Mediaboss Marketing

Miami Herald

Do we still believe in free speech? Only until we disagree Miami Herald I do think the First Amendment tradition is under siege, said Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Pamela Geller, a firebrand commentator and founder of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, added, Freedom ... and more »

See the article here:
Do we still believe in free speech? Only until we disagree - Miami Herald

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, the First Amendment Center of the Newseum Institute released the results of its State of the First Amendment survey, which examines Americans' views on freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition, and samples their opinions on contemporary First Amendment issues. The survey, conducted this year in partnership with Fors Marsh Group, an applied research company, has been published annually since 1997, reflecting Americans' changing attitudes toward their core freedoms.

The results of the 2017 survey show that, despite coming out of one of the most politically contentious years in U.S. history, most Americans remain generally supportive of the First Amendment. When asked if the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees, 69 percent of survey respondents disagreed.

However, there are ideological divisions in attitudes toward the First Amendment, with liberals and conservatives disagreeing on the amount of protection the First Amendment should provide in certain scenarios. Conservatives were more likely than liberals to believe that those who leak information should be prosecuted and that the government should be able to hold Muslims to a higher level of scrutiny. However, liberals were more likely than conservatives to think that colleges should be able to ban speakers with controversial views.

This year, 43 percent of Americans agreed that news media outlets try to report the news without bias a significant improvement from only 23 percent in 2016. However, a majority of Americans (53 percent) expressed a preference for news information that aligns with their own views, demonstrating that many Americans may not view "biased" news in a negative light. The 2017 survey also attempted to assessthe impact of the "fake news" phenomenon. Approximately 70 percent of Americans did not think that fake news reports should be protected by the First Amendment, and about one-third (34 percent) reported a decrease in trust in news obtained from social media.

Regarding freedom of religion, 59 percent of Americans believe that religious freedom should apply to all religious groups, even those widely considered as "extreme" or fringe. The age group least likely to agree with this is Americans between the ages of 18 and 29: Just 49 percent of them supported protection for all religious faiths, compared to over 60 percent for every other age group.

On free speech, 43 percent of Americans felt that colleges should have the right to ban controversial campus speakers.Those who strongly agreed or disagreed with this tended to be current students and/or activists (people who had participated in political actions over the past year, such as signing a petition or attending a protest) on both sides of the political spectrum.Other Americans even those in the 18 to 29-year-old millennial demographic were more lukewarm on this issue.

"We were glad to find that most Americans still support the First Amendment, although it's troubling that almost one in four think that we have too much freedom," said Lata Nott, executive director of the First Amendment Center. "It's also troubling that even people who support the First Amendment in the abstract often dislike it when it's applied in real life."

The 2017 survey was conducted and supported by Fors Marsh Group, and contributing support provided by the Gannett Foundation.

Click here to view the complete survey.

ABOUT THE NEWSEUM INSTITUTE'S FIRST AMENDMENT CENTERThe Newseum Institute's First Amendment Center is a forum for the study and exploration of issues related to free expression, religious freedom, and press freedom, and an authoritative source of information, news, and analysis of these issues. The Center provides education, information and entertainment to educators, students, policy makers, legal experts, and the general public. The Center is nonpartisan and does not lobby, litigate or provide legal advice. The Newseum Institute promotes the study, exploration and education of the challenges confronting freedom through its First Amendment Center and the Religious Freedom Center. The Newseum is a 501(c)(3) public charity funded by generous individuals, corporations and foundations, including the Freedom Forum. For more information, visit newseuminstitute.org or follow us on Twitter.

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/first-amendment-center-releases-2017-state-of-the-first-amendment-survey-results-300481542.html

SOURCE Newseum Institutes First Amendment Center

http://www.newseuminstitute.org

Here is the original post:
First Amendment Center Releases 2017 State of the First ... - PR Newswire (press release)

At a time in American politics when there is creeping advocacy for limits on offensive speech, it was reassuring to see a Supreme Court united in its reaffirming of the First Amendment.

The court ruled 8-0 that even trademarks considered to be derogatory are constitutionally protected forms of speech. The case before the court involved a musician who wanted to trademark his Asian-American rock bands name: The Slants.

The Patent and Trademark Office in 2011 declined the request, citing a federal law that prohibits the registration of any trademark that may disparage ... or bring ... into contempt[t] or disrepute any persons, living or dead.

The justices not only were unanimous in striking down the law and siding with the band, they did so on broad free-speech grounds, with Justices Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy writing in robust support of the First Amendment and against government attempts to censor unpopular opinions.

It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend, Alito wrote.

Kennedy referenced the few categories of speech that the government can regulate or punish fraud, defamation or incitement before asserting: A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all.

Kennedys points resound in this age of attempts on campuses to silence invited speakers, college students seeking safe spaces from opinions contrary to their own, and with some alarming constitutional ignorance from people who should know better.

For example, in 2015 CNN journalist Chris Cuomo, who has a law degree, tweeted out: Hate speech is excluded from protection by the First Amendment. In April, Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor, presidential candidate and chair of the Democratic National Committee, tweeted: Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment (sic). In May, Ted Wheeler, the mayor of Portland, Oregon, urged the government not to issue permits to alt-right groups to demonstrate in public because hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that hate speech, no matter how bigoted or offensive, is free speech. Over the years it has upheld the rights of the Ku Klux Klan to march in public and the Westboro Baptist Church to picket the funerals of fallen soldiers with signs that display homophobic slurs. In order for speech to be lawfully banned, it must be a direct threat or inciting imminent lawless action.

The Supreme Courts decision almost certainly also applies to a more widely known case involving the NFLs Washington Redskins, whose trademarks were canceled in 2014 following complaints from Native Americans. But the justices struck a much larger blow against the pernicious idea that government can censor ideas based solely on their objectionable content.

This editorial was published by the Daytona Beach News Journal, a sister newspaper of the Daily News in Gatehouse Media.

Read the original post:
EDITORIAL: Court upholds free speech - The Northwest Florida Daily News

A City of Seattle Democracy Voucher belonging to the wife of Mark Elste, a plaintiff in a new lawsuit challenging Seattle's first-in-the-nation voucher system for publicly financing political campaigns. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

A new lawsuit is challenging Seattles first-in-the-nation voucher system.

Under the program, Seattle voters in 2015 decided to tax themselves $3 million a year in exchange for a $100 in vouchers that they can sign over to candidates.

The cost of the system is estimated to be about $11 and 50-cents per homeowner each year. A federal lawsuit filed on Wednesday by the Pacific Legal Foundation says it forces people to pay taxes to support candidates they dont necessarily agree with.

Part of human dignity is controlling what we believe, said Ethan Blevins, Attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation. So when we are forced to support values that grade against our own sense of right or wrong that strikes at the core of who we are. Thats what the First Amendment seeks to protect.

They call it a violation of the First Amendment, which guarantees not just right to speak freely but not speak. They feel that forcing homeowners to pay for these political donations is forcing them to speak politically with their money.

Supporters say its a novel way to counter the effect of big money in politics and gives lesser-known candidates a chance to be heard.

Continue reading here:
Lawsuit: Seattle democracy vouchers violate First Amendment - MyNorthwest.com

by Jaclyn Driscoll, Fox Illinois

A rally for religious liberty was held Wednesday because some Catholics say their first amendment rights have not and are not being protected. (WRSP)

A rally for religious liberty was held Wednesday because some Catholics say their first amendment rights have not and are not being protected.

"There's so many threats to religious freedom, from the redefinition of marriage and transgender issues, that we're dealing with a lot of issues at the same time," said Hillary Byrnes of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"I think our state is doing a horrendous job of protecting religious freedom," Hillsboro resident Mary Jo Cerny said. "I am appalled on the national level at what they've done."

Cerny, a former business owner and devout Catholic, says the government shouldn't be able to force businesses and other organizations to abandon religious beliefs.

"When they say that anybody with same-sex marriage that I have to provide for them," Cerny said. "I hope we have 8 million stores close when they tell them they got to do it."

Same-sex marriage was a reoccurring topic at the event. Bishop Thomas Paprocki says although it's an opinion no longer supported by the Supreme Court, the church's belief on marriage is one he will stand by.

"I'm not free to change my views," Bishop Paprocki said. "These are teachings that have been handed out for the last 2000 years and it is my job as the bishop to teach what the Catholic Church teaches."

Though some argue this belief doesn't support inclusion, Cerny says Catholics should be more concerned with remaining firm in their faith.

"Stand up for it," said Cerny. "Don't say, Oh well, I've got to include you. Christ said you have to accept everybody. You can. You can pray for them. He also said do not associate with those you know the devil's controlled."

Here is the original post:
Some Catholics say First Amendment rights under attack | WRSP - FOX Illinois