Court victory Trinity Lutheran v. Comer 7-2. It was their fifth Supreme Court victory in seven years, during which time theyve had no losses at the high court.

And the group is ranked among the top law firms in the country for its successes at the Supreme Court.

Most recently the non-profit law firm found out that the Supreme Court agreed to hear another one of their cases dealing with artistic freedom and religious liberty.

To characterize such an accomplished civil rights group as a hate group is unacceptable and inexcusable. It boggles the mind why ABC News, in the midst of cratering credibility, would disparage Christian efforts in favor of religious liberty in such a mendacious way.

How in the world did this happen?

Well, for some reason ABC News chose to wholly adopt the Southern Poverty Law Centers framing for the significance of the attorney generals speech to the group. Check it out:

Heres why reporters such as Pete Madden and Erin Galloway should be wary before slightly rewriting SPLC press releases and passing off the work as their own. SPLC previously had a reservoir of credibility based on a history of good work exposing legitimately nefarious individuals and groups. In recent years, however, that reservoir has all but dried up as SPLC has gone after reasonable groups it merely disagrees with politically but labels as hate groups. It engages in this campaign while ignoring serious problems on the left.

SPLC has the gall to list the Family Research Council as a hate group, for instance, even after an SPLC follower used an SPLC hate map to locate the Family Research Council offices in Washington, D.C., and commit an act of terrorism and attempted mass murder against the group. Thankfully, the SPLC-inspired terrorist was stopped by the security guard he shot when he arrived. Read all about that incident here.

The most recent attempted assassination by a left-wing terrorist was also a follower of SPLC. As Jeryl Bier wrote in the Wall Street Journal, The Insidious Influence of the SPLC: Its branding of hate groups and individuals is biased, sometimes falseand feeds polarization.

Last week the SPLC found itself in the awkward position of disavowing the man who opened fire on Republican members of Congress during baseball practice. Were aware that the SPLC was among hundreds of groups that the man identified as the shooter liked on Facebook, SPLC president Richard Cohen said in a statement. I want to be as clear as I can possibly be: The SPLC condemns all forms of violence.

Its not just Christians who SPLC targets. SPLC also faces legal action for placing British Muslim author and counter-extremism activist Maajid Nawaz on an anti-Muslim hate list.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has put my name on a list that calls me an anti-Muslim extremist. I am the only Muslim on the list. This list has smeared my name and possibly put me in physical danger. This is a message to those who think they can throw around damning labels like Islamophobe racist and Nazi without any evidence and simply get away with it.

You can read more about Nawazs plight here at The Atlantic.

ABC News can certainly quote the Southern Poverty Law Centers extreme views, but it shouldnt build a story around the wholesale acceptance of their flawed premises. That turns journalism into anti-religious propaganda on behalf of a partisan group. Media outlets do not want to be perceived as enemies of average Americans. They should avoid giving people reason to view them as just that.

More:
ABC News: Christians Who Believe In The First Amendment Are A 'Hate Group' - The Federalist

AUGUSTA, Maine. (WABI) A little rain didn't stop kids from having fun at a week-long summer camp held at Viles Arboretum in Augusta.

Combining a nature camp with hands-on experiences that teach campers about being an active citizen, the 'Speak Your Mind' camp isn't your typical summer getaway.

Campers in Augusta are keeping their minds and bodies active on summer break. While the rain kept kids inside Thursday, they continued working on a mural depicting the five freedoms afforded to Americans by the first amendment.

"There happened to be five kids and five freedoms within the first amendment so they've each chosen a person to represent each of those. So we're in the process of painting that and that's one of our end projects," said Abigail Stratton, amp organizer from Children's Discovery Museum.

Ranging from ages six to eleven, these kids are getting the traditional summer camp experience by meeting new friends, participating in arts and crafts activities, as well as hiking and gaining a stronger appreciation for nature on less rainy days.

But they're also learning more about why the freedom of religion, the press, free speech, and the right to petition and assemble are so valuable as a citizen of this country at this new camp program offered by the Gannet House Project First Amendment Museum and the Children's Discovery Museum.

"It's important because it gives people the freedom to do things without the government telling them they can't or they have to do this or that," said Adelle MacLeay, a 9-year-old camper from Rome.

They're also exploring how to take ownership of their opinions by learning how to write letters to editors on topics and issues that are important to them, such as...

"How girls can change the way boys think of girls and to not let it bother girls," said Shee Sculli, a 10-year-old camper from Pittston.

"My cause is to stop polluting the water because some people like to fish in the water and if we keep polluting the water then there won't be any more fish," said Zuri Voorhees, an 11-year-old camper from Augusta.

Campers also drew themselves however they like accompanied by their favorite hobbies and interests.

"I made it out of tons of animal parts because I really like animals and they're my favorite thing in the whole wide world," said Michael, a six-year-old camper from Winslow.

While the camp's first year was a bit light in attendance, it fulfilled the intentions of organizers by giving kids the opportunity to express their opinions and ideas through storytelling, artwork, and writing.

"I would say it's been a great success so I think we could see this going forward," said Rebecca Lazure, camp organizer from Gannett House Project First Amendment Museum.

Here is the original post:
Kids Learn Importance of First Amendment at 'Speak Your Mind' Summer Camp - WABI

Official DHS photo by Jetta Disco.

It is where he inveighs against FAKE NEWS, promotes his television appearances, and trumpets his administrations accomplishments. Its also where he reports on meetings with world leaders, discusses policy positions, and announced his choice for FBI Director. President Donald Trumps Twitter feed is the epicenter of a new-age White House communications strategy that has earned the oft-repeated label unprecedented.

Whether Trumps demeanor in the messages he posts is presidential is debatable, but his own spokespeople have made clear that his tweets constitute official statements. Not everyone, however, can see those statements or participate in the discussion that occurs in the replies.

On Tuesday, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed a lawsuit against Trump and two of his top advisors on behalf of seven people who have been blocked from viewing tweets by the presidents @realDonaldTrump account. Attorneys at the Knight Institute argue that Trumps blocking of users who have criticized him amounts to viewpoint-based exclusion, which is not allowed under the First Amendment.

President Trumps Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump, has become an important source of news and information about the government, and an important public forum for speech by, to, and about the President. In an effort to suppress dissent in this forum, Defendants have excludedblockedTwitter users who have criticized the President or his policies. This practice is unconstitutional, the federal suit alleges.

The case raises complicated questions about how to apply constitutional principles written in a time of pamphlets and town square debates to the realities of the Facebook and Twitter era. Skeptics might say that blocking someone on Twitter doesnt make it impossible for that person to see tweets. He or she can simply sign out of that account or create a different one. Blocking adds a barrier to entry, to be sure, but its not an insurmountable obstacle. Additionally, as anyone who spends time on Twitter knows, comments on the platform can be crude, distasteful, and even scary, and blocking trolls allows for some measure of control over the people with whom you interact.

But attorneys at the Knight Institute have put forward a series of arguments that make a compelling case for thinking differently. They are not arguing that we redefine Twittera privately owned social media platformwrit large as a virtual town square where all voices are welcome. Rather, they claim that because of the way the President and his aides use the @realDonaldTrump Twitter account, the account is a public forum under the First Amendment.

If the presidents feed is defined as a public forum, citizens cannot be excluded from viewing his statements and engaging in discussions simply because they disagree. The lawsuit alleges that Trump, along with Press Secretary Sean Spicer and Social Media Director Dan Scavino, have violated the First Amendment rights of seven Americans who were blocked soon after criticizing or mocking the president, and that the block infringes on the plaintiffs First Amendment right to petition their government for redress of grievances.

When [government officials] open up a space and allow the general public to come in and comment in that space, whether a city council meeting or a Facebook page, that is a designated public forum, Katie Fallow, a senior attorney at the Knight Institute, tells CJR. The courts have held that when you do that, you cant then exclude people based on viewpoint. The Knight Institute, which has not been blocked by Trumps account, is also a plaintiff in the suit. It argues that users who arent blocked are being deprived of their right to read the speech of the dissenters.

The reaction from legal experts last month to the Knight Institutes letter declaring its intent to sue was mixed, with some supporting the effort and others arguing the plaintiffs had a tough legal hill to climb. But in the weeks since, the Supreme Court issued a decision in which Justice Anthony Kennedy described social media as the modern public square.

Trump recently referred to his use of social media as modern day presidential. It will now be left to the courts to decide whether that requires a modern day update to First Amendment protections.

Continued here:
Can Donald Trump block you? A First Amendment group is suing to find out. - Columbia Journalism Review

The Affordable Care Act raises myriad constitutional problems. The Supreme Courthasheld that the commerce clause does not provide Congress with thepower to enact the individual mandate. The Court also invalidated, under the spending clause, provisions that required states to expand medicaid coverage or lose all federal medicaid funds.

But what about Obamacares First Amendment problem? A little-known portion of the law requires restaurants and grocery stores to provide calorie counts on menu items. As I explain on Fa on First, years of research showthat menu labeling does not change what people order in any significant way. Whats more, Obamacares menu labeling requirement may actuallymake it harder for restaurants to offer healthier options. To comply, restaurants that want to offer healthier items must paythousands of dollars first to a lab to test the food, and then to a printing company to print new menus.

In thiscomment letter, PLF informed the Food and Drug Administration that the menu labeling requirement violates the First Amendment. The First Amendment not only appliesto laws that censor speech, but also to laws that compel speech. At a minimum, laws that force people to speak must directly advance a substantial governmental interest. The menu labeling requirement doesnt do that. Rather, it forces restaurants and grocery stores to bear the costs of a law that, if anything, could decrease the number of healthy options they can provide to their consumers.

Good news may be on the way. The FDA has already decided to delay the implementation of the menu labeling rule.This administration may decide to scrap it altogether. If not, yet another constitutional challenge to Obamacare could be on its way.

See original here:
Obamacare's First Amendment problem - PLF Liberty Blog - Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) (press release) (blog)

Two months ago, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri was prepared to take the Hazelwood School District to court for suspending dozens of students who walked out in protest for unionized teachers.

Now, the district and ACLU are holding a community workshop together about the First Amendment in schools.

According to the district's website, the workshop will be held on Monday, July 31 from 6-8 p.m. at the Hazelwood administration building, which is at 15955 New Halls Ferry Road.

The suspensions of about 200 Hazelwood West High students in May sparked outcry from students, parents and civil rights activistswho viewed the incident as a violation of freedom of speech. The district, on the other hand, said the walkout was not peaceful and that students had been running and cursing during it. After three days of heavy community pressure,the district rescinded thesuspensions.

In 1988, Hazelwood was the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court case about freedom of speech in schools, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. The court then ruled that school officials could exercise editorial control over the student newspaper and student speech so long as it was "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."

The workshop's speakers include Hazelwood Superintendent Nettie Collins-Hart, ACLU of Missouri Executive Director Jeffrey Mittman and two Washington University School of Law professors: Gregory Maragian and Eric Miller. The event will be moderated by alumnus Reece Ellis, who graduated from Hazelwood East High this year.

Shake off your afternoon slump with the offbeat or overlooked news of the day.

View original post here:
Hazelwood Schools to host First Amendment workshop with ACLU - STLtoday.com