Mediaboss Marketing

Welcome to the weeklyCampus news of the weekroundup here atUSA TODAY College. There are around 5,000 colleges and universities in the U.S. Heres a snapshot of the most compelling stories that happened on campus around the country this week, according to student newspapers.

According to the Daily Bruin, the Los Angeles-wide minimum wage increase will have direct effects on the UCLA campus.

Along with a pay raise for campus workers, graduate student representative Patrick Adler told the Daily Bruin that students and faculty members should expect some price raises as well. The price of a cup of coffee, for example, could go up.

The Crimson White reports that the family of former University of Alabama student Megan Rondini, who committed suicide last year after being sexually assaulted in Tuscaloosa, is filing a wrongful death suit against university personnel.

Rondini was the subject of a recent Buzzfeed article about her experiences following the assault.

This undated photo provided by the University of Illinois Police Department shows Yingying Zhang, a Chinese woman from a central Illinois university town who was kidnapped. Zhang was about a month into a yearlong appointment at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign when she disappeared June 9, 2017. (Photo: Courtesy of the University of Illinois Police Department via AP)

The Daily Illini reports that the alleged kidnapper of missing scholar Yingying Zhang, Brendt Christensen, will be held without bond until his first court date July 15.

Yingying Zhang went missing June 9, and was last seen entering a black car near campus. She is presumed dead.

According to theDaily Californian, UC Berkeley is attempting to dismiss the lawsuit filed by conservative student groups following what was seen as an alleged mishandling around visiting conservative speakers on campus.

The Berkeley College Republicans and Young Americas Foundations lawsuit came after conservative writer David Horowitz was held to what they say were unfair standards when compared with non-conservative speakers.

The Daily Californian reports that the plaintiffs must respond by August 11 and UC-Berkeley will in turn have to respond by August 25.

See the original post here:
Campus news of the week: Kidnapping, the minimum wage, the First Amendment and more - USA TODAY College

Source: OrangeWebsite

Im one of the most fervent supporters of the First Amendment that you can find. I love that we Americans have a right to think, speak, and practice the way that we feel we want to. As I continue to travel to different countries, I repeatedly kiss the founding fathers in my mind for giving us the freedoms to be individuals as opposed to living in a country that is of one belief system.

That being said, I think people are losing the idea of what the First Amendment particularly, freedom of speech actually means.

According to Dictionary.com, freedom of speech is defined as the right of people to express their opinions publicly withoutgovernmental interference, subject to the laws against libel, incitementto violence or rebellion, etc.In more digestibleterms, this means that you, as a free American, can say things like, I hate my president, or, Hillary Clinton should be jailed, or, all politicians are morons who benefit from the money and ignorance of the middle class without the government coming after you. How great is that? We are allowed to freely criticize our own government. I know many of us do this on the regular; I am no silent critic of Trump in my daily life, and I definitely wasnt a silent critic of Obama either. I also am not a silent praiser when they do something worthy or praise. Either way, I can say whats on my mind about our political institutions without fear of being jailed, tortured, or killed. You can too.

Heres what freedom of speech does not mean. It does not mean that people cannot question or call you on your thoughts. If you stand in the street and say that you love Donald Trump, someone has the right to challenge you on that. They have the right to call you an idiot. Is it mean? Absolutely. Is it ridiculous that we live in such a society where insults are our main form of debate? One hundred percent, friends. But its the truth. Freedom of speech means that you, and anyone else, can challenge someone on their thoughts. It can get dicey. While you are allowed to express your thoughts, other people can express their thoughts too. Whether you disagree with them or not, they hold the same rights you do.

Nothing makes me more annoyed than when someone on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or any other social media site gets behind their keyboard, types something, and then when the heat gets high, they use, but my freedom of speech.. They say that because they have the right to free speech, they should not be challenged. That is NOT what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech simply means that Trump, Obama, Bush, or any future president that we have cannot throw you in jail or make you disappear forever because you said something hostile against the state. Freedom of speech prevents a situation like that of North Korea or China, where people are held for speaking badly of their leaders. It is not a card for you to spew your opinions without repercussions. It is not a right for you to say whatever you feel like in your daily life to other people and not be corrected. Sure, you wont be thrown in jail, but I can guarantee youll either annoy someone or youll be embarrassed when they correct you and/or tell you where to shove your rude words.

The biggest thing to remember? We are human beings. Opinions are not right and/or wrong. I could be very wrong in a lot of the things Ive written in my life. My opinions could be based on fallacies, I could be seeking information from the wrong places. Heck, I might even have opinions that are based on prejudices that I dont even see. You might be in the same boat. Life is a learning experience. Like anything in life, your words and opinions develop with you as you grow, mature, and learn. You will never stop learning or at least, I hope you never stop learning. Theres too much knowledge out there for you to know everything before death.

So the next time you see someone trying to play but my freedom of speech, or even worse, you play that game; try to remember what freedom of speech was originally made for. Originally, America was under a monarch. We created these rights so we could give ourselves the freedom we didnt have under British rule. Its fine to have opinions. Its fine to voice them. Just please remember that people can challenge you. You have the right to defend yourself too. But discourse (polite discourse, of course) and debate are what we are made of. A single, concrete mindset is the exact thing we do not want as Americans.

With free speech comes a ton of responsibility.

More here:
But the First Amendment. - Albany Times Union (blog)

Updated 19 hours ago

Ron Barber had a passion for justice, a calm demeanor and a sharp intellect a combination that served him and his clients well as he successfully argued in Pennsylvania courts for the First Amendment rights of the media and individual civil liberties.

Ron was the most gentle trial lawyer I have ever seen, said fellow partner David Strassburger, who worked with Mr. Barber on many cases at the Pittsburgh law firm of Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky. There was no fire and brimstone in him at all. His passion came through with his intellect and the words that he chose rather than the volume that he spoke them at.

Being honest about what he was saying resonated with every judge and jury he stood before.

Ronald D. Barber, 56, of Sewickley died Thursday, July 6, 2017, at West Penn Hospital in Pittsburgh of complications from prostate cancer.

Born in Fort Lewis, Wash., on Aug. 12, 1960, he was the son of Mary Barber of Sewickley and the late Alan Barber.

Mr. Barber graduated from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1988 after completing undergraduate studies at Pitt in politics and philosophy with magna cum laude honors.

He began at the Pittsburgh law firm as an associate attorney and became a partner in 2003. His career at the firm bookended a period between 1994 and 2000 when he pursued another passion teaching and served as the permanent law clerk for Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Ronald Folino.

Known for mentoring younger attorneys, Mr. Barber was an adjunct faculty member at Pitt, teaching courses on ethics, public policy and mass media.

He was a pro bono legal adviser for the university's student newspaper, The Pitt News, where he'd served as an editor while a student.

Strassburger said Mr. Barber obtained a ruling from the state Supreme Court that settlement agreements resolving claims against public agencies in this case, a civil rights suit filed against the Westmoreland County Housing Authority should be made public, even if paid with insurance money.

He successfully argued so many of those types of issues that did not result in a lot of notoriety but served to educate the bench and others about the importance of open government, Strassburger said.

He was a member of the legal committee of the Pittsburgh chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

If he saw there was a wrong that needed righted, that's what he saw as a good case, said his wife and fellow attorney, Jean Novak. He was always doing the right thing, whether or not it benefited him.

During his two-year battle with cancer, Mr. Barber participated in a trial treatment in the hope, even if it couldn't help him, it would help other people in the future, she said.

When not working on cases, Mr. Barber enjoyed hiking at Cook Forest and playing chess.

A former longtime president of the Pittsburgh Chess Club, he often visited prison inmates to teach them the game.

He thought chess was a great equalizer, and he was devoted to doing what he could to promote the game to everyone, his wife said.

There will be no viewing for Mr. Barber. A memorial service is planned for later in the summer.

In addition to his wife and mother, Mr. Barber is survived by two children, Zachary and Alexandra Barber, both of Squirrel Hill.

Memorial donations were suggested to the Look Good Feel Better Foundation, 1620 L Street NW, 12th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20036, or to Animal Friends, 562 Camp Horne Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15237.

Jeff Himler is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-836-6622, jhimler@tribweb.com or via Twitter @jhimler_news.

Precheck enrollment returns to Unity airport

GCDC executive director search put on hold

Lycippus Hardware & Supply store to be put up for public sale

Fayette County commissioner's wife receives prison term in shooting case

Irwin woman chooses trial over plea offer in child endangerment case

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Five hurt in three-vehicle Lower Burrell crash

Port Authority bus crashes into war memorial cannon

State representative Maher charged with DUI

Continue reading here:
Pittsburgh attorney fought hard for First Amendment rights, individual civil liberties - Tribune-Review

Twitter's First Amendment lawsuit against the government for limitations on National Security Letter reporting will be allowed to continue. This is good news for Twitter -- and the general public -- although it's somewhat disheartening to see things have only moved this far in the three years since the lawsuit was filed.

Reporting on NSLs is limited to "bands." A social media service receiving three NSLs has to report it as "0-499." The same goes for a service that receives 300 NSLs over the same period. Twitter is fighting to have these "bands" removed, in order to more accurately report the number of NSLs it receives.

So far, the government's arguments for leaving the bands in place have been as vague as the information tech companies are allowed to release. It asserts -- without evidence -- that reporting the actual number of NSLs (or FISA orders) will harm national security. The fact that NSLs are accompanied by indefinite gag orders grants the government an insane amount of opacity relative to the level of oversight these NSLs receive. NSLs are administrative documents the FBI (and other agencies) can issue themselves, which receive no impartial scrutiny from judges or anyone outside the issuing agency.

The government's attempt to dismiss this lawsuit has failed, so Twitter will be allowed to move forward with its First Amendment lawsuit. The opening of the opinion [PDF] makes it clear the DOJ going to need to come up with a better argument if it hopes to keep this banded opacity in place. (via Ars Technica)

The Court finds the Government has not met its high burden to overcome the strong presumption of unconstitutionality on the record before the Court. The Governments restrictions on Twitters speech are content-based prior restraints subject to the highest level of scrutiny under the First Amendment. The restrictions are not narrowly tailored to prohibit only speech that would pose a clear and present danger or imminent harm to national security. The Government argues that the limitations imposed on Twitter are necessary because disclosure of data concerning the number and type of national security legal process that it received in a time period would impair national security interests and is properly classified. However, the Government has not presented evidence, beyond a generalized explanation, to demonstrate that disclosure of the information in the Draft Transparency Report would present such a grave and serious threat of damage to national security as to meet the applicable strict scrutiny standard.

An unclassified declaration by the director of the FBI's national security branch appears to form the basis for the assertions the court finds lacking. It's basically what's covered above: the information is "properly classified" and releasing it would do damage to national security. Other arguments along the same lines are applied to granular disclosure of received FISA orders. The DOJ points out the First Amendment does not allow possessors of classified information to share it freely.

The court says this bare assertion isn't enough to overcome Twitter's valid First Amendment complaint:

[T]he Court does not agree with the Governments position that simply determining information meets the requirements for classification under Executive Order 13526 ends the Constitutional analysis. That the information is classified is not, in itself, a sufficient basis for the Governments prohibition on its disclosure

The First Amendment requires strict scrutiny of content-based restrictions and prior restraints, regardless of the Governments basis for nondisclosure.

It's not just the DOJ's public arguments that suck. The court points assertions made behind closed doors have also done nothing to justify the prior restraint.

Here, the declarations of Steinbach, both in camera and public, fail to provide sufficient details indicating that the decision to classify the information in the Draft Transparency Report was based on anything more specific than the reporting bands in section 1874 and the FBIs position that more granular information could be expected to harm national security. The declarations do not provide an indication of grave or imminent harm arising from the disclosures in the Draft Transparency Report. Rather, the concerns raised to relate to the overall concern from one or more of any electronic communication service regardless of the specific provider or circumstance. Merely declaring a view that more granular reporting would create an unacceptable risk does not make it so, especially in light of the Governments acknowledgement of the strong public interest in the information.

The government is apparently so used to receiving judicial deference it didn't bother to do much more than recite its national security mantras.

Rather, the declaration largely relies on a generic, and seemingly boilerplate, description of the mosaic theory and a broad brush concern that the information at issue will make more difficult the complications associated with intelligence gathering in the internet age.

If the DOJ has an actual, articulable reason for forbidding more precise transparency reporting, it has yet to deliver this argument to the court. However, it's had three years to do so and hasn't produced anything yet. It appears to feel the court should make with the NATSEC deference and toss the case. Now, it's actually going to need to produce some evidence that granular reporting will harm intelligence gathering or harm the nation.

The rest is here:
Judge Says Twitter Can Move Forward With First Amendment Lawsuit Over NSL Reporting Limitations - Techdirt

The grey area between questions of privacy rights and First Amendment rights were central to TheWraps panel discussion in Los Angeles Thursday night, The First Amendment In the Age of Trump and needless to say, there were plenty of issues to debate.

Brian Knappenberger, director of the documentary Nobody Speak: Trials of a Free Press, feels that Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiels secretive involvement in the Hulk Hogan/Gawker trial threatened the First Amendment rights of the free press. But the irony is that the First Amendment in part protects Thiels secrecy.

Or consider how universities have been locked in debate over whether figures like Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopoulos have the right to speak on college campuses. The First Amendment protects their right to speak, but it also protects those fighting back against that speech. Are students exercising their rights or are they suppressing debate?

Also Read: What Happens if the Media Defies White House Camera Ban?

Then theres the case of writing on the internet. Fake news, false memes and outright hate speech can be easily proliferated online, all under anonymous internet monikers. Their words have proven dangerous and made people mistrust the media, yet the First Amendment protects their anonymity.

Also Read: 'Nobody Speak' Review: Money Muzzles the Media

The talk followed a screening of Knappenbergers Netflix documentary Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press. It charts how Gawkers decision to publish Hulk Hogans sex tape led to a trial that has potentially opened the flood gates for billionaires to make news outlets they dont like disappear.

Im bothered by the secrecy of what happened here. As I understand it, what Peter Thiel did here used to be illegal, Knappenberger said during the panel discussion. Theres this notion that this can be done in secret, that a thumb can be placed on this conversation in a way that is invisible to the participants involved, invisible to the public and invisible to the jury as well. That is troubling to me.

Also Read: 'Nobody Speak' Director Compares Hulk Hogan, Gawker Trial to President Trump (Video)

But Ricardo Cestero, a partner at the law firm Greenberg Glusker, argues that the secrecy of Thiels actions is part of what the First Amendment protects.

Peter Thiel had a First Amendment right to do whatever lawfully he was allowed to do in order to shut down a publication that in his First Amendment belief wasnt worthy of continuing to exist, Cestero said. Its a jury verdict that balanced the privacy of a celebrity against the publications First Amendment right to do what it did. Peter Thiels involvement is part of what the First Amendment allows.

Cestero argues that the real issue is a flaw in our legal system rather than a failure to recognize the First Amendment. Wealthy individuals who dont like what they read or see in the media can file an arguably frivolous lawsuit, and theres no way for media companies to combat it.

Also Read: What Happens if the Media Defies White House Camera Ban?

Our legal system has gotten to the point where it is cost prohibitive for anything other than companies that are fully insured or the extraordinarily wealthy people or corporations to really litigate meaningful cases like this one, Cestero said. We as a society should look at ways to solve that problem.

Lanny J. Davis, the co-founder and partner of Davis Goldberg & Galper, reiterated how the Hulk Hogan/Gawker case mainly concerned the balance between privacy rights and First Amendment rights. He said that when we argue about First Amendment rights disappearing, we shouldnt lose sight of the fact that Terry Bollea, i.e. Hogans real name, was entitled to privacy as also protected by the Constitution.

Theres a grey area where First Amendment and privacy rights overlap, and people who are progressive need to have a balance in looking at both sides, Davis said.

Also Read: Milo Yiannopoulos Supporter Sues Berkeley for $23 Million

Davis went on to say that these rights extended to Thiels own privacy, but hes ultimately in favor of transparency in litigation. The First Amendment allows anybody to be outed and the person outed to be offended. The principle of the First Amendment is that shouldnt be subject to any penalty. But whats offensive and whats constitutional are different, he added.

David Greene is the Civil Liberties Director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and he said during the panel discussion that theres still an issue with billionaires like Thiel putting their thumbs on the scale. Greene said the verdict in the Gawker case was disproportionate to anything hes seen in a privacy case like this.

What you get when you have someone funding it is you have this concern that youll soon get this disproportion, Greene said. And our system isnt well equipped to handle that disproportion. The system that we rely on breaks just a little bit when you have this type of involvement in the cases.

Also Read: President Trump Can't Jail Journalists for Reporting Leaks - Or Can He?

So is the First Amendment under attack more now than when Trump took office? Greene feels there may not be a legal solution to the president attacking the media, but we still need to fight back against that language.

The concern I have in the rhetoric I hear now is its engendering distrust in these institutions that are so vital, Greene said. There are media institutions I like and those I dislike, but I want them all to survive, because thats the way the system works. The more people reporting the better.

Davis says all presidents have been irritated or displeased with the media. But Donald Trump is different.

The difference is Donald Trump demonizes people and creates dangerous, violent tendencies in certain extreme minded, and I think fascist oriented people, he said. We have to try and avoid attacking motives and demonizing people we disagree with. We lose the heartland of this country when we do that as opposed to civil disagreement, and keeping with our criticism of the media, which is sometimes deserved, is that we dont personalize our differences. We dont demonize our opposition. Thats what President Trump does, and thats what makes him dangerous.

Check out the whole video from Thursdays panel discussion above, Nobody Speak is available on Netflix now.

On Sunday, Donald Trump derided the use of anonymous sourcing in news stories. He also said in February that news outlets "shouldn't be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody's name." It's strange he thinks that, because he's used a lot of anonymous sources himself. Here are some examples.

Two years after President Obama released his birth certificate, Trump said it was not believable to some people."You know, some people say that was not his birth certificate," he told ABC in August 2013. "I'm saying I don't know. Nobody knows and you don't know either."

Trump said one of thesources "called myoffice."

Trump took care to describe this sourceas "extremely credible."

Trump so oftensources information to "many people" (without naming any of them) that there's a well-worn #manypeoplearesaying hashtag on Twitter.The Washington Post wrote an article about it, which includes the examples on the next three slides.

At a rally in September, a man in Trump's audience said President Obama was a Muslim and not even an American, then asked Trump to get rid of Muslim training camps.

You know, a lot of people are saying that, and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there, Trump responded.

In early January, Trump said he had heard from many Republicans worried that his rival, Sen. Ted Cruz, was born in Canada.

Id hate to see something like that get in his way, but a lot of people are talking about it, and I know that even some states are looking at it very strongly, the fact that he was born in Canada and he has had a double passport, Trump told thePost.

In May 2016, Trump told the Post what some "people" believe about the death of Vince Foster. I dont bring [Fosters death] up because I dont know enough to really discuss it, Trump said. I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they think it was absolutely a murder. I dont do that because I dont think its fair.

Soon after Trump called for an end to anonymous sourcing, The Associated Press noted, "Members of Trump's White House team regularly demand anonymity when talking to reporters."

Surprise: Trump berates the news media for doing something hes done himself

On Sunday, Donald Trump derided the use of anonymous sourcing in news stories. He also said in February that news outlets "shouldn't be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody's name." It's strange he thinks that, because he's used a lot of anonymous sources himself. Here are some examples.

Excerpt from:
Is Freedom of Expression in Danger? First Amendment Experts ... - TheWrap